Atheism: Does It Affect the Security of the USA?
A science under God is different than a science under atheism. Because these two different sciences produce different scientific results, one wonders whether the practices of atheism are weakening the security of the USA or the security of any other godly nation
Was the USA founded as a nation under God? The founders of the USA were not ignorant on this question because they knew the status of knowledge in England and Europe in 1776. For instance, they knew that God and atheism had not been proven yet. So, to build the USA in 1776, the U.S. founders decided to build a nation under God instead of a nation under atheism. In 1776, the founders also knew that a perfect religion had not been found. So, when they built the USA, they prevented government from establishing a religion. This action was sound because a perfect religion has not been found today. So, the USA became a nation under God in 1776. It willl remain this way until atheism is proven. Today, atheism has never been proven. But today God has been proven.
Any scientist will notice how the founders made the USA a nation under God. First, they made the USA obey the social contract of John Locke. Locke’s contract has two organizations --- Society and Government. These two organizations are united by two founding documents and form a single nation named 'The United States of America.'
The Society is constructed by the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. These words made the Society ‘one People’ under God. Then, the founders made Locke's Government using the Constitution. God became functional in the USA in the Preamble of the Constitution. God becomes functional using the phrase, 'in Order to form a more perfect Union.' Science requires a standard that can measure the phenomena of everything in the universe. The phrase, 'a more perfect Union,' means that the phenomena of the Union are imperfect. The only standard for measuring the phenomena of a perfecting Union is a perfect God, who is the origin of the universe.
Many different U.S. laws can be and are violated by people. If one practices atheism today in the USA, U.S. laws will be also be violated. Since atheism has no standard to measure the perfection of the Union and atheism is not interested in perfecting the USA, won’t atheism weaken the development and security of the USA?
Was the USA founded as a nation under God? The founders of the USA were not ignorant on this question because they knew the status of knowledge in England and Europe in 1776. For instance, they knew that God and atheism had not been proven yet. So, to build the USA in 1776, the U.S. founders decided to build a nation under God instead of a nation under atheism. In 1776, the founders also knew that a perfect religion had not been found. So, when they built the USA, they prevented government from establishing a religion. This action was sound because a perfect religion has not been found today. So, the USA became a nation under God in 1776. It willl remain this way until atheism is proven. Today, atheism has never been proven. But today God has been proven.
Any scientist will notice how the founders made the USA a nation under God. First, they made the USA obey the social contract of John Locke. Locke’s contract has two organizations --- Society and Government. These two organizations are united by two founding documents and form a single nation named 'The United States of America.'
The Society is constructed by the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. These words made the Society ‘one People’ under God. Then, the founders made Locke's Government using the Constitution. God became functional in the USA in the Preamble of the Constitution. God becomes functional using the phrase, 'in Order to form a more perfect Union.' Science requires a standard that can measure the phenomena of everything in the universe. The phrase, 'a more perfect Union,' means that the phenomena of the Union are imperfect. The only standard for measuring the phenomena of a perfecting Union is a perfect God, who is the origin of the universe.
Many different U.S. laws can be and are violated by people. If one practices atheism today in the USA, U.S. laws will be also be violated. Since atheism has no standard to measure the perfection of the Union and atheism is not interested in perfecting the USA, won’t atheism weaken the development and security of the USA?
posted by George Shollenberger @ 1:31 PM
18 Comments:
At 3:02 PM,
Burt Likko said…
As an atheist and a patriot, I take offense at your remarks.
The Declaration of Independence does not reference "God." It references a "Creator" and "Nature's God" but that was not for lack of its author's understanding of Christianity. If Jefferson had intended to refer to the God worshipped by Christians, he could easily have used words like "God," "Jehovah," or "Jesus." But he used other words instead. Respectfully, I submit that you would profit from a study as to why.
The Constitution does not reference "God" at all, in any way. The closest you'll get is its reference to a common European dating system. Our social contract was made amongst ourselves. That is why the Constitution declares the government to have been created by "We the People." Jehovah is nowhere described in the Constitution as participating in the formation of our social contract.
The phrase "under God" of which you are so fond was not a part of the social or political vocabulary of the Founders. It was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, nearly two centuries after the founding of our Republic, in an effort to root out "godless" Communists.
You and I are fortunate to be citizens of a nation that has embedded religious tolerance into its foundational law. We are both free to think of one another as incorrect (and rest assured, I think you are as incorrect as you think I am; nothing I say or do will convince you that I am right and nothing you say or do will convince me that you are right).
I write to ask that you take the lesson of the very American ethic of religious tolerance to heart. To suggest that I and millions of others like me who do not believe in the supernatural are somehow a risk to our nation is not consistent with that core American ethic. Perhaps you simply have never considered the issue from that angle before; I ask that you consider the possibility that non-believing Americans can be and generally are every bit as loyal and patriotic as you.
At 10:28 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Transplanted Lawyer.
I think the founders did a great job of using words knowing that the meanings of words are precise only if they are expressing a law of the physical sciences. As you might know, in the 1920, linguists discovered that sensual data is primarily symbolic. So, the use of words in human life is tough and never exact.
I believe that most people would say than creater means a carating God and that nature's God means that nature is God's creation. But if one removes God, man is a mechanical thing that has no freedon at all. So, there is enough stuff in the Declaration of Independence to say that the founders are going to build a nation under God. So, the Declaration of Independence say nothing about religion or Christianity.
So it is very clear thAT the founders knew the most correct meaning of the word 'theology,' which is the study of God and that the word 'religion' means the practice of 'a specific theology.'
Contrary to your words that the ‘Constitution does not reference "God" at all, in any way, the Preamble of the Constitution statement ‘in Order to form a more perfect Union’ must be measured scientifically. Since all scientific measurements are made with a standard, like the meter bar in Paris is used to measure lengthy things. The standard of all things that become more perfect is God. God’s perfection was know with the writings of Anselm. Further, the phrase ‘under God’ is a scientific phrase and is applied after Copernicus, et al concluded that God does not exist among the evening stars but rather in a higher world..
I appreciate your remaining words because I was an atheist until 1979. By that time I had decided to open my scientific mind on the subject of God. As an atheist, I was wrong and wrote a book on ‘The First Scientific Proof of God.” However, I made another important fact because I found that theology and science is a single field of thought. Thus, that if theology and science are not develop as a single field of thought in the USA, the USA will degenerate scientifically and will become part of any other nation that does develop this single field of thought. So, when the founders fought against the arbitrary laws of England, their purpose was to build a godly nation by seeking the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.’ These laws are found in the Declaration of Independence.
I urge you to reconsider your current thinking.
At 9:07 AM,
Burt Likko said…
As predicted, I'm unconvinced. Your definition of the word "science" is apparently very different from mine.
At 10:49 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response tp Transplanted lawyer,
A popular modern definition of science is found in Kant and Hegel as 'the sure path of truth.' An earlier definition appeared in the Renaissance as the 'two step scientific methodwa: (1) discovery and (2) demonstration.
What is your definition?
At 11:52 AM,
Burt Likko said…
Well, there's "truth" and then there's "Truth."
I notice that while you pointed to a definition of "science" which you attributed to Kant and Hegel, you did not adopt that definition yourself. I also am very skeptical that Kant would have agreed with calling science "the sure path of truth" and I note that Hegel could not separate the phenomenal world from the ultimately noumenal act of observing it and interpreting those observations, so his "Absolute Truth" is not found in the phenomenal world at all.
Science -- the systematic observation of objective phenomena, subjected to rigorous evaluation of verifiable hypotheses -- seeks only small-t "truth." There is no "noumena" in science.
This obviously leaves you unsatisfied. Your blog is replete with disparagement of small-t "truth" as "mere mechanics." But what you call "mere mechanics" is the definitional limit of science.
What you are doing in this blog, and I suspect in your book, is seeking big-T "Truth." That's philosophy, and you have chosen the path of metaphysics to reach it (incorporating "theology" into metaphysics at times).
Metaphysics is not "science" because it does not evaluate objective phenomena. I do not claim that metaphysical philosophy lacks intellectual rigor or social utility. I say only that it is not science.
I didn't come here to have a lengthy discussion about metaphysics. I posted to object to the claim you made that atheists are definitionally a national security threat to the United States and that atheism inherently and inevitably leads to the deterioration of Constitutional values. Those statements are false, and they smack of bigotry, which is why I took offense to them. I'm happy to have clarified my thoughts for you in this exchange and thank you for your interest in them. Despite our disagreements, I wish you good luck in your quest for Truth.
At 1:59 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Transplanted Lawyer,
Your empiricism is not a science.
At 9:52 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
The comments of the person named 'Transplanted Lawyer are dishonest and typical of many other atheists who say that atheism does not affect the progress and future of the USA. The truth is that atheism can ruin the security of the USA because atheism and its materialists have no science at all.
Transplanted Lawyer wants all believers to interpret the founding documents using his meanings of the words.
Transplated Lawyer seems to be a 'physical psychologist' who believes that humans are mechanical things. This means that man does not have any freedom.
As a materialist, Transplanted Lawyer does not accept the 1920 discocery of many linguistst, who say that sensual-data are primarily symbolic. The meaning of words that humans use in their communications are thus never exact and cannot be called an lawful science like the laws of the physical sciences.
Thus, my interpretations of the founding documents are my interpretations. But my interpretations are highly scientific because I unify theology and science. I call this higher science 'theological science.'
On this website, I made 115 blogs on 'theological science' from 6/6/08 to 12/25/08.
Atheism and its interpretations of the words we use for life are false.
George
At 2:01 PM,
David S. Wilkinson said…
Why haven't you mentioned Henri St. Simone's work on scientiic theology?
At 11:48 AM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
Hey Georgie boy, I see you're still redefining words to suit your fancy.
How's that first scientific proof of god workin' out for you.
I haven't heard much about it. You'd think such a discovery would be big news. And in this age of infomation it would have spread fast.
Nope nothing.
You're still of cranky of kook.
At 7:56 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to BigDumbChimp,
Wy words do not suit my fancy. All of my words fit my work on the unification of theology and science. I do not know many person who are working on this unification.
my book has received my first 50stat book review. I expect many more after people notice that theology and science is a single field of thought.
I see that Richard Dawkins work on evolution is falling apart. And Sam Harris' new reason project was defeatted by me so badly that the four horsed of atheism had to remove my comments.
Physical psychologists have tried to sell human behaviors such as 'cranky'. But when I challenged them with real science, they left my website and never returned.
It is just a matter of time that atheism will be leaving this planet.
George
At 9:29 AM,
Burt Likko said…
But when I challenged them with real science, they left my website and never returned.
I can't speak for anyone else. But do not think for a second that you've driven me off with your "superior science." Since it is clear that there are third parties who follow this discussion, I will explain myself for their benefit. However, I will address myself to you directly, George, in the very faint hopes that doing so will help you understand what I am saying. Also since your earlier comments about me demonstrate that you have no interest in keeping the tone of our exchange respectful, I shall reciprocate.
Your statements like "empiricism is not science" and "theology and science is a single field of thought" reveal that you are operating in a world of utter and all-consuming fantasy. Out here in the real world, science is exclusively an empirical exercise. Theology is the study of the supernatural. Theology and science are fundamentally incompatible because the supernatural is by definition beyond the scope of empirical study -- it is definitionally "above nature." Any scientist who attributed theological motives to physical phenomenon would be laughed out of the academy, and rightly so, because what such a person would be doing wouldn't be science at all.
The fact that you have "made 115 blogs on 'theological science'" over the last fifteen months does no more to help your claim that "theological science" exists than if you had posted 115 blog entries on dragons, elves and fairies to prove their existence -- the superfluity of your writing does not vitiate the fact that what you have written has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. What one writes requires logical and evidentiary support to have meaning, and what you write is starkly lacking in those qualities.
You say that "I do not know many person who are working on this unification [of theology and science]" and there is a very good reason for that -- because unifying theology and science is much like trying to unify molten lead and democracy. They are fundamentally different things and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would realize that they have nothing to do with one another. You surely know the world is full of intelligent people, and the fact that none of them have joined you in this quest should tell you something.
I also didn't appreciate you putting words in my mouth about free will and then calling me a liar; I said nothing about free will. I have no idea what you mean by calling me a "physical psychologist" (other than that you sneer at such a person and I find I do not enjoy being sneered at). Attempting to figure out what this phrase means would require that I take another trip through the looking-glass into your bizarre alternative universe where words do not conform to dictionary definitions, and I simply do not care to do that any more than I already have.
To top it all off, after I pointed out that you had insulted me in the original post and we had what seemed initially to be a respectful exchange, you then reverted back to the original insult (that I am somehow a traitor to my country because I exercise my right to believe as I wish about religion) and went even further than you had gone before and calld me a liar.
So I'm not intimidated by what you have to say in the least. (Befuddled, perhaps.) Rather, I choose to avoid discussion with you in the future because our cursory exchange over the past few days has demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are incurably rude, bigoted, and so profoundly illogical that I begin to suspect that you suffer from a mental health disorder of some sort, and should consider seeking professional help. You are the author of nonsense on stilts and I see no benefit in further dialogue with you because you have nothing of intellectual value to offer.
At 11:37 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to translated Lawyer,
You say: "Out here in the real world, science is exclusively an empirical exercise. Theology is the study of the supernatural. Theology and science are fundamentally incompatible because the supernatural is by definition beyond the scope of empirical study -- it is definitionally "above nature." Any scientist who attributed theological motives to physical phenomenon would be laughed out of the academy, and rightly so, because what such a person would be doing wouldn't be science at all."
George: When I seek the origin of all finite things in the universe and use negative thinking, I am not leaving science. I use negative thinking merely to represent the origin as 'not finite', make the origin positivive by calling it 'infinite', and then define finite and infinite as logically related opposites that coexist.
Scientists do not understand that logically related opposites can coexist. Coexisting opposites actually connect God to his creation.
Scientists also do not understand that God is incomprehensible but that God can act and does not change when acting. Thus the origin of all finite things occurs only when God acts. The pair of coexisting opposites that I developed, infinite and finite, form God's intelligent design of the universe. An endless number of logically related and coexisting will be found by man forever because God and the universe form one world that has no end.
Obviously, negative thinking identifies the attributes of God. The scientific term 'infinite' is thus an attribute of God. It it is clear to me that today's science is hiding a new human sense that allows man to sense God's attributes. It is also clear that empiricism is not a science and cannot develop any reality.
I was not talking about you when I used the phrase 'physical psychologist.' These psychologists seemed to be kids who recently received a degree and knew nothing about measurement theory.
I urge you to consider my scientific proof of God.
George
At 1:22 PM,
Burt Likko said…
Let's compare George's statement of October 14, 2009: "Transplated Lawyer seems to be a 'physical psychologist' who believes that humans are mechanical things." to his statement on October 16, 2009: "I was not talking about you when I used the phrase 'physical psychologist.'"
Makes me think that Rev. BigDumbChimp has a point when he accuses George of "redefining words to suit your fancy." At minimum, we can conclude that intellectual consistency is not George's strong suit.
At 2:46 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Transplanted Lawyer,
The phrase 'seem to be a physical psychologist' and 'when I used the phrase 'physical psychological' are very different meanings.
Stop trying to say that I am redefining words to suit my fancy' My statements about God and the universe are purely scientific.
In my communications among people everyone has a style of communicating. like Jesus Christ, I must also change my style of communications from audience to audience.
Why are you not responding to mt scientific proof of God?
George
At 3:40 PM,
Burt Likko said…
Why are you not responding to mt scientific proof of God?
Because you still haven't offered any such thing.
At 5:36 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Transplanted Lawyer,
Now you are either ignorant or are not a scientist. WWhich is it?
George
At 6:16 PM,
Burt Likko said…
I reject your definition of "science" totally.
You say you have "scientific" proof of God. However, what I call science, you call "empiricism."
If you think I'm being ignorant, then please, educate me. Show me your "empirical" proof of God's existence.
At 11:29 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Transplanted Lawyer,
I am sorry. When I used the word ignorand, I forgot to tell you that you are ignorant (of the scientific method of proof). Everyone specializes and have ignorances. The English language is certainly ugly..
Your science has no laws like the laws of phtsics. Physical laws are scvientific laws that organize many precise concepts into measurable dimensions that form different equations. Many scientists say that these physical laws are still a mystery.
My theological science is developing scientific laws using coexisting opposing concepts. This science is new and is developing nicely with my 115 blogs..
Atheistic 'facts' that deal with about living things are said to be scietific. Yet these facts are primarily statictical and have never produced any laws. For this reason, these facts are not accepted by me and many other scientists.
You also seem to be ignorant about using'symbols' and how they differ from our communicating 'signals.' Did you ever study Susanne Langer of JHU?
George
Post a Comment
<< Home