Posts Tagged ‘God’

God and the State

Monday, April 21st, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, government is intent on replacing God, and in doing so they demand equal supplication. This is not a new thing, the ancient empires all did it. The Egyptian Pharaohs were considered the sons of gods, as were many other kings. It was a means back then, when people were ignorant and superstitious, to legitimize arbitrary rule by kings over the people. Today the idea is essentially the same, the elite claim there is no God, and if there is no God, then all of our rights come from the State. If our rights come from the State then the State can revoke them as the politically elite see fit. This circular reasoning is elevated to an actual religion in the case of Communist States where we see mass murderers worshiped like Gods. Lenin and Mao come immediately to mind as does the North Korean demon Kim. The communist manifesto argued that religion is the opium of the people, and by that logic that pernicious religion seeks to replace God with the State. As we slide deeper into the morass of Statism, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the ancient peoples, subjects and slaves. If we allow it then we deserve it.

 

The US Constitution is based on a Judeo Christian definition of God. This cannot be denied unless one is ignorant of the words of the founding fathers or intentionally misleading the public. Moreover the Declaration of Independence clearly states that our Rights come from God. Which means that the founders of the American republic recognized God and that the State is a necessary evil to protect us and our property from those who would take them. They sought the most limited State possible that would have the power to protect us, our children and our things. The US founding documents are unambiguous about this.

 

That paradigm doesn’t suit the progressive and socialist faction. They seek to unshackle the US government, and indeed all governments, from any limitations whatsoever. They imagine all the good they could do if only they had unlimited power to redistribute the goods of society as they see fit. The State could eliminate all the ills of society and culture by deciding who wins and who looses in various human and economic interactions. They even have the hubris to seek to change our very nature, as in Marx’s Manifesto, he claims that once we live under communism we will loose touch with our individual selves and evolve into our species selves. All of this implies a strong worship of the State and the power of the State.

 

Of course all the “good” that could be done by government is dependent on eliminating the limitations that Constitutions and a belief in God place on them. Under a system where eternal punishment is taken as a given we are more placid knowing everything is in God’s very capable hands. But the socialist needs people to forget the eternal and dwell in the moment. This makes us jealous of our things, scared of each other, it forces us to be politically active all the time and lowers us to the level of mere animals. All of which works in the favor of those that seek to replace God with the State.

 

There are very few who have not witnessed a miracle. Perhaps it is the birth of a baby, the spontaneous remission of cancer or an astonishingly unlikely happenstance that benefited us in some way, but most of us have witnessed an act of God. Not to mention the miracles recorded in the Bible… like the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This makes the task of those that seek to replace God with the State much harder, and so they deny any of these things are miracles. Like a shyster they tell us to ignore our lying eyes and believe their honest pleas. Only a fool however will ignore his own eyes, experience and history to believe in a scam being perpetrated on them by a huckster. Unfortunately many do.

 

It is not reasonable to deny God exists in the face of the miraculous and worship the State given the history of human government. The State is administered by human beings, who are greedy, conniving and fearful, making the State these same things. Only a State administered by saints would be different. Those who consider themselves saints however, are in fact demons, and those who are saints, eschew power, making it impossible for a State to be anything but greedy, conniving and fearful. A self interested people rightly understood, understand these basic facts, but those who remain willfully ignorant do not. A rational maximizer will weigh the cost of turning from God to the State and find the wager absurd, while a fool will not only go along, but will attack the rational maximizer as mean and old fashioned. The results of turning away from God and to the State are there for all of us to see, they are arbitrary rule, if only we open our eyes and look.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Empiricism, and the Existence of God

Monday, August 26th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, Hume’s argument against the existence of God is weak, in that if a single miracle can be proved to have happened, by his argument’s parameters, God must exist. Now, it is possible that God wants us to be able to prove his existence logically and empirically, but I think not. Despite our hubris, we are profoundly ignorant, and believe ourselves enlightened, patting our own backs in egotistic self deceit. Pride and conceit are the attributes of spoiled children. Once our civilization reaches it’s initial maturity, our self importance will max out, (as it does in a teenager)… further maturity will result in less conceit and pride with true awe and deep humility. Eventually, once humanity has actually become enlightened in the deepest sense, will we understand the role of God… or the myth of God, if such exists. That is both the way people mature and the way civilizations mature. That our civilization is so egotistic it believes it can empirically disprove God, or Prove him, is sure confirmation that we are moving into early adolescence.

 

Hume claimed if there were free will then it would be folly to punish a criminal. Because under free will he would be untrainable, due to his free will, ie. No external control of his actions. Thus, we must not have free will. It is our ability to control ourselves that proves there is no free will. Therefore, punishing criminals proves there is no free will… But, to my way of thinking, if we are but machines, subject to programming and outside control, then why, even in ancient Athens under the laws of Draco… have there always been criminals?

 

His epistemology was based on the insight that logic does not necessarily comport with reality. This was truly an insight. He made the point that just because he let go of a pencil, that pencil could logically go up, instead of down. It is our experience, or custom, that makes us believe it will fall. This was an important discovery in the evolution of philosophy, because it showed that metaphysical logic can go very wide of the mark, unless it is based on empirical proof… in other words, the weakness of logic disconnected from observation. But, just as he claimed that logic allows for a pencil to fly, instead of fall…

 

He also claimed, by their very definition, miracles are things that are not custom. We never see those actions in our daily lives. In fact, he argued, in the more civilized places we never see miracles at all. Since miracles have only been seen in barbarian places, then they are most probably figments of imagination, superstitions and the like. Since the existence of God is based on miracles, like creation, Jesus’ resurrection, turning water into wine and so forth, and they are mere superstition… there is no God. This is simply arguing that observed reality should be discarded for theory.

 

It is like the Cartesian arguing against Newton’s Laws of Motion, because his laws required action at a distance, and thus were absurd. To the Cartesian, skepticist theory trumped observable reality, as it is for those who seek to make the purely mechanistic argument for the existence of the universe. They must discount evidence that disproves their theory, as superstition or imagination, by dwelling on the non repeatable part of the miraculous instead of the empirically proven examples. Isn’t that the true nature of a miracle though? Something that is not custom, did happen and is not repeatable? In discrediting miracles as superstition, they seize the empirical high ground, with spurious logic. In the end they could be right, but as history shows us, the theories of today are always supplanted by the theories of tomorrow. With a commensurate advancement of our understanding of our Universe and our role in it.

 

We, as humanity, have a long way to go before we can begin to understand such subtle questions, as the existence and nature of God, or even if there is one. It is the hight of presumption to argue there is no God, because, since we have miracles testified to and in some cases, as in miraculous cancer remission, empirically proven yet not repeatable, there is at least the strong implication of God… and that there exists far more to reality than we, in our profound ignorance, can possibly understand, let alone quantify. As our understanding grows, so do our questions, therefore we can know only this… that we know little. It is conceited and prideful of us to believe otherwise.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Belief In God

Monday, December 27th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are only two possibilities, one that God exists, and two that God does not exist, lets take the position, for proposes of argument, that God does not exist, is it then in our personal best interest, to believe in a non existent God? Put another way, why should a person believe in a fiction.

The argument of a functional myth is well known and has pertinence here. A functional myth is an idea, similar to a societal myth, that bestows a benefit upon it’s adherents that functions outside it’s obvious meaning. Like the Roman Societal myth that the best death was death in battle, a marshal societal myth that made Rome into a world power, protecting the large share of it‘s inhabitants the horrors of war, war that they honored, and resulted in Pax Romana. But a functional myth about God would not have the same effect as a marshal myth about a warlike culture. It would necessarily function in a different way.

The point here is very similar to the point Socrates was trying to prove when arguing for Glaucon and his compatriots in Plato’s Republic. The point is, that all benefit, when people are honorable. The greater the percent of a society that is honorable, the more smoothly life can proceed, no matter the economic system. People who have a belief in God are more likely to be honorable than those who do not. If a society has few that actually believe in God, and are not honorable, corrupting those that do, is not a reflection on a belief in God, but in the absence of belief in God. You cannot live in a cesspool and not smell like it.

Belief in God grants a person the ability to move past injustices and personal setbacks. Having a means to flush the detritus of life is essential, especially if there is no God. If there is no God then why not flush the excrement of our lives to the fiction. Relieve ourselves of our personal demons and nagging doubts to the “fictitious” God. No can argue we are better off holding every setback, frustration, lost love, death, and all the other negative things we have to deal with, as living beings. To argue thus is to argue down is up and up is down.

We all need something to worship. It is a fact of life. Look at people. Those that don’t believe in God, believe in horoscopes, crystals, witchcraft, and any other plethora of nonsensical beliefs that have negative consequences for there adherents. We can clearly see that in the modern hedonistic society that we find ourselves in, the number of fanciful beliefs, grows daily. Probably the most pernicious is worship of the Earth… a stone age belief system.

Lack of belief in God fosters a hedonistic society where it is common to hear “I would rather die owing a million dollars… then having a million dollars, because then, I will have spent and gotten the benefit of that money.” This philosophy of life is as pernicious as any. Disregarding the fact, that it discount’s the needs of one’s heirs, it insures that a person will not have a well lived life. The person who believes this will not have a correct moral compass. Lack of a functional moral compass will lead a person into all sorts of negative outcomes.

Some people, who consider themselves enlightened, will argue, it is unenlightened to believe in any theory that is unproven. These same people have an unwavering faith in Anthropomorphic Climate Change, Quantum theory, Einstein’s theory of relative motion, evolution and many other “scientific” explanations for the perceived world around us. Even the most dedicated cosmologist has no explanation for what came before the “Big Bang.“ All of these theories have applications and all of these theories are very incomplete. To have unwavering faith in an incomplete theory is simply a belief.

We have to ask ourselves, will a stone age belief system serve us well in the Twenty First century? One that allows for any action, possibility or legislation? Remember, one of the most important functions of a belief in God is the moderating effect it has on these areas of humanity. Is all research good research? Are all actions good actions? And is all legislation good legislation? Don’t we need a means to control the hot tempers of today against the interests of the next generation? This is one important function of a societal belief in God we cannot do without.

But if we add to the argument that there is a very real possibility that God does exist then we have to admit that it is pure selfish delusion not to believe in God. If we admit there is the possibility of God we have to also admit the possibility of punishment for our transgressions and the possibility of a reward for our good actions.

This subject is far too complex to be treated well in a one page blog.

Letting Go

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that you have issues, he has issues and I have issues, that guy over there, who claims he doesn’t have issues… that is one of his issues. We all are flawed human beings. To believe that I am flawless is to believe that I am superhuman. A person with no flaws need not improve him or herself in any way.

No reason to diet, perfect weight, no need to read, perfect knowledge, no need to think, perfect recall and no need to eat, perfect digestion. That person is one who most reasonable people would admit doesn’t and probably cannot exist. Even the Jew, Jesus Christ of Nazareth came into this world as a child, learned at the hands of his parents and Rabbis then grew into what he became. Even he didn’t achieve perfection until his resurrection. How much less are we?

We mask our issues as best we can. Some better than others, the guy drunk on the train tracks, no job, not even looking for employment has made the choice that society or community be damned. He wears no mask. If some one wants to help by buying him a bottle of Old Duke he is willing for the comfort. He has no mask… The rest of us wear masks.

The thing is, there are so many shoals in the seas of life that we must run aground now and then. It is inevitable. They are there for good people and bad alike. But as special accident theory goes, the more complex the system and the more tightly it is interdependent the more likely of a catastrophic failure in it. Life is no different.

Obstinacy, temper, aloofness, vitriol etc… in our lives amounts to tightening up the interconnections, our lives are complex as it is but throw in some lies and complexity grows exponentially. No matter the source of the lies. Increasing complexity and tightening the connections assures us of a catastrophic failure when we run aground instead of a minor scrape.

One way to loosen up the tightness of the interconnections is to have a belief in God. When we run aground there is no better attitude then to say to yourself, “It was the will of God.” Then let go. The biggest obstacle to this path is the human ego.

Hearing this makes the gut tighten, and we have a fight or flight feeling. We feel we can’t run and have to fight so we tense our gut gird ourselves. But the third option, to let it go and give it to God, is the best option. Even though it makes our gut even tighter… until we let go.

Most people respect their boss. You wouldn’t say to him or her , “You are a jerk.” (or something much worse),except kidding. To do so puts one’s livelihood at risk, and as Confucius says, “A fool walks a dangerous path when a safe one is available.” To be socially inept, intentionally, with a boss is foolish, and so we don‘t let our ego get in the way. But what is the worst he could do? Fire us Taking away our lively hood. But we say vitriolic things to God, at least once in our lives… or more.

I’m not saying we should quiver in fear of a vindictive God, I am saying we should respect God for a person who takes all kinds of verbal abuse and puts up with it. (Few thankyou’s and a lot of please’s, why’s, don’t’s and anger).

So when a shoal comes into our lives and we run aground it is better to let go of the issue, say “it was the will of God,” and move on, than to clutch it, hold it tight, and nurse it into a grudge. Or be so shattered by it that it results in some catastrophic failure in our lives.

Maybe, as someone told me once, we live many lives, each teaching us a lesson, some painful some joyful, the one we are in maybe one of the painful lives… or it may be one of the joyous.

Depends more on your point of view.