The Supernatural Biblical God and a Literal Genesis 1-8 Interpretation are Scientifically Rational Notions.
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D. 2 NOV 2012. Last revision 6 OCT 2016.
For hundreds of years, it has been claimed, literally by millions and millions of individuals and especially most within the physical-science community, that belief in the supernatural, or in an all powerful creator God, or the like, is "irrational."
You witness an event that appears highly unusual. You claim the event doesn't appear to follow the physical patterns of other events you've witnessed. Maybe, you think, it could be supernatural. You mention it to a teacher, an instructor, a professor or a friend and what is the reply? "There must be a rational explanation." This statement implies that a supernatural explanation would be considered as "irrational." You're not thinking properly. You're "crazy and maybe you should be 'put away.'" Unless an individual demonstrates an actual mental defect, then such statements have been shown to be false.
If the individual states, "There must be a physical, a material, explanation," then the word "must" need not be accepted. But, continually using the term "irrational" points to a definite medical problem with many people who accept the existence of the supernatural.
Then there are rather strong statements that further erode the notion of the supernatural. They claim that a belief in the ultimate supernatural is also irrational.
[T]here is no way of explaining the thousands and thousands of contradictions, perplexities, difficulties, and inconsistencies in which religious belief involves us . . . (Feuerbach, 1967, p. 110).
[A]theism is a complete and thoroughgoing rationalism (Feuerbach, 1967, p. 248).
Christianity, . . . , cannot agree with reason because "worldly" and "religious" reason contradict each other (Marx, 1960, p. 24)
[M]etaphysics is an anti-dialectic method in thought (Marx and Engles, 1960, p. 351).
[T]he grand contradiction is the idea that the same God who is the ideal of human aspiration is also the creator of the Universe and the only primary substance (Santayana, 1905, p. 159).
All humanists agree that religion is not based on reason (Eysenck, 1973).
Almost all atheistic scientists are humanists. Some years ago, a director of the Natural Institute for Mental Heath stated that, "Anyone who 'hears' from God is mentally ill."
In 2008, the billionaire George Soros implied that, "Anyone who believes in God is insane."
At this very moment, millions and millions of students are being told that the supernatural or a supernatural Biblical God is an irrational and insane concept.
In 1978-1979, a mathematical model was constructed (Herrmann, 1981, 1982, 2002, etc.) that proves that all of the above statements that make the claim of "irrationality," as it relates to classical (scientific) logic, are false. Relative to the supernatural, individuals who make such false claims are either ignorant of this demonstrated truth or are not telling the truth.
Some might consider this fact as significant. Individuals have done various things to prevent this fact from becoming widely known, especially within the atheistic scientific community. The reasons for this are rather obvious.
Relative to Biblical creation, to "force" rejection of creationary claims, modern day propagandists try to influence the public by falsely denigrating any individual who accepts a strict interpretation of Genesis 1 - 8. They paint all such individuals with a broad brush since, due to their world-view and the hypotheses they accept, these detractors appear incapable of comprehending the creationary models presented.
I am considered by direct implication as a "backwards, dangerous, an anti-science illiterate, as ignorant as Holocaust-deniers, and mentally ill" (Anderson, 2012, p. 2). I wish they had enough conviction to name me specifically. They are not that ignorant, however. Or are they?
I challenge any seeming intelligent life-form anywhere throughout the universe to "prove" such claims about me. The only way one can refute my results is to show that I have made an uncorrectable mathematical error, or, relative to interpretations, that I have not consistently interpreted the mathematics, have applied an hypothesis that is shown observationally to be false, or an interpreted prediction that has been shown observationally to be false. I challenge any such life-form to show that I have in any of my work in this area produced any of these refuting conditions.
Note: For a complete article on the subject of the rationality of the Biblical non-creationary concepts, see this article or the extended archived version at vixra.org http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0203
Anderson, K. 2012. "There can be only one," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 49(1)2, 72--77.
Eysenck, H. J. in "The Humanist Alternative; Some definitions of Humanism," (ed) Kurtz, Paul, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York.
Feuerbach, L. 1967. "Lectures on the Essence of Religion," Tr. R. Manheim, Harper & Row, New York.
Herrmann, R. A. 1981(a). "Mathematical Philosophy 1981 Status Report 1," Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, Eastern College, St. Davids, PA, 23 August 1981.
Herrmann, R. A. 1981(b). "Mathematical Philosophy," Abstract of Paper Presented AMS Notices 2(6)(Oct. 1981):527
Herrmann, R. A. 1981(c). "Navy prof. says his formulas prove. . . ," The Birmingham News, Oct 30, 1981, p. 1B.
Herrmann, R. A. 1982. "The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence," J. of the American Scientific Affiliation, 34(1):17-23.
Herrmann, R. A. 2002. Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed, Xulon Press, Fairfax, VA.
Herrmann, R. A. 1978- present. See the papers reproduced on this website or at http://arxiv.org/a/herrmann_r_1 or http://vixra.org/author/robert_a_herrmann
Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1960. "On Religion," Tr. Institute of Marxism -Leninism of the C. C., C. P. S. U., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow.
Santayana, G. 1905. "Reason and Religion," Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.