About the Team

Sam HainE

Sam Haine is a healthcare administration consultant, a writer, a lecturer and a Christian. He is a graduate student studying economics, with an emphasis on economic development and immigration policy.

Sam devotes much of his personal time to volunteer initiatives, which primarily focus on international and domestic economic development and teaching religion classes.

He cares deeply about political extremism, mental health, equality of opportunity for all, poverty and other essential causes of our time. 

Watch Sam talk about his battle with depression

David Kant is a religious commentator and philosopher with a history of mainstream religious criticism.

He is currently pursuing graduate studies in business. He studied philosophy as an undergraduate.

Kant studies the intersection of politics, religion and economics as they relate to organizational psychology. He is a critic of postmodernism and firmly believes in the superiority of enlightenment values.

David Kant

Get Comfortable in the Wilderness

The team wanders, but like many of their fellow pilgrims, they are not lost. Their aim is to break the shackles of the revisionist historians and intellectual slave-holders that attack Western culture and Judeo-Christian philosophy and morality.

"They invited me to partake of the forbidden fruit. So, I availed myself of the antidote to the intellectual deceivers’ poison. I shunned tribal affiliation and, instead, sought personal enlightenment. The team taught me that individuality is primary and group identity is secondary."
albino woman wearing a crown of thorns
E.H. Plem
Former Idealogue

6 Comments

  1. This is simply wonderful. The trailer for the YouTube channel is mind-blowing. I’ve just posted it on my Facebook page which has close to 4,500 followers. I work in the film industry and Stanley Kubrick was my inspiration to follow my passion and persevere in this difficult but supremely rewarding field. Seeing the clips you’ve used reminds me why I continue to strive for my little piece of cinematic Valhalla. I am awestruck and left speechless by the work your team has put into this blog and your YouTube channel. I became Facebook friends with Sam Hain a short while ago and have been a huge fan since. I told him I’ll try my best to promote your social media efforts. I find there’s something your team is doing wrong in that area, however. You don’t have enough subscribers. Will do my part. Bravo and kudos!

    1. Hello Vince,

      Thank you so much for your kind words and for your patronage to the site. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into promoting the site and our greater cause. You are correct! We have not been as successful at procuring YouTube subscribers as we have Twitter and Blog Followers. Any helpful advice you have would be appreciated. Blessings to you, sir.

  2. since Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, what is needed for salvation, etc, what evidence do you have that your version of Judeo-Christian philosophy and morality is the right one? as for “western civilization”, that has become a euphemism for bigotry against anyone not like a certain subsect of Christian, again since Christians don’t agree and you can’t show that you are a Christian per the bible’s promises, why should I consider your claims true?

    1. Hello Clubschadenfreude,

      Thanks for your comment. I apologize that I wasn’t able to get to it until now. I suspect that there is no answer that I could possibly give that will be a satisfactory one to your question. Much of my response is predicated on my assumption that you’re an atheist or, at the very least, highly skeptical of religious dogma. This may or may not be correct.

      Your comment suggests that you are aware of the works of prominent atheist philosophers and intellectuals such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and others – authors which I’ve loved to read and am very thankful for. They’ve provided a necessary check on the abuses of religious fundamentalism. I suspect that you’re proud of your emancipation from religious doctrine and theological dogma; it’s a staple of your personal identity, but you (seem to) fail to see that you’ve internalized the moral code that you (seem to) love to hate. Your moral compass is a Judeo-Christian moral compass. The concern of bigotry is a Judeo-Christian concern. Actually, it’s more of a Christian concern since Christianity, unlike Judaism, is built around the notion of ministering to the Gentiles – the “others.” Christians were, and are, called to recognize the humanity of EVERYONE (granted, most Christians fail miserably at this). There’s a reason that Paul’s focus wasn’t to convert Jews but to spread the Gospel far and wide. Eastern cultures, such as India, Japan and China are ethnically and culturally homogeneous. They’re not concerned with bigotry (Japan’s immigration policy, for example, is considered severely ethnocentric by Western countries). You (likely) relish posting 1-sentence quotes of Voltaire, Nietzsche and Hume on Facebook, but your daily life (and the moral framework that you use to navigate that life) owes much more to the works and intellectual offspring of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther.

      Where do you think human rights came from? You think the radical notions of individual liberty and the sanctity of human dignity sprang up from nothing during the 17th/18th-century Enlightenment? You think that these concepts magically occurred to 18th-century intellectuals as epiphanies? If you do, then you’re mistaken. I’m quite certain that you value human rights, but your moral intuition is informed by millennia of Judeo-Christian religious tradition, not centuries of skepticism and rationalism. Human rights, which are predicated on the notion of objective morality, are philosophically, historically and practically grounded in the notion that every person is made in the image of God – that their intrinsic worth is defined by the creator that authored them. The objectivity of Hebrew monotheism circumvented the nihilism of moral relativism (which 20th-century postmodernists abhorrently resuscitated). This objective morality formed a marriage with Greco-Roman rationality, which allowed more articulate and elaborate formulations of the doctrine of human rights. Atheists (notably Sam Harris) have tried to find a way to ground human rights in raw empiricism but have not been able to. Secular formulations of such philosophical proofs anonymize the identity of the rights-grounding deity, but still point to such an entity. As David Hume famously said, “You can’t get an ‘ought’ from an is.’” Science cannot provide us with morality. It can certainly inform our moral decisions, but it can’t transcend the bounds of the physical. Science and religion have separate domains. While science can enlighten us about the realities of the material world, religion is concerned with the metaphysical. The metaphysical realm is, by definition, outside of the domain of science but that does not make metaphysical inquiry any less real or consequential. Surely you don’t view metaphysical pursuits, such as the codification of human rights, as trivial?

      While we’re on the subject of science, where do you think the scientific method came from? Did Galileo luckily stumble upon it one fortuitous day? Did Newton? Did Descartes? If you do believe this, I’d suggest that you read the words of Thomas Aquinas who implored his brethren to study the natural world. Do you think that religious clerics over the centuries weren’t familiar with and influenced by Pythagoras, Protagoras, Aristotle, Plato and other Greek philosophers and mathematicians? I’d remind you that pre-Renaissance and Renaissance scientific inquiry (including that of Galileo and Copernicus) was sponsored by the Catholic Church. Do you think Bellarmine’s prosecution of Galileo was predicated on scripture? Judging the integrity and value of religious traditions by the behavior of their respective religious institutions is as valid an assessment as judging the integrity and value of the American Constitution by the behavior of American politicians.

      As for empirical evidence of why my personal view of Christianity is correct, I have none. In fact, it is not possible for me to offer empirical evidence because the belief in God is a metaphysical notion, not an empirical one. One of fundamentalist Christians’ greatest offenses is to treat Creation as a journalistic account of material origins, which creates an unnecessary conflict between the realm of the physical (science) and the domain of the metaphysical (theology). Anyone who tells you that they have definitive evidence of their religious beliefs is lying to you.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.