God, Locke, Philosophy, and Science

By SamAdams1776

Bible Book Gun Religion img : www.bookgun.com
God, Locke, Philosophy, and Science     img : www.bookgun.com
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- You may have noticed the title does not address the Second Amendment, but don’t worry, the article does—eventually.

I stopped reading Scientific American some time ago, when it became apparent they had become a shill for left-wing, bad, science like anthropogenic climate change, and sustainability.

The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself : http://tiny.cc/rfkfby
The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself : http://tiny.cc/rfkfby

However, my phone news app caught my attention with this title: “Godless Universe: A Physicist Searches for Meaning in Nature.”

In the article which discusses this new book, “The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself,” by one Sean Carroll, the article’s writer interviews Carroll, who is hopefully a more competent scientist than he is a philosopher.

Apparently he thinks that the supernatural element, if it had existed, should be able to be examined scientifically. That rather implies the supernatural realm is subject to natural laws.

Strange thinking! Carroll extols some philosophy of “poetic” naturalism where one can have meaning in life without a God, and after life he says does not exist. Not sure how he gets that meaning in life thing with a universe that started from nothing by accident and ends up as nothing as though nothing ever was.

What would be more futile and any less full of meaning than that? Like I said, not much of a philosopher.

Now you may well ask, what has any of this to do with the Second Amendment? Plenty!

Along without any hope of any real ultimate justice in this world; hope in an after life; service to our creator; or just plain old hope even; we lose so very much more sans a creator God. Now, I have never met this Sean Carroll, but dollars to donuts, he is politically on the (far) left, as well as being an atheist—the two do seem to go together—always in favor of gay marriage, gender-bending bathrooms and most especially in favor of disarming the civilian population of its arms, and most especially of the scary-looking arms—you know—the kind that might actually be useful in throwing off an increasingly tyrannical government! But Sean Carroll, like other liberals cannot without a creator God, explain natural rights.

Leftist’s ideas of rights are not to be found in natural rights as understood by John Locke and our founders. And given the (false) premise of there being no God, it would be impossible to argue natural (God given) rights. Some liberals may try to say we have innate rights, but it falls flat. Where can these rights come from without a God?

Moving forward with the atheist’s (generally liberal but not always) no-God universe idea, how could one argue that we, who are in their minds mere Bayesian accidents, have innate natural rights? They cannot possibly, sanely, argue that we simply self-appoint us our own rights. No man, or group of men, has any such authority to grant rights, innate or otherwise! And they generally agree, even if not wholly publicly. Disarming us is no trick at all philosophically to them; none of us, have any rights! Of course in such a universe there can be no ultimate justice to those who have escaped earthly justice and life is futile, however rosy Carroll paints his dark universe minus God. There can be only what rights the class of bullies in political control, dole out as privileges, if such can pass as “rights.”

Let us then celebrate that there is a creator God who has endowed each of us with inalienable rights and remember the words of our founders in our Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it … Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

Never forget that our rights do not come from men. We don’t get rights from the Bill of Rights, which itself comes from men. Rather, the Bill of Rights is a document designed to restrict government from interfering with our natural and pre-existing rights. Our rights, of course, come from God! And among those rights is the right to defend our lives from evil men, especially from tyrants, and therefore we posses the right to arms. If ever a protected natural and pre-existing right is ever threatened by the repeal of that protection, it will already be past time to take up arms against tyrants and would-be tyrants.

And never forget that the Second Amendment is a prophylactic against tyranny and failing that (as it increasingly appears to be the case), it serves us also as a remedy.

Of God and Guns Religion
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…

SamAdams1776 III – Oath Keeper
Molon Labe

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges
Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.”

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JR Bailey
JR Bailey
5 years ago

Maybe I missed it but I could not find a share link for Facebook anywhere on this article page. I wanted to share this but it’s not possible it seems unless I use the URL to do it with a copy and paste

Jess Jessup
Jess Jessup
5 years ago

An all-controlling government is a competitor with God. To succeed, it must counter, denigrate, and defeat the idea of an Absolute Being as a personal God. These folks, having abandoned the Judeo-Christian ethic of our founders, will find themselves impotent against the rise of Islam.

Elliot Svensson
Elliot Svensson
5 years ago

I saw a debate between Bart Ehrman (a notable Bible-denier) and William Lane Craig (a notable Bible-affirmer) in which Craig demonstrated that the New Testament’s account is probably true, by using Bayesian logic, and without presuming “supernaturalism”. Look here: (https://youtu.be/FhT4IENSwac?t=38m7s) The article in Scientific American is quick to qualify the use of Bayesian logic with the words “rigorous” and “fair”, trying to make William Lane Craig’s compelling use of Bayesian logic out to be unfair and sloppy, but this accusation is not justified in the article. I suppose you have to read the book to see how Sean Carroll intends… Read more »