Tag Archives: hitler

Godwin’s Law

“‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.’ In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless of topic or scope-someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.” Wikipedia

I have not bothered to check this out. It is not that important. But assuming that Godwin’s Law is indeed valid, there are three reasons for invoking Hitler or Nazi analogies.

First, someone loses control, gets angry and insults someone else. Usually there is no good reason anyone else can see for this insult. Just mentioning Godwin’s law might deter this kind of reaction from an angry person. Everyone except the person hurling the insult understands this to be wrong.

Second, someone claims that there is no right or wrong. This should be rare, but sadly it is all too common. Hitler or the Nazi party is invoked because Hitler and the Nazi party are universally understood to be evil. It does not matter that Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and others were far more evil. It is the concept of evil which is universally understood to be embodied in Hitler and the Nazi party. This is the sad reality when people abandon any kind of moral standards. These are the people who angrily shout; “Who are you to tell me what to do!” Personally, I know of no other way to deal with these kind of people except invoke Hitler and the Nazi party. If anyone has a better idea, I am open to suggestions.

Third is the Nazi propaganda technique of the Big Lie described by Adolph Hitler in Mein Kamp. That is, people will not fall for a simple lie. They can see through it too easily. Tell a big lie and keep repeating it. This concept of the Big Lie is the primary propaganda tool of progressives (the left) in this country. It is used because it is effective. It is also difficult to overcome. Once again, the only way I know of to deal with The Big Lie is to point out that what someone is saying is not true. Mentioning that this is a Nazi propaganda tool is usually not very effective, but it might work with some people.

Anyone who has a better idea about two and three, we welcome your comments.




Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Uncategorized

The Religion of Physics II: The High Priest Pontificates

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”1 Stephen Hawking

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”2

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.”3 Justice Antonin Scalia Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillera, 1987

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy … At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: ‘What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”4

This funny opening to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time makes us smile and trust the author. It is also a not so subtle way of saying that anyone who disagrees with their belief in modern physics is crazy. Since this book is the best selling nonfiction book besides Shakespeare and the Bible, this is a very serious charge. This attitude sadly is repeated throughout the book.

“(Ptolemy’s model of a stationary earth) was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”5 Though the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Ptolemaic system the only system in accordance with Scripture, neither the Ptolemaic system nor any other system is found in the Scripture. I am not aware of any group which refused to acknowledge the authority of Rome to endorse the Ptolemaic system. The issue with Rome was authority. Rome wanted everyone to obey Rome. Though Stephen Hawking has room to include this great error of Rome, he complete ignores Sir Isaac Newton’s unorthodox Christianity.

“…On the general climate of thought before the twentieth century . . . It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time in the past more or less as we observe it today. In part this may have been due to people’s tendency to believe in eternal truths, as well as the comfort they found in the thought that even though they may grow old and die, the universe is eternal and unchanging.”6 So according to Stephen Hawking, people who believe in eternal truths are ignorant and have such a belief because they need to draw comfort. It is important to mention here that the eternal truths found in the Bible do not say that the “universe is eternal and unchanging.” The eternal truth found in the Bible says that universe was created in a point of time, that God is now stretching it out, and that it ends by melting in extreme heat.

“St Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 B.C. for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 B. C., which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)”7 Stephen Hawking makes archaeologists, or at least the dates which they give us, more authoritative than Scriptures. While this is the date any author who expects to be published must use, this is not even a commonly accepted date among archaeologists. Also, after calling St. Augustine a liar, or at least mistaken, a page is devoted to Aristotle and Immanuel Kant’s use of reason.

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”8 Why? Why does Stephen Hawkins believe, without any scientific evidence, that an expanding universe places limits on God?

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” Stephen Hawking believes that in order to do that, we must correctly understand the universe from it’s beginning. “…it appears that he (God) chose to make it (the universe) evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.”9 The Bible says very clearly that God “worked” on the first six days of creation. That is, the existing laws of physics did not apply to those first six days because God was making changes and inputting energy and order (design) into the universe. Stephen Hawking is promoting the religious leap of faith called uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past).

When Stephen Hawking faces the insurmountable problems of devising a unified field theory, this “single theory that describes the universe,” he turns to the religion of evolution. “The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past . . .”10

I have no desire to get anyone angry with me, but this was the well-stated goal of Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle). I am not accusing Stephen Hawking of any desire to murder anyone. But this philosophy he pens here is the foundation of the Star Trek movie about Eugenics, Khan in Star Trek The Original Series and the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the rationale for selective breeding and abortions, the impetus for the books 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm. To be fair to Stephen Hawking, I believe that all he intends is for a better person to find the answer in the future. But the reality of this race of supermen, designed by controlled natural selection, is a race of powerful evil which must be destroyed before they enslave and destroy us all.

“Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”10 This is an impossible goal when you begin, as Stephen Hawking does, by rejecting the scientific information about our origins which God revealed to us.

1 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

2 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win'” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

3 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

4 A Brief History of Time, 2001 Chapter 1 Stephen Hawking

5 Chapter 1, Hawking

6 Chapter 1, Hawking

7 Chapter 1, Hawking

8 Chapter 1, Hawking

9 Chapter 1, Hawking

10 Chapter 1, Hawking

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

Right and Left

One of the saddest lessons I learned about modern culture is the fact that many people jump to conclusions without reading more than one or two lines. The facebook post “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left,” Ecclesiastes 10:2, created a firestorm. Solomon wrote this 3000 years ago, but modern parallels seem obvious. It seems that people who think of themselves as modern “progressives” or the Left, do not know the history of these terms and become infuriated when they are used properly.

The most important meaning of left hand and right hand is the final judgment. “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:32-34

The modern use of the “right” and “left” come from the French Revolution. In 1789 AD, the National Assembly in France divided between supporters of King Loius XVI who sat on the President’s right and supporters of the revolution who sat on the President’s left. The local French press called these political positions the right and the left. When the Legislative Assembly replaced the National Assembly with all new members in 1791, the self proclaimed “Innovators” or “Progressives” sat where the left sat in the National Assembly. Next to them, in the middle, sat the self proclaimed “moderates” or “centrists.” The remaining seats were called the “right” though these men represented many different views.

One hundred years later came the rise of Communism. Various groups, such as trade unions, civil rights movements and Utopians allied themselves with Communism and called themselves “the Left.” The phrases “Left” and “Progressive” were the labels these people chose for themselves and promoted in thousands of books, pamphlets and speeches. From Russia to the United States journalists began using these terms. The Left was the name of those who supported Communism in some way. People who partially supported some form of Communism were called “moderates” by the Communists and the Press. Whoever opposed Communism was called “the Right.” The terms left or progressive, center or moderate and “right wing” are neither insults nor precise. They have been used this way for over 200 years

The terms “right wing” or “the right” are Communist terms used by Communists. All that a Communist means by the term “right-wing” is “opposed to communism.” Joseph Stalin called Adolph Hitler “right wing” because Hitler’s Germany attacked Communism. Lenin called the supporters of the British crown “right wing.” In the United States, the term “right wing” means a supporter of the United States Constitution and private property.

Not every “progressive” today is a Communist. Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are so common that the meanings are blurred. But all “progressives” are some sect or denomination of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism is known throughout the world, but in America it is now our Establishment of Religion. The main purpose of America’s government-funded school system exists to indoctrinate into this belief system. We explain the religion of Secular Humanism in more detail in our book Antidisestablishmentarianism. Our blog has both the preface and the introduction as well as links to purchase.


Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics