The Evolution of Western Logical Fallacies
“Why, God, why should I read another article about evolution!” would some readers exclaim at the mere sight of this article’s title. Yet, evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern Humanism, the main ideology behind the atheist states called Western Democracies. Evolution is where some of our times’ greatest atheists hide in; their texts reveal a major logical fallacy that is adapted and repeated day and night by these governments on every possible issue. Logical fallacies were used to market the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Logical fallacies are used by the USA government to explain 9/11. Not surprisingly, schools in Western countries don’t teach logics, leaving Western citizens susceptible to government attacks on us.
Many scientists fail to see that religion and science can live together in peace. They consider religion a threat. Their most troubling claim is: “We know how the universe works; therefore there is no God.” Richard Dawkins in his “The Blind Watchmaker” was one of the loudest advocates of this school. He claimed that if there were a God, He would be a blind watchmaker, since there was no place for Him in a world defined by exact physical rules. He would be to the world as a blind watchmaker to the watches: useless. That was a suspiciously simplistic claim for such a formidably trained mind, who regularly appears at atheists’ conventions with the success of a rock-star. His argumentation is paramount to claiming that since I know how a television set works, then “Sony”—the creator of the set—couldn’t have created it, and in fact doesn’t exist.
In logics, this type of argument is called a “Non Sequitur” (Latin for “it does not follow”). This is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its arguments; the entire argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, Sony does exist, they created their own television models, and Richard Dawkins is attempting to bluff us into soulless atheism.
Another favorite of humanists and atheists is the Big Bang Theory, a cosmological model that explains the development of the Universe. This theory describes the universe’s early expansion with a complex mathematical model. The argument is similar to the one of the Evolution theory: since we can explain almost all the events defining the universe’s shape and geometry as a set of mathematical equations, there is no room for a Creator. Oddly enough, the theory continuously approaches the moment in which the primordial universe began expanding, but it never reaches it. The cause for the “bang” has not been elucidated. By definition, it will never be elucidated using the scientific method. Science answers “how,” not “why.”
The logical fallacy here is similar to the case of the Evolution Theory; yet, the Big Bang allows us insight into a different aspect of the topic. As said, science answers “how,” religion answers “why.” Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century; he was an Italian Dominican priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian. He defined what is known as the “Prima Causa,” five proofs for the existence of God. One of these proofs is called “Causation” and claims that nothing can cause itself; there must be a First Cause, called God. God set the Universe’s rules and initiated it. The fact that there are mathematical rules ruling it is not relevant to the problem. Mocking the claims presented until now, one could claim: “Sony exists, thus also God exists.”
No less curious is the obstinate reluctance of many scientists to recognize certain implications of the Quantum Theory, to the extent that Einstein spent much of his life trying to refute what has become the most exact scientific theory ever developed. The more it is tested, the more accurate it is found. This is not true for the Relativity Theory of Einstein; moreover, to the joy of religious scientists, these two theories have refused to merge (this is needed for the correct analysis of fast-moving sub-atomic particles); all existing models on the topic are basically numerical in nature. The scope of this article doesn’t allow a mathematical treatment of the topic, but the issue is that Quantum Theory demands an observer to the universe; call Him God if you want. Einstein shivers in his cold grave.
Science and State
Richard Dawkins and others are very loud advocates; their approach has conquered the Western educational system. The scientific theories-just models of systems-had become dogmatic statements used for ugly manipulations. Once the state has achieved this dubious goal of creating an illogical population, which is unable to analyze any statement made by its government, the road is open for its using straightforward lies.
Scientists like to portray themselves as unbiased. Sometimes this is true; other times, the scientist is biased, or his work is used in a manipulative fashion by the states. The most astounding example in this category is “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” published by Thomas Malthus from 1798 to 1826. “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,” his thesis could be summarized. In other words, there is not enough food on earth to feed all humans. This thesis was used by the British Empire and its allies to justify a pretty brutal set of wars, and even the Great Game, the British and Russian empires over hegemony in Central Asia.
R. Buckminster Fuller was one of the most prominent scientists and engineers of the 20th century; his best known invention is the Geodesic Dome, the most efficient structure known to date. By 1965, Buckminster Fuller had already proven that although Malthus had been right about food scarcity until about 1955, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent technological advances made general abundance possible. In the many years that have passed since those words were uttered, the world has seen a significant advancement in the production of food to the extent that the Malthus theory looks quite ridiculous. Yet, social claims based on inequality are constantly rejected by greedy politicians and economic pirates with a plethora of obsolete Malthusian clichés; they keep claiming “it is we or them.” States cynically exploit the ignorance of their people, tricking them into unnecessary wars.
In this generation, there is no better example of this than 9/11 and the wars following it. Most readers would accept my claim of being at least as well informed as the average Western reader. Yet, the day after 9/11 I was surprised by the American government’s accusation that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the atrocity. Al-who? Who had ever heard the name of this apparently very dangerous group? Still in the infancy of my dissidence, I prepared a cup of fresh coffee and waited for the American government to provide the proofs. Instead, we all saw how the American government was quick to destroy all evidence of the disaster, to the extent of making sure the steel would be melted and kept in the possession of the state in the form of a war-ship. Under the circumstances, any claims by the American government on the issue are nothing but a logical “non sequitur,” since it cannot prove even one of its arguments, because there is no evidence! Knowing its flock is not prepared to analyze logically its government’s action, the USA took advantage of Western logical fallacies to hide… what?