Noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book last book, Billions & Billions:
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Brilliant, no? It's enough to make any self-respecting atheist cringe in shame. Yet, it's the kind of stuff we see coming from atheists here all the time.
Leaving the God-concept out of count, what is a human being? What does it mean to
be human? These are tough questions, important questions whose conscious and unconscious answers weigh heavily upon us, the kind of questions religion deals with. But as important as they are, few people — especially nowadays — undertake the task of seriously answering them.
I suggest that a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself and that the work of unifying the synthesis is forever recommencing. I also suggest that unless we are relating to the world from some region of our consciousness where autonomy is clearly manifested and our natural urge of life is converted into the social art of living, we shall only open the way to diversions and extravagant fancies; that unless our present desires transformed into higher longings that are capable of lasting attainment and the commonplace lure of existence transferred from one of conventional and established ideas to the higher realms of unexplored ideas and undiscovered ideals, will quickly revert to the simple urge of living — the attainment of the satisfaction of present desires. I suggest that if the evolution of the soul fails to progress, we will find ourselves functioning on the animal level of existence — we will have failed to be truly human.
Given these parameters of what it is to be human, some humans are more human than others. That is, some are more cognizant of the synthesis than others. Some human beings are content with relating to only the finite-temporal-necessary aspect of their being; others will settle for nothing less than consciously relating to the Infinite-Eternal-Free as a living presence, a person. A person is free to disagree, but what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for a religionist's devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud.
Let's take the question 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' The question requires an ontological answer, but the closest thing to an answer atheistic 'science' has to offer is fluctuations in a quantum field whose values mysteriously average in such a way as to form a universe in which self-consciousness can emerge. When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses blissful ignorance and the absence of a moral compass:
- Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.
I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
I don't know, but not that (God)
Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.
The atheist's knee-jerk response to hearing a descriptive phrase like “transcendent ideal-image is ask, “What can this jackass mean if not God?” Well, I honestly don't know. That's something each person must decide for themselves. But consciously or unconsciously, we all want to be part of something greater than ourselves. It's that undercurrent of desire that gives voice to the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mohammad, Buddha, and yes, even Jesus Christ. What would have become of them if no one wanted to join their respective cause?