Practical atheism, as described in my last post, is a vaguely held sense of agnosticism or atheism due to a belief in the consensus of science that a god is not necessary, or even plausible, in the universe we observe. The Alt Right, to its credit, is for the most part not a set of rabid atheists. Spencer, RamZPaul, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, etc., are not particularly hostile to Christianity like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. If anything, as believers in a hierarchal society, in power the Alt Right might have a sort of noblesse oblige orientation towards religion, seeing it as a necessary check upon the high time preferences of the lower classes. Even if an Alt Right elite could not believe, he might see it as part of his obligation to adopt the outward trappings of belief for the benefit of the group, to support those whose lower self-control was enhanced, and fitness increased, by belief in the supernatural. This support of course presupposes that the political triumph of the Alt Right would eventually result in a restoration of the church’s traditional support of hierarchy and non-pozzed traditional morality.
The question I posed in my introductory post was whether it was possible that the scientific consensus, the supposed certainty against theism, was possibly biased in a useful way towards the Establishment. I think many in the Alt Right would agree that the destruction of objective morality, through an attack on theism, would be useful to the regime. This, of course, is no proof of theism. It simply opens the possibility of questioning the scientific consensus. Once you’re red-pilled on any issue, you realize that the Establishment of our times is hopelessly corrupt and cannot be trusted to present evidence fairly when it is in their interest not to do so. If one were to engineer a scientific consensus most useful for propaganda purposes for the Synagogue, one could hardly do better than a) practical atheism to undermine traditional morality combined with b) left creationism that holds all humans to be practically equal beyond superficial differences like skin color. We know that proposition (b) of the scientific consensus, as presented to laypeople, is misleading and false. We should be open, at least, to the idea that (a), and its presuppositions, might be false as well.
Unfortunately for those of us not well-versed in the Ph.D. level of physics or molecular biology, the untangling of (a) will prove to be most complicated. Disproving the equality of human beings is much easier, as we can simply find repeatable experiments, easily hidden in plain sight in the literature of psychology. For questions of origins, it is in the very nature of the problem that the phenomenon might not be repeatable. Certain things can be observed, to which we ought to give the highest credence, but others cannot. And where we cannot observe directly, we must choose between hypotheses that best explain what we can observe, and to do so requires a knowledge of the hard sciences beyond most of us, and indeed likely beyond any one individual. Gone are the days of the Renaissance Man, who could master all of the world’s knowledge, as even the most specialized of fields now require a decade of postsecondary education to understand fully.
Agnosticism, given these difficulties, is certainly intellectually respectable. Many if not most thinking Christians have a degree of agnosticism about them, in that we do not believe in the elements of our faith in the same way or quality that we believe in the existence of things we can directly observe. Our belief is of a more tenuous quality, the essence of faith being an intuition about something that can neither be definitively proven or disproven to statistical certainty. To the intellectually honest practical atheist, perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of Christianity is that its adherents, at least the smarter ones, must be absolutely certain of their beliefs. We are all taking Pascal’s wager to some degree.
Through long study spanning decades I have come to the conclusion that practical atheism is untenable. I will not embarrass myself by attempting to get into the nitty-gritty scientific arguments. The best in the business for that is The Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe. In particular, I highly recommend the works of Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. Instead, in this and the next post I will share a few useful heuristics that may aid the non-scientist in thinking about these issues.
First, I should disclose my own beliefs. I am an “Old Earth” creationist, in that I accept the cosmological observation that the universe is billions of years old, and believe the Scriptural creation account to be compatible with these observations. For the origin of life, I believe that there were multiple specific creation events occurring across the geological ages of the Earth. The latter is my own belief based on reviewing the best arguments of evolutionists (of both the secular and theistic orientations) and intelligent design adherents. I am ok with some ambiguity here, as theistic evolution (Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project is in this camp) is certainly within Christian orthodoxy. In reading the work of Collins, and other evolutionists, I find there are still too many unknown, implausible gaps to account for the origin of life, as even the simplest single-celled organism is vastly complex. I tend to find the arguments of Intelligent Design, particularly Stephen Meyer, more convincing. Regardless, both ID and theistic evolution adherents both hold that life required information inputs in its history to account for the amazing biome we observe on Earth today.
I should also clarify that I believe strongly in evolution within a species. Often called microevolution, this is the only type of evolution relevant for arguments of human biodiversity. Even “Young Earth” creationists believe in this, which is why their attacks on Darwin as a proto-Hitler are disingenuous. They should know that microevolution, within the human species, is sufficient to explain the observed differences among human groups, and that their belief system provides no true defense of human equality, making their pathetic virtue signaling illogical.
The Young Earthers are typically lower-church red state white Americans, the group most hated by our elites, and they are lumped in with the more subtle Intelligent Design and theistic evolution proponents. We should not be surprised, then, that scientists, even if presented with possible evidence of a creator, would resist its implications so as to not harm their social status by association with the perceived mouth droolers of flyover country. As Sailer has taught us, the liberal conviction is that while IQ doesn’t exist, my IQ is way higher than those people. As those of us on the Alt Right understand the motivations behind status signaling against our fellow Americans, this is evidence we can cite in support of considering the theistic argument – even if it were reasonable, very few scientists would risk association with flyover whites by admitting it.
Having hopefully convinced the reader of the possibility of theism against the social background of our times, in the next post I will give specific heuristics that have been useful to me in forming a reasonable faith in theism.