Close this search box.

A Conversation with Peter Blindt about the Philosophy of Science, Humanism, and Religion. Edited by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Dr. Faria, This was an incredibly informative conversation. It’s a true honor to know you. Much of this was new information to me, certainly the discussion regarding the illnesses of both Lenin and Stalin.

So Marx certainly knew and wrote to Engels, and in the Rheinische Zeitung, that murder and terror on a scale never before contemplated must be applied to reach his Utopia. It is interesting that 99% of leftist academia either play dumb or somehow are ignorant of the grotesquely malevolent side of Marx — who not only wanted class members that resisted but also entire races (that had not yet developed to “capitalist societies”) eliminated because they could not keep up. Of course you know all this better than me. But it was Hegel’s influence over Marx that gets thoroughly overlooked. Marx’s sentence by sentence analysis of the Philosophy of Right transfixed and transformed him. The 3rd Right could be a god over the 1st (the citizen) and the 2nd (ethics).

My questions to you are: I’m now of the resonating opinion that Hegel was somehow stirring together a perversion of Christianity, a “humanism” and paganism in his attempt to elevate the State as a power over all. As Hayek points out in his chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom, it’s why the worst eventually get on top. What do you think of this?

As a neurosurgeon, what do you make of the phenomenon of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976) and the devolutionary/delusional pseudo science of Soviet socialism? We now see all of leftist controlled or influenced “science” swallowing the same approach in their lies to us about man-made climate change, sexual perversion and mutilation as “scientific” and “normal,” and atheism as “provable.” What are your thoughts regarding the hatred of God and Christianity by the socialists, and their elevating perversion and Islam? Why have they brought Islam here under false pretense?

Full disclosure: I was raised evangelical Christian and around age 30 became agnostic after diving deep into astrophysics (for laypeople like myself) and philosophy. I edged close to the spectral edge of atheism but could never get there. In my 50s, I realized the enormous faith required to become an atheist, which I did not possess. As I approached 60, I realized that the fractional moments between nothing and the  were events of impossible magnificence, and that physicists attempts to create “rebangs” were by orders of great magnitude, far beyond the wild claims of Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon.

I now believe more resolutely than ever did before that God is. But not at all ironically that the magnificence of God is that God does not exist. We, mankind, and all of creation, including the universe, exist. We are God’s creation. As the grandfather of modern psychology Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) put it, what is pure spirit unless it is no thing — and what is God unless God is pure spirit.

We cannot even begin to contemplate God except in utter humility. This is my relatively new awareness in relation to the immense power that created me — us — and all of existence.

Socialism is man’s attempt to make of himself a god. It is a terrible blasphemy and, as does Islam, leads to abject and horrific consequences. Thoughts? —Peter Blindt ———————-

Hi Peter, You raise fascinating questions that I would be able to answer only in part while directing you to read what I have written along with three other philosophic friends, including an atheist lawyer, an evangelical musician, and another neurosurgeon-Christian philosopher friend of 40 years. I will do so later this afternoon. —MAF


Bless you my new and respected friend. We are in the great battle of our times, a battle that few recognize as profoundly dangerous. Your life experience, your intellect and your capacity to dig and struggle for truth make you someone of great value.

As Kierkegaard implied through the body of his work, a rejection of Descartes for a reality that was at once based in physics while acknowledging the “spirit” of man. It was a shortcoming, a denial of physics to surmise the existential imperative as “I think therefore I am.” For Kierkegaard it was, I struggle therefore I am. This conforms to 4 dimensional space/time and the gravity we feel physically and also emotionally. We struggle and in the struggle we find our strength — our wits, reason, reality. etc.  Anyway, I look forward to what you are sending later. —Peter Blindt


Peter, I think the articles I will cite below will give you some perspectives regarding the questions you pose to me, and these articles will attempt to answer them better than I could. Briefly, as far as your question about Hegel. Yes, he placed religion, man, even history subservient to the State — an all powerful State that was to become the civil religion of his secular and humanistic world. And yes, humanism and paganism would better serve the omnipotent State because humanism places man above mere Christianity, and paganism because it serves the mythic Nordic gods rather than the true Christian God. And yes, I agree with Hayek as you do, as to the froth (scum) rising to the top.

I recommend you read the debate between Mr. Stooksberry (the evangelical Christian musician who at one time was an agnostic bordering on atheist) and Mr. Franklin Hogue, a noted criminal defense attorney, progressive, and atheistic philosopher. They are both friends of mine and the debate they held resulted in my selecting it and editing it into a 3-part essay. I would like to know what you think of this and who provided the best theological arguments. These arguments and counter-arguments will help you understand your own position as well as those of our progressive opponents. Please note the link is for Part 1, but I would recommend you follow through with Part 2 and Part 3. Also note the civility between the opponents involved despite the depth and seriousness of the debate.

A secular (atheist) philosopher and a layman Christian debate ethics and morality — Part 1 by Wade W. Stooksberry II and Franklin J. Hogue., January 28, 2018.

This was a good debate, but I think you would be able to answer your own questions after you read the essay by my friend, Dr. Russell Blaylock, renown neurosurgeon and nutritionist as well as Christian Protestant philosopher. Dr. Blaylock is one of our contributors as well as editor at, my website, and you will find many of his articles on philosophy and political science there. We have an excellent search engine. I recommend you read:

1. Blaylock RL. Confusion about politics: Diversion as a leftist tactic, April 29, 2016. Available from:

2. Blaylock RL. The dangers of living in an unreal world., December 30, 2017. Available from:

3. Blaylock RL. The war on God and His son: The deceivers., July 18, 2016. Available from:

4. Blaylock RL. Collectivism, secular humanism, scientific positivism (scientism) and centralized state power—Part 1: A most dangerous admixture. Hacienda, August 14, 2015. Available from:

As for my own views, you will notice I stress history and Western civilization over religion and theological arguments, although I have opinions on both. Dr. Blaylock frequently defers to me on history. I usually defer to him on religion and we share philosophy and political science. Good examples of my views are found in:

1. Faria MA. Religious morality (and secular humanism) in Western civilization as precursors to medical ethics: A historic perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2015;6:105. Available from:

2.  Faria MA. Dismantling Christianity and Western civilization — and replacing them with what? Macon Telegraph, August 26, 2015. Available from:

3. Faria MA. A defense of Western culture and civilization without apologies., November 16, 2014. Available from:

As for Lysenko, I wrote about him and the implications for science and the State as it relates to genetics in pages 242- 244 of my book, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine. I also cover the philosophy of science in that book and bring back Lysenko in Chapter 3 of the book you has just received, America, Guns, and Freedom. I further expound on the method and philosophy of science as it relates to gun control in Chapters 2 also in America, Guns, and Freedom. The philosophy of science as it relates to medicine in medical history is also diffusely covered in Vandals.

As for your question, “What are your thoughts regarding the hatred of God and Christianity by the socialists, and their elevating perversion and Islam? This one is an easy one for a change. They oppose God for the same reason they hate what this country stands for. The same can be said for the family. God, tradition, and the family stand as bulwarks against the secular power of the State. I answer this to some degree in Chapters 18 and 21 of America, Guns, and Freedom. Dr. Blaylock has a couple of excellent essay on this specifically #3 and #4 above. As for Islam, the progressive think “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” However, if Islam war to triumph, the progressives would be the first casualties, but they probably would convert in a hurry!

As for your travel from agnostic, possible atheist, and now evangelical Christian, I think you will find the debate above and the articles by or about Mr. Stooksberry instructive.

As to the final question about my “thoughts?” I think you stated it well, ”Socialism is man’s attempt to make of himself a god. It is a terrible blasphemy and, as does Islam, leads to abject and horrific consequences.” Indeed, the destruction of the world and the triumph of evil! —MAF


Dr Russell L. Blaylock responds: I thank Dr. Faria and Peter Blindt for a very interesting exchange and collection of ideas. Unfortunately, we are living in an age when so many young people, especially the millennials, are basing their opinions on an unreal world, leftist propaganda, nonexistent facts and wishful thinking (utopian in nature). Their world view would be quite humorous were it not so serious in terms of destroying all that the rational mind values so greatly.

As I and others have stated in previous articles, the aim of the new left is the same as the old left—that is, the complete destruction and replacement of existing Western civilization by the new totalitarian technocracy, led by elites—elites who are convinced that they have become all-wise gods (that is, by reaching the omega point). These “wise ones,” in their view, are to make all social and political decisions. and in the process, they plan on removing the “individual” from society. This plan of the left has gone under various names, such as industrial policy, collectivism, socialism, communism, central planning and technocracy.

The idea of the left planners is that existing society, being left under the control of the individual and freely created groups of individuals, is wasteful and chaotic. To the leftist elite, all of society, down to the last decision, should be controlled by planning boards made of the chosen elite. Efficiency is to be primary. The other enduring principle of the left is egalitarianism. With its embodiment in the French Revolution, the principle of modern egalitarianism is not an honest one. Rather the principle of egalitarianism is being used to deprive the recalcitrant members of the existing society of their property and influence in decision making. Taxing property and oppressive regulations have done the greatest harm to private property ownership.

In truth, the elite left cares absolutely nothing for the real person of poverty—in fact, they detest him and see him as an animal to be used and cared for—much like a puppy or a farm animal. We see this throughout the writings of Marx, Trotsky and the other philosophers of the totalitarian left. In fact, Trotsky famously said, “If we do not have a system of compulsory labor (slavery) how can we make them work? “

The greatest enemy of the totalitarian left elite is the Judeo-Christian religion. Christ defended private property, diligent work (“If a man shall not work, he shall not eat”) and stated that a man should keep the fruits of his labor. Nowhere in scripture do we see even an implied call for the forced redistribution of wealth or property. Compassion must be voluntary, or it is no longer compassion—rather it becomes “legal plunder.”

If the members of a society believe that the source of all law is from God and His Son, they will not make compliant members of a socialist society. Socialism is forced compulsion and is predicated on the nonexistence of God. The state becomes “god” and the elite core represent the state. Those who are dedicated to God and His Son cannot yield to the state when it contradicts the laws of God and demands silencing of the Word. Our obedience is to God and His Son above all else.

As we are told in John, God is spirit and so is man. Our flesh is of no avail in the big picture. The spirit answers to the creator and not to the state. God, through Jesus, has informed us as to the proper relationship to the secular state, to its laws (rule of law), marriage is between one man and one woman, the  importance of property and has placed the family at the center of our social structure. This is why the leftist elite devotes so much energy and time to destroying these institutions. I appreciate the insight from Miguel and Peter. Great discussion.

Peter Blindt studied at Loyola University (graduated in 1980) and still lives in Chicago.

Miguel A. Faria, M.D., is Associate Editor in Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). This article is excerpted and edited from his newly release book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019)

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins — The Taste That Kills(1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets(2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI).

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. A Conversation with Peter Blindt about the Philosophy of Science, Humanism, and Religion., January 20, 2020. Available from:

Copyright ©2020 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Share This Story:

3 thoughts on “A Conversation with Peter Blindt about the Philosophy of Science, Humanism, and Religion. Edited by Miguel A. Faria, MD”

  1. Humanism two meanings unmasked

    In the second century A.D, a Latin grammarian, Aulus Gellius (c. 125– c. 180), complained: Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία (philanthropy), signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good-feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or “education and training in the liberal arts [literally ‘good arts’]”. Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the desire to pursue of that kind of knowledge, and the training given by it, has been granted to humanity alone of all the animals, and for that reason it is termed humanitas, or “humanity.”

    Gellius says that in his day humanitas is commonly used as a synonym for philanthropy – or kindness and benevolence toward one’s fellow human being. Gellius maintains that this common usage is wrong, and that model writers of Latin, such as Cicero and others, used the word only to mean what we might call ‘humane” or “polite” learning, or the Greek equivalent Paideia. Gellius became a favorite author in the Italian Renaissance, and, in fifteenth-century Italy, teachers and scholars of philosophy, poetry, and rhetoric were called and called themselves “humanists.”

    Modern scholars, however, point out that Cicero (106 – 43 BC), who was most responsible for defining and popularizing the term humanitas, in fact frequently used the word in both senses, as did his near contemporaries. For Cicero, a lawyer, what most distinguished humans from brutes was speech, which, allied to reason, could (and should) enable them to settle disputes and live together in concord and harmony under the rule of law.[6] Thus humanitas included two meanings from the outset and these continue in the modern derivative, humanism, which even today can refer to both humanitarian benevolence and to scholarship. — Wikipedia

  2. Dr. Adam R. Bogart

    This is good reading. I agree with Cicero that what distinguishes humans from animals is speech. This is quite an important distinction, so it has always held my fascination.

    The simplest explanation why animals don’t speak is because they have nothing to say. While it is true that the more intelligent mammals possess the capability for abstract thought, it is still too limited to require language to communicate the results of the abstraction. For instance, dogs can think abstractly about social problems, and are thought to beat all other animals in this type of intelligence but us. They even beat the non human primates in solving social problems. Yet still, the solution to a social problem as determined by a dog can be communicated with body language and vocalizations that are not speech. Human abstract solutions to social problems are on a completely different level, and do require language to convey to other humans.

    I merely speculate then that once human brains passed a certain level of complex abstraction, language was an inevitable outcome. But it gets more complicated because human abstraction often involves thinking in language.

    It is interesting to imagine in what human brain did the thought first occur why do humans need to eat? Eating is fun, and not eating is most unpleasant, but the reason must be deeper than that. Likely, the same thought occurred in many human brains, and was at some point discussed with neighboring others because to a human brain, it is pleasurable to wonder about such things. Over a long period of time, this eventually resulted in knowledge of the true role of food to living things.

    Since the “first” dog there must have been billions of subsequent dogs, every one of which enjoyed eating. But not one of those billions of dog brains ever bothered to consider WHY they needed to eat, beyond to stop hunger pains and that it felt good. THAT is precisely why dogs don’t speak.

    I enjoyed this entire article but typically my comments are a tangent launched from one part of an article, and tend to elaborate on my own interests. That’s how I speak!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top