Pseudoscientific Atheism, and the validity of Deism.

I am a great fan of many of the polemics of the new breed of vocal Atheists out there{Though I lean towards Deism as an Agnostic-Deist}, unfortunately some of them are dooing Atheism, science, and reason itself a disservice.


Case in point. Biologist and Atheist Richard Dawkins in his best seller{ for some reason found in the "science" section of your local bookstore} "The God Delusion" legitimately critizises Theism, faith, and religion. But he makes the grave mistake of taking down Agnosticism, Deism, and Pantheism with it. Granted Pantheism, beeing a "theism" is not very supportable{though it should be noted that a good percentage of so-called "Pantheists" are actually more accurately PanDeists or PanenDeists- since their God is an impersonal one, Theism neccecitates a personal god/divinity}. But Deism{PanDeism/PanenDeism} and Agnosticism are more supportable. In his book Dawkins calls Pantheism "Sexed Up Atheism", it's obvious he refers to Scientific Pantheism rather than classical Pantheism; Scientific Pantheism is poetic Atheism with poetic reverance for the natural universe, unlike classical Pantheism wherein they refer to the Universe literally beeing a intelligent and personal beeing. But Dawkins does not make that distinction.


Dawkins also essentuially accuses Agnostics of fence sitting, and Deists of beeing "watered down theists". He calls Atheism the 'default" position, that is NOT a 'belief" and does NOT need to explain itself{or themselves for "Atheists"}. Dawkins furtermore calls himself a Agnostic-Atheist but by such a small percetage of Agnosticism and in such a smarmy way that anyone using their reason can see he's merely beeing pretentious and "attempting"{rather poorly} to be "open-minded"/"open-ended".


Dawkins has began a trend of new Atheists out there that is a growing movement. He's not the only one that has infuenced this movement. Contrarian Journalist Christopher Hitchens, Philosopher/Neuroscience student Sam Harris,Philosopher and scientist Daniel Dennett and others have also influenced this movement. Personally I am a big fan of both Hitchens and Harris, as neither has gone out of their way to so blatantly mock other rationalists that are'nt Atheists{by this I mean the Agnostics and Deists}.Unfortunately, so many of the new Atheisst out there have like sheep followed their sheperd Dawkins example and effectively made a mockery of Atheism by belittling other non-theist rationalists, and by mixing{as Dawkins has} Atheism together with other ideologies with the implication that unless you also subscribe to these other ideologies and the mainstram opinion of this herd of Dawkinites- you are a heretic and not truly rational or in line with science facts. I call this the "Cult of Dawkins" or "Dawkinites".


Don't get me wrong, I like much of what Dawkins has to say, I agree with many of his opinions, and find him to be a rather laid back fellow. But Dawkins has made a joke out of Atheism and the new Atheist movement by making it so incredibly small-minded and hypocritical that so many intelligent people have bought into it. I also agree with Evangelical Christians on various issues, and find some of them to be very laid back and likable people as well, but I still comdemn their beliefs and have no problem criticising said beliefs or those views they espouse which I disagree with or see as abhorable.


The biggest mistake Dawkins and his fan club have made is in how they've attempted to corner the market on "science" for Atheism and not only Atheism, but their brand of it. Along with their utter lack of understanding about Agnocoticism, Deism, Pantheism,etc. For example, as a Deist myself, I've noticed that he and they tend to have an undersyanding of Deism that is purely limited to "Classic Deism" and the U.S. founding fathers, and have not noticed that as "liberal theism" became into beeing and more fashionable- Deism has seperated from the liberal theism of early Deism{or at least has EXANDED naturally and evolved past the views of the Deists of that era}.


Another big Mistake he/they make is in claiming the referances to God by great scientists and philosopers from the enlightenment till now, from Spinoza to Einstein to Hawkings, are just playful poetic gestures by Atheists. It's clear though from reading all their stuff that none of these were or are Atheists, Agnostics perhaps{but they all seem to lean more towards either Deism or PanDeism/PanenDeism than Atheism}. But what can be expsted, when these same hypocrital Atheist polemicists often like to make a claim that the founding fathers were Atheists{many aknowledge they were Deists of course; but even then they say...'they'd be Atheisst today", my question- "how the hell do you know that? are you psychic?}.


They've also made a huge mistake in thinking and claiming that Atheism is the rational default position, is not a 'belief", and need not explain itself.


Atheism IS a belief. AGNOSTICISM{between Atheism and Deism} is the"De-fault" that need not explain itself and is the truly faithless LACK OF BELIEF.Atheism is as much a belief, based in reason and science, as Deism is. Both Atheism and Deism are equally supportable given the evidence and theories provided us by scientists[from biologists and other earth sciences; to the sciences of the Cosmos and the quantum world such as Physics, astronomy, and Cosmology,etc}. When either Atheism or Deism claimed the market on science and reason, it makes a joke of the position, and is acting pseudoscientifically.


Science neither proves nor disproves the Atheist or Deist positions. I include in "Deism" some of it's ofshoot theories such as PanDeism and PanenDeism{mixes various aspects of Pantheism or PanenTheism with aspects of Deism}.Philosophically, both positions{Atheism,Deism and it's offshoots} are equally supportable given what we currently know about the cosmos and ourselves. But the STRONG Atheists would like us to believe that the facts PROVE Atheisms case and show DEISM to be a slightly more reasonable or less harmful version of theism. But as they like to do, they accuse Agnosticism of fence sitting thereby aiding the Deists whom beeing "watered down theists" aid the liberal theisst whom aid the liberal religionists whom aid the liberal Christians and Liberal Muslims whom in the end just provide an aid to nutty fundamentalists which aids terrorists. Ssee the mindtrap they have created, unless you are a Strong Atheist... you are helping the fundamentalists and supporting terrorism indirectly. An absurd leap of logic if ever there was one.Dawkins as his little cult of sheep have, has accused anyone and anything that isn't 100% pure Atheism of beeing pseudoscientific[and indeed some views and people are; Deists and Agnostics by far are not amongst these]. But effectively by claiming that science proves Atheism they have made themselves pseudoscientific. First of all, Science neither proves nor disproves anything related to the god question as science is UNCONCERNED with these philosophical questions{which should be relegated to "philosophy" not "science"}; There have been no experiments doen and then verfied and re-verified and peer reviewed{etc} to prove whether or not the Universe had a Creator, the questios is simply outside the realm of science and does not belong there, it belongs in "philosophy". So their claims are themselves pseudoscientific, and Dawkins is currently the biggest perpetrator of this pseudosceince in the new Atheist community{him and his growing followers}."The God Delusion" is even found, as I mentioned near the beginning of this essay, in the Science section of bookstores and libraries and is touted as a science book. But it's not, it's a Philosophical Atheist polemic/apologetic which utilizes some scientific facts and theories, this no more makes it a science book than a book polemic of Deism, or even than the pseudoscientific and rather absurd polemical books of Intelligent Design or Creationist pseudoscientists. And Dawkins growing fanclub have taken to making these same pseudoscientific and logical blunders. Even some of the other vocal Atheists in the book writing community and whatnot have begun to get sucked into the Dawkins hypocritical web{including many Scientists whom happen to be Atheists}.


Now, if they want to play the game that way and claim it is science or reason, than so be it. Then they better be willing to allow us other non-theist rationalists whom may be uncertain of Gods existence{Agnostics} or believe in a Prime Mover/First cause intelligence Creator{Deists} as well as Agnostic-Deists/PanDeists and PanenDeists into this game.


Now, that said, I refer the Dawkinites to the writings of respected Physicist Paul Davies, whom is as anti-religion as any of them, but whom displays a belief in the existence of a Deistic{more accuretely a PanDeistic or PanenDeistic} God. He has many books using science facts and theories and philosophically examining the question of Gods existence. Two of those books, which I am myself currently reading, are "The Mind of God; the scientific basis for a rational world" and "God and the new physics". Great books. I might mention that Dawkins mentions Davies in "The God Delusion" as beeing "somewhere between Einsteintonian Pantheism and an abscure form of Deism"{ie:PanDeism/PanenDeism}.


Now, these books cover many arguments,and Davies does it with a more integity towards looking at all angles than Dawkins does. Some of the Science based philosophical arguments Davies examines are the usual "argument from design" and two variations of the "cosmological argument", both of which he backs up as possible but also uses science to debunk{or in other words, shows that they are possible, but NOT needed, or rather that there are theories that challenge these two}, "Fine tuning", "conciousness", and various others.For example, he examined certain questions oft overlooked. Sure natural science explains HOW, but it does not explain why or even how natural laws are the way they are, and why these laws?


As A Deist{agnostic-deist; PanDeist/PanenDeist} I must pose these challenges and questiosn to STRONG Atheists. I had one Strong Atheist tell me there is a vaccum of evidence{ie no evidence} and the argument for "Multiverse theory"; Many Atheists also offer up the fact of the "singularity"{1}The vaccum of evidence? The Atheist cannot answer as to 'why" there are a set number of natural laws and WHEY they ARE the way they are. They cannot account for fine tuning. All they can offer is the multiverse theory{which personally appeasl to me as well}- which is a theory no less and no more valid than a Deistic intelligence.{2}They can offer the singularity, but not how it works exactly or why it exists or the exact nature of it's existence. I myself would suggest that perhaps the singularity IS GodAs a Deist I would point out the mathematical precisness of the Universe, and the absurd improbability that life[any kind; not neccaserily human or human like] could have arisen in the Universe if the initial conditions had been off by even the slightest percentage from what they were. It's allmost like those initial conditions were tweaked. Of course, even Paul Davies himself poses a challenge against this very argument{ I can't recall exact nature of his argument at the moment}- but that argument of his that some Atheists use is only theoretical itself, and it still does not account for the mathematical preciseness of the nature of the universe, why the laws are the way they are or even why there are laws in the first place and why there are a limited number of natural laws as opposed to a pure chaotic coup.


The Atheist can offer the argument of the "Static Universe", that is.. that the Universe always has been and had no beginning. That's possible, but then even most Scientists whom are Atheists believe the probability of the big bang, the Universe we know having a beginning{whether as something coming from nothing out of the singularity, or as a bubble Universe from a foam of a theoretical Multiverse}, so Static State Universe is currently, though possible, not as supported by findings as the big bang model is and most scientists support the big bang model. And though they can offer that the Universe is a neccasery and contingent thing, but they cannnot offer evidence or sound argument as to how or why it is and how or why that argument is any more valid than a neccasery intelligent prime mover force{God}.


The Cosmos display an innate intelligance. Perhaps that's illusionary and accidental, perhaps not. Ockhams Razor implies to me that it is what it seems to be...intelligent in some fashion.


Until Atheists can disprove such arguments using reason and factual proof, your theory of an atheistic universe is as and no more or les valid than our deistic one. If all you can offer is reactionary atheism against the insanity of theism, you'll have to do better than that. Deism is far removed from Theism{or at least...can be}. I offer that STRONG Atheism is a faith[at least if the atheist must call deism one}. Both are unproven but reasonable beliefs if "strong".But I suggest that both STRONG Atheism AND STRONG Deism[pandeism/panendeism} are reasonable BELIEFS about origins and nature of cosmos. If one condemns the other blindly- it is a faith{Dawkins for example displays this "faith"}. Strong Atheists like to pretend their poistion is the default, but it IS NOT! Agnosticism between the afforemetnioned two positions IS. Agnostic-Atheism and Agnostic-Deism{pan/en/deism} are just LEANINGS.


I've not seen a single STRONG Atheist or STRONG Deist dismantle these arguments or show them as false. And when they attempt they only wind up making themselves seem lke hypocritical faith-based fools asserting absolutes that they cannot possible know YET.


I might also offer this fact, that SOME Deists also make similar illogical, pseudoscientific, and hypocritical blunders as outlined here about many in the new Atheist movement. Allthough, the ratio of Vocal Deists to Vocal Atheistas acting so hypocritically is much smaller, though they DO exist. Paul Davies is obviously one of the more reasonable ones{moreseo than Dawkins and his adoring sheep} as are most others I've noticed.


So there you have it. Evidence and argument showing the hypocritical attitude and even pseudoscientific attitude of many of todays STRONG Atheists, pretenders to the throne of reason that they are, and specifically of Richard Dawkins and his clones. And the philosophical and scientific case for Deism{s}.


Deist polemicists of note:-Thomas Paine{revolutionary, polemicist, human rights advocate, U.S. foundinf father,etc}-
-Aristotle{greek philosopher}
-Voltaire{enlightenment philosopher}
-John Armstrong{Author "God Vs. The Bible", godvsthebible.com}
-Antony Flew{philosopher, former atheist polemicist}
-Raymond Fontaine, Ph.D. {Author of "My life with God in and outside the church"; deism.com}-Baruch Spinoza{Pandeism/panandeism/pantheism}
-Albert Einstein{^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^}
....AND of course- Physicist Paul Davies


Some of my favorite Atheist polemicists:
-Christopher Hitchens{Anti-theist and Contrarian. Journalist, Author of "god is not GREAT" amongst many other books on politics, religion, and various issues as well as numerous articles}
-Sam Harris{author- 'the end of faith"....amongst others.


Please feel free to discuss.

In Reason:
Bill Baker

The nature of the divine...

Is God all loving,moral,just,etc?....
I have a question.I used to be a Christian, first a evangelical/fundamentalist and then I spent some time as a Liberal Christian before becoming a Deist, then a Pantheist. I settled on Universist{which embraces unites faithless reason based freethought philosophies: Atheism,agnosticism,pantheism,deism,trancendentalism,etc} and have been so for over a year and a half. I have also embraced Symbolic Satanism some months ago, and consider myself both. I am "Agnostic-Deist".That said, one of the biggest questions that led me from both types of Christianity as well as to a small degree from Deism{even though I fault deists not Deism-a simple beleif that there is a creator; and still promote and Usually "lean" towards Deistic thought}.

This question is as follows:

Ok, fist off we'll disregard both types of Christianity as well as Deism, for this can be aimed at all{including some types of pantheism} though it is not neccaserily aimed at Deism but alot of Deists{whom attempt,like some of their heros such as Thomas Paine, whom happens to be one of mine as well; attempt to vindicate the Designer, or "natures god" from the cruelty and hypocrisy of biblegod-O.T. mainly but also N.T. to some degree and often,like Paine and Jefferson,etc, assume that the Creator is ultimately just,loving,reasonable,etc because there seems to be order in the Universe, even though there is also chaos and violence to bring order about, and because of the existence of "reason" which evolved into us}. I know liberal Christians also try to vindicate god from the O.T. model of him a bit and think in purely theistic or perhaps panentheistic terms.My question:If God exists and pre-existed all things, all energy forms and matter, all thought forms, and knew what would come to be from his/her/it's creation; and all these things and all the good and the evil, the harm and the help, the hate and the love, the mercy and cruelty, the chaos in the Universe{s} and all tjhe horrible acts that sentient and non-sentient species do to each other{in our case war,oppression,persecution,prejudice,rape,murder,m olestation,torture,war crimes,etc,etc,etc}and allows them and allows suffering and starvation on innocent children and the brutally selfish to gain riches and pleasure during,

All these things,like we ourselves, coming from w/in the depths of "god" whom thought/spoke everything that is into existence{which would not exist w/out having first existed w/in the depths of god}-as a manifestation of his/her/it's will and inner nature and character.In this case, as it would seem to be and cannot be escaped from, and for the orthodox Christians and muslims,etc, Satan/Shaitan/Iblis,Ahriman,Lillith,etc, and his fall and subsequent leading a third of angels to be w/him in this rebellion and all the so called harm and hate he "supposedly" gave birth to{I have a different intrpretation of the story/myth myself}, then would'nt that have been gods will-since all those thought forms and energies that led to that pre-existed w/in gods beeing and were willed into existence{as they could not exist otherwise}; would'nt this make god, by whatever conception,faith,philosophy, you see him/her/it from, either evil and bad{using these terms in a relative sense to what democratic,advanced races such as some humans think of as such, though the terms have no real cosmic meaning and are our contructs} or in the very least-neutral, neither or both{good and evil, hateful and loving,occasioanlly reasonable and occasionally unreasonable/just and unjust, harmful and helpful,etc} or perhaps none of these because she/he/it would now be emty of all feeling/emotion and intent of though as he/she/it may have then emptied it out of itself into the universe and now god is mindless and w/out personality{and in fact perhaps is now -"us"; menaing that when we do good that is god, whe we do harm-that is god}.Ultimately though would this not make "god" by whatever conception, evil, or both good and evil, or neither and empty and void?nonetheless, the concept espoused by so many people for so many faiths{and versions of those faiths} and so many philosophies that god is love, god is just, god is moral/holy/righteous;and the claim that god has no evil/hate/violence/immorality/unfairness/etc in him/her/it; that very claim is made completely void and provable as wrong.

It all is a manifestation of this gods will{however you concieve of an eternal,pre-existent creator}; meaning that it is false and wrong to say stuff like "god is love" or "god is not hate",etc, because god is neither or both; common sense{even according to faiths own conceptions that god is pre-existent,created all,is omni-etc} dictates as a fact that god is not those things that most say.So therefore all those that try to justify god and/or vindicate him/her/it or try to say that god is love and has not hate, is holy and has not evil, is light and has not darkess, is just and has not injustice,etc{whether evangelical/fundamentalist or liberal/moderate Christian,Muslim,Jew,etc; or White light Neo-pagan/Wiccan, whether Hindu, whether Deist or pantheist,etc,etc}-are liars and cold-hearted when they try to glorify a god of pure love and holiness when someone is in such great suffering; or perhaps just confused like god is confused.

I won't be like the "strong" atheist and say as Neitzsche did-"god is dead" or "god does not exist", that is a absolute claim I simply cannot prove{which is why I am agnostic}.But I will say "god is evil" or "god is not love/holy/just", or "god is all value judgements{and no one can tell another that what they do/say/think/beleive/etc is against gods will; regardles sof how cold or evil or sick it is".and actually for the orthodox/fundamentalist/evangelical Christians; the earlies O.T. writings, such as the book of Genesis have a a vision of a neutral god. In the first chapters of the book of Genesis God said "now man is like us knowing both good AND evil"{modern intpretations of this may mean something different; but the authors of these books likely had a conception of god as both the author of good things and bad things; and actually throught the O.T. god often says so himself; "I create the light and the darkness, I create help and calamity, I the Lord to all these things" from Isiah 45:7 is one of other examples}.

Can anyone logically and evidenceally refute this? When I would bring this question up when I was still Christian and struggling w/my faith , even in "question" format as opposed to ranting opinion format, NO ONE-NO RELIGIOUS LEADER OR CHRISTIAN OR PERSON-PERIOD was able to answer it and it was as if they were scared to even try. It stumped/stumps just as much if not more than the "who created god" question. Except this one has to do w/the fundamental nature of god.

You may find this message offensive or pushy,etc. But many people such as myself don't get the same respect from believers in a good god as they and their friends get from us/and everyone else. We find it offensive to be constantly bobarded in this world by this bullshit message of a loving god-since it seems it is so fundamentally untrue. Frankly, I find the fact that most will be offneded at someone like me dooing something like this highly hypocritical whilst they either offend us w/that b.s. OR condone those that do{at least much more than they would condone us to them}.
I challenge all to prove me wrong!

In Reason:
The very irreverand Bill Baker

P.S. This was typed a long time ago. I have settled on the idea that IF God exists, it is BEYOND Good and EVIL as percieved via human biases. Not both good and evil or enither, becuase this is still anthropocentric, viewing God through human dualities, IF it exists- it is BEYOND these ideas.