0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
E. Michael Jones on "The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism"
 
E. Michael Jones, Editor of Culture Wars, is one of the world's notable Catholic intellectuals. In this interview, based on his latest Culture Wars article, he traces the history of the "new atheists" Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens...and situates them in the context of the decline of Western civilization. Jones sees Darwin as the key figure who pushed the Western elite furthest down the path to atheism, by (wrongheadedly and deceptively) moving the "God argument" from metaphysics to biology.  But even before Darwin, Jones says, the "English ideology"— invented by sorcerers like intelligence agency puppeteer John Dee, then dressed in scientific garb by alchemist Isaac Newton as it was being weaponized by the Freemasons — was already a kind of proto-atheism.

In this interview, Jones asserts that the New Atheists are symptoms of the collapse of fatherhood in Western culture. He says they have troubled relationships with their fathers, and project their father-hatred onto God.

Is Jones right when he says the metaphysical argument for God is airtight and irrefutable? Or are David Ray Griffin's arguments better? Below is Jones' short summary of the argument; listen to the interview and make up your own mind.

Aristotle refers to the being which cannot not exist and is at the bottom of every chain of contingent beings as the unmoved mover. Feser invokes the image of a freight train as his explanation of what Aristotle meant by the term: 

"Suppose you see the caboose of a train pulling out of the station, and demand to know what is pulling it. A freight car, you are told. And what is pulling that? Another freight car. And that? Yet another freight car. All true enough; but none of these answers really explains anything, because the freight cars, like the caboose, have no independent power of motion of their own, and so no appeal to freight cars explains anything, even if the series of cars pulling the caboose went on to infinity. What is needed is an appeal to something that does have the power of movement in itself, such as an engine car."

The locomotive, in this instance, is a symbol of the “a first mover,” which in such a series must be itself unmoved or unchanging; for if it was moving or changing – that is, going from potential to actual – then there would have to be something outside it actualizing its potential, in which case it wouldn’t be the first mover. An infinite number of box cars is no substitute for a locomotive.


Dr. Kevin Barrett released this post 3 days early for $4 patrons.   Become a $4 patron