Secular Fundamentalism Pillar #4: "God is Created in the Image of Man"

Pillar #4: "God is Created in the Image of Man"

Well, we made it!  This is the last post in my series of Secular Fundamentalism and I pray that you really learned something about this dangerous religious movement that cleverly disguises itself as a "secular tolerant non-religious" movement. This final post is really important to understand as we get to the emotional reasons for the rejection of Father God which has led to the worship of Mother Earth in His place.

The Faith of The Fatherless

The one thing about humanity that drives the secular fundamentalist crazy is the fact that human beings, in spite of the increase in education, are incurably religious.  If one posits a purely atheistic outlook on life then one would suppose that man created religion for some evolutionary survival purpose.  From a secular standpoint this makes perfect sense given their view that no god exists for any religion to be true about.  Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis and one of the most influential scientists of the twentieth century,[1] provided a psychological argument on why there is the existence of religion that he tied to Darwinian evolution.

Freud argued that the concept of God originated during the ignorant period of human development and psychologically is tied to an illusionary desire to have a cosmic father figure to comfort us during the woes of life.[2]  Freud based this on his clinical observations that showed a child’s ambivalence (i.e., strong negative and strong positive feelings) toward his or her father.  What Freud seemed to miss is that this sword cuts both ways.  If the strong positive feelings toward the father can cause a projection of one’s desire for a protective father figure god to exist, then one can reason that the strong negative feelings could cause a deep-seated wish projection of a cosmic father figure god not to exist.[3]

Moreover, one can more effectively argue that the negative side of this ambivalence is even more influential than the positive side!!!  Imagine if you will the child, especially the boy, who has a physically absent, or sometimes even worse, physically present but emotionally absent father during the critical time in life that we know as childhood.  In addition to the normal emotional needs of children during childhood, there is an early emotional developmental stage that only occurs in boys between the ages of three and five that was not known in Freud’s day.  This first crisis in male child development is known as ‘disconnection and differentiation’ and is the process by which a little boy emotionally disconnects from his mother and begins to move more emotionally toward his father.[4]  In an effort to formulate a masculine identity, the child recognizes during this stage of development that he is not like his mother but more like his father.  It is not at all unusual during this time to find the little boy trying to emulate his father’s behavior and mannerisms.[5]  When the father is absent during this time the boy is left behind to virtually pull his masculine identity out of thin air.[6]  Using Freud’s own theory of the Oedipus complex, the negative consequences of an absent or abusive father during these years would cause an intense desire for a father god to not exist.

Paul Vitz, a professor of psychology at New York University, makes the case that the negative side of this ambivalence is exactly what led some of the most famous atheists in the world to desire that God not exist, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and you guessed it, Sigmund Freud himself.  In his book Faith of theFatherless, Professor Vitz postulates “the defective father hypothesis” as a theory to explain what he refers to as intense atheism:

"Yet in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all of our neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of the rejection of God.  After all, the Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood, and above all its dominant motive is hatred of the father (God) and the desire for him not to exist, something represented by the boy’s desire to overthrow or kill the father.  Freud regularly described God as the psychological equivalent to the father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful, unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God.  Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself. . . .The belief that “God is dead,” therefore, is simply a Oedipal wish-fulfillment—the sign of seriously unresolved unconscious motivation."[7]

In summary, by Freud’s own scientific model, an atheist who is left disappointed and resentful of his father has an unconscious justification for his rejection of God.[8]  This is the type of atheism that I would say lies under the surface of the Secular Fundamentalists of our day who are trying to "kill the Father" and His views most evident in historical Christianity. So, reflect a moment on a friend, a leader in the world, or even your own view of your earthly father and how that has fueled a possible irrational belief that God does not exist.  The cure is to simply allow God the Father to re-father you all over again.  Begin first by taking the tools of Faith & Reason and check out this letter from me to you.

Click this link to my letter

Secular Fundamentalism Series Conclusion

The atheistic foundation and four pillars of secular fundamentalism hold up the rest of the secular house of our society that is being constructed with the blueprints of the humanist manifestoes.  Furthermore, the media frames the way that the debate is presented to the public because they themselves have been involved in building this secular temple.  The media levies the straw man fallacy by only focusing on the religious beliefs of the theistic scientists and philosophers that are crowded outside of this secular temple.  As an example, Richard Dawkins has never been asked about how his secular faith shapes his scientific views.  After all, Dr. Dawkins is one of the signers of Humanist Manifesto 2000; thus, he has made his faith public.

The four pillars of secular fundamentalism that hold the load of the secular house of our society has severe cracks that are beyond repair.  The shifting in the foundation of atheism has caused enough cracks in them to condemn the house and it is time to begin building again, but this time on a new theistic foundation.  The new fideism of a dichotomy between faith and reason has proved to be unreasonable and begging the question.  The very scientific methods and first principles that the secularists used to propose the ‘death of God’ are the very same tools that are bringing Him back to life, one might even call it a resurrection.  The first principles of all rational thought that science itself relies on have proved useful in reasoning back to a universe that has a beginning; moreover, the Beginner of the universe has been shown by the evidence to be an intelligent cause.  Bringing something into existence out of nothing makes miracles a reality, for creating something out of nothing is the greatest miracle of all.  If that were not enough, the psychological evidence points to wish-fulfillment of the atheist desiring God not to exist.

Please feel free to share this in e-mail, Facebook, Twitter using the buttons provided below.

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,

 

Peter P. Lackey, Jr.

www.amazon.com/author/peterlackey 

Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge

www.MansUltimateChallenge.org

"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas

[1] Associate clinical professor of psychiatry Dr. Armand Nicholi lists in his book The Question of God some fascinating facts that highlight Freud’s enormous influence on the secularization of our culture.  The list is as follows: He appears on most lists of the greatest physicians in history; he is ranked sixth in a book on the hundred most influential scientists; and, some scholars refer to the twentieth century as “the century of Freud”; he appeared on the cover of Time next to Einstein for an issue dedicated to the greatest scientific minds of the century; and his photo even appears on Austrian currency.

[2] Geisler, “Freud, Sigmund” in Apologetics., 264.

[3] Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and The Meaning of Life, (New York: The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, 2002), 46.

[4] Dr. James Dobson, Bringing Up Boys, (Wheaton, Illionois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 58.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Paul C. Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless, (Dallas, Texas: Spence Publishing Company, 2000), 13.

[8] Ibid., 16.

Secular Fundamentalism Part-1 "A Secular Religious Orthodoxy"

Secular Fundamentalism Part-1 "A Secular Orthodoxy"

As promised in my post on my friend and brother in Christ who is suffering religious persecution from the Secular Fundamentalists in the military, here is part one in a 5 part series on the dangerous new fundamentalism-Secular Fundamentalism. If you missed my post on Nathan Somers story it can be found here. Nathan has demonstrated the virtue of FORTITUDE as he is pursued by fundamentalists chasing him with the chains of FEAR.

A Secular Orthodoxy

Secular Fundamentalism, the rigid bullying form of Secular Humanism, is by far the dominant religious worldview in Western civilization due to secular fundamentalists’ successful "evangelism explosion" for secularism in the public school systems, universities, and the media.  The four pillars of Secular Fundamentalism are resting on a shaky atheistic foundation that, in time, will cause the entire secular house to fall. In fact, I believe that the rise of the "new" Atheism of old ideas is due to the fact that atheism seems even more unreasonable thanks to the microscope, telescope, and neuroscience. Here are the four apostles that write and hold revivals for atheism, the foundation of this dangerous new fundamentalism:

Sam Harris (or Zoolander--do you see it?)

Richard Dawkins                             Christopher Hitchens                Daniel Dennett

They even go around the US and Europe and hold Secular revivals! Here is a flyer for one of their revivals in 2007 right here in Washington DC:

Now that we have the foundation, we move to the four pillars of secular fundamentalism: (1) A dichotomy exists between faith and reason; (2) Evolution is a fact that accounts for origins; (3) Miracles are supernatural events that are impossible; (4) God is created in the image of man. Mounted on top of these four pillars, the house of our society has been under construction for the last 150 years with the blueprints of secular humanism derived from ideas that can be found in the humanist manifestos.

However, these four pillars that hold the load of the secular house of our society have severe cracks in them that are beyond repair.  Will this secular house still be standing twenty years from now?  How severe are the cracks?  The secular fundamentalist owners of the house are trying to avoid having to answer these questions by keeping the questioners out through good old-fashioned name calling and bullying as I mentioned in my initial post here.  The owners of the house are made up of evolutionary scientists, media personalities, and the self-proclaimed elite of our educational institutions that serve as the new gnostic spiritual guides transforming our Universities into Seminaries for Secularism.  Nevertheless, the crowd of theists outside is growing, the evidence is mounting, and numerous secular owners are turning in their keys and removing their names from the deed.

Presenting a Religious Worldview

Throughout the various news media outlets in the United States and Europe there is only one religious worldview that is permitted to be openly orthodox—Secular Humanism[1].  Given that the media has an enormous influence over the thinking of our culture, ideas and their acceptability are unfortunately controlled and managed by this one worldview.  Worldview is defined by the dictionary as: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; and a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.[2]  I use the term religious when referring to Secular Humanism because both Humanist Manifesto I and II define this worldview as religious and the United States Supreme Court has agreed with this conclusion in at least two rulings.[3] (Please checkout footnote 3 below. I got this information from Lexis Nexis Legal database)

Some history may be helpful at this point. The secular worldview is best expressed by the three manifestos written by humanists and promoted by the many humanist organizations around the world.  Indeed these manifestos serve the same purpose as the many creeds, dogmas, and statements of faith found in the numerous world religions.  Nevertheless, humanists were very careful when choosing the term ‘manifesto’ instead of ‘creed’ or ‘dogma,’ two words with religious overtones.  The word manifesto is derived from the Latin word manifestus, literally, gripped by the hand; hence, palpable or obvious.[4] Thus, to the secular fundamentalist these manifestoes are public declarations of the obvious—what, to them, is obviously true about reality.  In actuality, the term itself does not matter since the purpose and usage of these manifestos are the same as the dogmas and creeds of any religion; namely, putting forth a system of core beliefs, principles, or opinions that are rigidly held.[5]  A manifesto is slightly different from a religious creed or dogma in that it also outlines specific goals and aspirations necessary for the implementation of the stated beliefs and principles in a society. We are well past the implementation phase and are rapidly entering the extermination phase where beliefs and those whom hold them are bullied and removed from the market place of ideas.

Some of you will be shocked when we enter the phase where the people themselves are exterminated as has happened in every atheistic society in the 20th century where more people have died under crusades for atheism than the Crusades of all other preceding centuries combined! Stalin was responsible for 20,000,000 deaths. Mao Zedong whom Anita Dunn named "her favorite political philosopher" (See link) is responsible for an incredible 70,000,000. Believe it or not Hitler comes in a distant third at 10,000,000! At this point these new atheists usually get upset because this is "unfair" to make this comparison; however, it is not untrue. These regimes were supposed to be atheist utopias, free from what Karl Marx called the "opiate of the masses". Dinesh D'Souza notes "Atheism became a central component of the Soviet Union's official ideology, it is still the official doctrine of China, and Stalin and Mao enforced atheistic policies by systematically closing churches and murdering priests and religious believers. All Communist regimes have been strongly anti-religious, suggesting that their atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology."[6] Some utopia!

With that foundation in place and on top of the four pillars, the secular worldview expressed in these Humanist manifestos has indeed moved to the forefront as the worldview held by those in the media as the obvious truth.  Now, truth is defined as conformity of assertions to reality.[7] Consequently, secularism’s fundamentals are the implicit truth used by this cultural force as the measuring stick for determining the validity of ideas and views. In other words, Secular Humanism’s principles as spelled out in the manifestos, is the overall perspective that those in the mainstream media use to interpret the data of reality.  As a result, any individual or group that holds to secular orthodoxy is presented by the media as "mainstream" or "middle of the road", while those that hold to the more conservative worldviews that challenge secular fundamentalism's claims are presented as "right-wing" or "far right".

The conservative views are not the middle of the secular worldview’s road; instead they are to the right of their presumed secular orthodox center.  For example, a 1996 survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found that only 2% considered themselves conservative.[8]  In another study by Professors Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman that looked at the socio-economic makeup of the most influential news outlets found that 86% of journalists seldom or never attend religious services.[9]  The conclusion of the study: “A predominant characteristic of the media elite is its secular outlook.”[10]  And recently on CNN’s program Reliable Sources Steve Roberts, Professor of media and journalistic ethics at George Washington University observed, “I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism.”[11]  Later on in the program Professor Roberts admitted that, “I worked for the New York Times for 25 years.  I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith."[12]  Moreover, a recent more in depth media study found that the when the media wanted to quote a think tank or policy group as an authority for a given subject, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the legal arm of secular fundamentalism— ranked number two overall.[13]  Consequently, the media has revealed by their views, lifestyle, and authoritative references that secularism is their religious worldview of choice.

The secular fundamentalism held onto by the mainstream media is important because in today’s culture with multiple 24 hour news sources, news magazines, newspapers, and news websites, the media controls the way public debates are framed.  The topic of origins, for instance, is usually framed in light of the media’s secular worldview and presented to the public as faith versus reason (pillar #1), religion versus science, or even church versus state. For example, the front page of The San Francisco Chronicle read “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools; Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism”[14]  The article goes on to present Intelligent Design, the scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution (pillar #2), as if the challenge is not scientific at all.  The message is clear: Darwinian naturalistic scientist is for reason and Intelligent Design scientist is for faith.  PBS even went so far as to pull Unlocking the Mystery of Life, a science film that explores the theory of intelligent design, from airing and no longer sells the DVD on its website.[15]    This labeling is unfortunate because the secular worldview that is embraced by those in the media is also a religious one.

If you are interested in this important topic of origins the absolutely best book that I have ever read on the topic is called New Proofs For The Existence of God  that can be found on Amazon here . Please note my review of the book on the Amazon. It is the top pick, so let's keep it there!

So friends who love politics I have news for you. The media bias is not toward Democrats as you may believe, but toward Secular Fundamentalism! It may land in one political camp more often but that is because this politician is seen as more closely aligned to the Secular Orthodoxy of the media itself.

In closing, let's look at the 2013 commencement speakers. The LA Times reports "conservatives need not apply" in an article on 2013 commencement speakers that can be found here.  What is once again the case not one single conservative was invited to speak at our infamous poison ivy leagues, and in the top 100 ranked schools the evidence that the university has become seminaries for Secular Fundamentalism is clear. Now don't get caught up in political categories, but the worldview of these speakers.

I will post part-2 in this special series on Secular Fundamentalism soon. In the meantime please share this with your friends and family by using the easy social media or e-mail buttons below this article.

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,

 

Peter P. Lackey, Jr.

www.amazon.com/author/peterlackey 

Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge

www.MansUltimateChallenge.org

"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas

Footnotes:

[1] The terms secularism, secular humanism, and humanism are used interchangeably when referring to this worldview, and the terms humanists and secularists are used interchangeably when referring to those that promote this worldview.

[2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) 4th ed., s.v. “worldview.”

[3] For more information about these cases see United States v. Kauten, No. 134, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 133 F.2d 703; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882, February 8, 1943 and United States v. Seeger, No. 50, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 163; 85 S. Ct. 850; 13 L. Ed. 2d 733; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1666, November 16-17, 1964, Argued, March 8, 1965, Decided.

[4] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “manifesto.”

[5] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “dogma”, “creed.”

[6] Dinesh D'Souza,  What's So Great About Christianity, (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), 215.

[7] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “truth.”

[8] Rowan Scarborough, “Leftist press? Suspicious right,” The Washington Times, 25 April 1996, A-2.

[9] L. Brent Bozell III, And That’s The Way It Isn’t: A Reference Guide To Media Bias (Alexandria, Va: The Media Research Center, 1990), 50, quoting S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, “Media and Business Elites” Public Opinion (October/November 1981).

[10 ]Ibid., 51.

[11] Steve Roberts, “Battle Over Terri Shiavo; Are Journalists Paying Enough Attention to Religion,” interviewed by Howard Kurtz, Reliable Sources, 27 March 2005.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, “A Measure of Media Bias,” December 2004, [study on-line] available from http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm; Internet, accessed March 15, 2005.

[14] Anna Badkhen, “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools;

Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 30 November, 2004, A-1.

[15] “PBS pulls intelligent design documentary,” United Press International, January 8 2004.