Faith and Logic: dueling masters over the years

Once upon a time in the distant and not so distant past there was a privileged caste of scholarly notables and monastic scribes who oversaw, in written form, the power of knowledge and proper thinking and thrived apart from the less prescient masses below–those who muddled along in thought-free mediocrity, or so those above believed.  In the Christian era, religious faith was linked to the City of God and the Catholic Church.  In ancient times the anthropomorphic gods of Olympus looked down on mankind and governed our fate.

This dichotomy of intellectual apartheid changed when Johannes Gutenberg’s moveable-type press converted the scrolls of Roman and Greek wisdom to books for the educated bourgeoisie and launched a fifteenth century Renaissance of learning that was not under ecclesiastical control.  Thinking was more than ever the property of the individual and not the Church.  Ideas sprang up unobstructed and washed across the academic centers of European hegemony.  Ancient truths became subject to new scrutiny and the modern era was born.

In our times, the power of knowledge was widely dispersed among students and their paper and pen instructors who ruled academia for decades. Type-written communications, mimeographs, telexes, and monaural electronic devices, not to mention chalk boards, limited the scope of how we learned for some time. Then, digitized systems of information delivery were invented by thinkers of a different twist; silicon chips in down-sized computers appeared on the market and thinking in abstract terms had to be either 0 or 1 in long numerical strings…or not at all. Conceptual thought became more democratized with the advent of the electronic pulse and blip. Now the thought masters of old, who wrote with abandon on lined paper, had met their master, if I may, in the cold world of artificial intelligence or A.I. which is all the cognitive rage these days.

Logic or clear-headed thinking now abounds in every phase of our formal writing: no more vague intuitions or ill-founded suppositions or flights of fancy that prime the pump of creative thought;  no humor or delicious irony a la Jonathan Swift or Voltaire.  In today’s world, facts, data-rich texts, and algorithms channel the linear flow of words toward approved ends, stripped of ambiguity–just dull clarity and little else.

Since the days of Aristotle and other famous pundits, logic has been a tool for seeking the truth.  No fuzziness, emotional overtones, hyperbole or puns are permitted.  To think in a logical manner means compressing thought into patterns where there is a right and wrong answer.  The Aristotelian syllogism, judiciously applied, must yield a conclusion that cannot be questioned: ergo, Socrates, based on solid evidence, has to be mortal.

The world of modern science reigns supreme and unchallenged according to most media outlets.  Syllogisms, spatial ether, the four elements, and the absence of vacuums are myths of ancient origin. Medieval alchemists hoped vainly to extract gold from humble matter; modern chemistry came from their attempts at transmogrification. Copernicus, Galileo, and similarly far-sighted colleagues disavowed the geocentric universe of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Catholic Church.  The foundations of truth were evolving as curious, probing minds expanded their quest for knowledge.

Truth in science can only be temporary, to be displaced when more facts and procedures come to light.   In the words of Sir Isaac Newton, great men stand on the shoulders of other geniuses to see farther ahead as they remake the shape of the future.  One day, perhaps, based on Stephen Hawking’s parallel universe vision, our truths of the moment will not be valid in yet undiscovered worlds and other dimensions. Inspired by the Greeks, the French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, summed up our dilemma by saying that the universe has no center, no discernible circumference, and floats indeterminately beyond human comprehension.  As he famously stated:  “The heart has its reasons that reason cannot comprehend.”  Knowledge is both fact-based and colored by intuition’s grasp of reality.

Logic is at the heart of scientific truth which lives and breathes in a mathematical schema of data-based reality. However, if so many truths of the distant past are now only partially true (e.g. the physics of Sir Isaac Newton and Aristotle; Rene Descartes’ discredited vortices to explain planetary movement), how do we know what discovery is worth trusting?  When asked, scientists just shrug and affirm that technology will make inroads in the days ahead and inventions will clear the way to a world beyond our ken.  After all, rocket science and aviation owe their beginnings to Chinese fireworks and the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk.

Over the past few centuries, science and other fields of knowledge have splintered into overlapping disciplines which claim complementarity but are, in their own way, subject to reasonable doubt at times. For example, Sigmund Freud’s legacy is little more than a lexicon of terms that were the product of observing troubled Viennese matrons whose sexual repression fueled the core of psycho-analysis.

We freely use his terminology today without traditional scientific corroboration: the sex-laden and conflicted Id, bubbling with dark forces that the conscious mind doesn’t recognize or acknowledge; the ego struggling with its moral and social arbiter, the super ego, that produces dutiful citizens carved out of a Germanic model in the early twentieth century.  Freud’s psychology, like that of Adler and Jung, are clever assumptions that hard-core science cannot prove to be factual or capable of being replicated.  Do we truly covet our mothers as Oedipus mythically did? Do little girls wish they had their brother’s penises?  Is there a Yin or Yang from Far Eastern cosmology that nourishes life’s primal forces, or even an anima and animus that inform the Jungian collective consciousness?  Can troubling psychoses be uprooted and erased through talk therapy? Probably not.  Pharmacology has replaced this strategy. Rarely challenged assumptions have therefore become scientific “fact” through public acceptance.

In a cultural context, do Chinese children experience the same trauma as Afghan youths during wartime? Is the mind hard-wired to follow the pedagogical stages of Jean Piaget’s philosophy? Similarly can we prove that linguist Noam Chomsky’s “Deep Structure” is an integral part of childhood language acquisition? Are we all alike as humanists assert or does the environment affect our reaction to external stimuli in different ways?  Is there an acceptable answer to these ponderous, lofty questions?  Probably not, yet we continue to ask why and construct clever ways to resolve thorny issues. Our curiosity as cogent beings is insatiable.

And then there is the question of logic and religiosity that weighs heavily upon Western civilization.  Religious fervor, with the exception of Islamic cultures, seems to be declining in more advanced societies. In America, the Church serves as a social institution and is run with corporate precision: above all, it is a focal point for community identity.  The desire to expand services and infrastructure is built into their mission: preach the Gospel, recruit the “unchurched,” meet the budget, hire more personnel to be servants of the faith, and whenever possible, launch a building campaign that gives the impression of progress.

Religious inquiry is limited to discussing scriptural excerpts in Bible study groups sponsored by the Church; the essence of faith is rarely questioned in these sessions.  Exegesis is avoided in favor of bearing personal witness to Christian tenets.  Quoting scripture has an aura of theological truth but is not logic-based because, for all Christians, the Bible is the defining  reference work of faith. As the Catholics once said:  “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

Logic and theology are generally at odds with one another.  There is the “historical” Jesus that we know very little about.  Scholars have concluded that He was most likely a simple peasant-artisan, an itinerant and charismatic preacher who challenged Jewish authority and secular beliefs (chasing the money lenders from the Temple).  His populous rebellion against the Roman occupational forces sealed his fate.

The New Testament affirms the divinity of Jesus, the son of God, based solely on the writings and oral history of the apostles and other chroniclers in the decades following His crucifixion.  What separates Jesus’ “movement” from other Abrahamic monotheistic religions is the Cross, the symbol of his passion and resurrection or deification.  Judaism and Islam reject His role as a divine entity; in their eyes Jesus was no more than a highly respected prophet.

For Biblical historians, the miracles He performed are hard to explain from a scientific perspective. Very few modern scientists accept the providential, almost mystical nature of His life.  In the absence of facts, we have little to support our beliefs except faith alone which science calls into question.  Faith is the purest form of escaping from the burdens of the material world; it requires the acceptance of an intuitive, personal reality with no measurable contours.  Nonetheless, many men and women of science embrace the Christian way of life.

Faith reassures and comforts true believers. Science can only measure and codify the known universe. How does one reconcile these contradictory forces?  Without believing in the supernatural, the life and divinity of Jesus are illogical.  Therefore, if we apply modern techniques to this issue, Christianity becomes a religion founded on false premises: “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are at the core of its philosophy.  These ideas of communal peace and compassion are also found in other religions.

What gives Christianity a distinct identity is the concept of the crucifixion and resurrection of an itinerant preacher and carpenter by trade, Jesus of Nazareth. Abraham, Moses, and Mohammed were leaders of their faiths, not divinities in the guise of humans who suffered for others.  In theory Jesus died for all men: He is the Messiah incarnate who visited the earth, accomplished His mission, and was recalled to Heaven by our Maker.  No other faith has the concept of immaculate conception, evangelization, and universal salvation.  Christ is the Redeemer, not the titular head of a religious movement. According to the scriptures, He is a living, internal presence in the converted, not a dignitary who judges.  He exalts the common man and promises a better life for the downtrodden.  He spoke to the humble and not to the crowned heads of His era.

Sadly, throughout history, the Church has deviated from its first principles of compassion and forgiveness and  become a punitive institution that rejected transgressors and continues to do so (through excommunication).  Large numbers have died over the centuries in the name of a forgiving Savior.  During the Crusades Arabs were pitted against Christian zealots who sought to liberate the Holy Land from pagan dominance. Moreover, heretics threatened the political authority of a Church wedded to the State; these rebellious minds that abjured Christianity were “purified” by fire at the stake as dictated by the Spanish Inquisition (“auto-da-fe”).  Numerous horrors were perpetrated to cleanse the Christian world of miscreants.  Its intolerance has sparked revolutions that saw religiosity become a form of oppression, more controlling than liberating.

Contrary to the Catholic repudiation of profit as sin (which has now been revoked), Protestantism linked Christian values with financial success and not liturgical piety. In this reformed version of Christianity, God favored the wealthy who were rewarded with a greater status in life.  Prosperity and saintly goodness were one and the same.  The modern world of materialized faith was born in the late sixteenth century when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the Wittenberg Cathedral door to protest indulgences.

The Reformation, divorced from papal authority, gave birth to an economic freedom that reshaped Protestant strongholds in Europe.  In addition to other beliefs, the infallibility of the Pope and hagiography were denied to be free of religious restrictions and enjoy life’s many treasures. Matters of faith between Catholics and Protestants brought about civil wars  that ravaged European nations and spilled over into their colonial possessions.

Pure logic guides the rational and demonstrable world of science; intuition lies at the heart of religious faith.  To believe in divine spirits, one must accept the inconsistency of reason and grant substance and credibility to intuitive truth.  Scientists will rework and change the material world with reason and technology; at the same time, the inner self will cry out for religious solace and release.  The twenty-first century will give us little hope for global peace in our conflicted, tribal debates.  Where will the human species be in the coming years and centuries of strife?

No matter how we react, time will move us forward against our will. Our dueling masters, faith and logic, will determine the nature of what it means to be human: scientifically, there will be sentient clones, cyber engineers crafting even more functional robots to serve our needs, geneticists tweaking the genome to fight disease and correct flaws in our DNA–a new “science” of eugenics? and alternative  sources of governance to replace the failed or inadequate systems of the past.

In spite of the manipulation of the species and internal longing for power, there will always be decent folks who think in logical ways but deeply hope for the promise of eternal life and salvation.  On the other hand, there will be the fearful ones–burdened with doubt and distrustful of rigid thought patterns–who see life, without faith, as devoid of purpose and meaningless.   Will socialism’s future utopia give them relief from their anguish?

Nonetheless, the meaning of life’s infinite mystery will trouble our thoughts and guide our search for reassurance. The quest for spiritual values and scientific truths will define the parameters of tomorrow’s world just as the rebirth of tribalism will ensure continuing territorial conflict.  Without science there will be no progress; without faith the human spirit will weaken and religious belief will falter.  Our long-term survival depends on striking a viable compromise between the two.

33 replies
  1. Caryl Johnston
    Caryl Johnston says:

    Disappointingly superficial article. The conflict between “Logic” and “Theology” (Faith and Reason) is surely old hat by now. The writer needs to read Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy to begin to understand that both Logic and Theology are dependent on the deep grammar, i.e. that logical statements (e.g. 2+2=4) are the culmination of many grammatical situations involving imperatives, poetry, rituals, remembrances. Check out my essay in The Imaginative Conservative.

  2. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    WHAT is faith except a childish will to believe? If a proposition or belief has a basis in evidence and/or reason, one doesn’t need faith to justify it. And if it doesn’t have such a basis? Then accepting it is believing for no better reason than that one wants to believe something not confirmed by evidence and/or reason. Then anything goes! I can think of nothing more hazardous nor more shameful.

    I’m an adult; I think; I have intellectual integrity; and when I see no reason or evidence for believing something, I say what always should be said in such case: “I don’t know,” or “I’m not able to believe”–if not, where clear absurdity is involved (as in most religions, especially the Abrahamic ones), “That’s a falsehood.”

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” I can think of nothing more hazardous
      [ than wanting to substantiate only with desire and without evidence of it ( a belief in something ) ]
      nor more shameful.”

      You nailed it . The historical record of faith based religious affairs is replete with the carnage of the hazards of over reliance on faith without sufficient evidence .

  3. TJ
    TJ says:

    “Our long-term survival depends on striking a viable compromise between the two.”

    That’s what got us here, you moron.

    The idea that faith is “equal” to reason is just another example of egalitarianism.
    Faith means reason and facts can be omitted or bypassed. Rationalization can then trump reason.
    What used to be off the table is now welcomed- look at the results. Absurdities are allowed as being “equal” to the most refined views- it is asserted that one cannot really prove the absurd nature of the absurdities. Arbitrary assertions become unassailable
    absolutes. . .

    Why? It possibly is a test to find out how gullible and spineless the average person is. “We throw out absolute garbage and you folks just stand there and stare, without complaining or fighting back.” Of course, B. Russell advocated “diet and injections” to produce a type who would not and could not challenge the powers that be.

  4. Owen P
    Owen P says:

    there will be sentient clones, cyber engineers crafting even more functional robots to serve our needs, geneticists tweaking the genome to fight disease and correct flaws in our DNA–a new “science” of eugenics?

    All the people tweaking DNA is RACEMIXED socalled jews and part gypsies WHO WANT TO neutralize and KILL off the WHITE race.

    The gene change thing os hacked by jews, part gypsies who want to make whites weak, be able to cnoroll whiteis thoughts make whites weggies non creative essentially consumer slaves without free will.

    The gene change technology is NOW used to kill off all the things that make WHUTES unique and our fighting spirit.

    The vaccine will ise metalls to divide the nerval system and brain into controllable zones and use nano technology to control peoples thoughts as well as DNA change to controll peoples thoughts and ways of thinking. The DNA changes will also alter peoples DNA to make them non aggressive weaklings.

    Slaves to jews and part gypsies (often both).

    Wax the blacks

  5. Dionysios
    Dionysios says:

    Excellent essay. Just one correction Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet Jews do not. He’s nothing to them, In their writings they’ve called him some seriously horrific things.

  6. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Christopher Michael Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe caught my interest as a result of my background in computer language design and the foundations of machine intelligence in algorithmic information. A recent, if lengthy interview, on a “Theories of Everything” youtube channel is a reasonable introduction to some of the ideas. Briefly, it is a supertautaulogical approach to a ToE: The self-duality of intelligence and intelligibility (dualistically viewed as “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics In the Natural Sciences”).

    For most people an essential aspect of religion is teleology (final cause) which is inextricably bound up with notions of value. In the foundation of machine intelligence with which I’ve been working for the last 15 years, one of 2 open parameters is the utility function or value system. The other is the choice of Turing machine (ie: instruction set). Everything else boils down to a formalization of Occam’s Razor as the algorithmic information content of experience, and its application in optimal decisions (sequential decision theory).

    The dystopian future of “unfriendly artificial intelligence” boils down to an inadequately formulated value system (utility function). That people keep wrestling with this question in the academic and popular literature is an indication of the philosophical vacuum left by duality in the modern era. Postmodernism is merely a critique pointing to this vacuum, offering little more than to fill it with hidden group evolutionary strategies rather than any principled alternative within which coherent human ecologies obtain and participate in Creation.

    I’m not necessarily going to posit that Langan’s CTMU fills this gap, I haven’t gotten to that point with his theory. But at least he’s been censored (temporarily) on social media for his outspoken defense of Western Civilization and of the “white working class” with which he strongly identifies.

    PS: Don’t be put off by the talk of Chris’s IQ. He was working as a bar bouncer when he came up with his ToE and, a a college dropout, saw it would be difficult to gain attention for it. As a a result, when he saw an ad for an ultra-high IQ test in Omni Magazine, he thought that it might provide an alternative to a degree in admitting him to “the conversation”. Others have taken the “human interest” of a bar bouncer with what _some_ have measured as “umeasurable” IQ, and turned it into a cause celebre, gaining him some mass media attention and enough game show money to buy a small farm, which he works, alone, in the midwest.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      OMNI April 1985. The MEGA test. I made a copy then and still have it. Open book with no time limit.
      48 questions- get only one right and your IQ is 122. I got way more than half right.

      A sample question from the test: What is the summer equivalent of hibernate?

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        “What is the summer equivalent of hibernate?”
        In Latin “winter” is hiems. The adjective, meaning “of winter”, is hibernus, from which the verb hibernare is derived, in English to hibernate. Summer in Latin is aestas. The adjective, meaning “of summer”, is aestivus, from which the verb aestivare could be formed, in English “to aestivate”, and this is indeed found in the dictionary.

        Such questions however have more to do with knowledge than with IQ, which are often confused with each other.

  7. Muhammad Izadi
    Muhammad Izadi says:

    “Judaism and Islam reject His role as a divine entity; in their eyes Jesus was no more than a highly respected prophet.”

    – Ben Shapiro compared Him to a ‘rebel revolting against the Romans and therefore getting punished for that’.

    – Larry David sprinkled his urine stream on the portrait of Jesus Christ in the name of ‘comedy’.

    – Sarah Silverman, another of these eternal parasites, mocked the crucifixion.

    A Jew will remain a Jew if he ridicules Jesus Christ and Holy Virgin Mary (May Allah’s Peace and Blessings be Upon Them).

    However, a Muslim will NOT remain a Muslim if he denigrates the personalities of Jesus Christ and Holy Virgin Mary (May Allah’s Peace and Blessings be Upon Them).

    Of course, we don’t accept what the Christian doctrines say about Jesus Christ, yet, our faith is incomplete without the unconditional acceptance of his exalted status.

    We name our children after these Great figures.

    • Dionysios
      Dionysios says:

      Excellent points. Here’s the one thing few realize. If a non-Muslim became Muslim he would be accepted as anyone born into the faith. The same with Christianity, and other religions. Jews will always consider a covert of lesser status. I knew a woman dating a Jewish man when he took her to his synagogue he told her to say she was a Sephardic Jew from Greek not a gentle Greek Orthodox woman. When she asked him why he replied, “Even if you covert you’ll still be a “shiksa” to them. Needless to say they did not get married. The talk radio hostess Laura Schlesinger had a similar experience. After living as an Orthodox Jew for many years (she did a conversion her father was a Jew her mother Catholic) she announced on her radio show she will no longer be practicing the religion she cited two reasons. First, she felt the religion was devoid of spirituality and was about ritual observance only. Second, she felt that despite her conversion because her mother was a gentle she was never fully accepted as a Jew.

  8. Tom
    Tom says:

    Well, there is a new faith in the West and it’s growing by leaps and bounds. It’s called Minority and Homosexual Worship. The church leaders practice their services daily in the mass media and academia has created the new faith’s bible.

  9. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    This writer, Jonathan Sawyer, asks questions about the spiritual vs. the mental from his solely material/intellectual knowledge base. He cannot reach the spiritual from there. He also fails to mention the world’s third largest religion – Hinduism – especially in its form of Vedanta (truth found in the Vedas), in his inquiry into ways to bridge the gap between science and religion.

    Vedanta leads us to our inner world that we know as ourself. We all have access to ourselves, right? Our individual consciousness (Atman) corresponds to -is the same in essence as- the Supreme Consciousness (Brahman) which ls also called Ultimate Reality. This Reality is realized through a process of Direct Knowing or Direct Experience only.

    There are no distinctions to overcome because they’re only in the mind. What I’m talking about is beyond mind. Doesn’t it have to be that way? It’s the mind that’s in the way of seeing/appreciating this connection. Still, the mind is an aspect or function of the Self (Brahman).

    It’s certain that neither academia, nor church doctrine, have or will ever be able to end the conflict. It’s all within. There is no one man, one teacher, one savior to follow or worship in Hinduism, unlike most other religions. The Hindu Gods & Goddesses, and avatars that the masses love to show their devotion to, are only aspects of Brahman (Reality, Pure Being). All reality is in Brahman. If you pay attention to the key personal statements and commands given by Jesus, as recorded in the bible, they fit Vedanta perfectly.

  10. Joe
    Joe says:

    Excellent piece, Mr. Sawyer. You eloquently laid out the conundrum of life. If God exists, He is both generous and cruel. Generous in His gift of sentient life for all to marvel at the beauty and wonder of His Creation. Cruel in His hiding of His ultimate plans for His subjects… and leaving Death as the only gateway to all answers.

  11. ParticleJ
    ParticleJ says:

    “Judaism and Islam reject His role as a divine entity; in their eyes Jesus was no more than a highly respected prophet.”

    I fear the author is not acquainted with Judaism’s view on Jesus.

    • Dionysios
      Dionysios says:

      Agreed I lived in Jewish neighborhoods Jews often cursed and mocked Jesus and Christians. Scorning the dumb “goyim” in total contempt for “Shigitz” and “Shiksas”. Though they have no problem using “shiksas” for pleasure.

  12. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    “Religious fervor, with the exception of Islamic cultures, seems to be declining in more advanced societies.”

    I’d say it was the opposite, what is all this woke gibberish and black-worship if not an explosion of religious fervour?

    “Judaism and Islam reject His role as a divine entity; in their eyes Jesus was no more than a highly respected prophet”

    That’s not how I’ve read the Jews think of Jesus, what sort of “highly respected prophet” do you teach is burning forever in a cauldron of excrement?

    “During the Crusades Arabs were pitted against Christian zealots who sought to liberate the Holy Land from pagan dominance.”

    Eh? Wasn’t the Crusades a backlash to Muslims taking the Holy Land from Christianity? And loads of Arabs are to this day Christians, and since when were Muslims considered pagans? What’s up with this article?

    “Matters of faith between Catholics and Protestants brought about civil wars that ravaged European nations and spilled over into their colonial possessions.”

    Actually these wars were political in nature, they were about earthy power, as all human wars are, and only took on the look of a religious conflict. Much like Northern Ireland’s Troubles are often ignorantly interpreted as Catholic vs Protestant, when in reality it was an ethno-nationalist struggle and the most hard core Catholics and Prods were those most disgusted by the carnage.

    “Pure logic guides the rational and demonstrable world of science”

    Ha! This is the biggest joke of all. Science today is nothing but a scam to bamboozle the masses, and used as a weapon against them by the elites. The ‘World of Science’ is corrupted beyond belief, and the only interesting science done these days is by persecuted dissidents run out of mainstream science. Official Science operates more like a cult than anything else, with any sort of independent thinking remorselessly crushed.

    I could go on, but you get the idea, surely one of the least impressive articles ever published on this site.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      “Pure logic guides the rational and demonstrable world of science”

      That is a very appropriate assessment of genuine or quality science but not for the abundant fake or substandard contemporary science .

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        I was riffing off of his phrase, “world of science”, which yes, could mean anything, but in the context of the rest of the piece, strikes me as having awe for the “world of journalism”, or the “world of universities”.
        If you asked the average man-on-the-street his opinion of these “worlds”, it would not be high.
        “Parasitic” is how I’d describe them.

  13. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    It is a disgrace that the Internet is full of pornography and not government funded interactive programmes which could take students to at least a first degree level. An MP wanted people to apply for pornography if they wished to have it, but the (redacted) PM David CaMoron said this would interfere with free trade!
    Before my mother’s family became communist we were at Eton. Half of the families we were friends with said I should be helped while the other half said I was a pennyless nobody who should be shot. Like
    the UK, Eton is no longer what it was. CaMoron and the present PM were both at Eton and Oxford which now produce Yankee Loving Russian hating drips and foreigners.
    The internet should be used to educate people and not corrupt them.
    Most academics like to walk about as though King Henry 8th is still on the throne. Until the Americans began to occupy the UK the British were all closely related which is not the case now. All white people are cousins, though.
    If the USA continues to drown in the Black Sea and is defeated abroad I will be able to stop saying “Yankee go home” and start singing ” Happy days are here again.”
    If you are for the white race you have to be against the Glaubenjuden controlled American Government.

  14. Horst D. FLEMMER
    Horst D. FLEMMER says:

    The root of all thinking about a God and their followers?

    Thesis? God is
    Antithesis? God is not.
    Synthesis? God can only be belived, but not be proven.
    Horst D. Flemmer
    CEO of GLM
    aBombing surviver

  15. John
    John says:

    Currently on vacation w/Montreal being one of the stops. Undoubtedly, English Canada is done (since the initial establishment of Toronto as a City in 1834, Toronto’s Coat of Arms read:
    “Industry Intelligence Integrity”.
    In 1998 it was changed to:
    “Diversity Our Strength”).
    The # of third-worlders in Montreal is shocking – where r the Québécois People? The # of Québécois women w/Africans holding hands is something. And, to think the Québécois People fought to b recognized as a Distinct People in a society their ancestors built from the 16 century, only to give it away.
    In a cafe right now witnessing a table w/three women (two Québécois & an African) whereby the Québécois women r listening attentively to the African as she is speaking 85-90 % of the time. I am surprised the Québécois women r sitting & not taking a knee! To describe this scene as worship would not b overstating it.
    Yes, along w/English Canada the Québécois People r also done.

    • Ricardo Duchesne
      Ricardo Duchesne says:

      My last time at Mtl was Jan/Feb 2020 — just before the covid hysteria hit. I visited some schools and universities, and walked a lot around the center. I was staying around Westmount. I have yet to overcome the despondency and melancholy I felt during this trip. The Alexis Nihon mall, right in the center, is a nightmare, you barely see a white person. This was the first mall I saw upon arriving in CA in the mid 70s, walking straight from the metro into the mall, everything clean and white. Some streets in the center remain majority white. I looked inside some high end restaurants where the decadent white elites hang out.

      This guy is correct, blacks are worshipped by whites, girls gravitate towards them in schools. The French speaking universities are full of negroes doing PhDs, straight from Africa, knowing they can get through with “C” work, and full tenure soon after. Back in the mid or late 80s I recall a black in an MA philosophy course doing a presentation on Hegel, complete utter gibberish– at least the prof told him so; he could not make any sense of the written part either. African philosophy has been added to the curriculum; no way a white prof would question a black’s thesis on the uncanny deconstructive mastery of Akuchi’s epistemology. Québécois women do love their negroes, this has been going in since the 80s. The most famous book by a “Québécois” author was How to Make Love to a Negro Without Getting Tired, made into a movie, author a winner of the most prestigious literary awards. The book has its own entry in Wiki:

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        But doesn’t it always come back to WHY? Why are whites like this? Why the lack of racial pride? My parents and grandparents, all good Christians (except my scientist turned businessman father, who was basically irreligious, but certainly not insulting towards Christianity, like many at this white nationalist site especially), would also be called “white supremacists” today, and shorn of malicious connotations (they were very gentle and kind people, although my one grandfather was a decorated WW1 hero, and known for being a tough guy in youth), that would be accurate. They were not “haters”, or filled with evil intent, but they wanted white nations to remain white. Is there something morally wrong with that? Of course not!

        I believe in objective ethics; but especially, I believe in objective ethics within the Christian paradigm, meaning that, even if Christianity is finally untrue, its metaphysical precepts necessitate certain ethical conclusions and not others. Are white Christians necessarily (morally) required to abase themselves before alien others? NO, I say. There are many Christian arguments against wrongfully treating others, including alien others. But there is nothing contained therein implying that whites should behave in the way you describe these Quebec cucks. So why do they do it (especially when so many of the most shameless white cucks are actually affirmative atheists and even ostentatious anti-Christians)?

        I come back to my now 30 years-held conclusion: there is something evolutionarily maladaptive about the white race in general. Some of us are innately racially healthy; others, innately racially sick. Truth and rational debate will only get you so far when dealing with genetic orientations. The ONLY solution therefore is for the healthy rigorously to segregate themselves from the sick, and eventually do so not merely as conscious rebel individuals, but as a reconstituted people. Hence separatist ethnostates, but ones designed only to include the forever racially healthy, because even those who in the past were race libtards and have now seen the light, contain something defective within themselves. I myself, as with many friends, was simply never a race libtard. But the difference is that many whites innately are, and it only took Jewish and white libtard (inclu, pseudo-“Christian” libtard) propaganda a certain amount of time to release all this latent libtardism in our people. External psychological (inclu. philosophical) conditions had to be right for this release. Whereas in the past, “genomes” like mine were in control, now the opposite (still white, but innately preferring liberalism) genomes are dominant (or they are in combination with Jewish money and media control + ever rising numbers of nonwhite “boots on the ground”).

        The only hope is total prowhite separation, secession and sovereignty – followed by maybe a century of internal population increasing and educational racial retraining, by which the entire mentality of society is shifted back to where it once was. I think this can all only be effectuated by some type of neofascist or at least extreme conservative authoritarian regime.

  16. Chet Nixon
    Chet Nixon says:

    Humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years without science, but by faith alone; faiths long abandoned to Gods long forgotten, but faith and religiosity was what made Homo-sapiens the most successful advanced species on the planet. Science beyond fire and sharp-pointy-sticks was unnecessary. Now we face an epoch where Science has become God, and while human populations have experienced exploded growth, the human spirit is decayed and sickly. The tribal leaders of this Godless age (who incidentally are mostly members of one particular tribe) are rapidly advancing an agenda where faith in their powers alone is mandatory (an controlled through a direct, unbreakable neural-uplink as well as drugs and gene-splicing), and life itself unworth living.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      You are simplifying ‘hundreds of thousands of years’ of earth history by claiming it was ruled or overseen by Faith and Religion. SUPERSTITION, more likely. During much of that long period of time, humans didn’t know what actually caused things to happen. Think how scary that would be! Seeming friendly and demonic forces took turns affecting humans … and gods. This cannot be called living by Faith as we think of it today. More like living by Fright.

      You also quickly decide that “the human spirit is decayed and sickly” now, and blame it simplistically on Science superseding Faith. But you present nothing more than your opinion that Science, led by Jews no less, is responsible for the alleged decay of the human spirit.

      It is my view that we are overall progressing, albeit with (seeming) bumps and detours of every sort along the way. Knowledge is absolutely necessary, and Vedanta recognizes the Path of Knowledge (Jnana), along with the Path of Devotion (Bhakti), the Path of Good Deeds (Karma), and other paths to reach liberation from Ignorance. In the end, they all become the same path when they reach the same goal – enlightenment. Enlightenment is Knowledge.

      A major block to enlightenment are Beliefs that seem hard-wired in us. We have to be willing to examine and release all beliefs bc most of them are desires & objects of the mind that obstruct the light of Brahman, or Christ consciousness … which is beyond mind.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Anything “beyond mind” is a fantasy and cannot be proven to exist . Fortunately for humanity , science does not dwell endlessly on unknown existences .

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          What is the/your “proof” that mind exists? “I think, therefore I am”? How about, “I am, whether I think or not”?

          You seem to be implying that you *believe* (not know) that Science is God, being that it is the determiner of what is true. Is that so?
          And also, you draw the conclusion that the mind of man is God, since there is nothing beyond it.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” What is the/your “proof” that mind exists? ”

            Some things are so fundamentally obvious they are beyond the pale of provability or the need to prove . Mind is one of those things . If you think not , then I cannot help with your inability to perceive it .

            As for Christianity , it makes sense to believe that sometimes the mind of man is the same as that of God since men are asserted to be children of God . In any case , some of genuine , confirmed , and accepted science is as divine , with regard to the utility for humanity to thrive-n-survive , as anything any religion has to offer .

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Your answer to my question put to you, “What is your proof that mind exists” is that it needs no answer! You can’t answer so you try to punt, using the same answer Christians so often give for proof of God, ie. ‘none is needed’ — the same God that you say is a fantasy because it can’t be proved!! You have humiliated yourself, moneytalks … but at least you answered. You get credit for not scuttling away in silence, but trying to stand your ground. However, you’re out of your depth.

            First, YOU are the one who brought up the question of “proof” for “anything beyond mind” — indicating you thought proof was needed. Now it’s not needed for mind itself. What a turnaround!
            Obviously, proof can only be provided for that which is physical, and the mind has not been shown to exist anywhere in the physical body.
            Can you give me a definition of mind that proves it exists? You can’t even do that. It is as I said: There is plenty beyond the mind, but you won’t discover it with the mind.

            “As for Christianity , it makes sense to believe that sometimes the mind of man is the same as that of God since men are asserted to be children of God. …” -moneytalks

            Gibberish. You’re backtracking to cover your spiritual ignorance. The aim is not to *believe* but to *know*. But more important, the human mind can’t be “sometimes” the same as God, and “sometimes” not. It is or it isn’t.

            Much else I could say but space is limited.

  17. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Jesus is the focus of the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation – but not evident to anyone with only a cursory reading of it. DaForest for DaTrees?
    All of our intake of knowledge is affected by our previously ingrained presuppositions and binary thinking.
    Faith comes by hearing, but understanding comes from knowledge – which comes by sight.
    Most of us garner our knowledge by seeking confirmation of our beliefs – not facts or reality, which we dismiss out of hand. That is called rationalizing – it is not rational.
    Logic is the systematic study and practice of discerning the truth and telling the truth.
    All of the above statements are fundamental truths which I have learned to be true over decades of reading – and fully credited to their sources on my website and archive-library gathered over 6 years. You can word query them all in the library.

  18. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    A very well written piece Mr. Sawyer, thankyou.

    But he answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” ~ Matthew 4:4

    The only thing off, and I’ve lived around Jews most of my life, is that they in no way consider Jesus a prophet, they seethingly hate and despise him. Maybe not all of them but many of them. There are passages in the Talmud that say atrocious things about Jesus. ,

  19. Clem
    Clem says:

    This is one of the most ignorant articles involving Christianity I have read in a long time. Don’t bother to write if you aren’t going to do your homework to understand.

    Your descriptions of Christianity, Church history, the Bible and what churches do is laughably inaccurate–barely recognizable caricatures at best. And your assertions that theology and logic are at odds, or that Christianity is illogical are among the most logically inconsistent statements you could make.

    You can have no laws of logic without the Christian God, and no science, either. You may reject him, but you will rely on what he created to do so. Laws of logic, the reliability of the senses, and the uniformity of nature do not occur in a universe made any other being or force, and without those, you cannot open your mouth to speak, even, with anything approaching an expectation of being heard, or being able to be understood.

    Very pathetic, as are the ravings of most antiChristians. Indeed, He makes the wisdom of the world foolish.

Comments are closed.