Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

THE THREE ISMS OF PERVERSION

Periander A. Esplana
www.sciencephilosophyreligion.com

Contents Introduction 3 Scientism 5 Philosophism 8 Religionism 13 Conclusion 1 !otes and Re"erences 8

THE THREE ISMS OF PERVERSION


Periander A. Esplana #1$1$ %1&' www.sciencephilosophyreligion.com

INTRODUCTION
In its most popular form, nihilism says that there is no reason why the universe exists and no goal towards which it is moving; nothing is of real value; human existence is totally meaningless; human beings are biological accidents; there is no life after death and suicide could therefore be a more rational approach than the desire to go on living. As far as values, morals and ethics are concerned, nihilism makes no rules and draws no lines. The whole of life is an exercise in futility, and personal satisfaction at any given moment is sufficient ustification for anything any individual chooses to do or not to do.! " #ohn $lanchard
%#ohn $lanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Auburn& 'vangelical (ress, )***, p.+,+.-

(here are three e)planations* answers or solutions o""ered +y man in his un+elie,ing +elie" system. Science* Philosophy and Religion which must help man to "ind answer to his -uestions and solution to his pro+lems ha,e +een corrupted +y his un+elie" to e)plain his misery. .e trans"ormed them into three isms o" per,ersion/ Scientism* Philosophism* and Religionism. Scientism see0s to answer the -uestion 12here 3o 2e Come 4rom56 Philosophism see0s to answer the -uestion 12hat Are 2e56 Religionism see0s to answer the -uestion 12here Are 2e 7oing56 (hey try to sol,e the pro+lem o" origin* the pro+lem o" identity* and the pro+lem o" destiny* respecti,ely. All studies* researches and meditation are intended to answer the -uestion o" our e)istence. Stephen 2. .aw0ing* widely regarded as the most +rilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein* concluded his +est8selling +oo0 1A 9rie" .istory o" (ime/ "rom the +ig +ang to +lac0 holes6 with the "ollowing words/ 1.owe,er* i" we do disco,er a complete theory* it should in time +e understanda+le in +road principle +y e,eryone* not :ust a "ew scientists. (hen we shall all* philosophers*

scientists* and :ust ordinary people* +e a+le to ta0e part in the discussion o" the -uestion o" why it is that we and the uni,erse e)ist. I" we "ind the answer to that* it would +e the ultimate triumph o" human reason "or then we would 0now the mind o" 7od.6 ;ur e)istence itsel" has +ecome to us a pro+lem that needed to +e sol,ed. Irish <esuit 2illiam <ohnston has pointed out this "act in his +oo0 1Silent =usic/ the science o" meditation6/ 12hat precisely is wrong with the human race5 I" we were to as0 psychology a+out modern man>s +asic sic0ness* we might hear that it is the sense o" meaninglessness* o" emptiness* o" ultimate "rustration. .ow agoni?ingly this was e)pressed +y philosophers +etween two wars with their tal0 o" e)istential anguish and all the su""ering summed up +y .eidegger>s terri+le de"inition o" man as @+eing8to8death>A Con"ronted with death* man is aware o" his contingency* his incompleteness* his imper"ection B it is this that "ills him with e)istential dread. So he has to "ind meaning. !ot :ust meaning "or his economic* or emotional or cultural li"e* +ut meaning "or his e)istence.6 !o man can li,e on this earth who does not see0 answers to his -uestion and solution to his pro+lems "or 1All men +y nature*6 as Aristotle rightly o+ser,ed* 1desire to 0now.6 ;ur inherent rationality which distinguished us "rom other creatures is also the source o" our "ailure +ecause o" the noetic e""ect o" sin. =ost thin0ers ha,e +ecome mystics +ecause o" the +an0ruptcy they saw "rom reason. Reason has +een e)hausted to the point that it does not satis"y any man +y any means. =any are now resorting to irrationalism as the 0ey to "ind meaning to one>s e)istence. Some ha,e surrendered themsel,es to insanity and suicide as the only logical conclusion o" our e)istence. 9ecause o" cowardness to "ace pro+lems* tragedy or "rustrations and +ecause o" sel"8:usti"ication o" sins* they tried to escape "rom them +y means o" wine* drugs* yoga* entertainment* gam+ling* ,ices* occultism* etc. 9ut man has ne,er lost his hopeC he must sur,i,e in this seeming hostile world e,en without +eating the system. .e must hope that there is always light at the end o" this dar0 tunnel we called li"e. Dyall 2atson concluded his +oo0 1(he 9iology o" 3eath6 with such words o" hope/ 1Di"e is* a"ter all* a rare and unreasona+le thing. A thin "a+ric wo,en* as "ar as we 0now* only on the loom o" the earth* whose warp is growth and we"t a corresponding process o" decay.

2ithout the creati,e tension pro,ided +y these two "orces in delicate e-uili+rium* it would all impossi+le and we wouldn>t +e here to worry a+out the details. It is ne,ertheless a measure o" our own growing awareness that we do worry* pic0ing at the threads* sometimes e,en +rea0ing them in our aw0ward attempts to understand. Eet* slowly* we do seem to +e coming closer to the truth. 2e are +eginning to get hints* when we rela) "or long enough to let the world re,eal itsel"* o" the nature and pattern o" the whole cloth. And those glimpses are enthralling.6 (his insatia+le longing to see the wholeness o" all things* the uni"ication o" all particulars into one uni,ersal* prodded man to pro,ide himsel" e)planation* answer and solution deri,ed "rom the things which he considered good* true and +eauti"ul.

SCIENTISM
1(he tremendous emphasis on the @proo"s> that e,olution has ta0en place* +y so many modern proponents o" the !ew 4aith who ne,ertheless cannot show what they are* is itsel" a>retreat> "rom "act to "aith* "rom science to dogma.6 8Arthur C. Custance* =.A.* Ph.3.* 4.R.A.I.

Why do I trust the convictions of my mind? This is a profound question that has never been asked by skeptics, critics, mystics, and atheists because they are venerating their minds as the determining factor of what truth is. But it is a common fact that truth 1 wi never be changed by our be ief or disbe ief ! truth is independent from our convictions. "n the other e#treme, men are easi y deceived to be ieve something that they have not even dare to question its truthfu ness and va idity, as $.%. $hoades right y observed &, 'we have a but ost the art of meditation and thinking.( With this thought in mind, I am prodded to ponder some possibi ities on how rea ity came into e#istence. I wi not meditate on the psychotic notion that 'a things are i usion,( or even argue against those who be ieved on it, ike what $.). *prou stated, + 'my argument is addressed to peop e who do exist,.( -emphasis added. It wou d perhaps be appropriate first to define the above word ! scientism. *cientism is the e#tension of scientific theories to a supposed y comp ete phi osophy of ife and meaning. It primari y refers to evo utionary theory / for it has been used as the 0scientific basis1 of abortionism, aggressive mi itarism, communism, economic imperia ism, euthanasia, genocide, infanticide, 2a3ism, 2iet3schean racism, se#ua promiscuity and perversions, etc. These vio ence and misery were brought about by this 4arwinian doctrine that man is mere y an 'advance anima .( This is one of the greatest hoa#es ever invented and be ieved by man5 it was admitted by evo utionists themse ves

that this is not qua ified to be ca ed *)I%2)%. *cience, by modern definition, is systemati3ed body of know edge based on facts which are observab e, demonstrab e and repeatab e. %vo ution is a b atant contradiction to a these criteria of a true science, and the arguments for it are simp y -to borrow ).*. 6ewis phrase7. 'comp icated attempt to avoid the obvious.( Thus, evo ution ike 6ye 1s doctrine of uniformitarianism8 is a 'science fa se y so ca ed.(9 *ince evo ution is not science, it is not surprising to know that it contradicts the two great aws of thermodynamics which are the most secure genera i3ations about the universe that e#ist in science: the aw of conservation of matter;energy and the aw of increasing entropy. Their imp ications are not on y obvious to the phi osophic mind but a so to the common mind. The first aw te s us that neither energy nor matter in the universe can be created or destroyed. <rocesses mere y change it from one form to another but the tota quantity is constant. In other words, the universe did not create itse f, it re=ects the notion of 'se f>creation.( *e f>creation or se f>cause? is irrationa in the e#treme because it further vio ates the aw basic to a sciences, the aw of noncontradiction, for something to create itse f it must first e#ist before it can cause itse f to be. The second aw, on the other hand, te s us that as energy is used, it becomes non> recoverab e heat dissipating in space. Thus, it c ear y imp ies that the universe, u timate y, wi end up to its 'heat death( ! a tota dissipation of a usefu energy. If time had e#tended into the past, say more than ninety bi ion years, @ the universe wou d a ready be dead. It, therefore, re=ects the ancient notion of 'an eterna wor d.( *ince the universe is going to die in time, the universe must have its beginning which stipu ates creation. To sum up: the first aw says the universe cou d not create itse f, but the second aw demands creation. These aws, therefore, point their fingers at the 6awgiver > > the Aod of creation.1B Coreover, evo ution open y contradicts the aw of biogenesis which has come to be known as one of the most universa aws of science: ife begins on y from pree#isting ife. The theory of spontaneous generation, which states that ife comes from non> iving decaying matter ike garbage, was disproved once and for a by 6ouis <asteur. It is a sad fact that evo ution based square y on this re=ected notion of 'spontaneous generation( 11 and to rub more sa ts to the wounds 'evo ution doesn1t even have the garbage,( 1& the on y spices it added is the duration of time. But what rea y does happen as time marches on? The answer has a ready been discussed, the second aw of thermodynamics, it is devolutionD %ven the simp est imaginary rep icating protein mo ecu es cou d not be formed

natura istica y from non> iving chemica s.1+ The probabi ity of its chance assemb age was ca cu ated by *ir Ered Foy e,1/ and it turns out to be ess than one in ten raised to the forty thousandth powers. *cott C. Fuse noted that mathematicians genera y consider an event with a probabi ity of ess than one in ten raised to fiftieth powers as having a 3ero probabi ity.17 Thus, mathematics further proves evo ution high y improbab e. *ome may ob=ect at the outset that the second aw of thermodynamics app ies on y to c osed systems. But the fact is that there is no such thing as c osed or iso ated system in nature. G in earth are open to the energy from the sun, a things are open systems, 'for a f esh is as grass, and a the g ory of man as the f ower of grass. The grass withereth, and the f ower thereof fa eth away,(.18 In any case, the criteria for increasing order are not satisfied by any supposed evo utionary system. Hn ike what the Big Bang theory advocates a ege, energy a one cannot produce order and growth, there must a ways be a directing program and conversion mechanism, regard ess of whether or not the system is an open system.19 <eter *. $uckman sums up the grades of evidences given above in the fo owing manner:1? ' *ince matter and energy cannot be created 2"W, and the ife cannot come from inanimate 2"W, and an increased in comp e#ity in organisms is not taking p ace 2"W, the who e structure of evo ution fa s to the ground for the boast of every de uded foo who took the theory to be rationa was: the <$%*%2T revea s the past5 by studying the processes going on in nature 2"W we know what took p ace TF%2.( -emphasis in origina . . It may be we to add that, as 4r. 4uane T. Aish pointed out, 1@ 'no theory on origin can be devoid of phi osophica and re igious imp ications.( %vo ution is an atheistic theory which denies the intervention of inte igence. It is best described by the terms 'se f>creation( and 'creation by chance,( but both these terms are nonscientific and irrationa . The former has a ready been discussed whi e the atter imp ies that chance has the power to cause something. But chance itse f is nothing more than a word used to describe mathematica possibi ities, it has no being, or to put it b unt y, it is no thing ! it cannot do anything.&B Bib ica creationism, on the other hand, imp ies a universe that was p anned, created, designed, and governed by a persona Aod ! the efficient cause of creation out of nothing. True science is fu y consistent with Bib ica *cientific )reationism. Gs we have seen, it is a kind of inte ectua suicide to abandon the truth of Aod -$om. 1:&7. by be ieving any of the other a ternative notions, whether 'rea ity is an i usion,( 'an eterna wor d,( or 'evo ution.( We must, therefore, re=ect at once these 'oppositions of science fa se y so ca ed( -I Tim. 8:&B..

2ow I know the answer why I trust the convictions of my mind, for ong before $ene 4escartes thought of his famous a#iom: 'I think, therefore I am, ' <au the apost e of the Aenti es -$om. 11:1+. had a ready wrote: 'But by the grace of Aod I am what I am( -I )or.17:1B..&1

PHILOSOPHISM
1Contemporary logic is +ased on a misunderstanding o" the English word all.6 8 7ordon .. Clar0

Fow man can right y think about wrong thinking? This baff ing question is the coro ary of the unanswerab e basic question on epistemo ogy for infide s: how do we know that we rea y know what we pretend we know? It is beyond question that man with his imitation and imperfection rea y needs guidance for accurate reason, criteria for good authority, and test for va id e#perience. Can cannot be certain of anything un ess he is certain of one thing which must be proper y immune from revision to serve as the standard of either acceptance or re=ection of the credibi ity of any evidence, the basis of either affirmation or denia of the factua ity of an arguab e statement, and foundation of the corre ation of a aws and princip es of the interna thought and the e#terna wor d. It must adequate y account for the human rationa ity, mora ity and persona ity, and the universa rea ity, causa ity and unity. It must not be attested by any authority other than itse f for otherwise it wou d not be the fina authority of a truth. It must be se f>attesting, se f>va idating and se f> interpreting. It is, therefore, no other than Aod1s reve ation of Fimse f as found in the perfection of Fis word: the Bib e. G true things which we right y know are Aod>revea ed know edge through Fis creation -nature., image -man., and *on -)hrist.. We cannot know anything tru y =ust by mere knowing our e#periences. The human know edge is very different from anima know edge. "ur know edge invo ves our who e being of body, sou and spirit. We know what we know because the Aod Who knows a things revea s it to us. Eor any man to make any significant abstraction and predication, he must first of a presupposed the Bib e truth as his u timate authority of a truth.&& What is phi osophism? We coined this word to describe any system that does not consider Bib e truth as the fina authority of a truth. It came from two Areek words: philos which means fi ia ove and sophizo which means cunning device. The Areek word philos is the prefi# word of <FI6"*"<FI which means ove -Ar. philos. of wisdom -Ar. sophia.. The Areek word sophizo is the derivative of the 6atin word sophisma which is the root word of sophism and sophistry. These words signify p ausib e but fa se reasoning. The synonymous word for sophism in terms of ogic is EG66G)I which means deceptive argument. It came from fallere the 6atin word for

'to deceive(. <FI6"*"<FI*C, then, simp y means ' ove of deceptive reasoning(.&+ %ven though modern ogicians try to restrict ogic within the bound of forma correctness or va idity of an argument irrespective of the truth or fa sity of its premises, &/ yet when it comes to the discussion of fa acy they inevitab y addressed the question of the agreement or disagreement of a term, proposition and sy ogism to fact and truth. Coreover, it must be pointed out that ogic does not dea on y with our interna thought through deductive inference -from universa to particu ar. but a so with the e#terna wor d through inductive inference -from particu ar to universa .. We know rea ity by perceiving the particu ar things of the natura wor d using our sense e#perience and genera i3ing them into universa truth5&7 thus, in the fina ana ysis, induction a ways precedes deduction. It is c ear that rea ity and va idity must never be separated in the rea m of ogic. We must remember that 6"AI) is defined as the science and art of right thinking and correct reasoning in order to arrive at truth.&8 We cannot positive y use va id argument if it on y means that a fa se conc usion necessari y fo ows from fa se premises. It can on y be used negative y in refuting an opposing position via reductio ad absurdum. The va id reduction of an argument to reach absurdity is not used to prove its inva idity but its error and fa sity. In fact, a reasonings about arguments has under ying ethica assumptions in them. It intends to persuade or convince an audience. Gn argument is designed to change the mind of someone who has an erroneous be ief. It arise out of concern to correct the epistemo ogica path of someone threading in the wrong direction for no one in his right mind wi =ust a ow his neighbor to be ieve in inconsistent and absurd be ief.&?
&9

6ogic does not mere y pertain to the va id deduction or induction of a conc usion from premises. Its primary concern is the attainment of truth. Gnd in any pursuit of truth one must first of a know how to e#pose deception hidden in the mis eading used of words and ideas in an argument that pretends to be true. Fence, it is necessary for us to enumerate the different fa acies often committed by ignorant -para ogist., deceiver -phi osophist. and inaccurate thinker. We can divide fa acies based on three divisions of ogic which correspond to the three basic operations in our knowing process.&@ Eirst y, the basic menta act that we a most automatica y do is the apprehension of our e#perience at the moment of consciousness. Through simp e apprehension we know the essence or nature of a thing by abstracting concept or idea from the percept which we usua y e#pressed by using an e#terna sign ca ed T%$C. G term may be either an articu ate sound or a written word insofar as it means -connotes. something in its

comprehension and refers to -denotes. something in its e#tension. 4efinition dea s with the connotation of a term whi e 4ivision and ) assification dea s with the denotation of a term. *econd y, the ne#t basic menta act we do is the enunciation of re ationship between concepts common y known as =udgment. We =udge either by affirming -menta composition. or denying -menta division. the agreement between ideas. We e#press our =udgment through a connection of terms ca ed <$"<"*ITI"2. G proposition is a dec arative sentence composed of quantifier, sub=ect>term, copu a, and predicate>term. 6ast y, the basic menta act we do after we put concepts together into a proposition is the eduction of corre ation between propositions by our reasoning process. The inference of a previous y unknown proposition from the combination of known propositions may be in the form of either direct;immediate argumentation -such as opposition, conversion, obversion, possibi ity, and actua ity. or indirect;mediate inference -such as deduction and induction.. The conc usion of the former does not bring new truth but =ust a reformu ation of the truth of the origina premise whi e the atter ends with a new truth by passing from one proposition to another through the mediation of a third proposition. These series of propositions ca ed *I66"AI*C, as we have seen, a ways consist of two premises -ma=or and minor. and an inferred conc usion. Gt this point, we are now in the position of distributing the different fa acies into three end resu ts of the basic operations of our mind:
I. )onceptua Ea acies G. Ea acies of 4efinition 1. &. +. /. 7. 8. 9. ?. B. 1. &. +. Ea acy of Gccidenta 4efinition Ea acy of )ircu ar 4efinition Ea acy of Eigurative 4efinition Ea acy of "bscure 4efinition Ea acy of 2egative 4efinition Ea acy of $edundant 4efinition Ea acy of Too 2arrow 4efinition Ea acy of Too Wide 4efinition Ea acy of )ross 4ivision Ea acy of $emote 4ivision Ea acy of Too 2arrow 4ivision

Ea acies of 4ivision

/. II. G.

Ea acy of Too Wide 4ivision

<ropositiona Ea acies Ea acies in 6anguage 1. &. +. /. 7. B. 1. a. b. &. a. b. c. ). 1. a. b. &. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. =. k. +. Ea acy of Gccent or <rosody Ea acy of Gmphibo y Ea acy of Eigures of *peech Ea acy of Fasty Aenera i3ation Ea acy of Irre evant <remises Ea acy of Juantity Ea acy of )omposition Ea acy of 4ivision Ea acy of Jua ity Ea acy of *pecific Gccident Ea acy of )onverse Gccident Ea acy of *imp e Gccident <etitio <rincipii -Begging the Juestion. Gssumptio 2on <robata )ircu us in <robando Ignoratio % enchi -Irre evant )onc usion. Grgumentum ad Guctoritatem Grgumentum ad Bacu um Grgumentum ad )aptandum Ku gus Grgumentum ad )rumenam Grgumentum ad Fominem Grgumentum ad Ignorantiam Grgumentum ad Ludicium Grgumentum ad Cisericordiam Grgumentum ad <opu um Grgumentum ad Kericundiam Grgumentum e# )oncessio Ea acy of )omp e# Juestion

Ea acies of %quivocation

Ea acies of <resumption

/. a. b. III.

Ea acy of 2on *equitor Ea acy of *imp e 2on *equitor Ea acy of Ea se )ause

*y ogistic Ea acies G. Ea acies of %duction 1. &. +. B. 1. &. +. /. 7. 8. 9. ?. ). 1. &. +. Ea acy of Incorrect )ontraposition Ea acy of Incorrect )onversion Ea acy of Incorrect "bversion Ea acy of Eour Terms -Juaternio Terminorem. Ea acy of Gmbiguous Cidd e Ea acy of Hndistributed Cidd e Ea acy of 2egative <remises Ea acy of <articu ar <remises Ea acy of I icit Cinor Ea acy of I icit Ca=or Ea acy of I%" Ea acy of $e=ecting the Gntecedent Ea acy of Gccepting the )onsequent Ea acy of *ub ate><osit -To endo <onens.

Ea acies in )ategorica *y ogisms

Ea acies in Fypothetica *y ogisms

The errors of reasoning which man may commit in his fa en state are impossib e to enumerate in its tota ity, et a one an e#haustive e#p anation of them. It wou d not be possib e for us to give a the erroneous epiphenomena of his mind. The above ist of fa acies is obvious y incomp ete and if we wi discuss each of them, it wou d take a book on ogic to accomp ish it. Thus, we eft the reader to study these fa acies by using common books on ogic. But there is a kind of fa acy which we have not mentioned in the above ist. It cannot be found in any te#tbook of ogic for it is the fa acy common y committed by a non>)hristian thinkers. It cannot be categori3ed under the three divisions of fa acies which we have enumerated for it is the fa acy of the knowing process as a who e. It is the fa acy of the unbe ieving thought>system. It ies at the very root of thinking itse f and embraces the entire spectrum of a wor dview.

It is the fa acy of unbe ieving epistemo ogy. We wi ca it as the Ea acy of $e=ecting the Bib e Truth. It has three types: +B -1. Ea acy of )onceptua <arasitism, -&. Ea acy of <ropositiona Hsurpation, and -+. Ea acy of *y ogistic 4enia . Erom these types we can see that this ma=or fa acy can a so be ca ed as the Ea acy of $easoning from the )ircu arity of Bib e>re=ecting Be ief>system. This fa acy vio ates the ru e basic to a aws of thought: the <rincip e of )onsistency. The three basic aws of thought ! <rincip e of Identity, <rincip e of 2on> contradiction, and <rincip e of %#c uded Cidd e ! firm y stand on the <rincip e of )onsistency. It asserts that a statement can be either true or fa se depending upon its correspondence or dissonance to factua ity and rea ity. Both factua ity and rea ity based their truth on the 6ord and *aviour Lesus Who is the Truth of truths. Eactua ity refers to particu ar categories of percept which is inductive y known to be true whi e $ea ity refers to universa categories of concept which are deductive y known to be true. "n y the Bib e perfect y defined factua ity and rea ity. Thus, to be ab e to know what are the Ea acy of $e=ecting the Bib e Truth and its three types, one must prayerfu y study the Bib e. $ead the fo owing passages of the Bib e: Lob +9:1@5 Ln.?:+/,//5 %cc.9:&B,&@5 <sa.1B:/5 1/:1>+5 1?:&7>&85 8/:8: <rov.+:7>95 &/:9>@5 1)or.&:@> 18. There is no need for any e#p anation to garnish, e aborate, or systemati3e those strings of words that e#pressed the very word of Aod. Bib e truth is perfect. It wi e#p ain itse f to the heart of an open>minded reader by the Fo y *pirit. What, then, is the answer to our question at the beginning of this artic e? *imp e for those who do not confine themse ves within the bound of their reasoning process, start thinking by be ieving the Bib e truth and we wi not be mis ed at a . Cake the Bib e truth as the starting point in a your be ief and thinking. Bib e truth is the on y u timate circu arity where science, phi osophy and re igion can thrive on. "utside the circ e of Bib e truth you can find the rea m of the unrea and the imaginary. Iou must not ive in sin>produced de usive paranoia. 6et us ive in the rea rea ity and be ieve the true truth.

RELIGIONISM 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.( > Isaiah ?:&B
MWG$2I2A: Iou must read this artic e from the beginning to the end without skipping a sing e word. Iou must try to understand this who e artic e in one reading. "therwise you wi find yourse f not as yourse f but as someone e se.N

G man is se fish. G that you think and a that you do u timate y revo ve around yourse f. Whether you admit it or not, a that you did had been done with the purpose of satisfying yourse f. Iou do what you do because you want to do it. Iou do what is right in your own eyes even though you a ready know that sometimes what you are doing is obvious y wrong. Iou =ust do what makes you fee comfortab y free in a your choices as far as it gives you a sense of se f>satisfaction and se f>fu fi ment. Those things which you do that seems to be heroic deeds and se f>sacrificing acts are but mere e#pressions of your se fishness that under ies your wi , desire and vo ition. 2othing which you choose to do can be done without the conte#t of your se f> centeredness. Can must a ways start from himse f and end to himse f in a his thinking, action, decision, and ref ection. Fe thinks and acts by simp y considering himse f in autonomy from other things. Those situations which appear to force you in doing things against your desire are =ust that, appearances. %ven if you e#perience a sort of e#treme coercion, sti you are the on y one who can and must decide in that imited situation. %ven if the options are imited into two, you sti have the freedom which of them you wi choose. There is a freedom of choice which sti e#ists between the one or the other, between deprivation of things you owned and deprivation of your e#istence, ife or death, etc. The fina decision is a ways your se f>determination. 2o thing and no one can u timate y resist you. Iour wi is your desire. It is a your own. %gotism is the ru e with no e#ception. Iou are the on y one who contro your destiny. Iou are the on y one who changes the circumstances and situations around you. Indifference and si ence in this case does not mean ack of freedom and choice. It on y means that you do not want to change the state where you are and that is what you rea y want to choose no more no ess. Iou are the on y one who done it a for you are the one who give meaning to a your e#periences. Iou are the god of your own se f>generated wor d. 4o you be ieve it? Gre a the statements written above true? 4o you doubt yourse f? There is no one that you can trust but your own conviction. Is it true? When a things have been said and be ieved, this is where deception comes. Iou are being hoodwinked by no other than yourse f. Iou deceived yourse f that you have freedom which you think you have. In fact, your heredity and environment formed and conditioned you to be what you are. Iou cannot contro your genetic structure5 it contro s you. Iou cannot transform

your environment according to your wants and needs5 it mo ds your wants and needs. Iour very decision has been imited by the options given to you by the situation in which you have no contro . The on y thing you can do is to choose from the different choices provided to you by the circumstances in which you are but a speck of dust driven by the mu ti>dimensiona wind of the universe. Iour very choice of co or, taste, right, good, music, beauty, form, shape, structure, etc. has been programmed and conditioned in your cerebra circuitries by your hereditary compositions and cu tura paradigms. *ince you did not choose your origin, you cannot a so choose your destiny. Iou did not decide who wi be your parents, re atives, neighbours and what wi be your p ace of birth, cu ture, country, nationa ity, physica characteristics, re igion, etc. Iou =ust open your eyes in the wor d in which the on y thing eft for you to do is adapt yourse f in its ever>changing nature. This is your on y choice, you cannot contradict and re=ect them at a otherwise you wi be =udged as menta y retarded, abnorma or insane to your death. Iou simp y beat the system and dance with its me ody. The bio ogica and eco ogica factors contro your very destiny. They mo d, form, nourish, change, condition, construct, sustain, modify, inf uence, and nurture you to become a person they want you to be. Iour se f>determination has a ready been determined for you by nature>nurture interaction. Iou are mere automaton with an imaginary freedom in the wor d of pure materia ism. Iou are tota y dependent to your genetic hardware and wor dview software. The on y difference between you and the computer is that you know you are a machine but the computer does not. But both of you do not know what to do without a specific program from your components -brain or )<H. provided into your porta of entries in your machinery by outside sources. Iou cannot start thinking from a vacuum. Iou =ust respond to the different stimu i you encounter because of your sensitivity. Traditions, authorities, out ook in ife, cu tura fads, common trends, etc. p ay a arge ro e in your decision>making and va ues formation. Iou cannot do anything without the interaction of your physico>chemica makeup and socio>cu tura surrounding. 4o you be ieve it? Gre a the statements written above true? 4o you doubt others? There is no one that you can ask to he p you but from others. Is it true? It seems now that you fee you are being trapped between two e#treme be iefs.

The one is that you are a reincarnated god who created your own rea ity and the other is that you are an evo ved machine that is being contro ed by rea ity. Iou fee that both of them must be wrong, otherwise the on y thing that you can do is to choose one of them. But, again, you are hoodwinked for there is a third, midd e and safe option besides these two e#tremes. Iou are obvious y neither a god nor a machine for you are a man. True, in the past you were contro ed by time and chance from a cong omeration of e ements in a primordia soup of the prebiotic earth. But after those mi ions of years of evo ution have passed, you found yourse f in its highest rung for you are the 3enith and goa of physica evo ution. Iou can now contro your surrounding and yourse f toward further evo ution but not in the physica rea m for you are a ready at its peak. The evo ution must take p ace at the spiritua rea m. G nephi imic upgrade is needed at the very center of your brain -third eye or pinea g and. and at the very root of your 42G -nanotech biochip.. Iou simp y need a spiritua or demonic mark in your forehead for yogic society and a digita or microchip mark in your right hand for cash ess society. Thus, a one>wor d utopian government wi be formed with an u timate one>wor d master eader. Iou are a brainwashed machine in the past but in the future you must rea i3e that you are god. Iou must contro your destiny. The universe is you for you are the universe. The rea ity is you for you are rea ity. Gs a machine in the past you cannot contro your origin but as a god in the future you can contro your destiny. Gs a man today you must start contro ing both yourse f and your surrounding. Iou as a man are the ink between the physica evo ution and spiritua revo ution. Gs a machine you mean nothing, as a man you mean something, but as a god you mean everything. CG2 is an acronym which means C>my se f is G>a things as a god but 2> nothing as a machine. Iou are nothing and a things. Iou were contro ed and you wi be the contro er. Iou wi be because of who you were. 4o you be ieve it? Gre a the statements written above true? 4o you doubt both yourse f and others? Iou and they are what make a things. Is it true? I know that you are a ready confused what to choose from the three opposing views written above. Iou are a ready tired of indoctrination and meditation. Iou have been hoodwinked three times at this point. Iou want to have an abso ute certainty to your be ief without a sing e partic e of doubt. Iou want the rea truth and not =ust another deception in the guise of truth, truth that wi satisfy your innermost onging, craving, yearning, and desire.

Iou are not a one to this search for meaning and truth. Iou are =ust one of the seven bi ions of peop e around the wor d who ask the very same questions which you asked. Iou be ong to the myriads of men who are crying for the so ution of the very same prob ems which you have. Iou desperate y need an adequate e#p anation to everything. We a need and want to free ourse ves from the cyc e of specu ative specu ation. *uch confusion is caused by re igionism. Eor re igionism uses this cyc e of opinionated opinions to ens ave men. What is re igionism? We do not need to define this term for you a ready know and have e#perienced it at this very moment. Lust by shifting be iefs from one opinionated opinion to another opinionated opinion without abso ute certainty is a c ear evidence of re igionism in action. It is the greatest hoodwinker. $e igionism is the way of man to save himse f from the condemnation of sin and damnation of death through his se f>effort. $e igionism ike scientism is the e#tension of its rea m beyond its ethica boundary and ike phi osophism it deceives peop e to be ieve the va idity of such usurpation. $e igionism is a method of man in seeking u timate peace and perfect happiness and thus by definition is imited, futi e and temporary which wi never reach any kind of u timacy and perfection. Its u timate success is u timate fai ure. $e igionism a ways used ies in propagating its hidden agenda. 6ies are truths mi#ed with errors, these truths and not its error make it a potent snare for the unknowing victims of re igionism. In re igionism, because of deception, errors are seen to be indistinctive to truths. 'Woe unto them that ca evi good, and good evi 5 that put darkness for ight, and ight for darkness5 that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitterD( -Isaiah 7:&B. "bvious y, there are rea ities which must be considered in our be ief. $ea ity which determined what to be ieved and what is not. There is the rea ity of ourse ves and the wor d around us. But there sti a third rea ity besides these two we >known rea ities. $e igionism which knows on y the two rea ities, either e#tends to the e#tremes or combines both these e#tremes as you have seen -and previous y be ieved. in the above three opposing specu ations. $e igionism is too imited and too finite to see the third rea ity. $e igionism is so b ind that not on y it cannot see the third rea ity but a so it has a ways vio ated the third rea ity from its conception to its fruition. This third rea ity is the necessary precondition for the corre ation of the two rea ities. The two rea ities cannot be known as such without the third rea ity. What is the third rea ity? This is the rea ity of the aw.

There are different kinds of aws which have been discovered by man from himse f and from nature. Cost of them are tempora , earth y, finite and imperfect. But there are three kinds of aw which have no beginning and ending for they came direct y from the on y Gbso ute, %terna , Infinite and <erfect Being: Aod. These aws are the aws of ight, of ife, and of ove. The aw of ight ref ects Aod1s righteousness, =ustice and ho iness. The aw of ife ref ects Aod1s wi , g ory and rationa ity. The aw of ove ref ects Aod1s grace, mercy and goodness. These aws are the ref ection of Aod1s communicab e attributes. Without these aws that govern the entire rea ity, man himse f and the wor d in which he ive wi be utter y unre ated. Can cannot understand nature, he cannot recogni3e himse f and he cannot even know who he is. The wor d wi be chaotic, uninte igib e and unperceivab e. Can wi never apprehend, sense and comprehend the things around him and he himse f. Without this third rea ity, the two rea ities cannot e#ist as such. %ven if you take the two rea ities separate y in their e#treme form or combined them both in their modified form as we have demonstrated at the beginning of this artic e, they sti wi not e#ist as rea ity if you wi e#c ude the rea ity of the aw. $e igionism can on y e#ist in the imaginary, the i usory, the unrea , and the sayab e but never in the rea rea ity for it e#c udes the truth of the aw which is the rea ity that coheres and corre ates the two rea ities. Think what wi happen if there are no aws of thought, aws of the universe, aws of the human nature, aws of rea ity, and aws of mora ity. <rima facie, a things wi be worse than absurdity itse f. Iou and the wor d wi be meaning ess. %verything wi be se f>annihi ating. Think and be ieve. It seems that we have come to a point where a questions have a ready been answered but there is sti a fourth rea ity that must be considered. In fact, this rea ity must not be eve ed together with the three rea ities for this rea ity is beyond them a . This is the on y *upreme rea ity, the $ea ity of rea ities and the Truth of truths. This necessary rea ity must be no other than Aod Fimse f: the )reator of the universe, the Caker of man and the Aiver of the aw. Fe a one can adequate y account for the sub=ect>ob=ect> aw corre ation. $e igionism can never go beyond its conception of rea ity. It does not and cannot recogni3e the Aod Who is the $ea ity of rea ities. Its idea and concept of rea ities is unrea and thus re igionism itse f and those who be ieve in it are ess than the rea rea ity. The deification of the created rea ities is the most absurd view of rea ity. It is the vanity of vanities. Those who be ieve on it ref ect its nature. Cisinterpretation begets

perversion. 'They that make them -i.e., vain ido s. are ike unto them5 so is every one that trusteth in them.( -<sa ms 117:?. $e igion is the root word of re igionism5 it came from two 6atin words 're( and ' igare( which when taken together wi mean 'to tie again,( 'to bind back,( 'to reconci e,( or 'to unite again.( $e igions have correct y identified the prob em and the question of man. It pointed out the broken re ationship between the rea rea ities and the $ea ity of rea ities, between the creature and the )reator, and between the facts and the Truth. But re igionism has wrong y supp ied the so ution by deriving the answer from the prob em itse f. The question cannot answer itse f. The prob em cannot so ve itse f. The prob em and the question can be so ved and answered on y by the "ne who has no prob em and question. Iou cannot so ve the prob em of others if their very prob em is a so your prob em. Iou cannot answer the question of others if their very question is a so your question. Iou cannot c eanse yourse f and others if both of you are drown in the ocean of mud and dirt. Iou cannot cause yourse f to rise from the dead if you are dead. The dead cannot give ife. Iou cannot save yourse f from sin and death for you are a sinner condemned to die. Iou cannot free others from sin for you are a so a servant of sin. 'Keri y, veri y, I say unto you, Whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin( -Lohn ?:+/.. Iou cannot annihi ate deception by another deception. Iou cannot guide another b ind if you are a so b ind for 'if the b ind ead the b ind, both sha fa into the ditch( -Catthew 17:1/.. Iou cannot so ve the prob em of evi by doing evi . 'Be not overcome of evi , but overcome evi with good( -$omans 1&:&1.. $e igionism cannot so ve a prob em and answer a question for it is itse f the prob em and the question. The prob em is that there is an enmity between Aod and man. The question is how to reconci e Aod and man. That is your prob em and that is your question. -$omans +:@>&B5 %phesians &:1>+5 6uke 1+:1>7.. We need an e#p anation. If you wi say that there is no prob em with the wor d and you have no prob em at a , you mere y demonstrate and show in a forcefu way how grave and deep your prob em is with yourse f and the wor d. If you wi say that you have no question with the wor d and yourse f, it on y means that you are a ready swa owed up by the question to the e#tent that you cannot see it anymore. What, then, is the so ution and the answer to your prob em and your question? I, myse f, cannot make it. Iou, yourse f, cannot provide it. The wor d itse f cannot produce it. G things together cannot give it.

"n y the )reator, *ustainer and $edeemer of a things can so ve and answer a the prob ems and a the questions. Fe a one can e#p ain everything. Fe is the 6ord and *aviour Lesus )hrist. Fe is TF% G2*W%$, TF% *"6HTI"2 G24 TF% %O<6G2GTI"2. Fe was conceived of a virgin, born in a manger, ive miracu ous y, intense y suffered, crucified with sinners, died for the sin of the wor d, and rose again to give us ife. Fe himse f is ight and thus cannot sin, Fe himse f is ife and thus cannot die, and Fe himse f is ove and thus Fe has no prob em and question at a . But he became sin for us thatPs why darkness surrounded the cross at ca vary. Fe bore our sins thatPs why he died to save us and to impute his righteousness upon us. Because of AodPs ove, he gave himse f for us to give us eterna ife. Fe is the u timate e#pression and abso ute manifestation of AodPs supreme perfection. )an you conceive or think any other so ution, answer and e#p anation? Iou cannot, you must not, for you are nothing if you wi do it. Without Fim, we are a nothing5 in fact, ess than nothing, for the word nothing can be understood at the backdrop of something but those who wi prec ude the )reator, *ustainer and $edeemer of a things are ess than nothing for the on y 'thing( which has been eft to serve as their backdrop is nothing. If we be ieving y trust in Fim and who ehearted y repent of a our sins, then we wi have a things because Fe is more than everything. Iou can never have pure re igion at a -Lames 1:&8,&9. if there is no ife of Aod that dwe s in you -$omans ?:9>195 %phesians 1:19>+&5 & <eter 1:&>115 I Lohn +:18>&B.. 'Lesus answered and said unto him, Keri y, veri y, I say unto thee, %#cept a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Aod( -Lohn +:+.. Iou must receive the gift of Aod which Fe offer to you. The Aod>given faith is the root5 testimonia good works are the fruits -%phesians &:?>1B.. '%very good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Eather of ights, with Whom is no variab eness, neither shadow of turning. "f Fis own wi begat Fe us, that we shou d be a kind of firstfruits of Fis creatures( -Lames 1:19,1?.. Iou can do nothing to save yourse f but Lesus had a ready done everything to save you. Iou are tota y depraved but Lesus is perfect y righteous. )hoose )hrist and et Fis *pirit undo yourse f. )ry out for Aod1s mercy and forgiveness. Iou must accept Lesus as your persona 6ord and *aviour so that Fis faith may become your faith -Aa atians &:18,&B5 )o ossians 1:&8>&@.. $e igionism can on y make you re igious -knowing the prob em and the question but no so ution and no answer.. "n y the 6ord and *aviour Lesus )hrist can make you righteous -a so utions and a answers were found in Fim..

Fe is the 6ord of ords, Qing of kings, Caster of masters, *aviour of saviours, <rince of princes, Gnswer of answers, *o ution of so utions, %#p anation of e#p anations, and Aod of gods. In Fim a one we have a trip e persona reve ation of a things: the reve ation of who Aod rea y is and where we can find Fim, the reve ation of what man is and how to rec aim true manhood, and the reve ation of why the universe e#ists. If you wi not be ieve in Fim, it on y means that you are se f>righteous for you don1t want to accept Fis righteousness -$omans 1B:+.. If you wi not repent a your sins, it on y means that you don1t want to be saved and go to heaven with Fim. In other words, if you don1t want to accept the on y so ution and receive the on y answer, then you rea y ove to go to he fire with *atan. Think and be ieve. 4on1t waste your time, don1t be a foo , be true to rea ity. Aod oves you so much that Fe prepared the wor d in sending Fis on y begotten *on, the 6ord and *aviour Lesus )hrist, to save you from evi , sin and death -Lohn +:18>&1.. If you be ieved Fim, you1 sure y have eterna ife. 6et the word of Aod speak to your heart through the Fo y *pirit. But if you wi re=ect Fim, that wi be the most foo ish, worst, and sinfu decision that you wi ever make. Think about it. Ceditate on it. $e igionism wi ki you5 Lesus a one can save you -$omans 8:18>&+5 Gcts 18:+1..

CONCLUSION Eou must +elie,e the true truth. Eou must not ignore esta+lished "acts. Eou must re:ect your +igoted cynicism and romantic mysticism. Eou must thin0 outside the +o) o" scientism* philosophism and religionism. !either the arrogant stupidity nor the hysterical "oolishness is the answer. Eou must open your heart and mind "or the entrance o" truth. Eou must +elie,e the sel"8re,elation o" 7od to you through the 9i+le.
The Undeniability of Truth

Eou may ha,e your laughs* insults* sarcasms* ignorance* close8 mindedness* egotism* "anaticism* etc. +ut you will not +e a+le to re"ute the 9i+le truth. Eou assumed it whene,er you go against your autonomous* non8Christian presuppositions in order to li,e in reality. !o matter what you +elie,ed* you cannot change the reality o" what is. I" you are still sane and normal* you must +e shut up +y reality. It will slap you across the "ace whene,er you are out o" your mind. It will

0ic0 you to go +ac0 to the real world whene,er you stray "rom the real reality to wander in the arti"icial world o" your 9i+le8re:ecting +elie" system. Eou can +elie,e that the world is chance8controlled* e,olutionary uni,erse. Eou can +elie,e that the world is gods8controlled* illusory multi,erses. Eou can +elie,e that you are :ust an intelligent machine* an ad,anced animal* or a deluded god. 9ut you can ne,er deny the order* law and +eauty o" the anthropic uni,erse created +y 7od "or you to li,e in a sane and normal way. (rue* it is already corrupted* marred* and de"iled +y humanity>s will"ul diso+edience to his Creator* Sustainer and Redeemer +ut .e still lo,es us so much that is why we still li,e. E,en man>s creati,ity in architecture* painting* music* literature* poetry* technical monograph* mathematical "ormula* e-uation* computer program* design* language* technology* mo,ie* etc. are :ust in"initesimal re"lection o" .is nature as created in 7od>s image. 7od>s common grace a+ounds all o,er .is creation especially in man. (hose who want to challenge the reality o" 7od>s sel"8re,elation in nature* in man and in Christ will soon "ind themsel,es either in hospital* :ail* mental asylum* or worse* cemetery. Aldous .u)ley* =ary Calderone* <ac0son Polloc0* .elena 9la,ats0y* Paul 7auguin* <imi .endri)* 9ernard 9erenson* 4reiedrich !iet?sche* Adol" .itler* =argareth =ead* Al"red Charles Finsey* 7loria Steinem* 2ilhelm Steinit?* =argaret Sanger* .ugh .e"ner* <oycelyn Elders* Gladimir Ilich Denin* Anton Da Gey* 3a,id 1=oses6 9erg* =ar-uis de Sade* 9etty 4riedan* 7uru 9hagwan Shree Ra:neesh* <im <ones* Furt Co+ain* Gincent Gan 7ogh* <ulian <ohnson* and Dudwig 9olt?man are :ust some o" the prominent e)amples who tried to li,e out their re:ection o" 9i+le truth. Insanity* suicide* immorality* a+omination* and wic0edness are the ultimate conclusions o" all 9i+le8re:ecting world,iews and +elie"8systems. I" you will re:ect the truth o" the 9i+le* your -ueen will +ecome hedonist and your 0ing will +ecome nihilist in the anarchic 0ingdom o" deluded un+elie". (hose who thin0 deeply the logical conclusion o" their un+elie,ing +elie" system ha,e chosen to li,e inconsistently with it +y assuming 9i+le truth in order to li,e. In reality* there is simply no one can li,e logically according to his own

9i+le8re:ecting presuppositions. Renown s0eptic 3a,id .ume admitted this "act/ 1Should +e as0ed me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I ha,e +een to such pains to inculcate* and whether I +e really one o" those s0eptics who hold that all is uncertainHIHshould replyHthat neither I nor any other person was e,er sincerely and constantly o" that opinionH. I dine* I play +ac0gammon* I con,erse and am merry with my "riends and when* a"ter 3 or & hours amusement* I would return to these speculations* they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous that I cannot "ind in my heart to enter into them any "urther. (hus the s0eptic still continues to reason and +elie,e* though he asserts that he cannot de"end his reason +y reason and +y the same rule* he must assent to the principle concerning the e)istence o" the +ody* though he cannot pretend +y any argument o" philosophy* to maintain its ,eracity.6 Renown musician <ohn Cage sung together with .ume +y admitting that he cannot apply his chance method to his ho++y in mycology/ 1I +ecame aware that i" I approached mushrooms in the spirit o" my chance operations* I would die shortly. So I decided that I would not approach them in this wayA6 I 0now that you too dance and sing together with .ume and Cage in this regard that is why you still li,e in a sane and normal way. Eou simply li,e inconsistently with your +elie" system. Renowned in"idel 9ertrand Russel has e,en admitted* 12hat the world needs is Christian lo,e or compassion.6 And the s0eptic 3a,id .ume was once again struc0 across the "ace +y reality when he wrote/ 1(he whole "rame o" nature +espea0s an intelligent authorC and no rational en-uirer can* a"ter serious re"lection* suspend his +elie" a moment with regard to the primary principles o" genuine (heism and Religion.6 E,en the renown physicist Al+ert Einstein was awa0ened +y reality when he pointed out that 1I" one purges the <udaism o" the Prophets and Christianity as <esus Christ taught it o" all su+se-uent additions especially those o" the priests* one is le"t with a teaching which is capa+le o" curing all the social ills o" humanity.6 Einstein also tells us* 1(he highest principles "or our aspirations and :udgments are gi,en to us in the <ewish8Christian religious traditions.6 =an can sin"ully in,ent di""erent 0inds o" un+elie,ing +elie" system +ut he will ne,er +e a+le to li,e with them in any consistent way. Eou cannot "ight against truth and reality without destroying
The Unli!ability of Falsehood

yoursel". 7uru 9hagwan Shree Ra:neesh can state/ 1I don>t +elie,e in morality* I am +ent on destroying it.6 And Swami Gi,e0ananda can e,en says/ 17ood and e,il are one and the same.6 (hese unreal* irrational and immoral +elie"s are stata+le* saya+le and writa+le +ut ne,er li,a+le. (hese mystics and their "ollowers can only li,ed parasitically through the <udeo8Christian +elie" system. ;therwise* side8+y8side* they will allow themsel,es to +e a+used and 0illed. Suicide* homicide* parricide* genocide* and cosmocide are all :usti"ia+le in their un+elie,ing +elie" system. In any 9i+le8 re:ecting world,iew* there is no ade-uate +asis "or man>s personality* rationality* and morality* and uni,erse>s reality* unity and causality. (here is no certainty at all i" your re"erence point is egomaniacal egotism as 1the 4ather o" modern philosophy6 Rene 3escartes e)pressed in his meditation/ 1(hough this +e true* I must ne,ertheless here consider that I am a man* and that* conse-uently* I am in the ha+it o" sleeping* and representing to mysel" in dreams those same things* or e,en sometimes other less pro+a+le* which the insane thin0 are presented to them in their wa0ing moments. .ow o"ten ha,e I dreamt that I was in these "amiliar circumstances B that I was dressed* and occupied this place +y the "ire* when I was lying undressed in +ed5 At the present moment* howe,er* I certainty loo0 upon this paper with eyes wide awa0eC the head which I now mo,e is not sleepC I e)tend this hand consciously and with e)press purpose* and I percei,e itC the occurrences in sleep are not so distinct as all this. 9ut I cannot "orget that* at other times* I ha,e +een decei,ed in sleep +y similar illusionsC and* attenti,ely considering those cases* I percei,e so clearly that there e)ist no certain mar0s +y which the state o" wa0ing can e,er +e distinguished "rom sleep* that I "eel greatly astonishedC and in ama?ement I almost persuade mysel" that I am now dreaming.6 !ew Ager Sha0ti 7awain has pushed this egomaniacal hysteria a little +it "arther when he e)pressed this ontological enigma in mystical +igotry/ 1As each o" us connects with our inner spiritual awareness* we learn that the creati,e power o" the uni,erse is within us. 2e also learn that we can create our own reality and ta0e responsi+ility "or doing so.6 All un+elie,ing +elie" systems are +ased not on "acts and e,idence +ut on "eeling and pre:udice/ 1I am an atheist* out and out. It too0 me a long time to say

it. I>,e +een an atheist "or years and years* +ut somehow I "elt it was intellectually unrespecta+le to say one was an atheist* +ecause it assumed 0nowledge that one didn>t ha,e. Somehow it was +etter to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I "inally decided that I>m a creature o" emotion as well as o" reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don>t ha,e the e,idence to pro,e that 7od doesn>t e)ist* +ut I so strongly suspect he doesn>t that I don>t want to waste my time.6 (hese are the 1strong6 words o" renowned humanist Isaac Asimo, who admitted that his re:ection o" 7od>s e)istence is purely emotional and not rational. .e is :ust one o" the daydreamers who want to escape the reality o" what is +y decei,ing themsel,es that 7od does not e)ists. =eaninglessness runs a"ter them throughout their li,es as !ew Ager <oseph Camp+ell admitted/ 12hat>s the meaning o" the uni,erse5 2hat>s the meaning o" a "lea5 It>s :ust there. (hat>s it. And your own meaning is that you>re there. 2e>re so engaged in doing things to achie,e purposes o" outer ,alue that we "orget that the inner ,alue* the rapture that is associated with +eing ali,e* is what it>s all a+out.6 (o re:ect the a+solute truth is accept the a+solute deception. Eou can ne,er determine anything as true at all in the real sense o" the word. Eou will "ind yoursel" rowing your +oat in the shoreless ocean o" con"licting opinionated opinions. (his only means that in an un+elie,ing +elie" system* 1truth6 depends upon the con,iction o" an indi,idual. Since you don>t +elie,e in an o+:ecti,e a+solute truth which e,ery+ody must and ought to +elie,e* then you can create your own cra?y world as you please to do. 9ut as we all 0now* this demented re8creation o" indi,idual worlds is ne,er true to the generality o" man0ind. (his is true only to paranoid* insane* psychopathic* demon8possessed* drug addict* deluded* sel"8decei,ed* and schi?ophrenic persons +ut ne,er to the normal* sensi+le and sane persons simply +ecause the 9i+le is true. (he truth o" the 9i+le warrants the reality o" what we commonly e)perience* 0now and +elie,e. I" the 9i+le is not true and that all 9i+le8re:ecting +elie" systems are true then loo0 what you>,e got. (hin0 "or a moment what would happen/ i" there is no immanent8transcendent triune 7od who created* sustained and redeemed the worldC i" there is no true truth #a+solute truth' and real reality #o+:ecti,e reality'C i" all 0nowledge* wisdom and understanding are merely pro,isional* pro+a+le* temporary and thus ultimately "utile* ,oid o" sense* meaningless* and a+surdC i" li"e is not precious* i" lo,e does not e)ists* i" light is the same as dar0nessC i"

truth* right and good are identical and e-ui,alent to deception* wrong and e,ilC i" competing gods control all thingsC i" e,olution through natural selection +y pure chance is trueC i" there is no <esus Christ who is the Dord and Sa,iour o" man0indC i" there will +e no new hea,en and new earthC i" there is no miracle and pro,idenceC i" there is no common and sa,ing graceC i" man is not created in the image o" 7odC i" there is no "aith* hope and charityC etc. Eou 0now what will happen5 Eou can ne,er 0now "or there will +e no you who will 0now and there will +e no thing which is going to happen. I" the 9i+le is not true* there is nothing8nothing.
The Co"#leteness of $bsolute Truth ;nly the 9i+le can gi,e us the real "ormula o"

truth. (he 7od who re,eals it is the true A+solute. 9ecause o" human depra,ity and Satanic deception* man usually re:ects 7od>s re,elation o" .imsel". =an has chosen to in,ent his own "ormula o" truth and posed it as his new 1a+solute.6 In science* man in,ented the concept o" e,olutionism to e)plain all the phenomena o" nature. It has three aspects/ Cosmic e,olution* 9iochemical e,olution and 9iological e,olution. Cosmic e,olution tries to e)plain the origin o" the uni,erse* +iochemical e,olution tries the origin o" li"e and +iological e,olution the origin o" di""erent species o" animals including man. Peter =edawar told us that* 1It is di""icult to imagine or imagine an e,olutionary episode which could not +e e)plained +y the "ormulae o" neo83arwinism.6 According to <ulian .u)ley* 1;ur present 0nowledge indeed "orces us to the ,iew that the whole o" reality is e,olution B a single process o" sel"8 trans"ormation.6 (his statement o" +lind "aith to e,olution has e)pressed +y Pierre (eilhard de Chardin in religious "ashion/ 1E,olution is a general postulate to which all theories* all hypotheses* all systems must hence"orth +ow and which they must satis"y in order to +e thin0a+le and true. E,olution is a light which illuminates all "acts* a tra:ectory which all lines o" thought must "ollow B this is what e,olution is.6 (his is the "a,orite -uotation o" (heodosius 3o+?hans0y* the world>s "oremost spo0esman "or e,olution* as a summari?ation o" his search "or meaning o" all things. .opeless romantic and tragic "uture. In philosophy* man in,ented the concept o" humanism to e)plain all the phenomena o" man. It has three aspects/ !aturalism* =aterialism and !ew8 Ageism. Corliss Damont gi,es us a concise de"inition/ 1(o de"ine naturalistic .umanism in a nutshell/ it re:ects all "orms o" supernaturalism* pantheism* and metaphysical idealism* and considers man>s supreme aim as wor0ing "or the

wel"are and progress o" all humanity in this one and only li"e according to the methods o" reason* science* and democracy.6 Gladimir Denin* on the other hand* de"ines materialistic .umanism as "ollows/ 1=atter is primary nature. Sensation* thought* consciousness are the highest products o" matter organi?ed +y a certain way. (his is the doctrine o" materialism* in general* and =ar) and Engels* in particular.6 !ew Age .umanism has +een de"ined +y 9e,erly 7alyean/ 1;nce we +egin to see that we are all 7od* that we all ha,e the attri+utes o" 7od* then I thin0 the whole purpose o" human li"e is to reown 7odli0eness within usC the per"ect lo,e* the per"ect wisdom* the per"ect understanding* the per"ect intelligence* and when we do that* we create +ac0 to that old* that essential oneness which is consciousness.6 Arrogant stupidity and pure delusion. In religion* man in,ented the concept o" pseudo8theism to e)plain all the phenomena a+out morality* spirituality and theology. It has three aspects/ Atheism* Polytheism and Pantheism. Atheism is the religion without 7od. Polytheism is the religion o" many gods. Pantheism is the religion that all is god. 4oolishness at its +est. All these un+elie,ing +elie" systems re:ected the 9i+le truth. All these world,iews are at war with the <udeo8Christian system in the areas o" theology* philosophy* ethics* +iology* psychology* sociology* law* politics* economics* and history as 3r. 3a,id A. !oe+el has put it/ 1(o +e more precise* it is a +attle +etween world,iews. ;n one side is the Christian world,iew. ;n the other is the .umanist world,iew di,ided into three easily de"ina+le +ranches/ Secular .umanism* =ar)ism$Deninism* and Cosmic .umanist #the !ew Age =o,ement'. 2hile the latter three don>t agree in e,ery detail* there is one point on which they unanimously concur B their opposition to 9i+lical Christianity.6 As we ha,e seen* all un+elie,ing +elie" systems are :ust that* +elie" systems. (hey are mere +elie" with no logical* scienti"ic and moral +asis at all. (hey are purely +lind "aith to un+elie" +ased on opinionated opinions. ;nly the <udeo8Christianity is +ased on "acts and truth. It is rooted in history* sustained +y e,idence and protected +y prophecy. It is more than a +elie" system. It is +eyond +elie". It is more than science* philosophy and religion. ;ur Dord and Sa,iour <esus Christ .imsel" is the (ruth o" truths. (he center o" the In"inite8Personal (riune 7od. .e is pure light* li"e and lo,e.

NOTES & REFERENCES


1.

')onsciousness has a ro e especia y in design or te eo ogica arguments. Why is there a cosmos which is governed by aws of nature and that has inc uded the emergence of conscious, iving, mora , and re igious beings? )onsciousness has had a ro e in other arguments as we , such as arguments from re igious e#perience -the apparent consciousness of Aod., know edge or cognition -epistemo ogica arguments., and beauty -aesthetic arguments..( > )har es Ta iaferro, 'Where 4o Thoughts )ome Erom?(, The Big Grgument: 4oes Aod %#ist?, eds. Lohn Gshton and Cichae Westacott, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, &BB8, p. 17@. 'Eacts are tempora truths which Aod, the eterna Truth, estab ishes by Fis works of creation and providence. Aod revea s facts to men through their thought processes, and in and through the facts Aod revea s Fimse f. In the facts of nature Aod revea s Fimse f as the G mighty )reator Aod, and in the facts of *cripture Aod revea s Fimse f as the faithfu )ovenant Aod and in the facts of the Aospe Aod revea s Fimse f as the Triune *aviour Aod. )ertainty is our c ear perception of the c ear y revea ed facts. %rror is the sinfu re=ection of the facts, and especia y of Aod1s reve ation of Fimse f in and through the facts. ' ! %dward E. Fi s, G.B. -*umma )um 6aude, Ia e Hniv..5 Th.4. -Farvard Hniv... MThe Qing Lames Kersion 4efended, 4es Coines: )hristian $esearch <ress, 1@?/, p. 117N 'G personPs wor dview, then, is a matter of being attuned to the truth as Aod knows it: the Truth who is Lesus. This invo ves what a person be ieves -i.e., the content or onePs cognitive disposition. and an appreciation of the be iefPs significance -i.e., the va uation or onePs affective disposition.. Being attuned to Truth invo ves be ieving what is true, recogni3ing its significance, and oving it according y.( > Wa ter L. *chu t3, 'What is the $e ationship of Wor dviews to Truth?(, )hristian )ontours: Fow a Bib ica Wor dview *hapes the Cind and Feart, ed. 4oug as *. Fuffman, Arand $apids: Qrege <ub ications, &B11, p. 87. &. $.%. $hoades, *tudies in <rogressive $eve ation Ko . I -6itchfie d: Caranatha Bib e *ociety, $ev. ed., 1@@7., Introduction, p.ii. *ee a so note 9 -be ow. +. p. 1B8. $.). *prou , $eason to Be ieve -Arand $apids: Rondervan <ub ishing Fouse, 1@?&.,

'Tota i usion is impossib e, since i usion necessari y presupposes a backdrop of rea ity.( > 2orman 6. Aeis er, )hristian Gpo ogetics, Arand $apids: Baker Book Fouse, 1@98, p. &B1 /. 4ivergence, another name for evo ution, is in no sense a demonstrab e fact. It is e#act y the opposite of )onvergence -the deve opment of simi ar characteristics by unre ated organisms for simi ar need and simi ar environmenta process. which is an estab ished fact is proving to be an embarrassment to evo utionists. *ome have even b ind y e#tended this unscientific and irrationa theory to spiritua rea ity. 'The ethnic re igions of the %ast -Finduism, Taoism, Buddhism, )onfucianism, etc.., which in

arge measure continue the po ytheistic pantheism of the ancient pagan re igions, have ong espoused evo utionary view of the universe and its iving things, and so they merge natura y and easi y into the evo utionary framework of the 2ew Gge phi osophy.( ! F.C.Corris and L.4.Corris -The Codern )reation Tri ogy, Ko ume Three, )reation S *ociety, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, 1@@8, p.119. *ee a so Ian T. Tay or, In the Cinds of Cen: 4arwin and the 2ew Wor d "rder, Toronto:TE% <ub ishing, 1@@1, /@? pp. Fenry C. Corris, The 6ong War Ggainst Aod: the Fistory and Impact of the )reation;%vo ution )onf ict, Arand $apids: Baker Books, 1@?@, +// pp. Qen Fam, The 6ie > %vo ution, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, 1@?9, 18? pp. )ary Catrisciana S $oger "ak and, The %vo ution )onspiracy, %ugene: Farvest Fouse <ub ishers, 1@@1, &19 pp. 7. ).*. 6ewis, Cere )hristianity -2ew Iork: )o ier Books, 1@7&., p. /7.

', the common y cited proofs of evo ution ! the fossi horse series, vestigia organs, the peppered moth, the duck>bi ed p atypus, Grchaeoptery#, the biogenetic aw, the Ci er>Hrey e#periment, and comparative anatomy ! are either mere unfounded assumptions or known erroneous concepts. ' >*.C. Fuse, The )o apse of %vo ution -Arand $apids: Baker Books, 1@@+., p. 1//. *ee a so Qen Fam, Gndrew *ne ing and )ar Wie and, The Gnswers Book: Gnswer to the 1& Cost> asked Juestions on Aenesis and )reation;%vo ution, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, 1@@?, &B9 pp. <au *. Tay or, The I ustrated "$IAI2* Gnswer Book: )oncise, %asy>to>understand Eacts about the "rigin of 6ife, Can, and the )osmos, Ai bert: %den )ommunications, 1@@7, 1&? pp. Kance Eerre , The %vo ution Fandbook, G tamont: %vo ution Eacts, Inc., &BB7, @@& pp. 8. This refers to substantive uniformitarianism of 'historica geo ogy( -uniformity of process rates of natura aws. and not to methodo ogica uniformitarianism of true geo ogy -partia and tempora invio abi ity of natura aws.. *ee Lohn ). Whitcomb and Fenry C. Corris, The Aenesis E ood: The Bib ica $ecord and Its *cientific Imp ications, Arand $apids: Baker Book Fouse, 1@81, 71? pp. 9. 'We must be c ear that )hristianity has nothing to fear from modern science. Indeed, )hristianity was instrumenta in the origin of science. Tradition and authority shou d not be =ust b ind y accepted, but e#amined to see if the things previous y be ieved are indeed true. What is dangerous is the misuse of the c aim to be 0scientific.1 We do not think it is too strong to speak of this as 0deception.1 ' ! Erancis G. *chaeffer, known as the *wiss *age, is one of the inte ectua and spiritua giants of this century. MThe )omp ete Works of Erancis G. *chaeffer: G )hristian Wor dview, Ko ume Eive, G )hristian Kiew of the West, Westchester: )rossway Books, 1@?&, p. 718N ?. Without reading the Bib e, atheists presupposed that Aod is ens causa sui -a se f> caused being., Lean><au *artre, for e#amp e, in his book 'Being and 2othingness( be ieved this to be the case and then pointed out that this eads to a contradictory concept of Aod. Gtheists are correct in noting that se f>caused being is impossib e but they are wrong in conceiving Aod as se f>

caused being. They are mere y creating their own prob em for Aod has no beginning5 Fe is eterna -4eut: ++:&9.. Aod is not an effect but rather Fe is the uncaused <ure Being -Feb.11:8.. The same schi3ophrenia were found in the minds of $ussian astronauts -cosmonauts. when they said that Aod does not e#ist because they have not seen Fim in space. This proves on y that they foo ish y -<sa.1/:1. ignored the Bib e which c ear y stated: '2o man hath seen Aod at any time5 the on y begotten *on, which is in the bossom of the Eather, Fe hath dec ared Fim.( -Ln.1:1?. @. There are many natura processes that indicate that recent creation. In his book, Aeophysica S Gstronomica ) ocks -Irvine: Gmerican Writing S<ub ishing )o., 1@@+, 1/8 pp.., Theodore W. $ybka -<h.4. in so id state physics at the Hniv. of "k ahoma. after discussing forty> two age indicators conc uded with the fo owing words: 'the earth, the so ar system, and the universe are a the same age ! from 8,BBB to 1B,BBB years.( *ee a so Lohn 4. Corris, The Ioung %arth, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, 1@@8, &18 pp. 10. *uch observation and other scientific evidences for creation cou d be further studied by reading the copious writings of creation scientists ike 4r. Fenry C. Corris who is the Eounder and <resident %meritus of Institute for )reation $esearch -I.).$... Cost of the great founders and primary deve opers of science were Bib e>be ieving creationist )hristians such as Boy e -)hemistry., Earaday -% ectromagnetics., Qe vin -Thermodynamics., Qep er - Gstronomy., 6innaeus -Ta#onomy., Caury -"ceanography., Ca#we -% ectrodynamics., 2ewton -4ynamics., <asteur -Bacterio ogy., $ay -Bio ogy., etc. %ven now there are itera y thousands of scientists who have abandoned evo ution and become creationists for a scientific evidences end its weight to Bib ica creationism. ',I want to assert that no one can point to a sing e fact of science, history, or archeo ogy that conf icts with a itera reading of the Bib e.( > Lohn L. Arebe, 4.*c. -'42G *tudies in $e ation to )reation )oncepts( in Why not )reation? %d. Wa ter %. 6ammerts, )reation $esearch *ociety, 1@9B, pp. +1&>+1+.. *ee a so Gnn 6amont, &1 Areat *cientists who Be ieved the Bib e, Brisbane: Gnswers in Aenesis, 1@@9, &7& pp. Fenry C. Corris, Cen of *cience >> Cen of Aod, Areen Eorest: Caster Books, 1@@9, 1B9 pp. 11. The famous e#periment of *tan ey Ci er which produced amino acids even though done under contro ed condition sti does not prove that ife wou d occur spontaneous y. <rof. Fans Aaffron of the Hniv. of )hicago in rep y to Far ow *hap ey of Farvard Hniv. at the 1@77 4arwin )entennia )e ebration )onference said that, ')ontrary to notions which are become popu ar, it does not so ve the prob em of ife. These substances are quite dead.( Juoted by G.). )ustance, *cientific 4eterminism: and 4ivine Intervention, <aper 2o. //, "ntario: 4oorway <ub ications, 1@??, p. +9. 1&. 4.$. <etersen, Hn ocking the Cysteries of )reation -*outh 6ake Tahoe: )reation $esource Eoundation, 1@??, p. 9+.

1+. 4uane T. Aish -<h.4. in biochemistry at Hniv. of )a ifornia, Berke ey. in '*pecu ations and %#periments $e ated to Theories on the "rigin of 6ife: G )ritique, ' -I.).$. technica monograph no. 1, 1@9&, /1 pp.. has proved beyond any reasonab e doubt that the entire structure of nature is arrayed against the evo utionary origin of ife. "n y the )reator can create ifeD 1/. Ered Foy e, quoted by F.C. Corris, The Bib ica Basis for Codern *cience, Arand $apids: Baker Book Fouse, 1@?/, p. &+/. 'It has been ca cu ated that there are &+@ protein mo ecu es in a minima ce for the ce to be fu y functioning, 0a 1 these have to be present simu taneous y. The chances against this happening are 1B11@?7B to 1. *uch figures are ridicu ous and defy any chance of no>Aod process constructing such a system. 2o wonder the Bib e says the foo had said in his heart, 0 there is no Ao.1 -<sa.7+:1..( !L.F. Lohn <eet, In the Beginning Aod,, 6ondon: Arace <ub ications Trust, 1@@/, p.7&. 17. *.C. Fuse, The )o apse of %vo ution -Arand $apids: Baker Books, 1@@+., p. ?@.

18. I <eter 1:&/>&7. In fact, whatever e#periment presented by the 'scientific estab ishment,( to prove that they can create -or more correct y, make. the basic bui ding b ocks of ife -not ife per se., they are app ying inte igence and thought to avoid this entropic tendency by putting their e#periment inside the aboratory under carefu y designed and contro ed conditions -it cannot be found in the prebiotic or primitive earth. which on y proves the necessity of inte igence superior to man in the creation of ife. *ee The )reation of 6ife, G.%. Wi der>*mith, 4.*c., <h.4., 4r. es.*c., E.$.I.)., *an 4iego: Caster Books, 1@9B, &8? pp. 19. *ee our artic e 'Time and )hance( for a more detai ed study of the criteria for order and organi3ation. 1?. <.*. $uckman, The )hristian1s Fandbook of *cience and <hi osophy -E orida: Bib e Baptist Bookstore, 1@?7., p. 188. 1@. 4.T. Aish, ' The 2ature of *cience and of Theories on "rigins, ' Impact T&8&, -% )a=on: Institute for )reation $esearch, 1@@7.:&. *ee a so his book ')reation *cientists Gnswer Their )ritics, % )a=on: Institute for )reation $esearch, 1@@+, /71 pp. &B. $.). *prou , 2ot a )hance -Arand $apids: Baker Books, 1@@/., &+/ pp.

&1.

'What I am saying is that the )hristian is e#act y in ine with the e#perience of every man, But no other system e#cept the Ludeo>)hristian one ! that which is given in the " d and 2ew Testament together ! te s us why there is a sub=ect>ob=ect corre ation. %verybody does act on it, everybody must act on it, but not other system te s you why there is a corre ation between the sub=ect and ob=ect. In other words, a men constant y and consistent y act as though )hristianity is true.( ! E.G. *chaeffer, The )omp ete Works of Erancis G. *chaeffer: G )hristian Wor dview, Ko ume "ne, G )hristian Kiew of <hi osophy and )u ture, Westchester: )rossway Books, 1@?&, p. ++B.

&&. 'It is undeniab e truth, that they who have been inward y taught by the *pirit, fee an entire acquiescence in the scripture5 and that it is se f>authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence.( ! Lohn )a vin -Timothy Tow, Gn Gbridgment of )a vin1s Institute of the )hristian $e igion Book I>IK, *ingapore: Ear %astern Bib e )o ege <ress, 1@@9, p.1?. 'Today1s c imate is one of se f>centered re ativism with no epistemo ogica orientation to a concept of abso ute truth. This mind>set is destructive of certainty and creates in peop e an attitude of tentativeness. Whi e a evange ica s be ieve in abso ute truth, perhaps modernity has eroded a va id be ief in certainty that Aod1s chi dren can understand Fis Word in a detai ed way.( ! Thomas 4. Ice, '4ispensationa Fermeneutics,( in Issues in 4ispensationa ism, ed. W.$. Wi is S L.$. Caster, )hicago: Coody <ress, 1@@/, p./8. 'The new abso utes are an abysma fai ure. %ven those who accept the new abso utes cannot ive with them. Gmong them ay scattered and broken marriages, confused and angry kids, racia distrust and animosity, mi ions of aborted babies, and a host of other prob ems. We must stop the insanity. !Wi iam 4. Watkins, The 2ew Gbso utes and how they are eroding mora character, fami ies and society, Cinneapo is: Bethany Fouse <ub ishers, 1@@8, p.&+/. &+. 'G fa acy is a deceptive argument5 that is, an argument that seems to be conc usive but is actua y not conc usive. %ither its sequence seems to be va id but is actua y inva id, or e se its premises seem to be true but are actua y fa se. The word 'fa acy( is derived from the 6atin word fallo, which means 'I deceive.( Gn appearance of va idity and truth is essentia to a fa acy, for it wou d deceive no one un ess it at east seemed to be va id and true.( > Gndrew F. Bachuber, Introduction to 6"AI), 2ew Iork: Gpp eton>)entury>)roft, Inc., 1@79, p.198. *atan is the first and foremost phi osophist. Fis question 'Iea, hath Aod said, Ie sha not eat of every tree of the garden?( is, to borrow Fe mut Thie icke1s words, 'an eminent y phi osophica question( -I be ieve: the christian1s creed, )ar is e: <artenoster <ress, 1@@?, p.&&1. for it sown doubt to the fina authority of Aod1s word in order to introduce denia of Bib e truth and acceptance of *atanic de usion. 'The enemy, pragmatic to the core, does not care how peop e are deceived, on y that they are. If this means he must occasiona y adapt his message to changing times and circumstances, he is perfect y wi ing to do so. By maintaining f e#ibi ity, he can e#p oit our human propensity to try new things ! a tactic that, in turn, a ows him to transform ancient deceptions into modern attractions.( >Aeorge "tis, Lr., The Twi ight of 6abyrinth: why does spiritua darkness inger where it does?, Arand $apids: )hosen Books, 1@@9, p. &1?>&1@.

&/. 'Gn argument must satisfy two conditions to estab ish the truth of its conc usion. It must be va id, and a of its premises must be true. *uch an argument is termed 0sound1. To determine the truth or fa sehood of premises is the task of scientific inquiry in genera since premisses may dea with any sub=ect matter at a . But determining the va idity or inva idity of arguments is the specia province of deductive ogic. The ogicians is interested in the question of va idity even for argument that might be unsound because their premises might happen to be fa se.( > Irving C. )opi, *ymbo ic 6ogic, 2ew Iork: CacCi an <ub ishing )o., Inc., 1@9@, p.7. &7. 'There is no one kind of thing that we 0perceive1 but many different kinds, the number being reducib e if at a by scientific investigation and not by phi osophy: pens are in many ways though not in a ways un ike rainbows, which are in many ways though not in a ways un ike after>image, which in turn are in many ways but not in a ways un ike pictures on the cinema>screen > and so on, without assignab e imit.( ! L.6. Gustin, *ense and *ensibi ia, 2ew Iork: "#ford Hniversity <ress, 1@8/, p./ 'G human knowing is re ation to an ob=ect.( > Cartin Buber, The Qnow edge of Can, 2ew Iork: Farper S $ow <ub ishers, 1@87, p.18+. &8. '6ogic is both a science and an art5 it is concerned with the quest of know edge and truth, and it is a so a study of the va idity or correctness of our reasoning.( > Lohn G. Courant, Eorma 6ogic: Gn Introductory Te#tbook, 2ew Iork: The CacCi an )o., 1@8+, p.&. Eor more technica detai s on the re ationship and distinction between truth and va idity in the rea m of ogic, read the fo owing artic es: http:;;www.ear ham.edu;Upeters;courses; og;tru>va .htm http:;;phi osophy. ander.edu; ogic;tvs.htm http:;;p ato.stanford.edu;entries; ogica >truth; http:;;www.#enodochy.org;gs;va idtrue.htm http:;;www.#enodochy.org;mai ;mdonvt.htm http:;;www.phi osophypages.com; g;eB1.htm

&9. 'Lust as ethica assumptions under ie proposa s, so a so does an ethica assumption inform the who e proposa for teaching written argument that this book e#p ains.( > Leanne Eahnestock S Carie *ecor, G $hetoric of Grgument, 2ew Iork: $andom Fouse, Inc. 1@?&, p.+.

'Ludgments of va ue are =udgments about what is good and bad, desirab e or undesirab e. Ludgments of ob igation focus on what is right and wrong and on what one do or forego.( > Lohn *. Eeinberg S <au 4. Eeinberg, %thics for a Brave 2ew Wor d, Wheaton: )rossway Books, 1@@+, p.1?. &?. '2obody is de iberate y inconsistent in his be iefs. It is simp y impossib e to be ieve, fu y and without reservation two things which you know are inconsistent with each other. It seems we are ob iged to be ieve on y what we think is consistent, without having any rea choice in the matter. In this way we are a ogicians, simp y because we are human. When we study ogic, we are teaching ourse ves to do de iberate y, by ru e, something we have been doing semi>conscious y, by hunch, ever since the age of four.( > Wi frid Fodges, 6ogic, 2ew Iork: <enquin Books, 1@99, p.17. &@. 'There are three operations of the mind which are immediate y concerned in Grgument5 which are ca ed by ogica writers: 1st, *imp e Gpprehension5 &nd, Ludgment5 +rd, 4iscourses of $easoning.( > Grchbishop Whate y -quoted by )har es F. We ch, Gn G phabetica Gna ysis, 1B vo s, 6ondon: Berean <ub ishing Trust, 1@7?, vo .1B, p.+&9. +B. The first type is ca ed 'i usion of meaning( by Erancis *chaeffer, the second type is ca ed 'rationa ist>irrationa ist dia ectic( by )orne ius Kan Ti , and the third type is ca ed 'pragmatic un ivabi ity( by 2orman Aeis er.

www.sciencephi osophyre igion.com www.thebib eformu a.com www.internetsecretbook.com www.pinoygenius.com

Вам также может понравиться