My Wise Generation

After just leaving the theatres to review Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed I carried with me a sense of relief. The fearful expectation going into the film was that it might hold gaping flaws and little perspective from the opposing viewpoint. Despite what critics are saying, however, some of the biggest names in the film were Darwinists and it did quite a good job gaining perspectives from scientists of different religious, non-religious and historical backgrounds when establishing its arguments.

I will, for the sake of balance take from one of the most popular posted criticism of the film Expelled 6 Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know and make simple counter-points.

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

"When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly...

...The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book...

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."

Response:
This accusation is representing the context of the film Expelled incorrectly. The film does not make a blatant obvious attempt to connect Darwin's personal philosophy to the holocaust nor does it attempt to establish causation such as "If one believes Darwinian theory, then they will become Nazi's". In fact, it mentions two times explicitly in the movie that "It is true if someone embraces Darwinism it does not imply they will become like the Nazi's"

The context of this quote is illustrating that destroying the weak in society can and has historically become a logical deduction for someone who embraces survival of the fittest to its full extent. The quote establishes that Darwin foresaw this as a possibility. The fact that Darwin's next quote strongly discourages anyone from doing so is irrelevant, because if man came from mud then why ought someone even listen to Darwin's attempt to discourage murdering the weak?

The reality is if there is no moral law or no God then Hitler's perception of Darwinian evolution and eugenics (the murdering of the lame and genetically "less superior") is a completely reasonable conclusion to draw for a society to remove them as a burden. This quote, within the context it was illustrated in the movie, illustrates that even Darwin saw the logical deduction that could take place. This is not a flaw in the film.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.

"public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.

Response:
Of course it was staged. There is an artistic principle professionals in the film industry like to call symbolism. The reality is not a full speech was even given. If you look at how it was filmed in context the entire speech in the auditorium is a symbolic backdrop to establish a target audience. He begins by opening the ideas in a college campus auditorium establishing two very important points:

1) This speech (or symbolic of the film itself) is intended for students who have a genuine interest in Science and participate in college academia.

2) The war between intelligent design and evolutionary theory is taking place on the grounds of academia.

In the closing commencement it symbolizes a hope for the future, such that the audience themselves embrace the truth's of scientific inquiry, and when the 'walls' separating intelligent design inquiry from evolutionary inquiry come crumbling down, it will be a glorious day for academia.

The speech, as a portion of the film was clearly not intended to make any direct points other than to establish a target audience and symbolize a possible transformation for the future. This also, is not a flaw in the film and actually was beautifully artistically executed.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.

"As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit."

Response:
This is completely and utterly irrelevant. The questions these gentleman were asked were not deep nor should have been unexpected. Richard Dawkin's crumbles under a question regarding the 'probability' of his disbelief in God and his take on the origins of man. For a gentleman who wrote an entire book on how God is a delusion these questions shouldn't even break him a sweat. He then theorizes a possibility of an intelligent design, but that intelligent design couldn't possibly be a God, it must be something of higher intelligence, such as an alien race. Another scientists even suggests the absurd notion of life beginning on the back of crystals.

As for the other scientists who were asked questions, you find in documentaries that people have a much better propensity to be honest when they are comfortable answering questions. Explaining the exact context of the film would further encourage them to simply fall under scripted answers instead of giving genuine ones on the spot. This is a strategy used by many who create documentaries and for good reason.

I would, for sake of argument, accept it was unreasonable for them to "mis-represent" the purpose of the film if the questions Ben Stein had asked were actually difficult ones, but they were not. Instead, these gentlemen used their opportunity in the film to call intelligent design "idiotic" and "preposterous" (even though Dawkin's then later suggests an intelligent designer that may be aliens). Of course, now that they know what the film was about they want to take back their statements. If they didn't mean what they had said, then they simply wouldn't have said it, no matter what the title or purpose of the film was.

This is not a flaw in the film, in fact, it is a strength. It reveals genuine perspectives from some of the most world renowned Darwinian scientists.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.

"One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment...

...Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it...

...The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)"

Response:
It is true that the Sternberg case is controversial - it doesn't change the reality that there are evidences of this controversy on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is many sites have sprang up offering conjecture regarding the scientists who came forth in "Expelled" in an attempt to state, "What really happened was such-and-such" or "He didn't get tenure because of this-or-that".

The reason this is interesting is because the minute a film is released (or weeks before) suggesting intelligent design as a possibility, a machine has begun its work to instantly discredit it as propaganda. These sites aim to establish that the film, the people who partook in it and those of whom it discusses lack credibility (or they were victims in the case of the pro-Darwinists).

Ironically, in the act of blatantly attempting to discredit or victimize the scientists, filmmakers and participants in the film, they only further illustrate the point of the movie that any opposing viewpoint will be publicly discredited and squandered.

There is another big flaw in this argument. Discrediting the "accuracy" of the film does not explain why thousands of other scientists not in the film have discredited the ideas of Darwinian theory as a reasonable explanation to the origin of species.

"The reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposals were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous." - Embryologist Soren Lovtrup

"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing..." - Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Darwinism is claiming that all adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutations. That is an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever." (emphasis added) - Molecular biologist Michael Denton

"About 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at a Macroevolution Conference in Chicago to consider the question, "Are mutation and natural selection enough?" Evolutionist Roger Lewin sums up the conclusion of the conference:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Ray Comfort, How to Know God Exists, 2007)

Michael Ruse, a preeminent evolutionist wrote in New Scientist:

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

"Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., has compiled a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolution, most of whom hold Ph.D.s in science. He believes, given the time and resources, he could easily complete a list of 10,000 names."(Ray Comfort, How to Know God Exists, 2007)

These are only a few of a long list. The reality is many of the premises and 'critiques' put forth to discredit and backlash the scientists in the film are an attempt to try and illustrate they are part of some conspiracy to teach 'creationism' in schools or are part of some 'intelligent design' propaganda machine. As one can see above, however, there are thousands of scientists who look at evolution as an inadequate scientific explanation of the origin of man.

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

"Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.

Response:
This argument is a scripted and often repeated response to individuals who attempt to explain away intelligent design because it violates the purpose of science and doesn't hold any 'validity'. The reality is evidences do indeed exist to illustrate that simple chance based methods for the origins of the species are probabilistically impossible. There still is no evidence that explains how information can be gained through mutations, and any basic engineer will tell you complex systems cannot simply come into existence by sheer chance.

The idea that a system as complex as the human cell was formulated by natural selection is completely and utterly un-scientific. There is no scientific basis for a claim of something with such complex design coming into existence without there first being a designer. Even more-so, when one looks at the design of the cell they find it is far more complex than any system ever engineered by the human mind. To suggest such a complex system came into existence without some form of intelligent intercessor is a claim with no scientific basis.

On the other hand, it can be clearly demonstrated that complex systems can be assembled by an intelligent designer. This, in fact, can be recreated in a lab, hypothesized and tested.

The argument then makes this statement: "By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. "

The nature of the designer is irrelevant, what is clearly evident (and can be demonstrated) is the designer must have been more intelligent than what is designed. As many know, any computer system or artificial intelligence system is only as efficient or intelligent as the one or ones creating the system. The real question science tries to answer is how the designer actually designed it, not the nature of the designer itself, that task is often better left with philosophers and meta-physicists.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

"...Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins..."

Response:
This argument also mis-represents the context of the film that there is a direct causation link between evolutionary theory and Atheism. It actually illustrates that some individuals have lost their belief in God because of the theory of evolution. It does not, however, attempt to prove a causation - such that if someone believes in evolution they must not believe in God.

It is illustrative that the theory of the origin of man as an evolution based argument can lead to the potential loss of belief in God. It is the same idea that individuals begin to demand natural explanations to everything because scientifically no supernatural intercessor can be allowed to intervene. The fact that individuals in the film openly admitted their belief in evolutionary theory led them to dis-believe in God is enough to illustrate the possibility of it occurring to others. This was the point the film was driving, and it is hardly a flaw in the film.

Craig Chamberlin







Related Articles:
Analyzing: Christian Bill O'Reilly vs Atheist Richard Dawkins
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
Naturalists Use Faith to Argue Against God and Creationism

If individuals have not had a chance to view the short debate between Atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian Bill O'Reilly between belief or simple dis-belief they can view it here. There are some interesting conclusions one can draw from the short discussion these two individuals had.

Bill O'Reilly held his own in this discussion with who is known as one of the biggest names in atheism Richard Dawkins. In fact, both did quite well. It is important to take a closer look into this discussion as it went by quicker than the average person could possibly absorb and it is a huge issue that merits far more than only five minutes of air time.

(0:41 O'Reilly) "I think it takes more faith to be like you an Atheist than like me a believer and its because of nature. You know, I just don't think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in, the tides come out, the sun go up, the sun go down... Don't think it could have happened."

(0:54 Dawkins) "We have a very full understanding of why the "tides go in, the tides go out", about why the continents drift about, of why life is there. Science is evermore piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding."

Commentary: O'Reilly's point here is not clear - he does clarify it after Dawkins responds. It appears that O'Reilly takes the position that sheer 'chance' as the creator and designer of man is unlikely - but he parallels it with an awkward illustration of tides and the sun, leaving him at a position of needing to correct himself when Dawkins illustrates that we clearly understand why tides go in and tides go out. While it is true that science is piling on information and understanding, his response was to a poorly executed argument made by O'Reilly.

(1:07 O'Reilly) "But how did it get there? I understand... the physiology of it if you will... but it had to come from somewhere and that is the leap of faith you guys make, that it just happened.

(1:21 Dawkins) "Well, a leap of faith, you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in. I take it you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the Christian God, Jesus."

Commentary: O'Reilly's position here is now clarified. What he is suggesting is that it doesn't quite make much sense as to how intelligence and all the beauty of nature could have come into existence by sheer chance. Everything appears to have a designer behind it, and suggesting that the universe, as complex as it is, just simply came to be is not a convincing argument. He then posits that Dawkin's must have much larger faith to believe that the sophistication of the world came by sheer chance than by a designer. Now this point does hold logically and evidently true, after all, any engineer or software designer will tell you design and sophisticated systems cannot just simply come into existence without some form of intelligent intercessor there to formulate and establish the necessary coherence to make it function. There has yet to be any evidence of an intelligent system simply being established from sheer chance, it goes against the first two laws of thermodynamics to suggest as such.

Dawkin's response here suggests that O'Reilly requires proof of the existence of God to establish what he believes in. This is an uninformed argument, as Christianity possesses one of the most powerful backgrounds of legal-historical proof of all the faiths in existence. Suggesting there are not evidences of both the existence of Christ and his miracles is simply an irresponsible statement to make and it illustrates Dawkin's lack of historical understanding of the Christian faith.

(1:40 O'Reilly) "Jesus was a real guy, I could see him. You know I know what he did and so I am not positive that Jesus is God but I'm throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys because you guys can't tell me how it all got here. You guys don't know."

(1:54 Dawkins) "We're working on it physicists are..."

(1:56 O'Reilly) "Well when you get it then maybe I'll listen"

(1:57 Dawkins) "Yes well, I mean if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount that's gained in knowledge each century is stupendous. In the beginning of the 21st century we don't know everything, we have to be humble, we have to in humility say that there is a lot we still don't know."

(2:12 O'Reilly) "You know, being humble is a Christian virtue."

(2:15 Dawkins) "Well, I suppose it is."

(2:17 O'Reilly) "Alright, when you guys figure it out come back here and tell me because until that time I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism because it helps me as a person."

Commentary: This is one of the most revealing portions of the discussion between the two gentlemen. Dawkins had stated above "..you don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith because ... the [requirement] is on you to say why you believe in something. There is an infinite number of Gods you could believe in." As one can see, Dawkin's contradicted himself - on one hand he is saying that Christians must provide the evidences necessary to establish the validity of their faith in what they believe, on the other hand when confronted with the reality that science cannot answer such a profound question of the origins of the universe his response is simply "We are working on it." Well, if it is being worked on then until the evidences are found, belief in the idea of intelligent systems coming into existence by sheer chance without the evidences necessary to establish how it occurred requires a leap of faith.

Dawkins cannot in one hand demand that Christians provide evidences for what they believe in and on the other dodge the reality that science lacks the evidences necessary to defend what he believes in. Using his test of the validity of faith, his own standing on the origins of the universe requires just as much of a leap of faith as any other. Actually, given the strength of the legal-historical evidences of the Christian faith as well as the lack of any intelligent systems spawning from non-intelligence by sheer chance, it possibly requires more faith to believe Dawkin's position than the Christians.

(2:29 Dawkins) "Now that's different, if it helps you as a person that doesn't mean it's true."

(2:31 O'Reilly) "Well it's true for me, see I believe it."

(2:33 Dawkins) "You mean true for you is different from true for anyone else. How can something be true for you, something has either got to be true or not.

(2:40 O'Reilly) "No no, I can't prove to you that Jesus is God so that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not. So you have to stay in your little belief system."

(2:50 Dawkins) "You cannot prove that Zeus is not, you cannot prove that Apollo is not -"

Commentary: This was one of the most disappointing positions O'Reilly took in this entire debate. Dawkin's holds a much more valid argument, if truth is absolute then it must hold true to all people not just the individual. It is likely that O'Reilly simply wasn't prepared for this type of debate and intermixed an argument of 'perspectives' of truths with 'absolute' truths. When dealing with perspectives O'Reilly makes the point that he will likely not be able to convince Dawkin's that his position is correct - but convincing someone of the truth and the existence of absolute truth are two different things entirely.

The reality is that if O'Reilly embraces the Christian faith he must embrace that it is the absolute truth and that Jesus Christ is God. If Jesus Christ is really God then it cannot be true to only O'Reilly, it must be a universal truth that applies to all men. Truth cannot be relative, it must be absolute - and this is a position one ought to agree with Dawkin's on.

Dawkins again, however, discusses that there is no difference between the 'evidences' of Zeus and Jesus. This is a blatantly irresponsible argument - the legal-historical evidences of the existence of Christ and his works are so well documented that they hold more validity than many other historical documents. In fact, the New Testament was even used as an accurate historical perspective when looking into the History of the Roman Empire and many other A.D. historical documents. Archeologists use it as one of the primary tools in referencing historical contexts as well. Christianity is not a faith based upon no "evidences" and it possess quite a strong foothold in both philosophical and historical contexts.

(2:54 O'Reilly) "I saw Apollo man, and he was down there and he was not looking good. Now, we also differ in the sense that you feel that religion has been a bane... to civilization and I feel atheism has. I will point to the worst mass murderer in... modern times: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Palpot, all confirmed atheists. All people who wanted to wipe out religion. Now I know you can point to the crusades and you can point to Al'qaeda right now. I mean it's there, theres no question but I say, I'm throwing in with the founding fathers of the United States [who] saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence, as a good thing if people embrace the true tenants"

(3:35 Dawkins) "The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists above all, some of them were religious, some of them were not but they were above all secularists who believed in keeping church and state separate."

(3:44 O'Reilly) "They had too because of the oppression in Europe."

(3:45 Dawkins) "... Precisely, I mean but - "

(3:48 O'Reilly) "Almost all of them, they all said a prayer before their deliberations. In their letters, and I have almost all their letters they all reference the Deity, our declaration of Independence references heavily but they saw it as a moderating influence because the federal government at that point couldn't control the country - "

(4:04 Dawkins) "Yeah."

Commentary: An interesting bias shows from both gentlemen during these few statements. It is clear that both want to illustrate that the founding fathers were bias in one direction or another so it can verify the position they are going to take on what they really intended for society. What one may find interesting is that the founding fathers consisted of both secularists and believers - but what O'Reilly says here is indeed true, that the majority of them did hold a belief in a Diety of some form or another.

However, the perspectives of the founding fathers is a debate that has transcended and existed since they found the United States - and it is a debate that will likely continue. It would have been more interesting to see the debate continue in the actual discussion of belief as opposed to disbelief in God.

The purpose of O'Reilly bringing up the position of the founding fathers was to illustrate the importance of religion in society and that the founding fathers agreed with him on this issue. He is taking a critical view to Dawkin's perspective that religion has been more of a hindrance on society than a benefit. As as honest opinion, the idea of all religion being harmful and detrimental to society both historically and modernly is not only a ridiculous notion, but one that barely even merits acknowledgment. The amount of lives transformed for the better through faith in Jesus Christ alone are astounding - to suggest religion as a whole is detrimental is an irresponsible and uninformed position to take.

(4:04 O'Reilly) "- and they said you know if people follow Jesus, then the country is gonna be better."

(4:09 Dawkins) "It may well be a moderating influence, as for Hitler and Stalin I mean, of course. Hiter by the way was a Roman Catholic."

(4:15 O'Reilly) "No he never was, he was raised in that home, but he rejected it early on."

Commentary: Hitler a Roman Catholic? It would do Dawkins some good to read a history book or at least obtain a basic understanding of the requirements to be a Catholic and a Christian. One could be raised "Catholic" and never ever practice the faith, go to Church or accept the truths of Christ - does that mean they are a Catholic or Christian? Not by the definition of course. If people are considered Christians by association and not by their practicing of the Christian faith or their actual proclamation that they believe in the lord Jesus Christ then one could pretty much label anyone, including Dawkins, a Christian if they so much as had a conversation or some other association with one.

(4:18 Dawkins) "We can dispute that.. Stalin was an atheist, no question... but, Stalin did the bad things that he did not because he was an atheist. I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.

Commentary: Comparing mustaches to a philosophy that drives a moral framework is both irresponsible and reflective of Dawkin's lack of understanding of how philosophy, morality and ethics correlate. O'Reilly also did a poor job with his illustration that Hitler and Mao were both atheists. The reason this is important is because the atrocities that were performed by Hitler and Mao can be 'justified' because they were atheists. If there is no absolute judge of right and wrong then the deeds Hitler and Mao committed can be morally justified. One cannot tell them they were being evil if there is no absolute good that they had violated.

However, contrast that with the 'Crusades'. Those who had committed the atrocities under the banner of Christianity did so violating the very laws and moral rules set forth by Jesus Christ. Through atheism, genocide can be justified because each person can establish their own laws of moral right and wrong, it needs only be justified by the person committing the acts - through belief in a God, right and wrong must first be established by God and the acts performed by individuals must be judged by God's standard. As a result, the Crusades were horrid, yes, but they were acted out against the laws of Jesus Christ. The holocaust, however, if there is no God and no absolute right and wrong can be justified because Hitler believed it to be justified.

Dawkins then makes the statement that Hitler and his kin were evil. Well, if they were evil then they must have violated some form of absolute good. If they violated some form of absolute good then a law of good and evil must exist. If a law of good and evil must exist then there must be a governor of that law, it cannot simply come from nowhere. If there is a governer of that law then as the moral lawgiver and ultimate judge of right and wrong said judge must take the form of God - of whom Dawkin's adamantly disbelieves in.

(4:30 O'Reilly) "I don't think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys -"

(4:33 Dawkins) "I don't either."

(4:34 O'Reilly) "I will say, your book is fascinating and congratulations on your success and thanks for coming in here."

Craig Chamberlin







Related Articles:
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need Scientific "Proof" of God
Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural
In 1943, Former Atheist Illustrates the Moral Law
How Can God Exist When There is Evil?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed vs Evolution
Oprah's New Age Religion Contradicts Christianity
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender

If individuals have missed the recent YouTube video portraying Oprah discussing her ideas of the New Age religion you can view it here. There are some interesting points that she makes that ought to be discussed in more detail that contradict Christianity, and one ought to remember to address these points respectfully.

(Oprah: 1:00) "One of the mistakes that human beings make is that there is only one way to live, and that we don't accept that there are diverse ways of being in the world and there are millions of ways to be a human being and many paths to what you call God. That her path might be something else and when she gets there she might call it the light."

There is truth to the initial portion of Oprah's statement. Christians today do indeed struggle with acceptance of other's viewpoints, but it does not necessarily imply that their viewpoint is incorrect. Two different issues are at hand here, how does one balance what they believe to be true with the reality that it implies others do not hold that same truth? It is doubtful that Oprah doesn't believe what she is discussing is truth as well, and if someone approached her new age religious perspective with the idea that there was only one way to heaven then she would undoubtedly struggle to accept their viewpoint just as Christians struggle with the same issues when someone else approaches them with 'another way' to God.

Oprah is trying to be open-minded with her new age perspective about all religions and opening all paths but in doing so at the same time she cannot be open minded to those who hold the belief that there are not multiple paths to God. One cannot have their cake and eat it too, if she embraces the idea that there are multiple paths then she must argue those who believe there are not are incorrect, and the minute she does as such she is no longer open-minded of all viewpoints. For if the God she suggests exist, then that God would undoubtedly punish those who defy the reality that he designed within his plan multiple paths that lead to himself. Those who hold the only one way viewpoint, therefore, will not be looked upon as favorable to the God she suggests exists.

(Oprah: 1:12)"But her loving and her kindness and her generosity if it brings her to the same point that it brings you it doesn't matter if she called it God along the way or not."

It would be interested to know exactly what is meant by bringing individuals to 'the same point'. There is, however, a firm difference between doing the will of God and doing ones own will. Oprah's new age illustration is that the path to salvation and acceptance with God is through 'good works' and in being kind, generous and virtuous they will find favor with God when they stand before him.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " (John 3:16)

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can get to the father except through me." (John 14:6)

There are some definite contradictions in the Biblical context in regards to the ideas Oprah is suggesting. While at the same time attesting to the belief in Christianity she wishes to embrace other religions as being another way to God. There is, however, a dilemma, as the Bible illustrates that salvation is not a result of good works, but good works are an inevitable result of salvation. In other words, belief in Christ comes first to obtain salvation, and through that salvation and communion with Christ the individual can find God's purpose in their lives and live their life through God's will - these are the good works that follow belief in Christ.

Good works, in this respect, are an after-effect of salvation, and they are only 'good works' if they fall under the banner of God's purpose in the individual's life. It is not implied in the Bible that good works lead to God, it is that Jesus Christ leads to God, and the result of believing in him is 'good works', which are defined as God's will instead of our own will. We can't, however, do God's will without a relationship with him through his son Jesus Christ.

(Kelly: 2:52) "[The recommended reading by Oprah] really opened my eyes to new way of thinking, a new form of spirituality that doesn't always align with the teachings of Christianity, so my question is to you Oprah, how do you reconcile these spiritual teachings with your Christian beliefs."

This is an excellent question towards her new age perspective, it positions Oprah to defend the contradiction even I addressed above, it asks how Oprah can be a Christian while at the same time believing in something contradictory to Christian beliefs.

(Oprah: 3:10) "I reconcile them because I was able to open my mind about the absolute indescribable hugeness of that which we call God. I took God out of the box because I grew up in a baptist church where there were rules and belief systems and doctrines. I happen to be sitting in church in my late twenties... this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything and then he said the Lord thy God is a jealous God and I was caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said jealous and something struck me... I was thinking God is all, God is omnipresent and God is also jealous? God is jealous of me? Something about that didn't feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and God is in all things so that's when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me. I love this quote... "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Oprah really didn't address the question, she actually dodged it. This might not have been intentional, many people probably realize that when asked a question on the spot it is not always easy to come up with a great answer to the question, I will, for her sake give her the benefit of the doubt.

There are some issues here though, primarily when she discusses the conflict in her spirit when she found God to be a jealous God. It is primarily important to note that within context this means that God is jealous of things we make into being God - or man made idols, he was not discussing when man worships "another omnipotent being". Jealousy, as the modern man interprets it in in a negative context - and Oprah may have been interpreting it in this way. For example, jealousy is often associated with insecurity. In the Biblical context, however, the jealousy that God holds is his intolerance of unfaithfulness or rivalry. When God says he is a jealous God he is stating he is intolerant of the unfaithful and of those who embrace their man made Gods. He must be, because as the only God and as the supreme judge he must judge based upon the truth that he is the only God. It would be unjust of him to let us worship man-made God's when there are those who worship the one true God.

Addressing the quote that she loved: "Man made God in his own image: eternal, infinite and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or our God."

Man has made and often makes Gods in their own image, but every time God is transformed into an idol, whether it be blindly worshiping without a relationship or ritualistic beliefs it contradicts the Biblical idea that Christ wanted man to seek after truth.

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that individuals blindly follow the faith, nor does it encourage imbecility. In fact, Christ demands the complete opposite, he wants us to know God, to understand him, it was part of his purpose in becoming man so that he could communicate the beauty of God to mankind. This is quite possibly one of the most beautifully unique aspects of the Christian faith, in that it is encouraged by its creator to incessantly question it and put it into practice and the truths should hold no matter the circumstances, they may not always be clearly evident, but time often shows the truth as it is.

Craig Chamberlin







Related Articles:
Bill Cosby's Philosophy Transcends Race and Gender
Individuals Should Not Take Truth at Face Value
Will "Good Men" Find Favor With God?
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
Jesus Would Have Been Against Socialism

Bill Cosby over the past years has developed a stigma from a good portion of the black community for his demanding of social responsibility. The remarks he has made in a popular article this morning, however, should not be confined to just african americans, that which he is teaching can be applied univerally. Although he illustrates beautifully how a philosophy of love and social responsibility can help to eliminate racism, it also begets a society of love and compassion - and all races and religions should embrace this notion.

"Instead of focusing on some abstract notion of equality, he argues, blacks need to cleanse their culture, embrace personal responsibility, and reclaim the traditions that fortified them in the past. Driving Cosby’s tough talk about values and responsibility is a vision starkly different from Martin Luther King’s gauzy, all-inclusive dream: it’s an America of competing powers, and a black America that is no longer content to be the weakest of the lot."

This is an applaudable notion. Cosby's arguments ought to transcent beyond that of the just Black community. It is clear that his target audience is indeed to motivate and bring a ray of light into the black community with his message, but those of us who are not african american shouldn't pass up the truths of his notion of a society with social responsibilities. What Mr. Cosby teaches here is a beautiful truth that should be embraced by all people, and in doing so all communities who follow it will be more quick and apt to embracing eachother.

The civil-rights generation is exiting the American stage—not in a haze of nostalgia but in a cloud of gloom, troubled by the persistence of racism, the apparent weaknesses of the generation following in its wake, and the seeming indifference of much of the country to black America’s fate. In that climate, Cosby’s gospel of discipline, moral reform, and self-reliance offers a way out—a promise that one need not cure America of its original sin in order to succeed. Racism may not be extinguished, but it can be beaten.

It is important for society that one of the greatest steps it can take to overcome its predjudices is by realizing that we are all one people, and through discipline, moral reform and self reliance we can find a way to overcome those prejudices by becoming an example of how people ought to be and how they ought to treat eachother. This is truly illustrative of a philosophy my generation should be seeking to follow. The philosophy of loving our neighbors is the first step in overcoming prejudices, it is a philosophy that can allow individuals to disagree lovingly.

“I don’t want to talk about hatred of these people,” he continued. “I’m talking about a time when we protected our women and protected our children. Now I got people in wheelchairs, paralyzed. A little girl in Camden, jumping rope, shot through the mouth. Grandmother saw it out the window. And people are waiting around for Jesus to come, when Jesus is already within you.”

What a beautiful statement. This does not just apply to the black community, this applies deeply to much of america today. It is almost as if a majority of us have given up the fight for a good moral foundation and a responsible society. In giving up, we wait for the end times to come, but he have forgotten to fight for love and compassion in society to alleviate the pains and sufferings so many individuals go through as a result of our apathy. As a result, those of us who are Christians, who do not take action in defending a society of moral responsibility have given up. Many times this is for very powerful reasons, as the fight gets tougher the ideas of giving up the fight become more and more simple.

We can wait for Christ to come, as Cosby says, but to do so would require us to ignore the reality that Christ is in our hearts trying to tell us to break out of our apathy so we can accomplish great things and by living through him, we can become an example of how the world ought to be by trying to live our lives with love and compassion to the best of our ability.

That night, Cosby was one of the last honorees to take the podium. He began by noting that although civil-rights activists had opened the door for black America, young people today, instead of stepping through, were stepping backward. “No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband,” he told the crowd. “No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child.”

The abolition of shame is a powerful signifier that we have began to ignore the moral condition of ourselves. If I no longer find shame in stealing, adultery or theft then my heart has no longer embraced the importance of living my life by a moral lifestyle. There is only so much that martyrs and the fighters of peace can do for us, they can only lead the way for us. The rest, however, is up to us. We need to, at that point, "take up our cross" and follow. Christ commanded "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me". This is the transcending of thought into action. Christ has lead the way for us as individuals, but we cannot fulfill the way that he made without following in his footsteps. This applies to any individual who leads the way for our society, with all the sacrifices that were made by the civil-rights movement, many have failed to follow in their footsteps.

We as a nation need to embrace eachother in loving arms, but not simply embrace it irresponsibly. We need to live our lives actively as an example of how the world ought to be, in doing so, we can transform both our lives and the lives of the people around us. Bill Cosby illustrates just how powerful actively living our lives through Christ and through social and moral responsibilty can create a more responsible and moral nation.

Craig Chamberlin





Related Articles:
Modern Man has "Educated Himself into Imbecility"
In 1980, The Self-defeating Creed of the Relativist Modern Man
In 1958, A Prestigious CBS Reporter Warned Against Inconvenience of Truth in Television
Society's Failure in Sexual Responsibility is Destroying Children

References: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/cosby