Rationale

There is a God. Thank God there is.

A realization of this reality gave me the starting point for the work I have attempted. Considerations concerning the necessary consequences of His existence led me to seek a unity in everything I encountered. In particular, this necessity gave me the faith that such a unity existed in the field of psychology. I thank Him for the insight He has given me as well as for giving me the ability to accomplish what I have. I hope that He has given me sufficient guidance to enable at least one other person to gain these insights I will try to convey.

I pity those who call themselves atheists. For them I try to be as objective as I can possibly be by avoiding the use of any "religious" references unless I parallel them with references to concepts which seem acceptable to their disbelief in God. Quite frankly, I don't see how this is possible, since an honest belief in the non-existence of God is incompatible with logical consistency. But I try. I, therefore, depend upon the inconsistencies that I have observed in proposed atheistic beliefs to establish the hope that their limitations in rejecting God will not limit their ability to derive enough value from my work to reward their effort. It is unfortunate, however, that they cannot realize the full power of the unification I try to indicate since this unity begins with God and ultimately ends with Him.

I can only express to an atheist my deepest sympathies and hope that his abberation will not be long-lived.

Recognizing that what I have said so far seems to be very subjective to the critical reader, I ask him to be kind to me - if he thinks I am mad, and reject what I say as merely my opinion, unless he agrees, of course.

If anyone chooses to reject what I say by considering me mad, or for some other reason, I ask that he try to develop his hypothesis logically. It is completely useless to say that one disagrees unless he defines his disagreement. As I ask the skeptic reader to develop a thesis which I consider to be impossible, I will give him the assurance that I can develop all that I have thus far stated very logically. I propose to do this in a future work on philosophy.

I make no bones about attacking atheism, or anything else, for that matter. I attack the ideas, the concepts, the actions, but not the persons. I love the persons, and therefore, must attack their ideas or actions to help them correct their error. I don't think I can insult any atheists because they are beyond insult, if any such animals exist. In fact, those who profess atheism will probably welcome the attack to give them some reason to deny some portions, if not all, that I present. I hope that I can at least force them to be courageous enough to admit that they believe or, rather, disbelieve, because they want to, and for no other reason. I doubt that any will have the gumption to attempt developing any thesis to support their beliefs. But I am not concerned so much with atheism as I am with its extension - negativism.

The idea of extension expressed here is of considerable importance. Although it falls within the scope of the philosophy I plan, and will be more fully developed there, it is necessary to present some basis for this statement so that the ideas I wish to convey here will not be misconstrued.

If atheistic belief is logically consistent within itself, it must produce a pure negativism. Because I admit that atheistic belief can be logically consistent within itself does not mean that atheistic belief is logically consistent. The statement that it can be logically consistent is made with the qualification and limitation that the consistency is maintained "within itself". The statement that something is logically consistent without having any qualifying or restricting clause attached means that it is consistent both "within itself" and with everything else that exists in any shape, manner or form.

Now, if atheistic belief is logically consistent within itself, and if consistency produces a pure negativism, then it indicates that everything is nothing. This is obviously not consistent in the unrestricted sense. But this conclusion depends upon the assumption that the restricted logical consistency produces a pure negativism. Allow me then to at least indicate what I mean by this so that the reader will not be confused by the terminology I employ, whether he agrees with it or not. I hope that these comments provoke some thought, if only to create some interest in my planned philosophy. It is not true that this argument creates more difficulties than it solves. The main purpose for its presentation here is to give some basis at least for the terminology of the argument that follows.

To every question there are three possible positions that one can accept initially, or finally.

First - The entity being questioned exists, or an answer to the question exists, which is equivalent to the theological, dogmatic, or positive position.

Second - The entity being questioned does not exist, or an answer to the question does not exist, which is equivalent to the atheistic , or negative position.

Third - One does not know whether the entity exists or not, or the question remains with no progress, which is equivalent to the agnostic or skeptic position.

In developing any "logically consistent" proof to establish any one of these three positions regardless of the question under consideration is analogous to answering the question: Does God exist? Therefore, in accepting any of these positions, one can accept or deny, the existence of any entity on a "logical" basis by substituting the term "God" for that entity whose existence or non-existence he is trying to determine.

Complete negativism is too ridiculous to be very effective in itself. The only effect that it can have is to produce, to create, and to confuse the "jelly fish", the "liberal", the "agnostic". The agnostic position is the most ridiculous position in which to find oneself, for there are no roots. But if the number of people in this position increases, and that is the present trend, there is a tremendous danger to them and the rest of their society.

The agnostic position results in pure skepticism. That is, skepticism for the sake of being skeptical only. The greatest danger in our society today is the insidious spread of this condition which replaces an individual by a dilemma. It is more insidious and by far worse a threat than cancer.

This position has a lure. It appears to be a "safe" position; the "happy medium". One can accept all kinds of ridiculous beliefs because he has no intention of defending any of them. Why should he stand up for, or fight for, any principle? If he recognizes it is true or good generally, he has his doubts and, therefore, must give the other fellow a chance. After all, maybe he is right!

A wonderful philosophy for a slave. Well, almost.

With the spread of pure skepticism, any kind of positive position is an extremely stong one. There would be nothing to fear if the positive position was based on reality. But if this was the case, the atheistic and agnostic position would be trivial forces.

The problem then becomes, clearly, that the atheistic view replaces its negativism by a positivism in which the individual becomes a god, or he creates some other pagan god to worship, sometimes without realizing it himself. Those in the agnostic position then fall easy prey.

For example, communism is atheistic. It certainly is not logically consistent. It is not a negativistic movement. It is very definitely a positive movement which substitutes "the State" for God.

The method of such a movement is then easy to see. They create and foster a skeptic position to replace any positive position existing and then replace the skepticism created with their own positivistic position. They do this by avoiding as much as possible the skepticism which they create against positive positions, even their own, until there is no resistance, or very little resistance. To check on the power of the resistive forces, all that is necessary to do is to bluff. If these forces are found to be weak, the whistle blows - and everything goes.

This is the essence of "brain-washing". This is not at all a new technique. Every movement other than a true democracy must depend on such techniques to a greater or lesser degree. The reason it has become such a tremendous threat now, and the reason it appears to be a new technique, is because the communist and socialist movements employ it today realizing exactly what they are doing. They did not change the "weapon" at all, but just refined it so that it is reduced to its basic simplicity and can be applied everywhere.

It should be obvious that this is an application of the age-old adage: "Divide and Conqueer". They divide an individual from his ideas, ideals, and principles by creating doubts.

It is a basic attack. It is a psychological attack. It is a basic psychological attack!

The Russian communists, the socialists, fascists, or any such organized movement are not the only ones to fear. Just check statistics of the increasing number of psychotics - people who were unable to meet and fight this basic attack on their psychological make-up. But God bless them, for at least not succumbing to the false reality of another's making. It is unfortunate that they could find no effective way of fighting against these forces to retain their integrity. At least they accepted a false reality of their own making.

I will retain my integrity. I hope that my fight is more effective. I hope that I can define for society its basic difficulties so that they can be corrected.

But wait a minute! I live in a democracy. And just a few paragraphs ago, I asserted that a democracy is the only form of government which can give relief from such difficulties. I can only call attention to the qualifying adjective - "true" - and ask the question: How democratic is American democracy today?"

Now I again return to my specific, direct rebellion. It will be helpful in understanding the psychology as I have developed it to understand this rebellion because they are causally related. My rebellion is against this pure skepticism which I have outlined as a natural, necessary and logical extension of agnosticism. If I can only foster or create even in the slightest degree a realization of the evil attached to such skepticism, I will have fulfilled a substantial part of my purpose. Yet I am forced to fight fire with fire. I must attempt to make the skeptic skeptical about skepticism itself. There is one difference in my "brain washing" technique. I have no whistle to blow. The final decision is left to each individual to make for himself, as it should be. My only appeal is to their common sense.

I appeal to common sense, so I'll present a "common sense" approach to gaining knowledge or accepting any ideas that are presented. I have found the method to be most practical and rewarding.

I will accept any idea or concept that is presented to me, no matter how ridiculous it might at first appear to be, unless I have definite evidence to the contrary. If I have only a general feeling that the idea is ridiculous, or a feeling that it contradicts some idea I believe but cannot define definitely just what is wrong with it, I certainly will not accept it. Neither will I reject it. Before rejecting it, I must find what's wrong with it. Surprisingly enough, many ideas which at first seemed to be contradictory to my original ideas were found to be "the other side of the same coin", so to speak, so that both ideas were equally valid, depending on the point of view with which they were viewed. If I find the ideas to to be actually contradictory by seeking further evidence, I am not only able to choose the better idea, but the idea I accept will have more meaning for me. Whatever idea I accept in this way is more firmly rooted and I know the reasons for which I accept it.

My rebellion is complete. I rebel with my whole mind, my whole heart, my whole soul. The rebellion is so complete, it borders on what is normally considered psychotic. The size of the response as compared to the stimuli seems to be very much out of proportion and, therefore, unrealistic. That is, I respond completely to the smallest stimulus. An understanding of this kind of response can also be important and relevant to a study of my personality and character for the reader as it is for me. The possibility of extending this idea beyond this specific subjective frame of reference enhances the value to be derived.

But now that I am within this particular, specific, subjective frame of reference of myself, I shall present here some aspects of my reality.

I do this possibly to convince the reader that I am mad; possibly to create an incentive to read the work I consider important enough to stake my sanity on it; possibly too, to enable him to understand the nature of the errors incorporated in society's reality.

Atheists are insane, stupid, or the personification of evil.

Any purely negative position is logically inconsistent.

Agnostics are worse than atheists because, in addition to being stupid and evil, they are cowards and represent a danger to me, to themselves and to society.

Any purely skeptical position is ridiculous and weak.

But, to be more specific:

I can apply "assumptions"about myself very generally to the human race.

I can apply "assumptions" about anything and everything in the universe to anything and everything else in the universe.

I accept logic as the only legitimate tool to extend or restrict any of the "assumptions".

These "assumptions" may be intelligible or emotional in nature.

For example: As an individual, I reflect forces acting on, in, or through any and every individual in my society, the human race. Then my rebellion is against "pure skepticism" in myself and in society. This skepticism is so prevalent that I must reject society completely or fight against this skepticism in every way. If I allow it to remain within me, I must reject myself completely or fight to destroy this skepticism. It is interesting to note here that the skepticism is not identified with my person or with society. If it were, then I would have to destroy myself or society because I or society would be evil. Evidence that it is not identical with my person is offered by the fact that I have destroyed this skepticism within myself. I feel strong again, I feel human again, I feel happy again. If I could only help the ones I love, all of society, rid themselves of this plague, I will have accomplished much.

To be more specific: I am a student. I must fight the educational system which embodies this pure skepticism. I have resigned from school to take up this fight. Before I can return to any institution of learning, I must define the difficulties I have found in hopes that they can be corrected. Their nature is such, that my returning to school will not further my education but hamper, if not stifle, it. If I can return at all then, I could not attend in the same way that I had done previously.

All of the preceding leads to the most important aspect of my reality . . . . . . . I can think!

God damn me eternally if I refuse to do so. So, too, if I refuse to accept my thoughts, especially when I find them reasonable.

I have already indicated that my "thoughts" are composed of three aspects - intellectual "assumptions"; emotional "assumptions" or feelings; and, the logic or reason which serves to maintain the integrity of both of these and, therefore, my integrity as well. Since it is not apparent that emotions or feelings can be understood in any sense to which "logic" or reasonableness can be applied to them, I shall give some indication here of what I mean.

To say: "I love", is to say in a limited way that I place the object of my love as being a very high value, or the highest value. It might even be said that "I value", is a limited way of saying "I love". Since this is true, one can be used as being synonymous with the other with more validity than might appear to be the case upon first contact with the idea.

I offer in an attempt to produce some understanding:

Understandable? O.K. - I'll go back to English. Symbolism is something I, too, find somewhat difficult to understand fully, although at times I can appreciate its merits. I just wished here to present some related emotional values in somewhat of an artistic, poetic, or symbolic way.

I recognize the thought. I recognize the emotion. I recognize their combination. "I love."

I recognize the thought value. I recognize the emotional value. I recognize the single value which is composed of these two values. I can now reasonably extend or limit my expression. This duality of values which produces and remains a part of a third value has many interesting aspects. Although we can discuss either one of the two partial values and even give one predominance, they can never really be separated and, in actuality, never really are. This is the essence of truly human experience. What is not obvious is that these two parts, besides being inseparable, are related by a homeostatic mechanism which will try to maintain an approximate equivalence between the two with respect to each other. That is to say that they both tend to contribute more or less equally in any response, and failure to do so will set up some compensating response.

To continue along this train of thought would require a dissertation on love which I would not dare attempt now. A more extensive treatment would be appropriate after some basic ideas as well as evidence to support them is presented as is done in the psychology. Then I will attempt such an essay. But to indicate the relationship of love to psychology, I shall conclude this essay with some comments on the subject which might be provoking, or challenging, or just plain interesting, even if they might be considered to be absurd by some to protect their own peculiar concepts.

Love is at once the beginning, the entirety, the culmination and extension of human nature and, as such, represents the strongest, the most encompassing, the most fruitful, the very essence of human experiences. Then psychology is evidently dealing with this entity "love" in all its many aspects. One could then define psychology as a study of love and this work becomes, not a rebellion (against anything attacking love; that is "hate"), but a labor of love.

To add some particular interest, and some justification, I shall quote the words, spoken about 2000 years ago, by Jesus of Nazereth. He is considered by many people to be God. To them, I need not justify the reference. But to those who consider Him to be merely a man, they must admit that He was at least a very great man. For not only did His ideas, His teachings, survive for two thousand years, but they have spread, and His following has increased. For this reason alone, His words should be considered by any intelligent person to have some validity. The words express a summary of the entire field of human experience and, therefore, of psychology.

When He was asked: "Lord, which are the greatest of God's commandments?"

He answered: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with thy whole mind, thy whole heart, thy whole soul. And the second is like unto this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

1. e-mail
2. Contents Original Work
3. Home Page

.

.

.

.