Orthodox Reflections

When I am in character, I believe that nothing exists but the material Universe – matter and energy. There is nothing outside the material Universe. Of this I am certain. Being uncertain would make me an Agnostic. I am certain. I am an Atheist.

My body is nothing but an extremely complex arrangement of chemicals. In the vernacular – I am nothing but highly organized dirt. I don’t like this, even though it’s true.

My life is nothing more than an extremely complex chemical reaction within that highly organized dirt. All my life functions are nothing but chemical reactions. It doesn’t seem that way, but it must be true.

Even my thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions and chemical changes in my brain. All my concepts, my ideas, my beliefs are nothing but an arrangement of chemicals in my brain – nerve synapses and neurotransmitters.  Again, that doesn’t seem right.

My self-concept, my idea that I exist, my belief that I am a person, my awareness of myself as an individual is an illusion of brain chemistry. But I act as if I exist even though I don’t. MY LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE!!! A FARCE!!!

Susan Jane Blackmore is a British writer, lecturer, sceptic, broadcaster, and a visiting professor at the University of Plymouth. Noted Atheist Richard Dawkins wrote the forward to her book The Meme Machine (1999)

When my self-concept changes, it is only chemical change in the brain – a rearrangement of nerve synapses and neurotransmitters. If I am more than just brain chemistry, then there is more than just the physical Universe. So, I am not a who, only a what. BUMMER!!

I’m dirt that is conscious of itself. What??? That doesn’t make any sense!!!

Since I don’t really exist and neither does anyone else, any thought that I can have a relationship with someone else is delusional. Since others think that they really exist, I present myself to others as if I exist, so they won’t think I’m crazy and lock me up. I treat others as if they exist so I can get from them what I want.

My death will only be the cessation of that highly complex chemical reaction within this highly-organized dirt I call my body. Death is nothing more than the cessation of one chemical reaction and the beginning of another, decomposition.

My ultimate goal is to be fertilizer.

When I die, please don’t make a fuss over the cessation of the chemical reaction called my life. Since I, the person, don’t really exist, mourning my passing would be nothing but foolishness. So, I shouldn’t miss my grandma?

Please don’t bury me or burn me. Eat me instead. That way the highly complex arrangement of chemicals that was my body will live on in you. And after all, what could be a more perfectly nutritious food for human consumption other than human flesh? I understand it tastes a lot like pork. Sorry, but that’s just gross!! But then my thoughts that it’s gross are nothing more than chemical changes in my brain, nerve synapses and neurotransmitters.

When I am in character, I trust my brain. I trust my brain to comprehend the nature of reality and the laws that describe its functions. Who is this ‘I’ that trusts his brain? Isn’t ‘I’ only a delusion of brain chemistry?

I trust my brain even though it is nothing more than highly organized dirt. I trust my thoughts even though my thoughts are nothing more than complex chemical reactions in that highly organized dirt. I trust my brain because I have nothing else to trust.

I trust my brain even though it is the evolutionary product of a gazillion random events, a gazillion happy accidents. I must trust that this highly organized dirt, produced by random chance, is an effective agent of discernment and reason. Who’s to say that those random events, those happy accidents produced a competent, well-functioning brain? Who’s to say that my brain isn’t in error?

I trust my brain even though it is completely deluded about my self-existence, my personhood. What else could it be deluded about?

I trust my brain, even though it has, in the past, held different ideas to be true than it holds as true today. Was my brain correct in the past and flawed today? Or was my brain flawed in the past and correct today?

I trust my brain, even though other brains produced by the same evolutionary process of random events and happy accidents, hold different truths than mine does. If I am to trust my brain, I must conclude that those other brains are flawed, even insane. I must conclude that my brain is the perfect product of a random series of happy accidents while theirs is not the perfect product of a random series of happy accidents.

HOW UTTERLY DEPRESSING!!!

I trust my brain. I must trust my brain. I have nothing else to trust…except science.

When I am in character, I trust science. I trust science to deliver me with the truth of reality. I trust science even though science has changed what it presents as it has presented the truth of reality innumerable times.

Science used to say that the Sun was the center of the Universe. Science now doesn’t know where the center of the Universe is.

Science used to say that the Universe has always been in a static state with no beginning and no change. Science now says that the Universe had a beginning, THE BIG BANG, and is expanding, constantly changing. But now, maybe not…

Science used to say that cells were so simple it would have been easy for one to have formed on its own in primordial times. Science now knows that even the simplest cell is extremely complex structurally, chemically, and functionally. Science, also, knows that most all the cell structures, functions, and chemical reactions must be simultaneously present for there to be life in the cell. It’s now very difficult to imagine how something as complex as a cell could have formed on its own. One of my Atheist gurus was asked how a cell could have formed on its own, and he said it was a fortuitous, happy accident. But it seems to me that it would take a 100,000 or even a million happy accidents happening all at once for a cell to form. But I can trust my guru. Can’t I? He’s a scientist.

Not more than 50 years ago, science used to say that only two factors were necessary for a planet to produce life – the right size sun and a planet the right distance from that sun. With this understanding, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence was launched. Huge radio telescopes were erected and aimed all over the sky, listening for sign of life out there. What they heard was zilch, nothing, nada, not a thing.

In the meantime, science has discovered that it is not just two factors but over fifty factors that must exist for life to form on a planet. All those factors must be present and almost all those factors must be present in extremely tight parameters. Because of this new understanding, many scientists now say that life is impossible, that the Universe is billions of years too young to have life in it. Yet here we are. So, we shouldn’t be here. I’m confused!

According to Newton’s second law of thermodynamics, entropy (the disintegration into simpler and simpler forms) can only increase in a closed system. Only an outside force can reverse that disintegration.

Life runs completely counter to that law. Scientifically speaking, matter, through the process of evolution, has become more and more complex until in humans, dirt is conscious of itself. And science says that this process has happened without an outside force. But that’s contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. This seems miraculous, but it can’t be because there are no miracles. Right?

Science says that Darwinian evolution is a completely satisfactory explanation of process by which dirt became conscious of itself. As is well known, Darwin’s theory says that change occurred gradually over extended periods of time through a process of random mutations that produced advantageous and disadvantageous changes in living entities, and that natural selection culled out those who acquired the disadvantageous changes. This process gradually created new species and body types.

But there are major flaws in that explanation that I am waiting for scientists to explain. One of them is the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian explosion is a very rapid development of numerous new species and body types in a very brief period. This could not have happened by the slow, gradual process of Darwinian evolution.

Another one that troubles me is the evolution of bats. Scientists say that a bat evolved gradually over time from a rat like creature. But it’s hard to imagine a beast half-way between a rat and a bat that would have much chance of surviving.

In addition to the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of bats, there have been other discoveries that poke holes in Darwinism.

According to two new studies, the effects of an animal’s environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring. The findings provide support for a 200-year-old Theory of Evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian Evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring. This is not gradual change.

Also, scientists have discovered that bacteria, when faced with a life-threatening situation, will completely disintegrate their DNA, and rearrange it to deal with the new situation. Willfulness. Not Darwinian, blind gradualism.

For so many years scientist have insisted that Darwinism was the only correct way of understanding the origin of the species. Does this new evidence disprove Darwinism? I’ll believe in Darwinism until my gurus tell me not to.

There are six questions that can be asked: who, what, when, where, why and how.

Science can answer four of them: what, when, where, and how. It cannot answer who or why.

It cannot answer who because, scientifically, as shown above, who does not exist. Who refers to a person and a person is a figment of the imagination, a delusion of brain chemistry, a trick of evolution to help us survive who knows what.

Science cannot answer why. Why asks about purpose, the reason something is the way it is. Science can’t determine purpose. Scientifically, there is no reason for the existence of the Universe, or, for that matter, anything in it, including me. I just can’t think of myself as meaningless.

Because I am a self-determining unit, the arbitrator of what is true for myself, I determine what is real, what is right, not just for myself but for the Universe and everything in it. I guess you could say, I’m GOD. And not just my own GOD, but your GOD, too.

I might say that everyone has the right to their own truth, but, unless their truth is the same as mine, their truth is not the truth, it is false. Anyone who believes something different from what I believe is a heretic.

And because I am the arbitrator of my own purpose, I can be whatever I want. If my genetics are those of a man and I want to be a woman, I am a woman. I can, also, be a serial killer if I want to. Or Napoleon. However I view myself is reality.

But isn’t my self-concept a delusion of brain chemistry. Confusing!!!  

The philosophical dilemma I face in being an Atheist is as follows: to say with certainty that nothing exists but the physical Universe, I must be able to survey the Universe from an objective viewpoint, from outside the Universe, the viewpoint of God. But, because there is no place outside the physical universe, there is no place to survey the Universe to determine that nothing exists but the physical Universe.

Being GOD and the creator of my own truth, I can ignore all these facts and remain an Atheist. But is that really sanity?

When I am in character, I have only two moral imperatives – personal survival and passing on my genes. All other moral imperatives are unnecessary. They only get in the way of me surviving and passing on my genes.

If I kill to survive, that is perfectly okay. If I steal, cheat, lie, to survive, not a problem.

Having sex with as many women as possible is the perfect way to create as many offspring as I can. Consensual sex is good, but nothing wrong with rape. If I can get away with it.

This would produce absolute chaos. This is barbaric. Any society that operated by these principles would dissolve into anarchy.

American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and a proponent of Intelligent Design.

I became an Atheist because I wanted clarity, but I’m just as confused as ever! Maybe even more so! 

THANKS BE TO GOD I ONLY PLAY AN ATHEIST ON T. V.

THANKS BE TO GOD I BELIEVE IN HIM IN REAL LIFE.

God is not a simplistic and catch all answer to life’s questions. In all cultures, there has been the understanding that there is an absolute principle underlying the Universe and everything in it. It is the REASON for existence – the existence of the Universe and everything in it. It is not in physical reality, but is behind it, the ultimate source of physical reality. Science cannot find or know God, because science only deals with superficial, physical reality. Science is unconcerned with God because science is unconcerned with the reason for existence. This underlying principle is called the tao. the aum, the logos. If you want to understand this universal underlying principle, read CHRIST, THE ETERNAL TAO by Heiromonk Damescene.

Atheists and other materialists, please answer some questions for me. Who are you as a person? Your answer must be physical, since only the physical exists. But are you only the highly complex arrangement of chemicals that you see in the mirror? When you die, at least for the short term, that highly complex arrangement of chemicals will still be intact. Only, you won’t be there. It can’t be the complex chemical reactions in that highly organized dirt you call your body. The same complex chemical reactions take place in a dog, but there is no person there. Next questions. Why does the Universe exist? Why do you exist? Science can answer a lot of questions about existence, but it can’t answer all of them.

–George Engelhard, an Orthodox Christian

Do you support freedom of worship for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Then please read, sign, and share our petition supporting Metropolitan Onuphry and his Church.