Category Archives: Atheist

Strange as it may sound, it can be a surprisingly difficult task to determine what the difference between being a theist and an atheist really amounts to. The difficulty comes in when one considers the terms in question. To be a theist is to believe in God, and to be an atheist is not to believe in God. The atheist, having rejected God, normally commits themself to the belief that the ultimate principle and cause of the world and everything in it is nature; but what do the respective terms God and nature really mean? Coming up with joint, non-overlapping definitions is surprisingly difficult. In the theologies of several religions (certainly of traditional Christianity and Judaism), the inherent definition of Gods nature is inaccessible to the human mind. The Divine mystery, it is claimed, is simply beyond us, and admits no definition in terms of ordinary language. True, God is described in these religions as all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful etc., butas Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas or Jewish theologians like Moses Maimonides would saythese terms cannot be said of God in the same way that they are said of human beings. Instead, these properties apply only analogously to God: their meaning when attributed to God shares some sense with their meanings when applied to worldly beings, but the valence changes enough so that the ultimate meanings of the language become mysterious to us.

Philosophers deal with a similar difficulty in trying to describe nature. None of our ordinary definitions of what makes a phenomenon natural rather than supernatural truly fit. Nature evades all of our attempts of understanding in common-sensical language; only the abstracta of mathematics give us any bearing of natures patterns and movements at the highest level of physics (or so my scientist friends tell me), and even then our grasp is multivalent and tenuous. God and Nature: they are both illimitable mysteries to us, so how can we possibly tell the difference between them?

Perhaps I have been somewhat overstating the difficulty. Certainly there are several things that can be uncontroversially ascribed to God that cannot be said of nature. Nature is not, for instance, omni-benevolent as theologians say God is, nor does it have the specifically divine power of bringing something out of nothing (I wanted to say as well that nature lacks an intellect or will as God does, but because there are always panpsychist naturalists among us, so I am cautious of making such a claim). But there is one trait in particular that I want to focus on: one vital trait that belongs specifically to Godor, at least, to an en-Godded worldthat would not apply to a naturalist world whatsoever: that is, universal explanation.

For the theist, everything in the world has a sufficient explanation. Pick any state of affairs in the universe you please; if you ask the question why does this thing exist in the way it does you can always expectwith the proper scrutiny and patienceto find an answer to the question. Why is the oven warm? Because I was baking a pizza; why were you baking a pizza? Because I was hungry; why were you hungry? Because I hadnt eaten, and hunger kicks in when the human body hasnt taken in enough food; but why does hunger begin when the human body hasnt taken in enough food? And so on, and so on. Every question has an answer behind it, and seemingly every answer can (at least on some level) be met with another question about how it comes to be true. But can this line of question and answer go on infinitely? For the theist, the answer is a decisive no. God, as the sole creator and principle of the Universe, is the ultimate explanation for each individual link in the whole chain of question-and-answer: God is the ultimate explanation, and the ultimate terminus of inquiry. But what about God Himself? Why does God exist? The answer to this question signals one of the main differences between the atheistic world-view and the theistic world-view. For the traditional theist, God explains His own existence. The definition of Gods nature encompasses and necessitates the fact of Gods own existenceGod, in other words, cant not exist: His nature explains His existence.

The same cannot be said about nature. The naturalist may say that everything can be explained with reference to the laws of nature, but do the laws themselves have a reason to exist? If they are nothing but physical events, how could they? A physical event might be physically necessary, but to be ontologically necessary (i.e. to be necessary in Being) belongs to a mode of being which transcends our way of thinking about physical things altogethera way of thinking, so the theologians claim, that is appropriate for God only, and not for the various beings of the natural world. If the existence of the laws of nature is invoked as the ultimate fact that explains all other facts, it is an unexplained, ungrounded facta brute fact as philosophers say, a fact which has no more reason for being true than for being false. The theists world-view does not countenance such a possibility. God, for the theist, is not a brute fact: He is self explanatory in His essence. In attempting to explain the existence of the world, atheism cuts the lines of inquiry short at some random event in nature (the big bang for instance), whose status as the beginning-point of nature is an unexplained brute fact. But the theistin saying that God is the explanation for Himself and for everything elsesays that reality is explainable all the way through without remainder. Everything is accounted for, everything makes sense; if only we had the minds to see it.

Image: Lake Chateaugay (photo by author)

Read more from the original source:

God and Nature: What is the difference - The Bubble

My first two critiques (here and here) of Hazonys work were focused on his definitions of liberal and conservative, and his arguments regarding philosophy and economics. In this last critique, I focus on his claims about the necessity of religion as a center for a conservative worldview, as he defines it.

Overall, Hazonys work is at its weakest when he gets into the topic of religion. He is adamant that religious observance is necessary to the healthy functioning of a society, and this necessity is supported by conservatism but undermined by liberalism. And his eagerness to argue this point seems to lead to odd lapses in logic. For example, he tells us that when the Enlightenment philosopher Grotius published the first edition of his On the Law of War and Peace in 1625, he made the mistake of admitting in print that his system would hold true even if there is no God and that by saying this, the fundamental incompatibility of Enlightenment rationalism with the God of Scripture had been made plain. But this makes no sense. Saying that something is and would be true independent of Gods existence in no way implies that its truth is therefore incompatible with Gods existence. Those are very different ideas, yet Hazony is treating them as if they meant the same thing.

But rushing ahead, Hazony assures the reader that a political theory in the conservative tradition cannot be made to work without the God of Scripture. Luckily for the prospects of conservative political theory, his argument for this is extremely weak. He goes on to say, Conservatives understand that all human perspectives are limited and local. But at the same time, conservatives recognize that some perspectives are truer than others, and that we can advance toward ideas and principles that better grasp reality in the political and moral domain. Presumably he thinks this is a point of view that is and can only be held by religious conservatives, but that is plainly false. Nothing about being an atheist entails rejecting the idea that humans have limited perspective, for example atheism does not somehow entail a belief in human omniscience or perfectibility. Nor does atheism entail moral antirealism many atheists are also moral realists who believe we have limited and imperfect but real understandings of morality, and that these understandings can be improved upon even though not perfected. Hazony ignores this and attempts to bolster his argument by just asserting a false dichotomy, saying This is the difference between a relativist theory and a conservative one: The relativist sees in politics and morals a realm in which an endless variety of perspectives compete with one another for power without striving to attain what is true, and without anything being right in Gods eyes. But Hazony offers no non-question-begging reason to believe these are the only options.

Suppose Im an atheist who believes the following ideas: I believe that our ideas of social and political order should be grounded in what experience shows actually works. I believe that the human mind is a limited tool, and that what has been shown to work through accumulated experience is a better guide to action than what people can reason through on their own. I believe life is complicated, far too complicated to grasp directly, and grandiose visions to rebuild the social order are doomed to fail because they will be inevitably built on a hopelessly palsied understanding of reality. And because of this, I believe that longstanding social institutions should hold a strong presumption in favor of being upheld, and that its foolish to assume they are useless simply because you, personally, dont see the point of them. (In fact, this is a pretty accurate description of who I am) Now, if someone attempted to convince me I was wrong about all these ideas by saying You may think that, but actually, the God of Scripture doesnt exist, so nothing you just said is true! I would be at most amused by this non sequitur. I certainly wouldnt think that any of the ideas I described had been rebutted, or even engaged.

If the limitations of the human mind make it too feeble an instrument to design a stable and enduring social order through pure reason, then that fact alone would fully explain why attempts to do such a thing would fail. But Hazony claims that such failures actually show God is acting behind the scenes as a countervailing force which stops every scheme of ideas, and every principle, from expanding infinitely outward until it has subjected all things to its rule. The God of Scripture circumscribes all human things, reducing them to their true proportions. This is explanatorily redundant. If a task is beyond the scope of the human mind, thats enough to explain why attempting that task would fail. Nothing extra is explained by saying such failures are also God keeping humans in check, and nothing about believing some tasks are beyond the scope of the human mind requires believing that a God exists.

Hazony goes on to say: Remove him from your thoughts, and your own scheme of ideas, which is local and incomplete, will begin to expand, overrunning its true boundaries. But he doesnt support this through anything beyond mere assertion. He makes no attempt to show this must be true from experience. Like the Enlightenment thinkers he criticizes, Hazony asserts this as though it were an axiomatic, self-evident truth. But experience does not bear him out on this point, as there are many thinkers whose worldviews are deeply rooted in religion who are also philosophical rationalists, and there are many secular thinkers whose worldview is equally deeply rooted in empiricism, the importance of experience over abstract reason, and an awareness of the limitations of the human mind.

Hazony is very fond of using blindness as a description for his ideological opponents. Its never the case that someone who disagrees with him might understand his argument but be unconvinced by it he repeatedly insists they are blind to the reality he describes. Thus, its not the case that liberals understand but disagree with conservatives on nationalism instead, the liberal paradigm is blind to the nation. Its not that liberals might understand but disagree with conservative perspective, its that liberals have been educated in such a way as to leave them blind to the importance of these things. Hazony seems to think his perspective is so self-evidently true that its impossible to see it but not share it if you dont accept his ideas, you must therefore be blind to them.

To be fair, Hazony doesnt think this is an exclusive description of liberals so much as an inevitable side effect of using political paradigms. He says when an important concept or idea has been left out of a political paradigm, those who rely on this paradigm will be blind to political objects of the kind this concept is meant to identify. They will neither see them nor understand their role in the political domain. So, in principle, this should also hold true of people whose worldview is shaped by a conservative paradigm. Yet Hazony show remarkably little curiosity about where his own paradigm might leave him blind, and what he might fail to see or understand as a result. I suspect Hazonys worldview is so deeply embedded with the idea of the Biblical God that he cant comprehend that there are worldviews out there not rooted in his religion that also embrace historical empiricism and epistemic humility, uphold traditions and inherited institutions, and reject moral antirealism. A possible unintended consequence of Hazonys book may be to further fracture the conservative movement by alienating such secular conservatives rather than make a common cause with them, by insisting they cannot be true members of the conservative moment or opponents of rationalist political theory unless they also happen to embrace the Abrahamic God he believes in.

And that would be unfortunate, because despite the many quibbles and criticisms I have laid out here, I think Hazony has written an excellent and thought-provoking book. On many points I agree with what he says, and I think he offers strong arguments for many of his views I dont share. While I find much to disagree with in Hazonys book, there is also much to agree with and to learn from. The good points Hazony makes in his book remain good points independent of his religious doctrine, even if he doesnt see it that way. And thats enough for me, even if it falls short for him.

See the rest here:

Critiquing Hazony - On Religion and Rationalism - Econlib

Macbeth loses his head and soul in the unknowing clouds of his own sin-deceived ego. So does Nietzsche. Far from seeing life as a quest for truth, they are left with nothing but their own bitter inquest on life, signifying nothing. This is the deepest consequence of their rejection of faith and reason.

Ive recently enjoyed six months of discussions on Henri de Lubacs masterpiece, The Drama of Atheist Humanism, with Father Fessio and Vivian Dudro as part of our ongoing series of book discussions for the FORMED Book Club. One of the things that puzzled us was the choice of title. Why would de Lubac frame his study of the ideas of the major atheist philosophers of the nineteenth century as a drama? The answer to this puzzling question didnt fully emerge until the final part of the book in which de Lubac dissects the decline and fall of Friedrich Nietzsche. It was only at this point that the history of humanism in the nineteenth century is revealed as darkly comic and deeply tragic, culminating in a providentially ironic denouement of such dramatic power that it could be seen as a delightfully grotesque tragicomedy.

The drama that de Lubac narrates was such that it seemed to be worthy of the stage but then, as Shakespeare reminds us, the world is a stage and all the men and women of history merely players on times stage. It is, therefore, appropriate to see the striking parallels between the real-life factual character of Friedrich Nietzsche and the larger-then-life fictional character of Macbeth who prefigures Nietzsche in his manic pursuit of self-empowerment in defiance of reason.

Like his tragic Shakespearean forerunner, Nietzsche begins by abandoning reason in pursuit of power. From the very outset, his denial of the existence of God had nothing to do with any rational process of thought: Atheism, is not, for me, the consequence of something else in my case it is something that goes without saying, a matter of instinct. In similar vein, his rejection of Christianity had nothing to do with any rational process of thought and everything to do with pride and its prejudices: [I]t is our preference that decides against Christianity not arguments.

If Nietzsches atheism and anti-Christianity is irrational, there is nonetheless a reason for it, a rationale for his irrationality. The man who refuses to subject himself to reason is freed from the rational constraints that reason imposes. He is the freed man, liberated by the will to power (der Wille zur Macht), who can do what he likes and to whom nothing is now forbidden. The rule of reason, this last bondage, must be cast off. [W]e have abolished the world of truth, Nietzsche proclaimed; nothing is true.

The consequences of such abandonment of reason to the appetite for self-empowerment was obvious enough, even to Nietzsche. The philosopher, he wrote, is a terrible explosive from which nothing is safe.

This being so, de Lubac comments, it was not surprising that the drama that had taken shape in human minds quickly reached the point at which it burst forth in fire and slaughter.

Ironically, Nietzsche would have agreed with de Lubac. I herald the coming of a tragic era, he said, assuming the role of a self-proclaimed prophet of doom. We must be prepared for a long succession of demolitions, devastations and upheavals. [T]here will be wars such as the world has never yet seen. Europe will soon be enveloped in darkness. These words, written at the end of the nineteenth century, would prove to be truly prophetic of the new century about to be born. Europe would soon be enveloped in darkness. It would suffer two wars such as the world had never yet seen, with weapons of mass destruction, produced by those serving the will to power, beyond the imagination of more primitive peoples.

As for who would be to blame for such destruction, Nietzsche claimed that he would himself be responsible for it. Thanks to me, he wrote, a catastrophe is at hand.

His words were true enough, even though others would share the blame, including Comte and Marx, both of whom played leading roles in the drama of atheist humanism which de Lubac recounts.

As for Nietzsche, his ideas would prove not merely destructive but self-destructive. There is more than a suggestion, for instance, that he had ceased to believe his own philosophy and that the living of the lie might have contributed to his final descent into madness. I must persist in my dream under pain of perishing, he wrote. De Lubac is masterful in teasing out the psychological consequences of Nietzsches refusal to confess the lie that he was living: He who smelled out so subtly and flogged so harshly the unconscious hypocrisies of others, he it is who has become in the final analysis, not a masked man, but the man of the mask, almost, as it were, a theoretician of the self-indulgent, obstinate illusion, an adorer of a fiction that he knows quite well in the depths of his heart to be a fiction.

De Lubacs reading of Nietzsches self-deception is borne out by the words that Nietzsche puts in the mouth of his alter ego, Zarathustra: In truth, I advise you, get far away from me, defend yourself against Zarathustra! Better still, be ashamed of him. Perhaps he has deceived you. Or, as de Lubac suggests, perhaps he had deceived himself.

As early as 1883, long before the onset of madness, Nietzsche confessed to being on the brink of suicidal despair: I will not hide it from you, he wrote to a friend. Things are going very badly. Night overwhelms me more and more. I believe that I am walking ineluctably to my ruin. The barrel of a gun is now a source of relatively pleasant reflections for me. A month later, he wrote that he was no longer interested in anything: At the very depths of my being, a black and immutable melancholy. The worst is that I no longer understand at all to what purpose I should continue to live, be this only for six months ahead. Everything seems wearisome, painful, disgusting to me. Considering that Nietzsches whole philosophy is rooted in radical egocentrism, with the self as the centre of its self-empowered cosmos, it is the very self who is everything. Since this is so, the wearisome painful everything that is disgusting to Nietzsche must ultimately be a radical self-disgust.

We will conclude our survey of Nietzsches decline and fall in the company of his alter ego, not Zarathustra but Macbeth.

Having accepted the lie of the wyrd sisters that fair is foul, and foul is fair, Macbeth seeks to go boldly beyond good and evil blazing a self-delusional trail that Nietzsche would discover and follow almost three centuries later. Having chosen power over reason, Macbeth will live increasingly in the narrow and narrowing confines of his own head, making himself the centre of his own contracted and constricted cosmos. As he speaks to himself in secret, divorcing himself from others, his subjective perception supersedes objective reality. His decay is, therefore, as much a decay of philosophy as it is a decay of morality. The more he thinks of himself, the less he thinks of others, and the less he thinks of others, the less he thinks of the Other, i.e. the truth that transcends the self. The result is that his first thought of murder coincides with the murder of thought:

My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,

Shakes so my single state of man

That function is smothered in surmise,

And nothing is but what is not. (1.3.138-141)

As Macbeths pride takes pride of place on the throne of his soul, he begins to lose his sense of reality. Sin smothers reason so that the normal function of a mans mind, which is to seek and find the truth, is smothered in surmise until nothing is but what is not. Thus, Macbeths nihilism, which will come to bitter and futile fruition in the final act with his dismissal of life as a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing, is seen to have its roots in the plays opening act with his turning away from fides et ratio towards infidelity and irrationality.

When we see Nietzsche in the light or the shadow of Macbeth, we see him as a disciple of his great fictional forerunner. Long before there was the madness of Nietzsche, there was the madness of Macbeth.

Macbeth loses his head and soul in the unknowing clouds of his own sin-deceived ego. So does Nietzsche. Far from seeing life as a quest for truth, they are left with nothing but their own bitter inquest on life, signifying nothing. This is the deepest consequence of their rejection of faith and reason. In losing sight of the significance of others, or the Other, they lose sight of the significance of everything else. In choosing themselves above others, they are not even left with themselves. They lose everything, perhaps even their own souls. They are left with the nothing which is nothing else but the real absence of the good that they have rejected, the ultimate annihilation to which nihilism points.

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 a painting by Charles A. Buchel of Herbert Beerbohm Tree (18521917) as Macbeth in Macbeth by William Shakespeare. This file is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

See the original post:

Macbeth Revisited: The Decline & Fall of Friedrich Nietzsche - The Imaginative Conservative

The The Fine-Tuning Problem theory posits that even if one thing went different in the creation of the universe, nothing would exist.

If you follow physics, you have heard about the hypothesis that there are multiverses multiple universes. But its unlikely you know the origin of this belief. Bobby Azarian provided the answer in his book, The Romance of Reality. Azarian is a science journalist with a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience from George Mason University in northern Virginia.

According to Azarian, cosmologists discovered that if the value of a certain parameter of our universe, like the strength of the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic force, or the speed of light, were altered only slightly, we would not just have a universe with no life, wed likely have a universe with no planets or stars or physical objects either . Azarian calls this The Fine-Tuning Problem.

Stephen Hawking noted The remarkable fact is that there that the values of these numbers seem to have very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life .

Daniel Dennett, a highly respected atheist and skeptic quoted in Darwins Dangerous Idea:

If we change any of these values by the tiniest amount, we thereby posit a universe in which none of this could have happened, and indeed which apparently nothing life-like could ever have emerged: no planets, no atmospheres, no solids at all, no elements except hydrogen and helium, or maybe not even thatjust some boring plasmas of hot, undifferentiated stuff, or an equally boring nothingness. So isnt it a wonderful fact that the laws are just right for us to exist?

This Fine-Tuning Problem reopened the debate about a cosmic designer to the dismay of many atheists. In this case,[according to Azarian] that designer must be the god of deism God was the great watchmaker (a big metaphor of 18th century philosophers and scientists) who created the universe wound it up, and then left it alone for humans to discover. This stance should not be confused with the intelligent design movement because an intelligent creator, designer, or programmer that doesnt intervene is consistent with science .

But, If our universe is the only universe in reality, it would be extremely improbable to find ourselves in a fine-tuned cosmos by chance.

Azarian goes on: But If you dont assume that our universe is the only one in existence, the fine-tuning problem seems to disappear . In other words, some scientists and philosophers created the belief in an infinite number of universes because they opposed the idea that there was a creator.

This position, popular with atheists, reduces lifes significance once again and restores the idea that reality in its totality is purposeless and mostly, if not entirely, meaningless. Today, many leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists support the idea of a cosmological multiverse, despite an inability to test the theory empirically [emphasis mine] (263).

Scientific proof is based upon the concept of falsifiability. According to explorable.com: Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory .

The hypothesis that multiverses exist can neither be proved or disproved. Therefore, according the above definition, it should have no credence. But this is not the case. Why not? The obvious answer is that there are many scientists and philosophers who dont want to believe there might be a creatoreven if it is a deist creator who created life as we know it on earth and then left it to humans to tend.

Another scientific theory called Occams Razor teaches us that The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred . The simplest explanation for why life exists on earth today is because there was a creator who made it.

Now you know why and how the belief in multiverses came into existence. Now you know the rest of the story. The implications are enormous for all of us.

Originally posted here:

Occam's Razor: There is a Creator | In Focus | Courier-Herald - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Published 6:38 am Wednesday, November 29, 2023

By Steve Stricker Columnist

Thanksgiving to Christmas, 32 days, The Miracle Zone! Thanksgiving, pure holiday humbly thankful for what the Lord has given us. gathering with family or being alone and okay. Then, paradigm shift of gears (manual transmission), 3rd, 4th into 5th and wild dash to wonderful, magical, miraculous, electricity in the air Christmas.

One of my favorite TV shows on CBS from October 2, to June 19, 1964 watched on our home black and white TV, was The Twilight Zone by Rod Serling. Rather difficult to explain this show, other than Serling had to be eating weird mushrooms as he wrote each episodeI loved it as one could never fathom the bizarre outcome.

The same is true of the Miracle Zone, but youve got to believe in God if you believe no explanation is necessary if you dont believe, no explanation is possible. A miracle has no secular, or medical explanation and no logical explanation. It cannot be made clear to a non-believer and even to a believer seems like eating those weird mushrooms hard to explain to oneself! Miracles are meant to prove Gods revelation and must be marked with a divine character that can be sensed, and even those ignorant will realize its authenticity. Such as at Lourdes, France or Oxford, Mississippi.

If a non-believer and something awesome happens that cant be explained, it could just be a coincidence and it could be God trying to get their attention. The miracles in my life are always accompanied by my prayers, be it surviving so many deadly situations in Vietnam, many incidents after, life saved days after saying a nine-day novena, engagement to a professed atheist broken (whew), finding something important lost after praying to St. Anthony (never lets me down), or my mechanic mentor, buddy the Holy Spirit allowing me to solve a difficult problem that I prayed to him for, or putting words in my mouth that didnt come from my wee brain.

Christmas, the miraculous birth of our Lord, is above all other times of the year THE time of miracles and I always look for a BIG one! Looking hard now. Truthfully, Im a basket case and look for a miracle every minute of every day and get them!

There are many wonderful characters in the history of wonderful Oxford and I am not of one of them, just a weird guy devoted to God, misunderstood, lives alone with that cat, Jag who goes to sleep when I try to talk to him, extremely introverted, sailed through distance respected COVID19, okay being alone on Thanksgiving eating deviled eggs from Kroger, brief contact with my church friends at daily Mass, little connection with my biological family because I am not going to travel due to physical issues, totally uncomfortable in groups requiring small talk result of perhaps pulling way into myself returning from Vietnam, working with way too many shallow people interested in only themselves, being retired, dont have to do anything and secure enough with who I am to not care.

And after wearing a coat and tie for over 21 years every day, I work at dressing down T-shirt, jeans, light Ole Miss windbreaker. Result Miracle Zone my friends are my very dear true friends along with my oldest son Stephen, my cat Jag, who accept me for who I am and are the most important people in my life and are THE miracle in my life!

Steve Stricker received his Ph.D. in Counselor Education from Ole Miss. He can be reached at, sstricker@olemiss.edu.

Read more here:

We've officially entered the Miracle Zone - The Oxford Eagle - Oxford Eagle

Sometimes to go forwards, you take two steps backwards to re-discover what made you successful. This is exactly what Muse have done with their latest album, Absolution XX, which is a 20th anniversary remix of their 2003 album, Absolution.

The album features the same track listings as its original album, with the Japanese bonus track, titled Fury added as a base track, something that Im very happy about, as it is an amazing song and one that us UK listeners missed out on, during the albums original release on the 15thSeptember 2003.

Not only this, but all the songs have been remastered using modern technology and some songs have been changed, with some songs appearing as extras with demos, live performances and stripped audio, songs like Apocalypse Please, Butterflies and Hurricanes with Ruled By Secrecy are vocals and keyboard only, adding an extra layer of emotion to each song, something that us Muse fans have missed in their most recent albums.

With that, I think its time to see how Matt Bellamy, Chris Wolstenholme and Dom Howards latest piece racks up.

As mentioned previously, the Absolution XX remix is proof of Muses maturation as a band, going from plain, heavy rock as seen in their debut and sophomore albums, Showbiz and Origin of Symmetry respectively, to more piano and acoustic elements in the original release of Absolution and Black Holes and Revelations, to more electronic rock in both The 2nd Law and Simulation Theory, with Drones falling back on Muses original style of heavy rock, implementing some softer rock, as also seen in Will of the People.

However, this isnt the first remix album that Muse released, as in 2021, they released Origin of Symmetry XX, in which all songs were given a fresh sound, and overall sounding a lot cleaner and more-in-depth compared to the originals, a concept which Muse have applied to Absolution XX.

From Apocalypse Please to Hysteria and Blackout and Fury, every song has been refreshed, with demos from the early 2000s and live performances of select songs from the same period. These performances havent been refreshed in the same way as what the studio tracks have, but that isnt a loss, as it demonstrates the vocal talents of Bellamy perfectly, as it is a common belief among Muse fans, dubbed Musers, that Matt does in fact sound better live than he does in studio recordings. This is proven, in my opinion, in the 2004 performance of Thoughts of a Dying Atheist at the Wiltern Theatre, Canada. This song portrays emotions surrounding Bellamys fear of death as an Atheist, who doesnt believe in Heaven or Hell, hearing people around him who passed in his lifetime. The live performance of this really emphasising these points, with lyrics full of emotion and power. Another example being the 2004 Earls Court performance of Hysteria, where Wolstenholme is incredible, playing possibly the hardest bassline to perfection, which backed up with incredibly powerful vocals, is a cut above the studio performance.

However, with all albums, it isnt all swings and roundabouts, as there are some great songs on the regular album that havent been shown as much love. One stand out example is the aforementioned Japanese bonus track Fury, which has been released on this album in its original form, it didnt have a live version released, which I dont believe is fair to the track, as the many live performances found online would have been great to include, but it is understandable to give Fury a miss, as the album is well above average in terms of track numbers, with 26 in total.

Another song in a similar situation is the song that beat Fury to the original release, The Small Print, which was voted by Wolstenholme and Howard to feature as a worldwide release, against Bellamys wishes to have Fury on the album. To think that The Small Print was the more popular song among the trio, and it didnt get a demo or a live performance released, almost suggests that the song was either overlooked or completely ignored, instead favouring an instrumental demo of Falling Away With You, which is titled by many as one of Absolutions weakest tracks, which while it is full of emotion and wishes, I do agree with.

On another plus, however, the mix between acoustic songs, such as Sing for Absolution, Ruled By Secrecy and Blackout featuring as multiple versions on the album, and the heavier tracks, like Hysteria and Stockholm Syndrome as different versions provides an emotional rollercoaster for the listener, as some songs are polar opposites in terms of composition, yet they all fit perfectly within the albums theme of dystopia, something that the band lives and breathes when composing albums.

In my opinion, this album is worth a listen for the average listener, as it provides a perfect introduction to Muse, and shows how a small band from Devon made huge waves, tsunamis even, in the music world by releasing an almost perfectly remastered album, 20 years after the original release.

See more here:

Album Review: Muse - Absolution XX Anniversary - Soundsphere magazine

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