the lyin' the bitch and the boardroom

 I have suggested that the entirety of what we call science is based on the principle of truth as enunciated by believers in God, more specifically on the commandment attributed by the Hebrews to God himself in which he ordains: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour..."

Without the primacy of truth, there can be no science.

The atheist Richard Dawkins has now attempted to rebut this critique in his arguments.

He answers it by asserting that the principle of truth is instinctual and directed by evolution.

He postulates that any evolving apes or humans or whatever, who decided to jump off cliffs believing they could fly, would die out.

He sees the survivors as having an evolved predilection for truth.

I would try to answer this thusly.

We see lots of people who use lies as a means of survival, as a means of accumulating money, as a means of doing business, as a means of worshipping evil, or as a means of pleasure.

It is an observable fact that liars do not routinely jump off cliffs.

The notion of the primacy of truth as an evolved characteristic fails here.

If as Mr Dawkins asserts, the notion of truth achieves primacy through evolutionary means and, as he purports to believe, the concept of atheism is itself a fundamental truth, then we would expect to find an example in human history of an advanced atheistic civilisation naturally evolving, prevailing and triumphing over its supposedly delusional religious competitors with great social, cultural, educational, scientific and even spiritual accomplishments to its name.

There is not even one.

We would expect great music, literature, learning, exploration, and art, to flow from such an atheistic culture.

It doesn't happen.

I would contend that it never happened.

Not even once.

We would expect to find some evidence somewhere of an extensive ancient civilisation whose foundational view of itself was based on an atheistic tract rather than what we do find which is extensive evidence of civilisations everywhere repeatedly based on holy books about God, to wit the Jewish Old Testament, the Christian Bible, and the Muslim Quran.

If as Mr Dawkins contends, atheism is inherently true and if atheistic Darwinian evolution is real and if evolutionary dynamics make truth inherent to an organism, we would expect to find in human history evidence of a civilisation that became literate, numerate and capable of extensive societal organisation of itself, through an atheistic text rather than as repeatedly happens through the Old Testament, the Bible and the Quran.

Since in ancient human history no society or nation has been built on an atheistic tract we encounter certain challenges in seeking to develop direct observational empirical insight into the effects on organisms of atheism as a guiding evolutionary principle.

We can however look for evidence in the most recent centuries when atheism has prevailed through revolutionary violence in Russia and China, or among pseudo elties in the West through a latterday hijacking of national structures, cultural structures and educational structures founded by believers in God.

The French did give revolutionary atheism a short whirl in the 18th century during a period which they still call The Terror. As with later impositions of atheism on societies, the French didn't really choose the Terror. The Terror chose them. A violent atheistic revolution was followed by a permanency of violence in the culture which lasted a few years before the ruling atheistic terrorists became quite terrified themselves of the terror they had unleashed and once more permitted the practice of relgion in France.

The first somewhat durable widespread atheistic attempts to construct a civilisation have occurred over the last hundred years mainly at the hands of Marxian communists in Soviet Russia, and their proxies worldwide to wit Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Castro's Cuba, and various Russian communist sponsored Statelets in Africa including Ethiopia (where as in France the inevitable terror that followed the communist takeover in 1975 is still called The Terror), Somalia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and others, some of which remain to this day mired in command control conflict theory communist atheism.

Curiously, and again I suggest observably, in countries where those denying the existence of God took power, hell almost immediately followed with them.

In each of the communist cases the advocates of atheism murdered their way to power while chanting the mantra: "Religion is the opium of the people."

And then they just kept on killing.

I would suggest that Hitlerite Germany was also an atheistic project in which truth, evolved or unevolved, did not have any visible primacy in the conduct of persons or government or indeed scientists.

I would additionally suggest that the accession to power of Hitler's Nazis in Germany took place solely because of the societal dynamic unleashed in Germany by atheistic Soviet dictator Joe Stalin's attempts to project communist atheism from Russia into Germany by violence. The reality that Stalin created on the ground was that only the most ruthless atheistic power group, the most clinical and efficient murderers, could win in Germany. The German people were caught between two absolutely atrocious atheisms, the communist attempt at usurpation having given birth to the Nazi attempt. The Nazis defeated the communists by being more violent and more ruthless than their competitors, and they did so while citing precisely the same atheistic Darwinian texts about "survival of the fittest," that Joe Stalin's atheistic cohorts  were citing to justify their behaviours at the time.

I would further suggest that the current prevalence of atheism in Western ruling pseudo elites is not bloodless and has led to a similar charnel house of institutionalised murders as we saw in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, this time disguised via abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, but amounting to essentially the same level of predictable barbarities under different guises as has defined the human experience of all previous known attempts to incept atheism as a civilisational principle.

In each of the atheisms I have cited, (Soviet, Nazi and Western pseudo elite) atheism seems to be a cover for something specifically malevolent, something satanic. by which I mean Satan.

The primacy of truth, even in an evolved sense, is absent in every case.

I say more.

Atheists themselves are utterly dependent for their vocabularies, faculties of reason, and intellectualism on the heritage of faith.

Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche, the atheistic prophets of Western abortion culture, Russian communism, and German Nazism respectively, wrote their texts using the alphabets, vocabulary, developed linguistic capacities and ratiocinatory faculties of mind which had been gifted to them and to the human race through the teaching of the holy books carried by believers in God.

They betrayed their gift, using literacy, numeracy and intellectual genius to make war on God and his servants.

Incidently I would also assert that no one ever learned to read through Origin Of The Species, Das Kapital or Thus Spake Zarethustra.

They learnt only to kill with ever greater refinements of cruelty and maliciousness.

Without believers and their holy books, Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche would have been howling at the moon in dialects no one would have understood.

But I digress.

Mr Dawkins has contended that the standard of truth in the methodology and propagation of the sciences is an evolved characteristic.

I would note that in the contemporary human experience, where the profit motive is present, say in company boardrooms, or in hospitals, or in the development of pharmaceutical products, there has been no shortage of supposedly highly evolved people willing to falsify data at every level no matter how destructive their lies ultimately prove for themselves or for the people they sell to.

I think Mr Dawkins contention that he has shown that truth is an evolved characteristic naturally occurring in the sciences and occurring in the organism through evolutionary processes without the action of a Deity, and that the standard of truth which underpinned great scientific accomplishments came from anywhere except the Ten Commandments, fails repeatedly when it is given more than cursory attention.

Gentle readers.

If  Mr Dawkins is repeatedly wrong in matters such as this, perhaps we should consider the possibility that he is wrong when he says he knows there is no God.

I am telling you he is absolutely wrong.