Category Archives: Atheism

Two short statements on Christianity

Star Wars and Western Civilisation

In a recent dialog between Jordan Peterson and Angus Fletcher, who is a Professor of Story Science at Ohio State’s Project Narrative, the world’s leading academic think-tank for narrative theory.

(Fletcher says he is interested in “how stories work in the brain”. He got his PhD from Yale. Apparently, according to Fletcher, all sorts of institutions are very interested in the research of his project, it is “backed” by leading neuroscientists and psychologists, doctors, nurses, social workers. Fair enough. But he also mentions as backers: big business, the US army, the special operations community, the air force. Why in the world would they be interested in “narrative theory”? I have ideas, but won’t speculate here.)

Anyway, two short statements stood out, both made by Jordan Peterson:

  1. Star Wars is “Christianity for atheistic nerds”. It’s “inescapable”.
  2. Christianity provides the narrative that forms the cultural foundation of western civilisation. (This latter is quoted from memory and may be paraphrased, as I didn’t bother writing it down at the time.)

“Do I Believe in God, COVID Totalitarianism & the Climate”

Dave Rubin speaks with Jordan Peterson about these issues

For simplicity’s sake, I will today just quote from the text below the video, because it covers all the essentials. It’s probably the best exposition of Jordan Peterson’s views we will get in just one hour, and I’ve seen a lot of videos with and about him. It was posted on YouTube on 14th November 2021.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Dr. Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, about what is actually informing COVID restrictions, the real choice that faces the clean energy COP26 crowd, and his response when he is asked about the existence of God.

First, Jordan discusses why we chose medical tyranny and a totalitarian state as a response to the COVID epidemic. He shares how the politics of fear, more than science, has been informing COVID policy in Canada in the U.S. Jordan also tries to understand how the left, who usually hates big corporations, has handed over it’s trust to big pharma.

Next, Jordan discusses the COP26 summit and the horrible position liberals and environmentalists have put themselves in by pushing for more expensive renewable energy while claiming to care for the poor. He explains why their more expensive energy plans will cause electricity prices to skyrocket, hurting those most vulnerable. He suggests we follow China’s lead and invest in nuclear power to create as much cheap energy as possible which can mitigate the effects of climate change without sacrificing the poor. He explains the problems of sustainable development and why you should dismiss anyone who advocates for Net Zero.

Finally, Jordan discusses what religion and spirituality mean to him. He shares the answer he gives when asked “does god exist?” He also explains why people like Sam Harris may not be as atheist as they may think they are. He also explains why science fails as a religion and what religious thoughts really are.

I will just add that Peterson announces that he is going to the UK soon, to speak in Cambridge and Oxford, with, among others, Richard Dawkins. That’s something to look forward to.

Why Are We So Rich?

The Industrial Revolution happened after Calvinists in the Netherlands claimed that personal wealth was legitimate

One of the big, maybe the biggest, unsolved mystery of recorded human history is that of the origins of the industrial revolution. Why did it happen at all? Why then, and not earlier or later? Why there, and not some other place?

In a time when many denounce the Industrial Revolution, and even the Prime Minister of the country of its origin says that it marked the point when “the doomsday machine began to tick”, one might expect people to want to get to the bottom of this mystery, so as to “correct” it properly, and not make an even greater mess of it.

For the record, I’m not in the camp of those who think that the Industrial Revolution was on balance more evil than good. I think it has so far saved billions of human lives, most of which would otherwise have died in infancy, most of the rest before age 6.

However, in this post, I’m not going argue whether the Industrial Revolution was good or bad for us. Instead, I will analyse a talk given by Dr. Gary North in 2013, where he discusses a very likely reason for the origin of this revolution.

Continue reading

Name two issues . . .

. . . impacting your life on a daily basis that have not originated from Government

Here you will find lots of wrong answers. And the only correct one.

This is an impressive way of showing how modern governments have entered into the vacuum left by the widespread loss of faith in society.

Repealing the century of collectivism, mass destruction and genocide

Our hope resides in a resurrected God

“We shall repeal the 20th century.” These were words spoken by American economist Murray N. Rothbard (1926 – 1995) near the end of an article he wrote in 1992. Another American economist, Gary North (b. 1942), who is a historian and theologian as well, used these words near the end of a lecture he gave in 2010.

Rothbard made clear why he wants to repeal it, when he asked, ironically:

“Who would want to repeal the 20th century, the century of horror, the century of collectivism, the century of mass destruction and genocide, who would want to repeal that! Well, we propose to do just that.”

With “we” he meant what he hoped would be a resurrected movement which in America is called the Old Right, a movement that was libertarian in its core, supported decentralised structures, laissez-faire economics and minimal interference of the government into private lives. This movement was effectively killed off around the year 1900 and replaced by interventionist, imperialist, big-government and big-business supporting politics.

Similar things had happened, or were happening, in Europe. Nationalism was the name of the game, and that sentiment lead to centralised governments continually increasing their interventions into the economy to suit their lust for power. Imperialism was the natural outgrowth of this development. This in turn lead to the original catastrophe of our time, World War One.

Considering that we are by now one fifth into the next century, it is clear that we have been unable to repeal the 20th century. For, as an idea, or phenomenon, the 20th century, in all its awfulness, is still firmly with us. So, how can we go about “repealing” it?

Continue reading

Prevent AI from outsmarting us – but will it?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 6 and end

In the chapter titled “Will artificial intelligence outsmart us?”, Hawking again claims that it is a “triumph”, that we as human beings “who are ourselves mere stardust, have come to such a detailed understanding of the universe in which we live.” (183) Again, he doesn’t clarify what he means by “triumph”. Triumph over what, exactly? What’s the triumph in just “understanding” stuff? For what purpose?

Continue reading

Let’s colonise space – but for what reason?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 5

Hawking is a huge advocate of manned spaceflight. He sees it as our only chance to escape the “almost inevitable . . . nuclear confrontation or environmental catastrophe [that] will cripple the Earth at some point in the next 1,000 years”, although he hopes that “we can avoid dropping the basket [currently containing all our “eggs”] before we learn how to escape from Earth”. (150)

At no point does he explain how, by going into space, we escape “nuclear confrontation” in space. This is a real possibility in the future, as it’s improbable we will become sinless this side of eternity. Hawking obviously hopes that the exploration, use and colonisation of space and extra-terrestrial objects will be advantageous for human development and flourishing. And he is probably right. However, he is not helping this cause by saying we need to do this to “escape” something. The general advice for anyone moving places, jobs etc. is that they should make sure of what they are moving towards before they start moving away from.    

Considering that, let’s see how Hawking tries to convince us of space colonisation, in the chapter titled “Should we colonise space?”

Continue reading

Despite all that, let’s save the world – ok, but why?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 4

“Will we survive on earth?”, Hawking asks in the title to the 7th chapter of his book. Which begs the question, which he never attempts to answer in his book, why we should be worried about the survival of “parasites” such as humans. Let us however sincerely assume that Hawking hoped that we would survive. After all, he left children and grandchildren behind, and hoped to be remembered by them as a great dad and granddad. (247)

The dangers to our survival, according to Hawking, are these: Climate change and other environmental problems such as deforestation, disease, famine, and lack of water. These are all caused, he says, by over-population: “The Earth is becoming too small for us.” The reason for this claim is that “[o]ur physical resources are being drained at an alarming rate.” (147). This is a contestable claim, as the prices for raw materials have decreased over many decades. It is only incontestable considering the finite size of our planet: There is a finite amount of natural resources that make up the planet earth, because the earth is a finite sphere.

Continue reading

Human beings are parasites – or the image of God?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 3

Hawking begins his chapter “Are we alone in the universe?” by stating that the behaviour of the human race “throughout history has been pretty stupid and not calculated to aid the survival of the species.” (67) This is somewhat strange, some might even say ungrateful, coming from a man who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21 but, with the help of modern medicine and technology, not only survived to the age of 76 but lead a productive life, advancing our knowledge of the universe, in particular of black holes.

However, when writing those words Hawking was just getting started. He then says that “most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life.” (69, my emphasis). Quite apart from this being incorrect biologically, and a surprising mistake for a scientist to make, this statement reveals a deeply misanthropic mindset. The above statement about “stupid history” was not a one-off, not a statement simply made to score some points with the upper classes, amongst which he often circulated, many of whom may look down on the less fortunate. No, that statement was the result of the same mindset: We humans are stupid parasites.

However, Hawking can’t make up his mind. In the introduction to his book, where he calls humans “mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”, he expresses wonderment at the fact that we have nonetheless, “been able to come to an understanding of the laws governing us, and our universe”. Moreover, this fact is a “triumph”, he claims, without saying over what. (21)

He claims, believably, to be very concerned about how we will feed an ever-growing population, how we will provide clean water, generate renewable energy, prevent and cure disease and slow down global climate change. However, he hopes that science and technology will provide solutions. He adds this appeal: “Let us fight for every woman and every man to have the opportunity to live healthy, secure lives, full of opportunity and love.” (22) Again, this is strange. Why would anyone who calls humans “parasites” with a “stupid history” wish that they succeed?

Continue reading

In the beginning, Chance – or God?

Review of Stephen Hawking’s “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” - Part 2

Hawking is eager to say that the universe could have started by chance. The fact that it “started” at all is a big concession from materialistic scientists. It leads to the questions “What was before?” and “How did it start?” (Even if not on purpose, i.e. the dreaded word “design”).

In doing this, Hawking misrepresents the creation story in the Bible. To be precise, he doesn’t mention it at all in this book. Instead, he describes the creation story of the Boshongo people of central Africa, which he describes thus: “[I]n the beginning, there was only darkness, water and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the Moon, the stars and then some animals – the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle and, finally, man.” (42)

He brings it in the context of the discussion about whether or not the universe had a beginning. I’ll return to that shortly. First, however, I want to highlight something else. And that is the question of purpose or design. A point Hawking studiously avoids. I have a hunch he may have chosen the above story because of its similarity to the biblical creation story. Maybe the unspoken subtext is: The biblical story of Genesis is nothing special, here’s another example where a god is hanging around with water and darkness and then creates a few things, in a certain order, ending with humans. Assuming this is what Hawking had in mind, there needs to be a Christian answer.

Continue reading