Daily Archives: August 5, 2023

iStock / Getty Images Plus/mirsad sarajlic

The amount of time that atheists dedicate to God is a bewildering paradox. They write massive books. They are constantly appearing on podcasts, video blogs, and platforms to discuss God. This obsession seems unjustifiable. How can so much time be spent denying a being that doesnt exist? Couldnt that precious time be utilized for solving humanitarian crises? In 2006, an atheist published a lengthy book claiming that God is a delusion, with an arrogant comment that a religious believer who read it would become an atheist. Then in 2019, he wrote a copious guide on how to outgrow God. If God was already established as a delusion, why waste time instructing on how to outgrow Him? Perhaps G. K. Chesterton was right, If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

The atheist preoccupation with God doesnt seem to be sensible. The term atheist should be replaced by a more befitting term. God remains compelling and so atheism prefers to deny Him at every opportunity because it desires a world without Him. Its not strictly about science, reason, or evidence (I have argued this point elsewhere).

Thomas Nagel, whom I respect, desired a world without God. He expressed his honest sentiments:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isnt just that I dont believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. Its that I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want the universe to be like that. [1]

This longing might help to explain contemporary atheisms inordinate fascination with God. In other words, it experiences God as a compulsion that necessitates a reaction. The conflict is more noteworthy than how its often caricatured.

Note Michael Shermer who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, Skeptic, and a likeable person. As a teenager in the 70s, he once professed faith in Christ. In 2009, he wrote:

I have spent my entire adult life thinking about God 30 plus years cogitating on a being that may or may not even exist. Although I am no longer a believer, I still think about him more than I care to admit. Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970s, I thought that the whole issue of Gods existence or non-existence would simply fall by the way side ... And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just wont go away. [2]

If a chief skeptic has spent his entire adult life thinking about God, I believe its likewise for many atheists. God just wont go away. No, God is never going away. So the only way for atheism is to focus on ousting Him. With equal rigor, open-minded skepticism should apply its interrogating skills toward the tenets of atheism, but it prefers not to. God becomes the exclusive object of criticism, and bias restricts a path toward discovering Him.

Another atheist attempted some clever intellectual maneuvering to explain God as a natural phenomenon. In his voluminous book, Daniel Dennett identified believe in belief in God among atheists. He wrote:

People who believe in God are sure that God exists ... because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?) ... It is entirely possible to be an atheist and believe in belief in God. Such a person doesnt believe in God but nevertheless thinks that believing in God would be a wonderful state of mind to be in, if only that could be arranged. [3]

For me, these mental gymnastics could even be described as cultural theism. That is, God is acknowledged practically by atheism and its pre-determined methodology establishes a culture of denial. Or its a naturalized theism whereby God must remain within specific atheistic parameters. Regardless, God is inescapably part of atheisms experience and so the term atheist has evidently become a rigid misnomer.

Nevertheless, atheism often explains the belief in God as natures wiring of the mind, with a preposterous anecdote that humanity created Him. If so, how did nature wire some to deny that belief? Its illogical to equivocate on natures wiring and have it both ways. Moreover, how did humankind ever come to a consensus on making up God? The truth is that people concocted these naturalistic ideas of God, and atheism prefers them. Its convenient, but there remains a pesty existential conflict that seems to haunt atheism. A strictly atheistic worldview is failing in its suppression of God, and that is why cultural theism is emerging.

As a Christian, I speak for my faith and its unique Gospel message. Thus I encourage cultural theism to open up and consider the real connection to God through Christ, as multitudes have attested throughout the ages. Why not explore inner sentiments about God as emanating from Him? Some atheists reading this are probably thinking, nice try, but what about those who professed Christian faith and turned unbelievers? No person who truly comes to Christ can ever leave Him (John 10:1-18).

By the way, those books I mentioned in the intro were written by Richard Dawkins. He wrote another book in 2009 and dedicated it to Josh Timonen, his former right-hand man. Well, Timonen resigned and has professed faith in Christ. It seems that claiming God as a delusion and teaching how to outgrow Him are personal desires.

[1] The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130-31. Italics are mine.

[2] How to Think About God: Theism, Atheism, and Science, In 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why we are Atheists, Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, eds. (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 65. Italics are mine.

[3] Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 221. Italics are in the text.

Marlon De Blasio is a cultural apologist, Christian writer and author ofDiscerning Culture.He lives in Toronto with his family. Follow him atMarlonDeBlasio@Twitter

Join thousands of others to get the FREEDOM POST newsletter for free, sent twice a week from The Christian Post.

Read more:

Atheism's obsession with God: Is it 'cultural theism'? - The Christian Post

Media Contact 202-226-8467

Washington, D.C. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman Brian Mast (R-FL) sent a letter to the State Departments DRL Acting Assistant Secretary Erin Barclay and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain following numerous unanswered inquires during the 117th Congress and continued noncompliance with various document requests pertaining to the departments misguided decision to promote atheism overseas and whether this promotion is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In its June 8 letter, the Department states that DRL and the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) do[] not provide funds to any organization with the aim of using such funds to promote or advance specific religious ideologies or beliefs. This statement, however, directly contradicts the language of the NOFO itself, which makes clear that the intent of the funded programs was to expand Atheists presence and influence in the relevant countries, the lawmakers wrote. Furthermore, even a cursory look into the operations and mantra of Humanists International (HI) calls the Departments claim into question.

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Barclay and Ambassador-at-Large Hussain,

We write to once again ask why it is in Americas interest to promote Atheism overseas, and why the Department refuses to produce certain documents that shed light on that misguided decision.

Following numerous unanswered inquiries during the 117th Congress, the Committee sent letters to the Department earlier this year regarding the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Number SFOP0007977, entitled Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non-Affiliated Individuals. After nearly six months of silence, on June 8, 2023, the Department purported to explain the implementation of the NOFO but, in so doing, raised new questions. Then, on June 20, 2023, the Department finally produced a batch of documents related to the programs that were funded under the NOFO. This production, however, failed to answer many of the Committees previous questions and has brought to light additional concerns regarding the Departments grant review process.

In its June 8 letter, the Department states that DRL and the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) do[] not provide funds to any organization with the aim of using such funds to promote or advance specific religious ideologies or beliefs. This statement, however, directly contradicts the language of the NOFO itself, which makes clear that the intent of the funded programs was to expand Atheists presence and influence in the relevant countries. Furthermore, even a cursory look into the operations and mantra of Humanists International (HI) calls the Departments claim into question. On its website, HI requires all of its member organizations to pay dues and support the five objectives of HI, the first of which is The Advancement of Humanism. Thus, the implementing partner itself is publicly negating the Departments claim of neutrality, by illustrating that DRL subgrantees have sectarian objectives.

Nor may the Department evade responsibility by claiming that a constitutional analysis is unwarranted, because humanism is not synonymous with religious belief. For over half a century, the courts have considered Humanism a religion protected under the Establishment Clause, and therefore held that Humanism may not be specifically promoted using aid money from the government. At least one section of HIs Application for Federal Assistance expresses HIs intent to violate that prohibition. Under Objective 2 of its program proposal, HI states it will award sub-grants for [o]rganizing events and seminars to promote the positive aspects of humanism and other ethical non-religious worldviews . . . including Atheism. Thus, in the explicit words of the implementing partner, the goal of the Department funded program is promotion of the tenets of a single belief system.

In addition to promoting Humanism and Atheism overseas, HI also works closely with member organizations that engage in American litigation to promote Humanism domestically, often to the detriment of other religious creeds. These organizations include American Humanist Association (AHA), which shares a Washington, D.C. address with HI, and American Atheists. Far from advancing religious freedom, AHA often takes actions which are antithetical to the idea of religious freedom. HIs close association with AHA speaks volumes about the true objectives of HI, and should be of grave concern to the Department.

The awarding of the DRL NOFO to HI reveals major flaws in the Departments screening process for potential constitutional violations. The Department states that Establishment Clause concerns may be raised both prior to the issuance of a grant agreement and during the implementation phase of the grant. Evidently, though, no such concerns were raised regarding HIs program proposal, leaving us perplexed.

The Departments efforts to combat religious persecution abroad do not entitle the Department to promote particular religions using taxpayer funds.

With these concerns in mind, we ask you to address the following questions and comply with the following document requests:

Thank you for your assistance with this request for further information. We also reiterate our expectation for agency officials previously identified to sit for transcribed interviews and reserve the right use compulsory process in the event they fail to appear voluntarily. We look forward to your prompt reply.

###

More here:

McCaul, Smith, Mast Demand Answers From State on Grants ... - House GOP Foreign Affairs Committee

Till The Dirt, the new band headed up by Atheist frontman Kelly Shaefer, is now streaming their new single "Starring Role". And if you're wondering why the production sounds so damn heavy, it's because Till The Dirt brought legendary death metal producer Scott Burns out of retirement for the project.

"'Starring Role' is the first track on the album," said Shaefer. "It's a song that ranks among my favorites on the record, and also a favorite of producer Scott Burns. It's a straight up ripper! It encompasses all of the unique hybrid qualities of this whole album. Lyrically it is a song about the oddness of dreams and the role we sometimes do not seem to play, or understand as we awake from them. This is a perfect banger for cranking loud, and driving at high speeds!"

Till The Dirt will release their debut album Outside The Spiral on August 25. Pre-orders are available here.

Enter your information below to get a daily update with all of our headlines and receive The Orchard Metal newsletter.

The rest is here:

TILL THE DIRT (ATHEIST) Streams New Single "Starring Role" - Metal Injection

Henri de Lubac distilled Dostoevskys importance to our own times: Yes, Dostoevsky was a prophet: because he not only revealed to man the depths that are in him but opened up fresh ones for him, giving him, as it were, a new dimension; because, in this way, he foreshadowed a new state of humanity.

For the past three months or so, Ive been discussing The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri de Lubac during the weekly sessions of the FORMED Book Club. Along with my co-hosts, Father Fessio and Vivian Dudro of Ignatius Press, weve been engaging with the insightful brilliance of the Jesuit theologian and philosopher as he grapples with the minds of four great atheist philosophers, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Auguste Comte. There is so much that I could say about de Lubacs penetrative analysis of the ideas of these four men, each of whom has profoundly influenced the secular humanist culture in which we find ourselves, but Id like to focus instead on de Lubacs discussion of the great Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky.

The third part of de Lubacs book, entitled Dostoevsky as Prophet, examines how Dostoevskys novels serve as a response to the atheist humanism of his times and as a prophecy of the rise of Nietzscheanism and its consequences, as well as serving as the antidote to Nietzsches poison.

Beginning with a summary of the common misreadings of Dostoevskys work, de Lubac suggests that, even when Dostoevsky stands revealed as a genius, he has not yet been understood. Whereas his critics flounder in the shallows of perception, Dostoevsky dives and delves into the spiritual depths. He explores an entirely different domain to that of the atheists who remain trapped within either the confines and constraints of mere matter or the confines and constraints of the subjective egocentric self, both of which deny the existence of the spirit or the spiritual. Endeavouring to fathom the domain of the spirit, Dostoevsky looks into and through a formidable unconscious in order to catch a glimpse of a mysterious beyond. Nowhere is this made manifest more evidently, de Lubac writes, than in Notes from Underground:

In it, Dostoevsky declares some of the most exalted truths of any of his writings through the spokesman of a miserable and abject failure who explores the lower depths of his nature with cynicism. Dostoevskys underground represents both the hidden world of the subconscious and the sacred cave in which the prophetic voice is raised.

Through such an approach, De Lubac insists, Dostoevsky compels us to follow him in uncovering the spiritual depths of being. In order to buttress his insistence on the primacy of the spiritual in Dostoevskys work, de Lubac then quotes Dostoevsky directly. They call me a psychologist, Dostoevsky wrote, but it is not true: I am a realist in the highest sense of the term; that is to say, I show the depths of the human soul. In making such a distinction between the quasi-scientific psyche and the spiritual reality of the human soul, Dostoevsky was showing himself to be, in his own way, a metaphysician. Once this is understood, we can understand his novels as invitations to the spiritual adventure to which he summons us. In this light, we might be reminded of the words of G. K. Chesterton. An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered, Chesterton wrote. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. Although the juxtaposition of Chestertons paradoxical wit and whimsy might seem to sit a little uncomfortably beside Dostoevskys dark and doom-laden novels, if we see inconvenience as a soft euphemism for suffering, we can see that the Russians spiritual adventures are informed by this Chestertonian understanding of the connection between suffering and the adventure of life. An adventure is only suffering rightly considered, Dostoevsky might say of his own work. It is not the suffering itself that purifies or crushes the soul but our response to it.

Perhaps the greatest proof of Dostoevskys stature as a genius is his enduring relevance and perhaps perennial pertinence. As the years go by, Dostoevsky grows in stature, de Lubac writes. The novelist no longer seems merely a psychologist and a metaphysician; he has the look of a prophet. Like Shakespeare (and misquoting Jonson), Dostoevsky is not of an age but for all ages.

We will conclude this brief appraisal of Dostoevskys stature as a prophet with Henri de Lubacs distillation of Dostoevskys importance to our own times:

Yes, Dostoevsky was a prophet: because he not only revealed to man the depths that are in him but opened up fresh ones for him, giving him, as it were, a new dimension; because, in this way, he foreshadowed a new state of humanity (that is to say, he heralded it by giving a preview of it); because in him the crisis of our modern world was concentrated into a spearhead and reduced to its quintessence; and because there is the vital adumbration of a solution there, a light-fringed cloud for our present journey through the wilderness.

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politicswe approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image is Portrait of Fedor Dostoyevsky (1872) by Vasily Perov, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

See the article here:

Dostoevsky the Prophet - The Imaginative Conservative

When it comes to transgender thought, even famed atheist Richard Dawkins has questions.

The evolutionary biologist said on a recent episode of his podcast, The Poetry of Reality, that its distinctly weird and an odd distortion of reality to believe there are more than two sexes.

Sex really is binary, Dawkins said during his conversation with journalist Helen Joyce. Theres no question about it. Youre either male or female. And its absolutely clear.

You can do it on gamete size; you can do it on chromosomes, he continued. To me, as a biologist, [its] distinctly weird. People can simply declare, I am a woman, though I have a penis. Helen, what do you think lies behind this odd distortion of reality?

Joyce, for her part, responded by noting how protected the topic of transgenderism has become pointing to the fact that asking basic questions is often dismissed as hate speech.

Listen to the latest episode of CBNs Quick Start podcast:

[J]ust asking very obvious questions like, Dont you think that if we allow people to self-identify their sex this will lead to, for example, destroying womens sports or putting rapists in womens jails? People would turn this back on me and say, You think that trans people are predators? Youre a bigot,' she said.

Joyce agreed with Dawkins assessment, arguing men identifying as women and vice-versa is in-name-only and not in any way rooted in science or biological reality.

There isnt a sense in which a man can become a woman, except linguistically, she said. I guess, OK, he can have operations. Most trans people dont have any operations, dont take any medicine, but that doesnt change your sex.

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series,has made similar commentsin the past.

In the summer of 2020, Rowling wrote it isnt hate speech to speak the truth about biology and the reality that there are only two sexes: male and female.

[E]rasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives, she wrote.

The famed authorhas also acknowledgedthe intellectual contradictions that undergird transgender thought, specifically wondering how according to leftist ideology the following concepts can both be true: (1) There is no sex and gender binary and (2) someone can be born into the wrong one of two sexes.

The contradictions drive me crazy, she said in December. Were simultaneously told gender is innate and inborn, and that its a choice, a performance. All of these things cannot be true. If its a choice, then, clearly, its not innate.

In the spring of this year, Dawkins spoke out in support of Rowling.

[W]eve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, he said. [She] stood up to it, but its very upsetting that this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse and to really talk errant nonsense.

***As the number of voices facing big-tech censorship continues to grow, please sign up forFaithwires daily newsletterand download theCBN News app, to stay up-to-date with the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Excerpt from:

'Sex Really Is Binary': Even Atheist Biologist Richard Dawkins Is ... - CBN.com

Some teenagers and young adults jumped at the chance to attend World Youth Day in Portugal for the excitement and experience of being abroad. Others described an interior restlessness that drew them to Lisbon.

"God has just been speaking to each of us in our hearts," Natalie Lucey, an Arizona resident, said as she walked toward Lisbon's Eduardo VII Park, where an estimated half-million people gathered Aug. 3 to greet Pope Francis for World Youth Day's official welcome ceremony.

An American flag draped around her shoulders, Lucey and an international group of 150 people walked together up a cordoned-off avenue leading to the park, where security guards and volunteers guided them to spaces where they could congregate.

For Lucey, 32, it was her second World Youth Day; she attended the festival in 2016 when Poland hosted the event. Lucey told NCR a friend's invitation was the impetus she needed to attend World Youth Day this year.

"And the graces I've received from doing that have been unbelievable," she said.

The national flags of all the pilgrim groups that greeted Francis spoke to the diversity that World Youth Days attract. Young people from North America, Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand all gathered in the park, exchanging friendly nods and smiles if they were unable to find a common language.

"This is a global event of all the youth. There are so many youth from all over the world," Rafael Zorita, 17, of Mexico told NCR in Spanish. As a Catholic, Zorita said he wanted to be at World Youth Day, though he added that the gathering is open to everybody.

"What I like the most is that the pope said that God calls each person by name," Zorita said. "For example, there are people from Uruguay, China, Japan, [Korea]. It is kind of amazing because God is connecting so many people."

About 100 feet from Zorita, who wore a black sombrero and a white T-shirt autographed by other pilgrims, a group of students from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh camped out by a tree. They noticed a reporter's Boston Red Sox hat and said hello.

"Just being with thousands and thousands of other Catholics, it's an amazing experience. To see all these different cultures but to still all be united in our faith," said Hannah Valenty, 21, a physics major who said she had not traveled outside of the United States until arriving in Portugal.

"And Pope Francis is awesome," Valenty added. "I just want to see him too."

Valenty's fellow Duquesne students, Emma Polen, Kate Spadavecchia, and Gwendolyn Sobkowiak, nodded in agreement. They complimented the hospitality of their host nation, adding that even grocery store clerks had shown them unexpected kindness.

"Everyone has just been so kind and patient, and just respectful, even if we don't speak Portuguese. They're very open to helping us out," said Sobkowiak, who is a Quaker but added that she was enjoying the Catholic youth festival.

Also at Eduardo VII Park, 17-year-old Joao Paulo Rodrigues of Lisbon told NCR in his native Portuguese language that he was moved by the encounters with people his age from all over the world.

"It's an opportunity to speak with others, to exchange experiences, to share stories, and to make friendships," said Rodrigues, who added that he is inspired to live his life as a Catholic "with intensity."

"If I were an atheist, I'd be an intense atheist," he said. "Being Catholic, I'm Catholic at heart. And for this reason, I have to always live with Christ in my day-to-day life."

Other young Catholics at Eduardo VII Park did not describe having as strong a religious instinct or devotion.

For young pilgrims like Jason David Silva-Lopez his brother, Mark Alexis, both from Montreal, World Youth Day felt more like the beginning of a journey of discovering what the Catholic faith will mean to them in life.

"I really want to go deeper into my roots," said Silva-Lopez, who added that the diversity of life he had already experienced at World Youth Day had convinced him of the need to build bridges between cultures.

"You need to accept everyone, whether or not their religion is the same as yours," he said. "Just embrace them. Just because someone has a different religion, it doesn't mean they're as different from you as you think they are."

See the original post:

Sombreros, baseball caps and new friendships: Vignettes from ... - National Catholic Reporter