The following is a transcript excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson’s conversation with Dr. John Lennox on Nietzsche’s seventeenth-century prophetic observation, the eternal voice of being, the concept of transcendence, the glory and weight of being, and Jesus Christ’s triumph over death. You can <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/a-conversation-about-god-dr-john-lennox" target="_blank" rel="noopener">listen to</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/a-conversation-about-god-dr-john-lennox" target="_blank" rel="noopener">watch</a> the full podcast episode on DailyWire+.
Start time: 36:16
Jordan Peterson: In the late 1800s, Nietzsche observed that God was dead. It was a very complex observation because people like to think of that as a triumphalist proclamation by this emancipatory philosopher. But that wasn&#8217;t the case at all because Nietzsche basically said that God was dead, we had killed him, and we will never find enough water to wash away the blood. He knew it was a catastrophe, and he prophesied that three things would happen. One was that there would be a wicked turn toward a kind of hopeless nihilism because every structure of morality had fallen apart. The second was the rise of totalitarian substitutions for God; Nietzsche actually specified communism as a likely candidate and also prophesied that hundreds of millions of people would die as a consequence, which was quite the damned prophecy for the mid-late 1800s. Then he also said the alternative is that we could create our own values. And that was the root that Nietzsche saw as the way out.
Now, there are a couple of technical problems with that, you might say. One is that we don&#8217;t live very long, and it is not obvious that any of us are wise enough to create our own values. The second problem is, as the psychoanalysts pointed out very quickly, it is not obvious at all that we are masters in our own houses because even if you only look at the spiritual realm as equivalent to something like the unconscious, we are all haunted beings — and we cannot necessarily trust our judgment.
Therefore, the third problem is, who do you mean by the “we” who will create our own values? Which aspect of the psyche is now going to create value? Nietzsche said himself that each drive tends to philosophize in its own spirit, so in order for us to create our own values in some sort of transcendent sense, you have to hypothesize the hierarchical integration of the psyche towards some super ordinate end that is speaking in some voice. And it is not obvious to me at all that that would be a subjective voice.
So when Moses investigates the Burning Bush, he goes deeper and deeper into the investigation, and the first thing that happens is, his attention is attracted. The second thing is that he starts to notice that he is treading on sacred ground because he is getting deep into the phenomenon. The third thing that happens — and this is relevant to your notion of levels of revelation — is that the voice of being itself speaks to him. The eternal, transcendent voice of being. Moses is smart and wise enough to know that that is not him. It is something above and beyond him, and he does not take credit for it. That is partly why he never turns into a pharaoh in the desert. He separates himself from the source of sovereignty as such, and I do not see how that can be done in the rationalist, atheist, materialist realm of conceptualization. You fall into that subjectivist trap.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast on DailyWire+</a></h4>
John Lennox: Nor do I, and I think nature in that sense was a kind of prophet. And we&#8217;re seeing the damage done. You know, ever since I was very young, I was fascinated by the polar opposite of my Christian heritage. That has led me to spend quite a lot of time in Russia and I’ve talked about these kinds of things to Russian friends, many of whom suffered in the Gulag. I remember one conversation with a leading academician and he said to me, “You know, John, we thought we could get rid of God and retain a value for human beings. And we woke up too late to realize that it cannot be done.” It was nature that said if you destroy God, you lose all right to the kind of values that we accept, in a sense, deep down in our Judeo-Christian culture. What is so interesting about Moses — and I loved your discussion about that — is that he came face to face not only with the concept of transcendence, but transcendence itself. He was brought into the presence of the very glory of God.
You were discussing in your round table how in Hebrew, glory is associated with weight, and that leads me to think, relevant to what you&#8217;ve just said, about C.S. Lewis. I&#8217;m old enough to have listened to C.S. Lewis, by the way, when I was younger. C.S. Lewis in the 1940s saw exactly what was going to happen if a group of human beings took it into their heads to determine and redefine all future generations through genetic experimentation and so on. And in two books, “The Abolition of Man” and “That Hideous Strength,” he spelled that out, and he made the point that if that happens, it is not going to liberate human beings. In fact, it&#8217;s going to abolish them because what would be created by, say, playing around with the germline, is not human beings but artifacts. So he writes [in] the final triumph of humanity, scientists will be the abolition of man. It&#8217;s that that I fear is really permeating our culture. I mean, the Caesars in Rome and the Babylonian emperors who thought of themselves as gods looks pretty trivial compared with this insidious teaching that&#8217;s around in particularly the Western world today, that we are actually all gods, that we ought to rise to this, and the only way to rise to it is to reject the transcendent completely; there is nothing above us.
Jordan Peterson: Let’s delve into that a little bit because the devil&#8217;s always in the details. When I had little kids, I thought about there being a terrible fragility to children. Adults are fragile too, obviously. We all are because we are mortal and vulnerable and prone to suffering. But I thought about my three-year-old son; he has this terrible vulnerability. Wouldn&#8217;t it be good if that could be ameliorated? You can do that two ways: You can institute protective mechanisms that shield them from the depredations of the world or you can strive to make them into the sort of competent people who can take the world on their own. This is akin to the gospel ideas, I would say, that you can learn to handle serpents, and that is your best defense against serpents. That way you get to have the benefits of being and develop into someone simultaneously capable of bearing the weight of being, let&#8217;s say. And I do not know if you can have being without it having a weight. I do not even know. It is like it is possible that mortal limitation is the price you pay for being. I do not know how things are constructed.
John Lennox: It could well be. What you are saying reminds me of Dostoyevsky, who said that he couldn&#8217;t imagine a great person who had not known some kind of suffering. What we try to do with our children is somehow to limit that, but we realized that part of their maturing has to do with how they learn to handle life and we don&#8217;t want to leave them defenseless, do we? So what you&#8217;re raising is a very big set of questions.
Now, you mentioned that transhumanism attempts to solve some of this vulnerability and, of course, some things are very good. I wear glasses, and they enhance my vision and they&#8217;re very important. But this idea of Harari’s where he sets two agenda items for the 21st century — firstly to abolish physical death, to solve that as a tactical medical problem, and then to enhance human happiness by genetic engineering and cyborg engineering and so forth — I take a very radical view of that. When people hold out this promise to me, I simply say to them, “You&#8217;re too late.” 
The problem of physical death was solved 20 centuries ago because I think there is strong evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And the problem, therefore, of developing some kind of immortality was simultaneously sold to that because Christ promises to those that trust him and follow him that he will eventually raise them from the dead, and that will be the best uploading you can ever imagine of brains, body, and everything else. So I take a very radical view that the transhumanist ideal is bound to fail and there’s deeper reasons behind that as well.
* * *
To hear the rest of the conversation, continue by listening or watching this episode on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/a-conversation-about-god-dr-john-lennox" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire+</a>. 
<a href="https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</a> is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He is the international bestselling author of Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules For Life, and Beyond Order. You can now <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">listen to</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch/jordan-peterson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">watch</a> his popular lectures on DailyWire+.

MixCollage-21-Feb-2024-03-38-PM-6672

The Problem Of Physical Death Was Solved Centuries Ago

Artificial Intelligence

Atheism

Bible

Christianity

Genesis

Jordan Peterson

Readers Pass

The leader of The Satanic Temple (TST) saw his own followers turn on him after he posted a picture with an atheist who criticized &#8220;crazy woke&#8221; LGBT activism.
Lucien Greaves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, posed for a photo with atheist activist David Silverman, who <a href="https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">describes</a> himself as &#8220;ex-Left&#8221; and &#8220;ex-woke, but still left of center.&#8221;
&#8220;Thanks to my friend @LucienGreaves for a great tour for me and [another person] at @satanic_temple_! Great to see you again and thanks as always for your activism!&#8221; Silverman wrote in a June 5 post on X.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thanks to my friend <a href="https://twitter.com/LucienGreaves?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LucienGreaves</a> for a great tour for me and Kris <a href="https://twitter.com/CShellska?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CShellska</a> at <a href="https://twitter.com/satanic_temple_?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@satanic_temple_</a> ! Great to see you again and thanks as always for your activism! <a href="https://t.co/uCYDI6cUEl">pic.twitter.com/uCYDI6cUEl</a>
&mdash; David Silverman (@MrAtheistPants) <a href="https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants/status/1665739422791237632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Silverman frequently posts about his skepticism of transgender ideology, sometimes <a href="https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1708954968546283866" target="_blank" rel="noopener">retweeting</a> posts criticizing transitioning children.
In June, he <a href="https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants/status/1666805214161289218" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> that it is not &#8220;anti trans&#8221; to say, &#8220;stay out of women&#8217;s showers and don&#8217;t groom kids.&#8221;
The photo of Silverman with Greaves drew instant backlash.
“People immediately hated on me, but they had no idea why,” Silverman <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231003214145/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/social-justice-rebellion-satanic-temple/675481/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The Atlantic. “They just knew I was an outsider and therefore a hateful, anti-trans, evil person, and Lucien was guilty for knowing me.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Some Satanists called for Greaves to apologize, give up power, and state his support for transgender rights, The Atlantic <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231003214145/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/social-justice-rebellion-satanic-temple/675481/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
Several factions of the Satanic Temple expressed their strong disapproval. All 41 members of the Satanic Temple in Britain voted to leave, rebranding themselves as Satanists in the Wilderness, the outlet reported.
The U.S. Satanic Temple’s Sober Faction, which says it <a href="https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/sober-faction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">runs</a> sobriety programs &#8220;free from the pseudoscience and superstitious dogma&#8221; of mainstream programs, reportedly <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231003214145/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/social-justice-rebellion-satanic-temple/675481/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disapproved</a> of the photo as well, eventually splitting off and denouncing “TST and the patriarchal, white supreme [sic] structure of its leadership.”
The controversy played out on social media as well.
&#8220;Satanic Temple founder Lucien Greaves poses with transphobe. This is a perfect example of what TST really is,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/BaphoNetNews/status/1666216696586067969" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> one X user who says one of his interests is &#8220;satanism.&#8221;
Greaves himself put out a statement dismissing the concerns as a &#8220;non-story.&#8221;
&#8220;I have no desire to dignify assumptions that claim I agree with individuals simply because I have interacted with them,&#8221; Greaves said in his statement, which he <a href="https://twitter.com/LucienGreaves/status/1666566543642075137" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> to X. &#8220;The focus must be on the work we are doing within TST to support our members, not a photo with someone whose opinions I did not vet prior to agreeing to take it.&#8221;
&#8220;I thought this went without saying, but I disagree with Tucker Carlson&#8217;s worldview, for the record,&#8221; the Satanic Temple leader said.
Silverman dismissed the criticism as well at the time, <a href="https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants/status/1666437797673320448" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> he disagrees with &#8220;crazy woke s***.&#8221;
&#8220;Lol. I&#8217;ve been a civil rights activist in support of trans people for 25 years, since before anyone was looking,&#8221; Silverman posted on X. &#8220;I also love my trans kid unconditionally. But sure. I disagree with some of the more crazy woke shit so I&#8217;m in the same category as those who throw trans kids out.&#8221;
Despite its name, members of The Satanic Temple do not actually believe in Satan — rather it is an atheist group that seeks to subvert Christianity&#8217;s role in American life.
Last year, The Satanic Temple <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fourth-grade-teacher-owned-satanic-temple-in-indiana" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sponsored</a> “After School Satan” clubs, saying the clubs were a response to the Christian Good News Clubs at public schools across the country.

After School Satan

Satanists Turn On Leader Over Transgenderism After He Takes Photo With ‘Ex-Woke’ Atheist

Satanists Turn On Leader Over Transgenderism After He Takes Photo With 'Ex-Woke' Atheist

Gender

satanic

Social Issues

Transgender

U.S.

Woke Culture

Wokeness

The following is a transcript excerpt from Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s conversation with Clay Routledge on the role religion plays in society. You can <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/s4-e54-death-meaning-and-the-power-of-the-invisible-world-clay-routledge-the-jbp-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">listen to</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/s4-e54-death-meaning-and-the-power-of-the-invisible-world-clay-routledge-the-jbp-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">watch</a> the full podcast on DailyWire+.
Start time: 1:24:10
Jordan B. Peterson: More academically oriented thinkers have proposed critiques of religion that reduce it to a single dimension, and then criticize it along that dimension. The atheist types like Richard Dawkins tend to think that belief in God is like belief in a stateable proposition: Is God real, like is a table real? And it is not obvious that that is the proper way to formulate that issue. You can make it absurd almost immediately by reducing it to that sort of representation, but there are a multitude of functions that religious traditions serve. Even people like [Ernest] Becker basically reduced it to a single dimension: It is a defense against death anxiety. Well, it may be that, but it certainly is not only that. It is a very complex issue. But people run into these critiques: Marx&#8217;s critique (religion is the opiate of the masses) or the Freudian critique (God is essentially an infantile projection of the father). Yes, sometimes in some cases and in some ways. But it depends to some degree. 
Maybe you can tell me what you think about this: It seems to me that the core of a culture is something that is essentially religious, by definition. If you look at what unites people across geography and time, there is some central conception of the world as spirit that brings people together implicitly and explicitly. And if you dispense with that, then what? You have demonstrated that you get people adopting rather odd beliefs. So that is a kind of heresy, essentially. There is an automatic tendency to produce heretical religions; that is the consequence. And maybe some of those are political, and they are fragmentary.
Clay Routledge: I agree. That is actually why I started looking at the individual difference level of analysis, not because I was particularly interested in thinking about spirituality or religion — or any of these things as an individual difference. People did this when they talked about the need to belong. You can pretty much get everyone to agree that humans are social and have a fundamental need to belong; that&#8217;s not controversial. So you can use that as an example. Researchers said if that&#8217;s true, then you would expect there to be natural variability. Everyone might have some basic need to belong, but there are going to be some people that are very, very oriented towards belongingness, whereas others aren&#8217;t going to be so much. That individual difference isn&#8217;t a case against the basic need. It&#8217;s saying that the basic need manifests differently across the continuum. And so that&#8217;s pretty much my argument, I think, for religion and spirituality. What you just said, I think it&#8217;s true. If a society abandons religion, they don&#8217;t really become secular; they start investing in all sorts of other things — what we might call a substitution hypothesis — to fill that space of the multiple roles that religion was playing in their society. An important question, you know, which we talked about a little bit, is, just because people are turning to different things to fulfill that function, doesn&#8217;t mean they&#8217;re actually doing a good job of fulfilling it. Just because people are turning to politics as a substitute religion or UFOs or New Age beliefs, doesn&#8217;t mean those things are actually doing a good job of providing meaning.
Jordan B. Peterson: So let me ask you this then. We have kind of come together on a hypothesis that there is some need for union around a centralizing tendency. And that kind of throws us back to the beginning of the discussion because Becker would identify that need for the centralizing tendency as a manifestation of the denial of death. We have elaborated on that, criticized it, and broadened it. We have to unite in personality to some degree, so we are ruled by a body of laws. And it is interesting that it is a body of laws and the laws are what we act out. So as long as we are law abiding, that makes us a certain kind of personality — and I would say a more conscientious personality, probably a more agreeable, emotionally stable personality than we would otherwise be alone. Imagine that for us to live in a group, we have to partake in a central personality and deviate in our individual ways. But partaking of the central personality? Without that, we get fragmentation and inability to make peace, inability to understand each other, inability to cooperate. And that is something like the worship of a central spirit, at least as it is acted out.
To hear the rest of the conversation, continue by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/s4-e54-death-meaning-and-the-power-of-the-invisible-world-clay-routledge-the-jbp-podcast">listening</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/s4-e54-death-meaning-and-the-power-of-the-invisible-world-clay-routledge-the-jbp-podcast">watching</a> this episode on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch">DailyWire+</a>.
<a href="https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</a> is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He is the international bestselling author of Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules For Life, and Beyond Order. You can now<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> listen to</a> or<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch/jordan-peterson" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> watch</a> his popular lectures on DailyWire+.

JP_FOR_DW_GDWOODMAN031 copy

Substitutes For Religion Are Meaningless

DailyWire+

Religion

Richard Dawkins

During the early 19th century, so the story goes, French astronomer Pierre-Simon de Laplace was having a conversation with French emperor Napoleon, explaining to him his theory of the beginnings of the universe. 
“Where does God fit into all this?” Napoleon supposedly asked. 
“I have no need of such a hypothesis,” de Laplace replied.
God, according to atheists, is an unnecessary hypothesis. The universe just is. 
We just are. 
There is no reason to search for a Creator, to posit that He cares about us, to suggest that there is some Higher Power that bridges the gap from what is to how things ought to be. 
Now, atheism is more than mere agnosticism, which suggests that it is impossible to know whether God exists. By that definition of agnosticism, many religious people are agnostic – although we have come to understand agnosticism as the generalized indifference to the question of God. Atheism, however, adamantly opposes the idea of a God who stands behind nature. Atheism often claims that religion corrupts mankind, that the notion of a God blinds men to the truths around them, that science is directly opposed to the idea of a Creator. In reality, none of these things are true.
<h4>God: The Unnecessary Hypothesis?</h4>
Let us begin with the idea that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. It is difficult to imagine an argument in which God is utterly unnecessary. That is because all human logic is rooted in certain basic assumptions about the nature of the world and about reason that are completely unmoored from the dictates of evolutionary biology. Let us examine just a few. 
First, we make claims of objective truth – truth that exists independent of human minds. How does such truth exist? Based on the dictates of evolutionary biology, our ability to comprehend a “truth” should really be no more than our ability to think whatever is most evolutionarily beneficial for us and our genetic descendants. But we don’t believe that we think 2+2=4 because it is most evolutionarily beneficial. We believe that 2+2=4 always and everywhere because it is true. And that bespeaks a truth beyond the merely material. 
Second, we make claims with regard to morality. But what is morality without a baseline assumption that human beings have inherent worth? Even utilitarian philosophies – the attempt to ignore moral right and wrong in favor of consequentialist outcomes – has to assume something about what makes an outcome good or bad. And that has moral premises that have to be assumed. The belief in any moral oughts requires us to believe unprovable truths that must descend from outside ourselves.
Third, we live as though we believe in choice – as though we are capable of making decisions in some way based on our own will. What in materialism would allow for such choice? How would such choice come about?
God is necessary for these thoughts – or at least the possibility of God. Trash God altogether, and you cannot explain why you would believe in objective truth, or morality, or your own ability to choose.
<h4>Does Logic Forbid God?</h4>
There are those atheists who claim that logic ought to forbid God – that belief in God is not merely un-evidenced but actually irrational. In the words of Adam Gopnik writing for The New Yorker, those who are atheists have “a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world.” But that isn’t true. There are many religious believers who acknowledge scientific bases for knowledge but also knowledge that the scientific method itself is unprovable, unless you take for granted that the search for an objective truth is possible – an assumption the scientific method itself forbids. 
As it turns out, there are a bevy of logically consistent arguments offered on behalf of God. Take, for example, the First Cause proof advanced by Aristotle, as refined by Thomas Aquinas. Edward Feser lays out the argument in his book Five Proofs for the Existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change exists in the world.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">But all change is the actualization of a potential for that change.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This means that actualization of potential is a feature of the world.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">So all change is caused by something already actual.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">If there is change, there must be something changing.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The existence of that something presupposes that some concurrent actualization of that something’s potential for existing.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This means that any substance has at any moment an actualizer of its existence.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Either that actualizer presupposes the actualization of that actualizer, or that the actualizer is purely actual.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This means that either there is an infinite regress of actualizers or that there is a purely actual actualizer.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">But an infinite regress is impossible, because there must be something at the bottom of the hierarchical causal series.</li>
</ul>
These are the opening steps of the argument. But this isn’t the only argument. There are several logically coherent arguments for God. That doesn’t mean that the arguments are dispositive. But the notion that it is illogical to believe in God is untrue.
<h4>Did Science Kill God?</h4>
Atheists frequently suggest that science has killed God. But as we’ve seen, science itself requires certain presuppositions outside of science; as mathematician Kurt Godel stated, any internally consistent system of mathematical axioms can’t be completely comprehensive. There must be assumptions made outside the system.
Atheists claim that the evolutionary process relieved the need for God. After all, if God wasn’t directing the process of the creation of human beings in the literalistic interpretation of the Biblical creation story, who needed God? The problem, of course, is that evolution is an extraordinarily complex process that does not forestall the possibility of a directing hand. Stephen Meyer, an intelligent design advocate, points out that the transmission of information via cellular processes looks an awful lot like an intelligent creator transmitting information. “The great works of literature began first as ideas in the minds of writers – Tolstoy, Austen, or Donne,” he points out. “Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as information invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons. What, then, should we make of the presence of information in living organisms?” Even the most atheistic thinkers typically use teleological – ends-driven – language in describing biological processes. Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks of a “selfish gene.” But, of course, genes don’t have interests, do they? At least unless they are directed by an outside intent.
The biggest scientific problem for atheists lies in the nature of the universe itself. The Big Bang is the theory that holds that the universe began with the explosion outward of a high-density pinpoint of matter, which sounds an awful lot like the Creation story at the beginning of the Bible. In fact, the original skepticism of the Big Bang theory was driven in large measure by objections to that similarity. The very specific conditions under which our universe was created that allowed for the development of intelligent human life are often used by believers as proof of God’s hand – the so-called “fine tuning” of the universe for life is extraordinary. Atheists claim that just because you won the lottery, and had a low chance of doing so, that doesn’t mean that you won because someone intended it – somebody had to win. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether it would likely be directed if you kept winning the lottery over and over again. At some point, you might suppose that someone was cheating.
To answer that question, atheists often contemplate the idea of the multiverse – in which case, there are a lot of people who win the lottery, so our universe isn’t particularly special. The problem is that this is a completely unprovable theory. To believe it requires the same leap of faith as belief in fine-tuning by a higher power.
Then there is the question of human consciousness. Scientists have presented many theories about it, but none has been sufficient to explain how consciousness arises out of the physical processes of the brain. Physicist Roger Penrose explains, “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness.” Even famed atheist Richard Dawkins admits that the development of consciousness, “is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology.”
<h4>Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?</h4>
Atheists often object to God on the grounds that if God is all good, then bad things should not happen to good people. They treat this argument as somehow dispositive. But, of course, the question of theodicy has been treated by a variety of major religious thinkers over the course of millenia. Those answers range from the simple – we do not fully understand the mind of God, so our definition of good is not his – to the more complex – that evil is actually just lack of perfection in the good, and God’s decision to create free will in his creatures must allow for just such imperfection. Suffice it to say that the question of God’s motivation is certainly not strong enough to dismiss God Himself, any more than a child can pretend its parents do not exist because sometimes its parents do not prevent bad things from happening to the child.
<h4>Why Are Religious Believers Bad?</h4>
Atheists commonly turn to the sins of believers to explain why they oppose belief in God. This is a key point from those like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins – if religion is good, why are religious believers often so bad? Of course, one could ask this about any philosophy – most people are in fact sinful and wicked, and have the capacity for good. The question is whether there is a philosophical connection between the religion and what its purported believers do – and more deeply, how we are supposed to judge whether the religion is promoting something morally good or bad without another frame of moral reference. And herein lies the deepest problem of atheism: it cannot establish a moral framework. There is no way to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be. Atheists can make suggestions, of course; they can express opinions on the matter; they can act morally and decently by the metrics of their society. But atheism itself can make no self-sustaining moral claims on human beings. It is no coincidence that the most militantly atheistic governments – communist and fascist governments of the 20th century – have been far more murderous and tyrannical than any religious theocracy in history. Atheism promotes a vision of mankind entirely at odds with the building of a productive society: it suggests materialism, which means lack of free will; it undermines the unique value of human beings, which undermines liberty and rights; it dismisses the value of tradition in favor of a reason it cannot defend on its own terms.
Atheism, in short, cannot sustain itself. God is not the unnecessary hypothesis. At best, one could argue that the proofs of God are insufficient for you to personally believe. But God is certainly not an unnecessary hypothesis. Lack of God is a serious societal danger – and the replacement of God in the human heart with gods of other sorts, from the state to the search for subjective authenticity, ends in the worst predations imaginable.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

atheism

SHAPIRO: Debunking Atheism

Ben Shapiro

Daily Wire host Candace Owens and Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine scientist who worked on the development of mRNA technology, discussed during their hours-long conversation how godlessness, or atheism, plays into pandemic panic.
The issue popped up after Owens detailed a phone conversation she had with academic and popular podcast host Sam Harris, who is an atheist, early on in the pandemic.
&#8220;I do not say this to knock him at all, it was just something that stuck with me for a very long time,&#8221; Owens recalled.
The BLEXIT founder said she received a call from Harris while she was on the road for work and speaking out against lockdown policies.
&#8220;He sounded like he was in a bunker, and was just like, &#8216;You don&#8217;t understand, there&#8217;s going to be gurneys in the streets,&#8217; and, &#8216;I know doctors in Italy, this is what&#8217;s going to happen in two weeks in the United States,’” Owens said Harris told her.
&#8220;He was in a mania,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I just sort of listened to him, because, in my head, I wanted to be kind, but I was looking at my husband, thinking, this man needs a therapist.&#8221;
&#8220;He was unstable,&#8221; she added, &#8220;and this is a smart person who got himself into this position.&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s probably relevant that he&#8217;s an atheist,&#8221; Owens asserted.
Malone agreed with the analysis, offering that religious people have a stronger sense of community which grounds them and makes them less likely to fall into a &#8220;psychosis&#8221; or panic about an issue, in this case concerning COVID-19.
&#8220;You just hit on another key point,&#8221; the doctor told Owens. &#8220;Among those of us that have our eyes very wide open, there&#8217;s a very strong contingent of folks that have very strong religious beliefs systems &#8212; they&#8217;re grounded in that world. And one of the things that they all share, is they have a solid community. They didn&#8217;t need to have a new community. They weren&#8217;t suffering from these senses of being disassociated from community; they had a community.&#8221;
&#8220;The intellectuals are as, or more prone&#8221; to such panic, Malone added.
Owens noted that, to her, there&#8217;s &#8220;no such thing as an atheist,&#8221; explaining that people will find one thing or another to make their god or their religion. 
&#8220;People need to believe in something,&#8221; Owens said, referencing how &#8220;government has become god&#8221; to some, others have taken up the religion of climate change, and &#8220;Covid is now a religion,&#8221; which has religious &#8220;symbols&#8221; like wearing a mask to show virtue or goodness.
To watch the full discussion, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/candace">click here</a>. If you’re not a member, become one by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe?hsa_ver=3&amp;hsa_ad=565493415315&amp;hsa_acc=6411461344&amp;hsa_grp=130229292688&amp;utm_source=googlesearch&amp;utm_source=adwords&amp;utm_campaign=dailywirebrand&amp;utm_campaign=Search%20-%20Daily%20Wire%20Brand&amp;utm_medium=paid&amp;utm_medium=ppc&amp;hsa_src=g&amp;hsa_cam=13840369865&amp;hsa_mt=b&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiA6NOPBhCPARIsAHAy2zBc9H7vw_wHQoY6svQ-KM-IQ-9EP1Dci4_466quQgD_c8oDlZP38nIaAkGFEALw_wcB&amp;utm_content=conversions_subscriptions_na_audience0008_na_copy00560_lp0001_na_none&amp;hsa_tgt=kwd-1422313638620&amp;utm_term=daily%20wire%20membership&amp;hsa_net=adwords&amp;utm_talent=dailywire&amp;hsa_kw=daily%20wire%20membership">clicking here</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/candace-owens-sits-down-with-censored-vaccine-scientist-dr-robert-malone-in-exclusive-interview">Candace Owens Sits Down With Censored Vaccine Scientist Dr. Robert Malone In Exclusive Interview</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/censored-scientist-dr-malone-slams-bill-gates-in-candace-interview-a-leopard-cant-change-its-spots">Censored Scientist Dr. Malone Slams Bill Gates In ‘Candace’ Interview: ‘A Leopard Can’t Change Its Spots’</a>

Dr. Malone on “Candace”

Malone Interview: Owens Reveals Sam Harris Phone Call As Pair Discuss Godlessness And Pandemic Panic 

Candace Owens

Robert Malone

In the latest 5-minute video for PragerU, psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar argued that children should be exposed to religion — even if their parents reject God.
As a therapist, Komisar is often asked why depression and anxiety are increasingly common among children and adolescents. One explanation — which she says is “almost surely the most neglected” — is declining interest in God and religion.
“I see the consequences of this in my practice almost every day,” explained Komisar. “And this is not merely my personal observation.”
She cited a Harvard study showing that children who attended a religious service at least once per week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” Weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
Nevertheless, polls find that the United States has seen a 20% decrease in attendance at formal religious services over the past two decades. In 2018, the American Family Survey revealed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
“From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend,” commented Komisar. “Nihilism — the belief in nothing — is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”
Komisar said that parents — even those who reject God — therefore have no other choice than to expose their children to the Lord. 
Komisar is also “frequently asked how parents can instill gratitude and empathy in their children.” Once again, she argues that the best answer is involvement in religion — which, beyond fostering the building blocks of strong character, protects against depression and anxiety.
“Additionally, religion provides children a chance for community,” she discussed. “Being with people who share their faith can act as a buffer against the emptiness and isolation of modern culture. This is more necessary than ever in a world where teens can have hundreds of virtual friends and few real ones.”
“And religion helps teach children mindfulness, a sense of self-control, and discipline. Your young children might not be aware they are entering a house of worship, but they do know they’re supposed to act in an appropriate manner when they are there.”
Komisar pointed out that children’s attitudes about God tend to follow those of their parents. Nevertheless: “If you practice religion or send your children to religious school knowing it is good for them, you might surprise yourself and get something meaningful out of it too.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9H0GbJgsuko" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

PragerU

WATCH: Why Atheists Should Still Teach Their Kids About God

Prager University

Two Democratic congressmen reportedly have plans to present a prospective Biden administration a slate of recommendations that include pushing back against the “Christian nationalist movement.”
Those recommendations come courtesy of a 28-page <a href="https://seculardems.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SecularDemocratsofAmerica_Blueprint_BidenHarrisTransition_11-30-20_FINAL.pdf">document created</a> by the Secular Democrats of America PAC (SDA); Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)and Jared Huffman(D-CA), the co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, reportedly intend to present the document to Joe Biden, <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/11/30/secular-democrats-unveil-sweeping-recommendations-for-biden-administration/">Religion News</a> reports.
Raskin told Religion News Service, “Trump’s ministers and judges have turned religious free exercise into a weapon against anti-discrimination law, and this essential fallacy must be corrected. The Biden Administration should quickly debunk the right-wing myth that personal free exercise of religion is a license to discriminate against other people in the provision of services in government and the marketplace.”
The document states that the “Christian nationalist movement” “provides constant cover for white supremacy,” as follows:
<blockquote>We urge you not to underestimate the institutional strength of what we refer to (interchangeably) in this document as the “Christian nationalist movement” or the “religious right.” This movement is extraordinarily well-funded and well-organized, and the manifestation of its extreme and sectarian agenda is on constant display under the Trump- Pence administration. Its political ideology is anti-democratic and anti-scientific. It provides constant cover for white supremacy.</blockquote>
The document continues:
<blockquote>The constant entanglement of religion and government—promoted by the religious right and intensified by the Trump administration—sweeps far beyond hot-button “culture war” issues like abortion and contraception. It permeates every aspect of government policy— healthcare, public and private education, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, military policy, and more, all of which will be addressed in this document.</blockquote>
Some suggestions in the document include: “reframe” concepts of patriotism by urging politicians to avoid saying “God and country”; encouraging chaplains in the military who are non-religious; and using “E Pluribus Unum” instead of “In God We Trust,” asserting that “In God We Trust” is “a relic of McCarthyism and the anti-atheist hysteria of the 1950s, and it has been invoked by Christian nationalists to reinforce their historically revisionist narrative of our nation’s founding. They characterize the United States’ founding as a ‘Christian nation’ based in biblical principles, rather than as a secularist nation based in revolutionary democratic ideas.”
The document also states that the group recommends opposing “religious displays on government property,” and to “crack down on nonprofits operating as businesses, including megachurches.”
Sarah Levin, program director for the Secular Democrats of America, stated, “Tens of millions of secular Americans stood with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on Election Day because they want a government that reflects their values. President Trump placed religious privilege above both individual freedom and our democratic way of life.”
SDA wants the government to withhold federal funds from any faith-based organization that “discriminates against its employees or program beneficiaries on the basis of religion.” It also wants to revivify enforcement of the U.S. tax code barring nonprofit groups from endorsing candidates for political office.

Raskin Huffman

Report: Dem Congressmen To Offer Document To Biden Championing Secularism, Attacking ‘Christian Nationalist Movement’

Biden Administration

Democratic Party

Jamie Raskin

Jared Huffman

While C.S. Lewis is primarily known for his fictional and faith-focused writing, most notably The Chronicles of Narnia series and Mere Christianity, he believed that claims upon the soul are claims upon the whole of life. In other words, everything Lewis said and wrote about his faith had real-world implications — including political and cultural implications. Reading Lewis’s work with this in mind reveals profound insights on politics and culture, many of which are particularly relevant to America now. Below are 19 quotes about politics and culture from Lewis that America needs to hear now more than ever.
The Worst Kind of Tyranny
Lewis argued that the most oppressive tyranny is not enacted by brutal dictators but by well-meaning “moral busybodies” – the do-gooders, the Karens in government — “who torment us for our own good.”
<blockquote>“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron&#8217;s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one&#8217;s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” — “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” 1948</blockquote>
This tyranny, says Lewis, is the tyranny of bureaucrats, carried out in “well-lighted offices” by “quiet men with white collars.”
<blockquote>“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin.’ The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” — Screwtape Letters, 1942—preface to the paperback edition</blockquote>
(Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/c-s-lewis-tyranny-for-your-own-good">‘Tyranny For Your Own Good’: C.S. Lewis On The Philosophy Behind COVID Lockdowns</a>)
Materialism vs. Faith
The great ideological error that ultimately leaves men at the mercy of government, says Lewis, is a strictly scientific or materialist view of the world:
<blockquote>“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning&#8230;” — Mere Christianity, 1952
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” — Mere Christianity, 1952
“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage.” — Mere Christianity, 1952
“When you argue against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.” — Mere Christianity, 1952</blockquote>
On Being Truly “Progressive”
Lewis argued that “progressive” intellectuals, educators and politicians had taken a wrong turn in their materialist worldview. In many cases, he argued, true progress requires recognizing first that you are going the wrong direction and turning around — in other words, conservatism.
<blockquote>“Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” — Mere Christianity, 1952</blockquote>
(Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/c-s-lewis-on-social-engineering-the-leftist-effort-to-reprogram-your-mind">C.S. Lewis On Social Engineering: The Leftist Effort To Reprogram Your Mind</a>)
The Importance of Justice
Lewis argued that while a society built on Judeo-Christian values attempts to offer grace and forgiveness to everyone, that does not mean doing away with justice. Justice, even harsh justice like the death penalty, must be upheld to create a truly loving society.
<blockquote>“There is all the difference in the world between forgiving and excusing.” — “On Forgiveness,” 1947
“Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness.” — The Problem of Pain, 1940</blockquote>
The Importance of the Nuclear Family
The nuclear family is not just important, Lewis argues, it is absolutely central to everything a society is created to protect and promote. For this reason, being a homemaker is the most important career:
<blockquote>“The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only — and that is to support the ultimate career.” — Collected Letters</blockquote>
The Politics of Education
Education stripped of God is ultimately devoid of good, says Lewis:
<blockquote>“There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him.” — The Great Divorce, 1945</blockquote>
The education system teaching students that morality is relative isn&#8217;t just wrong, it&#8217;s dangerous:
<blockquote>“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” — The Abolition of Man, 1943
“Each day we are becoming a creature of splendid glory or one of unthinkable horror.” — Mere Christianity, 1952
“Jesus Christ did not say, ‘Go into all the world and tell the world that it is quite right.’” — Interview with Sherwood Wirt, 1963</blockquote>
Modern educators misunderstand “the pressing educational need of the moment”:
<blockquote>“They see the world around them swayed by emotional propaganda — they have learned from tradition that youth is sentimental — and they conclude that the best thing they can do is to fortify the minds of young people against emotion. My own experience as a teacher tells an opposite tale. For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity.  The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts.” — The Abolition of Man, 1943</blockquote>
Coddling the younger generation is dangerous, Lewis argues. We should instead be teaching them about courage:
<blockquote>“Those who say that children must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can’t bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil. If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the…atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.” — On Three Ways of Writing for Children, 1952
“Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality.” — The Screwtape Letters, 1942</blockquote>
(Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/c-s-lewis-on-why-the-left-is-coming-for-your-children">C.S. Lewis On Why The Left Is Coming For Your Children</a>)
The Eternal Significance of Society
Lewis ultimately argued that all things, including society and politics, have eternal significance and can only be seen clearly through the lens of eternity.
<blockquote>“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.” — The Weight of Glory, 1942</blockquote>
But while God must be central in a society if it wants to be good, He cannot be used as a tool of politicians.
<blockquote>“[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist&#8217;s shop.” — The Screwtape Letters, 1942</blockquote>
Read more about Lewis’s political views in the Daily Wire exclusive series “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/klavan-the-politics-of-c-s-lewis">The Politics of C.S. Lewis</a>,” by Spencer Klavan.

C S Lewis

C.S. Lewis Quotes On Politics & Culture America Needs To Hear Now

C.S. Lewis

Conservatism

Leftism

Of all that can be said about famed atheist Richard Dawkins (author of &#8220;The God Delusion&#8221;), credit should be given for his philosophical consistency, even if that consistency has led him to some abysmally dark places.
In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics  – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.
&#8220;It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,&#8221; tweeted Dawkins. &#8220;Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs &amp; roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.&#8221;
Just so nobody would ever believe that he was actually advocating for the second coming of the Third Reich, Dawkins clarified that he abhors eugenics while admitting that such &#8220;a policy would be bad.&#8221;
&#8220;For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,&#8221; he said.  &#8220;I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.&#8221;
&#8220;A eugenic policy would be bad,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I’m combating the illogical step from &#8216;X would be bad&#8217; to &#8216;So X is impossible.&#8217; It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts &amp; we lose – or at best derail – the argument.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs &amp; roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.
&mdash; Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts &amp; we lose – or at best derail – the argument.
&mdash; Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
To sum up those ruminations succinctly, the atheist who believes that human beings descend from a primordial soup and are the byproduct of chaotic chance argued the practicality of eugenics in one breath and then denounced its immorality in another.
Atheists just simply are not making any sense.
Of course, Dawkins himself has previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/richard-dawkins-defends-eugenics-abortion-its-paul-bois">advocated for eugenics</a> &#8230; for children in the womb. In 2018, when Pope Francis denounced abortion as a means to kill babies with birth defects, Dawkins defended the practice to prevent &#8220;human suffering.&#8221;
“And you thought Francis was the ‘good Pope’?” <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1008639227297435648">mocked</a> Dawkins on Twitter. “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering.”
Dawkins also <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2014/08/20/militant-atheist-richard-dawkins-its-immoral-let-down-syndrome">advised</a> families pregnant with Down syndrome babies to just “Abort it and try again” in 2014 when one Twitter follower asked what to do about her situation. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he said.
The crystal ball that is Europe has been leading the charge against babies with Down syndrome, signaling what the United States could possibly become if the abortion of such children becomes commonplace. In 2006, Denmark had just four babies born with Down syndrome; in the neighboring country of Iceland, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/19726/speaking-nazis-iceland-disappearing-down-syndrome-john-nolte">abortion of Down syndrome babies has reached near 100%</a>. France has gotten in on the race, too; most recently, the country <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/11074/france-bans-ad-featuring-kids-down-syndrome-frank-camp">banned a television commercial</a> featuring Down syndrome children because it upset mothers who previously aborted children with Down syndrome.

Professor Richard Dawkins Promotes His New Book “Appetite For Wonder: The Making Of A Scientist”

Famed Atheist Richard Dawkins Bizarrely Defends Eugenics: ‘Works For Cows, Horses, Pigs,’ But ‘Fight It On Moral Grounds’

Abortion

“If you want to identify people who are okay with suicide bombing, I can give you a list,” including <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/167/yusuf-al-qaradawi">Yusuf al-Qaradawi</a>, Michigan State University Professor <a href="https://khalil.cal.msu.edu/">Mohammad Hassan Khalil</a> told me at a September Georgetown University <a href="https://acmcu.georgetown.edu/event/jihad-radicalism-and-the-new-atheism/">lecture</a>. Khalil theorized before an audience of some thirty people at the <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/607/wolf-to-georgetown-detail-use-of-saudi">Saudi-founded</a> Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) that Islam’s atheistic critics exaggerate the religion’s role in inciting violence.
While ACMCU Professor <a href="https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/topics/222/jonathan-brown">Jonathan Brown</a> moderated, Khalil’s responses ironically reinforced the critique of Islam he sought to refute. For the record, Qaradawi’s primetime show on Qatar’s Al Jazeera network drew an <a href="https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/qaradawis-war-for-egypt">estimated</a> 60 million viewers. Even had he been the lone cleric promoting suicide bombing — which he was not — the size of his viewership reveals the scope of the problem.
At the Georgetown event, Khalil presented his previously recorded <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW7M1a0N_AA">discussion</a> of his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-Atheism-Mohammad-Hassan-Khalil/dp/1108432751">new book</a>, “Jihad, Radicalism, and the New Atheism,” in which he disputes claims of many “New Atheists,” particularly <a href="https://samharris.org/about/">Sam Harris</a>, “that Muslim terrorism can be best explained by Islamic scriptures.” Harris further labels benign interpretations of Islam as “interpretive acrobatics.”
Khalil explained his focus on the so-called New Atheists, saying that “[m]any of [his] own colleagues and students have been and continue to be more profoundly impacted by the writings of New Atheists than, say, polemical works by far-right religiously-affiliated critics of Islam.” Correspondingly, he cited Harris’s statement to fellow atheist <a href="http://www.billmaher.com/">Bill Maher</a> that “we have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas.”
Although critics such as the ex-Muslim atheists behind the “<a href="https://exmuslims.org/ex-muslims-of-north-america-debuts-billboards-in-atlanta-chicago-houston/">Awesome Without Allah</a>” campaign would affirm Harris’s observations, Khalil accused Harris of “cherry-picking.” Reiterating his <a href="https://theconversation.com/so-what-really-is-jihad-118660">previous analysis</a> of Islamic canons to argue that jihadists like Osama bin Laden use “interpretative acrobatics” to justify attacks on civilians, Khalil asserted that “Harris’s interpretation of Islam is so obdurate and so extreme that it cannot even be ascribed to the man behind 9/11.”
Khalil claimed such jihadists are “on the fringes of the jihad tradition” in Islam, despite <a href="https://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings">ample precedent</a> of jihadists applying distinctly Islamic doctrines to fight non-Muslims. “The attempts of al Qaeda and ISIS to justify terrorism on Islamic grounds typically require the abandonment of both strict literalism and the historically prevailing interpretations of Islamic thought,” Khalil said. “Before the <a href="https://www.inss.org.il/publication/the-rise-and-fall-of-suicide-bombings-in-the-second-intifada/">early 1980s</a>, there was no such thing as a Muslim suicide bomber,” Khalil added.
He next criticized the portrayal of a failed suicide bomber in Harris’s <a href="https://samharris.org/books/the-end-of-faith/">book</a> “The End of Faith.” Instead of accepting Harris’ description of terrorists’ motives as religiously informed, Khalil cited common, <a href="https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/new-book-examines-jihads-nightmarish-narrative">debunked tropes</a> of socioeconomic disadvantage driving men to violent jihad. Khalil concluded, erroneously, that “in blaming Islam’s foundational texts for contemporary terrorism, while downplaying other factors,” arguments of the New Atheists “are just as facile as those of the apologists they criticize.”
This continues a common trend of denying the Islamist roots of jihadi attacks, even as <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/">survey data</a> show that a deeply disturbing minority of Muslim believers support terrorism. As Israeli analyst Shmuel Bar <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/religious-sources-islamic-terrorism">wrote</a> in 2004, in leading Islamic clerical circles, “radical ideology does not represent a marginal and extremist perversion of Islam, but rather a[n] &#8230; increasingly mainstream interpretation.”
During the audience question and answer session at Georgetown, moderator Jonathan Brown failed to assuage concerns about the religious nature of jihad, even as he assailed New Atheists as the “most intense representatives of this sort of white, patriarchal ‘West is best’ idea.” He referenced his 2007 Yemen trip, during which he saw cigarette lighters for sale with themes of Bin Laden and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hassan-Nasrallah">Hassan Nasrallah</a>, the terrorist Hezbollah leader. Brown strained believability to dismiss these images as indicating not support for terrorism, but for individuals “who really stuck it to the man” of Western imperialism — as if mass atrocities were mere protest.
Khalil stated that he is “obsessed with 9/11 in a dark way.” Yet his obsession hardly obviates valid concerns about radical Islamic jihad. In dismissing historically accurate criticisms of radical Islam and Islamism, Muslims like Khalil undermine their credibility — and, by hosting such apologists, ACMCU reaffirms its place as America’s leading center of Islamist propaganda.
&nbsp;
Andrew E. Harrod is a <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/16897">Campus Watch Fellow</a>, freelance researcher, and writer who holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/aeharrod">@AEHarrod</a>.

Georgetown University campus

HARROD: Professor Claims Islam Is Not The Root Of Islamic Terrorism

Georgetown University

Islam

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

Everyone has been moved by the remarkable story of forgiveness and mercy of <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-deciding-sentence-police-officer-amber-guyger-wrong/story?id=66002182">Brandt Jean</a>, brother of Botham Jean — who was tragically killed last year by a Dallas police officer in his own apartment. A day later, it is impossible to scroll through any social media platform today and miss Brandt’s statement and the hug heard round the world.
Many have also taken note of <a href="https://youtu.be/y_qpdyAuLu4?t=125">Judge Tammy Kemp’s actions</a>. Not only did the presiding judge allow the transformational hug to occur; when sentencing was complete, Judge Kemp descended from the bench, grabbed her personal Bible, and presented it to the newly sentenced felon, Amber Guyger.
Sadly, not everyone sees the beauty of yesterday’s moment of reconciliation. Ignoring the example of humanity, healing, and mercy demonstrated by Brandt Jean and Judge Kemp, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) stepped in to ruin the moment, dividing with complaints rather than uniting with understanding.
This afternoon, the foundation of atheists, secularists, and “free-thinkers” filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). The CJC hears ethical concerns of the state’s judiciary: justices of the peace, judges, and justices. This isn’t the first time the Foundation has complained to the CJC.
The Foundation now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/10/03/us/ap-us-dallas-officer-mistaken-apartment-judge.html">accuses</a> Judge Tammy Kemp of judicial misconduct for handing Guyger her personal Bible. They <a href="https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/35774-amber-guyger-judge-s-proselytization-an-abuse-of-power-ffrf-charges">accuse</a> the judge — clearly moved by the example of mercy and kindness shown by the brother of the man slain by Guyger — of “abuse of power” and of using the “privilege of [her office] to preach [her] personal religious beliefs.”
Their complaint to the CJC demands that the commission “investigate these actions and educate Kemp on her obligation to remain neutral on matters of religion to prevent future misconduct.”
We at <a href="http://firstliberty.org/">First Liberty Institute</a> would be only too pleased to represent Judge Kemp, should she require a legal defense. Judge Kemp should be permitted to be human, including the parts of her humanity informed by her religious beliefs. Indeed, any judge that hands any holy writ to anyone in an effort to encourage the improvement of his or her life is worth legally defending.
Earlier today, my boss, Hiram Sasser, <a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Kemps-Hug-Not-Embraced-by-All-After-Guygers-Trial-562089651.html">said</a>: “FFRF is protesting Judge Kemp rather than joining the rest of the nation celebrating the compassion and mercy Judge Kemp demonstrated. We should all be thankful the law allows Judge Kemp’s actions and we stand with her and will gladly lead the charge in defending her noble and legal actions.”
I can only add that what Brandt Jean and Judge Kemp have done for the community in demonstrating forgiveness, mercy, and grace has done more to restore hope, healing, and humanity for Dallas — and, let’s be honest, civility for the nation at-large — than any life sentence could have brought.
And, if you’re wondering about whether by the technical point of the law, the Foundation may have a point — please don’t. Our country has a longstanding tradition of understanding that our leaders have a professional, official role and yet may also retain their personal humanity. History is replete with examples of judges balancing their official duties, yet their faith also informing all aspects of their lives After <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf">The American Legion v. AHA</a>, such longstanding, religiously expressive activities ought to be presumed constitutional.
This is not the first attack on the personal faith of public officials — not even this week. Earlier this week, the Foundation intimidated a sheriff from Alabama from taking part in a candlelight vigil over the increase of crime that is devastating his community. They recently forced a school district in Missouri to stop a team chaplain from praying with his football players after the game.
If the Foundation had its druthers, it would have the kind of government Justice Alito warned against in The American Legion: “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
Likewise, the Foundation would condemn, prosecute, and drive from office compassionate humans like Judge Tammy Kemp. Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution rejects demands that government commissions become, as Justice Alito wrote, “evocative, disturbing, and divisive” toward the religious beliefs of anyone — including judges.
Judge Kemp, if you’re reading this, thank you for being human. And call us if we can help.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Courtroom And Gavel

DYS: Judge Tammy Kemp Is A Model For Us All

Dallas

First Amendment

Police

Last Friday, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a group of atheists who sued the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in federal court, claiming the Pennsylvania House violated the Establishment Clause by barring a non-religious person from offering prayer.
The court ruled 2-1 that it is constitutional for the House to restrict offering prayer in the House to people acknowledging God; Judge Thomas L. Ambro, who wrote the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Document.pdf">majority opinion</a>, stated, &#8220;As a matter of traditional practice, a petition to human wisdom and the power of science does not capture the full sense of &#8216;prayer,&#8217; historically understood.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.becketlaw.org/case/speaker-v-fields/">Becket Law</a> explained the background of the case:
<blockquote>In 2016, a group of secular atheists, many of whom publicly mock prayer and religion, requested to serve as chaplains and deliver non-religious &#8220;invocations&#8221; in the Pennsylvania State House. The Pennsylvania House speaker denied their request on the grounds that their beliefs were not religious. In August 2016, the atheists sued the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in federal court, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause to bar a non-religious person from offering prayer … In August 2018, the district court decided in favor of the atheists, ruling that the Pennsylvania State House legislative prayer policy violates the Constitution. The Speaker of the Pennsylvania House appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.</blockquote>
The Third Circuit wrote in its decision:
<blockquote>For the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses, we hold that legislative prayer is government speech not open to attack via those channels … History supplies our method of analyzing cases involving legislative prayer. In Establishment Clause challenges like this, we ask &#8220;whether the prayer practice&#8221; in question &#8220;fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures.&#8221;
Twice the Supreme Court has drawn on early congressional practice to uphold legislative prayer. It emphasized that Congress approved the draft of the First Amendment in the same week it established paid congressional chaplains to provide opening prayers. Congress approved theistic religious expression in other ways as well; a day after proposing the First Amendment, it &#8220;urged President Washington to proclaim &#8216;a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'&#8221;</blockquote>
The decision also noted the recent case in which the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf">ruled</a> that the 40-foot Peace cross could remain on state property in Maryland. The decision noted:
<blockquote>Even more recently, the Supreme Court has expanded its historical framework beyond the confines of legislative prayer. In rejecting an Establishment Clause challenge to a Christian cross commemorating World War I on state property, the Court held that the memorial &#8220;must be viewed in [its] historical context.&#8221; It also announced &#8220;a presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.&#8221;</blockquote>
The decision even cited left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing, &#8220;The assumption that prayer must be theistic apparently persuaded then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Congress’s practice of excluding nontheists from offering opening prayers did not violate the Establishment Clause.&#8221;
The decision concluded: &#8220;The House’s policy preferring theistic over nontheistic prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause because it fits squarely within the historical tradition of legislative prayer. Next, legislative prayer is government speech, so the policy is not susceptible to an attack on free-speech, free-exercise, or equal-protection grounds.&#8221;

Close up of hands clasped on open Bible

Victory For Believers: Court Rules Atheists Cannot Offer Prayer In PA State House

Pennsylvania

Menu