Answering Scientism

December 12, 2019


Scientism is a core foundational belief for most Americans and other Westerners to some degree whether they are aware of it or not. It has become so pervasive that it has influenced our most basic perceptions. Most Americans would agree that when a scientist says something, people take it much more seriously than they do if a preacher were to say the same thing. In the back of our minds, we know the scientist deals with fact, the preacher deals with faith or “the world of appearance, not… the world of reality.”[1] When a statement begins with, “science has shown…” people will automatically grant it more respect. This is not to confuse science with scientism. Science is great for what it is designed for, but people have unconsciously elevated science to a religion for centuries. Science deserves much respect, however scientism is self-refuting, epistemically defective, and dangerous; a balance of both true science and Christian faith are necessary for an accurate worldview.



Mikael Stenmark describes several varieties of scientism. One type arises when people adopt scientific methodology into fields that are not truly a science at all. Stenmark calls this Methodological Scientism. [2] There is also Academic-External scientism, which is an attempt to expand science, “into non-academic areas of human life (such as art, morality, and religion).”[3] The variety that most people think of when they hear “scientism,” and the focus of this paper, are what Stenmark calls Epistemic Scientism, or the stronger Rationalistic Scientism.

Epistemic scientism is the claim that for any knowledge to be genuine, it must be scientific knowledge. In Roger Trigg’s words, “Science is our only means of access to reality.”[4] Anything “beyond the reach of scientists cannot count as knowledge.”[5] Then there is the stronger Rationalistic scientism, which goes even further by saying that it is actually irrational to believe anything that is not accessible to science. J. P. Moreland combines the epistemic and rationalistic scientisms into what he calls Strong scientism in which, “science and its methods provide the only fully valid route to gaining knowledge… to the exclusion of other methods and disciplines.”[6] Moreland then introduces what he calls, “weak” scientism, wherein science is not the only rational knowledge; weak scientism affords, “minimal rational status” to truth claims other than from scientific sources.[7] However, weak scientism “still implies that science is by far the most authoritative sector of human knowing.”[8] Both points of view quite naturally (and often explicitly) exclude anything spiritual, since of course nothing supernatural is scientifically testable. Thus, all forms of scientism have their roots in some mixture of naturalism and/ or secularism.


As with most words, definitions of science vary according to usage. For purposes of this study the term “science,” unless otherwise noted, will mean what Ian Hutchinson calls, “Natural Science”[9]—the systematic study of “physical reality.”[10] Scientific studies typically employ some version of the well-known “scientific method.” In his book, In Defense of Scientism, Byron K. Jennings, a nuclear physicist, argues that science is simply “model building.”[11] Not just any model will do, he asserts, but true science is “Model-dependent realism,” a term he credits to the late Stephen Hawking and Lenard Mlodinow, wherein “our theories, laws, hypotheses are models, models for how the universe works. Nothing more and nothing less.”[12] It is important to include this definition because many people today have expanded the term, “science,” to include many things that do not fall under the classical definition of science such as, “Social Science, Management Sciences… Decision Sciences, Family and Consumer Sciences… even Computer Science.”[13]

Leaders in these disciplines were forced to include the term “science” in order to be taken seriously. As Hutchinson explains, “If science is all the real knowledge there is, as scientism says, then a self-respecting academic department better be sure that its discipline is understood to be science.”[14]


This is not naturalism as in the study of nature, but Merriam-Webster’s definition number two: “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”[15] Since life to a naturalist arrived by accident, most naturalists adopt various tenets of evolution. They believe most or all of the claims that the universe is billions of years old, that life spontaneously arose from non-living elements into a very simple form, and then progressed into more complex life forms, step-by-step, all the way up to humans. The creatures who acquired these changes were more likely to survive to produce offspring, so the changes became permanent, and eventually became new species. This is the vaunted “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection.” Naturalism, by nature, is in effect a godless religion. It is a religion because it makes metaphysical claims, even though it rejects the supernatural. Plantinga explains that,

Naturalism tells us what reality is ultimately like, where we fit into the universe, how we are related to other creatures, and how it happens that we came to be. Naturalism is therefore in competition with the great theistic religions: even if it is not itself a religion, it plays one of the main roles of a religion. Suppose we call it a “quasi-religion.” [16]


Secularism is an epistemology that either ignores or downright rejects any religion or “religious considerations.”[17] Gil Anidjar wrote an essay about the secularism of Edward W. Said (1935-2003), a professor and political activist. Anidjar spoke of those who believed that Said was hostile toward religion, while others believed he was simply indifferent—he simply left discussion of religion to “scholars of religion.” [18] To Said, the important thing is not what is going on in the religious sphere, but what really matters is what is going on at the secular or worldly level. Secularism is not a worldview or metanarrative as such, it is simply a perspective that disregards anything metaphysical. Not so with scientism.

Scientism is a Religion

Like naturalism, epistemic and rationalistic scientism (hereafter, simply “scientism”), are an entire worldview in which no truth is genuine if it cannot be proven through science. Jennings, a scientist defending scientism, agrees that religion supplies, “answers to the basic questions of how the universe originated, how people were created, what determines morality…. Science is now slowly but surely replacing religion as the framework to answer these questions.”[19] Jennings even realizes that, “many of the claims that science is not a religion come across as a claim that science is The One True Religion.”[20]

Jennings also sees that, “science presents an alternative to religion as the basis for a person’s worldview.”[21] This is a danger to the church because now religion, even subconsciously in the minds of Christians, is seen as subjective. Therefore, in the eyes of scientism, religion’s truth claims are either meaningless or downright irrational.

Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most infamous scientismists (believer in scientism), would not agree with Jennings; he objects to hearing his scientism called a religion. He writes, “I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man… [things like,] ‘he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!’ But is ‘religion’ the right word? I don’t think so.”[22]

Understandably, scientismists and scientists generally do not like mixing metaphysics with their science. It is certainly not in the scientists’ field of expertise; and in order to follow scientism faithfully, one would have to be agnostic or atheist. However, at least some scientists such as Byron Jennings realize that, “Unfortunately, metaphysics can never be completely eliminated.”[23] He is correct; one can never get away from metaphysics because to dispense with metaphysics of course requires metaphysics.[24] This, coupled with the fact that their belief does not include a supernatural god may explain why they do not see that scientism is truly a religion. However, scientism has all the characteristics of a religion. A supernatural god is not required (cf. Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism). Even a cursory look will show that religions have a variety of characteristics.

All religions can affect our way of life, ways of thinking, our behavior, our perceptions of this life, perceptions of the future, and of the afterlife (or lack thereof). Bertrand Russell writes, “In religion, and in every deeply serious view of the world and of human destiny, there is an element of submission, a realization of the limits of human power…”[25] Followers of any faith will typically have a sense of awe, wonder, and reverence, and “a sense of vastness and mystery.”[26] Mary Midgley explains, “It is rather the sense of having one’s place within an ordered whole greater than oneself, one whose larger aims so enclose one’s own…”[27]

Midgley further points out that most religions include some sort of moral code, with reward (“pie in the sky”[28]) or punishment in this life and/ or after death (Karma, Nirvana, Heaven, Hell). Most have rituals. Most are evangelistic (attempts to win or coerce people to the faith). All have some sort of explanation for the existence of the universe and of life. Hinduism teaches that time is a never-ending cycle; likewise Buddhism does not attempt to explain origins, because to them the universe has always been here, and always will be. Most have prophecies (predictions and warnings for this life), and some have apocalyptics (predictions for the end). Islam and Judaism have all of these. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism also believe in providence—that God or Allah provides for their needs in life. Christianity has all of these except (barring Catholicism) the ritual. Many also have apologetics, which are “large-scale, ambitious systems of thought, designed to articulate, defend, and justify their ideas.”[29] What may come as a surprise—especially to its followers—is that scientism also has all of these features except perhaps, like Protestantism, the ritual.

Scientism’s creator is naturalism: unimaginable luck and evolution. Scientism offers prophecies—predictions for the future. William Day, a molecular biologist, author of such books as, A New Physics, and a book subtitled, The Photonic Origin of Matter, also wrote a book entitled, Genesis on Planet Earth: The Search for Life’s Beginning. In this book Day writes, “Evolution… is essentially a development of intelligence. Therefore, humanity can be expected to evolve in the future a new, distinct, and much more intelligent type, which will then become ‘reproductively isolated’.”[30] In other words, human intelligence will one day evolve until we become new creatures that he calls, “Omega man.” Day predicts that this transformation will only require about 10,000 years because, “Man will make him.”[31] William Day is not an isolated case.

In Christianity, God solves all problems; for scientism, technology solves all problems. Scientism’s “providence” is technology. As Richard Williams explains, “Scientism exudes and promotes an exaggerated confidence in science… to produce knowledge and solve the problems facing humanity.”[32] Nuclear physicist Ian Hutchinson calls this phenomenon Technopoly or “applied scientism.”[33] This is where a society “looks first, and sometimes only, for a technological fix for every challenge that confronts it.”[34] A quick glance through recent headlines will show that people expect science to be able to fix anything.

Scientism’s “pie in the sky” is the future bliss, after science and technology cure all of the world’s woes. Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson writes, “When mankind has achieved an ecological steady state, probably by the end of the twenty-first century, the internalization of social evolution will be nearly complete… Cognition will be translated into circuitry… Having cannibalized psychology, the new neurobiology will yield an enduring set of first principles for sociology.”[35]

Scientismists have a form of morality. Sam Harris “argues that ‘morality can and should be integrated with our scientific understanding of the natural world.'” [36] Dawkins admits to a moral code, which supposedly evolved for the survival of the race. This code, which Williams rightly describes as “a severely impoverished, strictly utilitarian, moral landscape,”[37] includes altruism to family and allies, and “do no harm.”

Then there is faith. Scientists and scientismists operate in faith. Newton operated in faith, as did Einstein. Marcelo Gleiser, a professor of Physics and Astronomy writes, “To go beyond the known, both Newton and Einstein had to take intellectual risks, making assumptions based on intuition and personal prejudice.… knowing that their speculative theories were necessarily faulty and limited.”[38] Physicist Byron Jennings calls it science’s Nicene Creed, wherein they expect that “Patterns observed in the past enable us to predict what will happen in the future.”[39] Midgley writes, “Faith as such is not an alternative to science, nor the enemy of science; it is a necessary part of it.”[40] Scientismists of course put their faith in science.

Science even has an apocalypse: the heat death of the universe. Recent followers have apocalypses even closer to home: man-made global warming. Historically, there was also global cooling, a hole in the ozone layer, nuclear holocaust…

Richard Dawkins is quite an eloquent writer. It is a shame that there is no space to include his description of the sense of awe and wonder that he and his friend experienced as children. His friend reminisces about being, “under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden.”[41] Anyone who has ever watched Carl Sagan will undoubtedly feel Sagan’s sense of awe and wonder of the universe. Dawkins writes, “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration.”[42]

Naturally, when a person feels such strong emotions, he or she wants to share it with the world. Dawkins is certainly no exception. All of his writings are clearly evangelistic in nature. Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was also, “chiefly concerned with how best to make converts.[43] Delfino writes, “there is an ‘evangelical’ nature to the new atheism, ‘which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible.'”[44]

The idea that scientism is a religion is not new. In fact, Caspar Hakfoort tells of Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932), a Professor of Physical Chemistry who deliberately made scientism into a religion back in the early 1900s after he had won a Nobel Prize. His intention was not only to combat the church, but also to replace it.[45] Ostwald even went so far as to write, “more than a hundred weekly ‘Sonntagspredigten‘ (Sunday ‘Science-based’ sermons).”[46] His peers looked askance at his ideas, but he managed to create a very systematic scientistic theology that was, “striving towards a unified science of nature; its use as the basis for an all-embracing philosophy; and the effort to realize this philosophy in practice, as a secular religion to replace Christianity.”[47] He actually did not invent this idea, but his scientistic theology was, “exceptional in its combination of breadth, clarity, and explicitness.”[48]

Finally, like most religions, Richard Williams concludes that, “Scientism entails a zealous metaphysical commitment and a requisite orthodoxy in method and in thought regarding the nature of the world and how understanding of the world is to be approached.”[49] Plantinga, perhaps donning kid gloves, calls naturalism a “quasi-religion.”[50] Plantinga is correct; nature is naturalism’s god. It is also Dawkins’ and most other scientismists’ creator god. Using Christian terms, science is prayer—how they access their god—and nature is the god. Dawkins calls himself an atheist. However, from what we know about scientism, and by his own definition, Dawkins is a pantheist because he writes, “Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.”[51]

This godless religion is dangerous and has several serious flaws. First, it is logically self-refuting.

Scientism Is Self-refuting, but That Does Not Seem to Daunt Its Adherents

As we have seen from the definitions, scientism believes that only what is testable by science can be true. The problem with that idea is simple. In order to prove that statement, it would require a scientific experiment of some sort. However, there can never be a scientific experiment that can test everything. Truth and falsity are metaphysical concepts that can only be argued by using metaphysics, not science. As J. P. Moreland says, “The irony is that strong scientism is a philosophical statement, expressing an epistemological viewpoint about science; it is not a statement of science, like ‘water is H2O.'”[52] Williams describes another weakness with their philosophy, in that it automatically blinds them to any other possible source of truth. He writes, “Within scientism then, questions are framed in terms of this particular metaphysical perspective… Therefore, a scientistic science can only produce results compatible with or affirming of the same metaphysical commitment it started with.”[53] Therefore, it is impossible to live consistently within the scientistic worldview because it requires invoking ideas from outside of science to defend it (which of course is not permitted). Sometimes it forces question begging, circular reasoning or other logical fallacies. Moreland writes of a conversation he had with a man who attempted to argue with him about scientism. Moreland finally had to interrupt him after a few minutes and say, “Sir, you have made thirty to forty assertions in the last few minutes, and as far as I can tell, not one of them can be quantified, measured, and scientifically tested in the laboratory.”[54] Professor Steven Pinker had the same problem. Williams explains that Pinker,

[S]loughs off the criticisms leveled against scientism, and then invokes the very kind of thinking that has prompted the criticisms… [He] assures his readers that science simply pursues intelligibility and not reductionism, and concludes that science, as he describes it, provides the best foundation for belief, morality, and essentially all human endeavors.[55]

Williams explains the circular reasoning thus: “If science really is all good thought, then science is not distinguishable from any other worthwhile intellectual endeavor, and it contrasts only with that which is deemed nonsense. But… It leaves unanswered how one is to decide what is nonsense. If [the answer] is ‘by scientific method,’ then the circular argument reaches closure”[56] Therefore, scientism is indefensible. Since their claims can never be proven scientifically, then their claims are simply the same conjecture and opinion that they complain about in other fields. Scientism is not only indefensible logically, but it is powerless to explain just about anything of importance adequately.

Refusing to Admit Anything Spiritual Forces Them to Place Faith in Countless Wild Theories

Missing Links

Steven Pinker believes science has proven that, “There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers.”[57] He further believes, along with many evolutionists, that all life today branched out like a tree from a single organism. However, every single branch is imaginary—not one branch of this evolutionary “tree” has ever been found to this day. He further believes that humans evolved from an ancestor common to the apes, but that ancestor has never been found—even after over 150 years of frantic searching through rose-colored glasses.

Multiverse, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy

Due to the absurdly infinitesimally small odds of the universe having spontaneously spawned the earth and its life, someone came up with a theory of a “multiverse.” The idea is that an infinite number of universes, somewhere, somehow, would allow enough combinations/ permutations to make the odds of spontaneous life reasonable. Furthermore, since the venerable science of physics cannot explain how the universe has not collapsed on itself, or spread out like a fireworks display never to coalesce into stars, they are forced to come up with “dark matter” and “dark energy.” None of which are observable or measurable in any fashion, yet somehow they consider them to be science—hence truth. These of course, are not provable by science using any definition, yet they consider them superior to any other source of knowledge.

Appropriate Approximation

In fairness to true science, scientists know for a fact that they cannot even begin to prove anything, much less everything. Jennings is a physicist, and is defending scientism, yet readily admits that, “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”[58] He explains that, “One never has direct experience of things, the so-called noumenal world; what one experiences is the phenomenal world as conveyed to us by our senses. What we see is not even what has been recorded by the eye. The mind massages the raw observation into something it can understand; a useful but not necessarily accurate model of the world.”[59] He further says that, “Science is the art of the appropriate approximation,”[60] Norman Geisler writes, “Even empirical scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific method, since it can only deal with observable phenomena. It begs the question in favor of materialism to assume that there is nothing beyond the observable.”[61] Jennings agrees that, “Excluding anything by fiat is poor methodology.”[62] Science cannot explain why the universe exists, but is also powerless to describe many other things.

Scientism Cannot Explain Many Undeniable Facts

Due to entropy, the unalterable Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the universe cannot have always been. It must have had a beginning in some finite past, because energy is continuously changing from one form to another, and at some point in the distant future, the universe will reach a thermodynamic equilibrium. All of the useful energy will convert to heat, and the universe will die a heat death. If the universe had always been here, this would have already happened. Therefore, how did it get here? Science only offers fanciful theories.

Consciousness and Morality

Science cannot explain consciousness. There are various theories about how an adequately complex arrangement of neurons in the brain might fire just right, so that the creature becomes self-aware. However, none of the theories work because consciousness does not even require the person to be alive! There are many documented near-death experiences (NDE) where brain-dead people come back and tell of events that happened in the hospital and elsewhere, while they had no brain activity.[63] Pim van Lommel is a cardiologist and he studies Near-Death experiences. He writes that,

It is a scientific challenge to discuss new hypotheses that could explain the possibility of a clear and enhanced consciousness—with memories, self-identity, cognition, and emotions—during a period of apparent coma. The current materialistic view of the relationship between consciousness and the brain, as held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists, seems to be too restricted for a proper understanding of this phenomenon.[64]

These near-death experiences are not imagination or wishful thinking among the decedents because even children have them and, “The content of an NDE and the effects on patients seem similar worldwide, across all cultures and all times.”[65]

Science cannot explain objective morality. There are theories, such as Dawkins’ survival of the species idea, but thoughtful naturalists admit that there is no reason to believe that random firings of neurons can arrive at objective truth. Morality assumes free will. For a person to be held accountable for a moral action, they must have had a choice in the matter. A brain with nothing but random axons firing cannot be considered to have a will, because it is strictly at the mercy of biochemical processes. A car cannot be blamed for a wreck; it has no moral choice. Even if there were a mechanical failure, such as a blowout, the car cannot be morally responsible. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and new atheist writes, “All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge… you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.”[66] Delfino realizes that, “Even if quantum events are random, I will not be free if my actions are caused by quantum events over which I have no control.”[67]

Irreducible Complexity

Darwin’s self-admitted defeater is irreducible complexity. In his famous Origin of Species (PF Collier & Son: 1902 [Original, November, 1859]), p. 255), Darwin writes, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Much to Darwinists’ dismay, however, nature is rife with irreducible complexity—there are countless features in nature that must have “evolved” simultaneously to have any function at all.


DNA contains vast amounts of very complex and very precise information (even the DNA of “simple” life forms). DNA is segmented into genes, which begin and end with markers called promoter and terminator regions. Somehow a protein called RNA polymerase knows just which gene needs to be replicated. It attaches itself to the promotor region. When it binds, it separates the two strands of DNA. The polymerase then slides down the DNA, unwinding the section of DNA, copying its information to create a “Messenger RNA” strand, which coils out of the polymerase like a tail. When the polymerase reaches the terminator region, it stops, detaches from the DNA (which it reassembles as it goes along), then the newborn messenger RNA goes off to have some non-coding segments removed and its ends capped. After this, the messenger RNA somehow “knows” to exit the cytoplasm to be translated into a protein. The messenger RNA also has start and stop regions called codons. Once outside the cytoplasm, one part of the polymerase attaches to the start codon. A “Transfer RNA” molecule brings a specific amino acid to the messenger RNA. Once the amino acid attaches to the start codon, the rest of the polymerase joins with the already attached subunit, and Transfer RNA molecules begin ferrying more amino acids to the polymerase, which assembles a specific polypeptide chain, which then goes off to be modified as needed.[68] The idea that somehow the information in DNA, along with the gene marker segments (which is very complex, and must be perfect) to arise by accident is preposterous. And the DNA by itself is useless without the magnificent little polymerase (it is also is impossible to imagine how this incredibly smart precision machine came to exist by accident). Worse yet, polymerase’s job of unwinding the DNA would be futile if the transport RNA did not “know” the correct amino acids to bring, and then to bring them in the correct sequence… and all of this would be futile if the newborn messenger RNA did not know where to go and how to get there. Furthermore, all of this unimaginable machinery had to “evolve” at once with no margin for error if even the simplest life is to exist.

How Eyes Can See

In the eye, light travels through various layers that all have crucial functions, back to the retina at the back of the eye. Even the iris is important because it closes and opens to admit the correct amount of light, “affecting a wide range of optical processes.”[69] David Atchison and George Smith explain that “the retina, which is an extension of the central nervous system… is connected to the brain by the optic nerve.”[70]

Atchison and Smith further explain that the pressure inside the eye must be higher than the surrounding atmosphere so that it retains the correct shape. This pressure is maintained “by the production of aqueous fluid in the ciliary body and by drainage of this aqueous fluid from the eye… to the canal of Schlemm…”[71] In the back of the retina are receptor cells known as rods and cones. Atchison and Smith explain, “the rod system has very high sensitivity to light but poor spatial resolution. In contrast, the output of fewer cones is combined, so the cone system functions at higher light levels and is capable of higher spatial resolution.” [72] The eye discerns color by using three different kinds of cones, each sensitive to different wavelengths.

Encyclopedia Britannica explains that there are three different types of “ganglion neurons” in the retina, called X, Y, and W cells.[73] The X, Y, and W cells connect to the optic nerves, which carry “sensory nerve impulses from the… ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain.”[74] The optic nerves are actually bundles of nerves, which are attached to the back of the eye, and carry the “signal” to the brain. Oddly enough, the brain’s visual cortex is in the back of the brain (one might think that the visual cortex would “evolve” right behind the eyes). Nevertheless, the two bundles of optic nerves cross in the middle of the brain. At the point where the two cross, called the optic chiasm, the nerve bundles split off. About half the nerve fibers continue to the opposite side of the brain, the other half continue on to the same side of the brain that the eye is on. The effect enables three-dimensional vision.[75]

Once the nerve fibers reach the visual cortex, a few split off to other parts of the brain. For example, some proceed to the brain stem to give it the information it needs to control the size of the pupil. Those that go into the visual cortex split off into various regions. Some go into the collicular pathway to detect movement and the direction of gaze.[76] Some go into a region that provides “visual acuity.”[77] Some regions in the cortex analyze the direction of movement; some are “excited by a dark line on a bright background and others by a light line on a dark background.”[78] Some are “activated by rectangles and others by stars.”[79] Then there are color-sensitive neurons, and some that are activated by white light. The list goes on and on. Some neurons are idle when there is nothing to worry about, but fire when there is something important to see.[80] Every section is highly specialized, and it would appear nothing was left to chance. There are even cells whose entire function it to discern, “a line or an edge moving in one direction and [are] silenced when it changes direction.”[81] The point of all this is to show that all of these features had to evolve AT THE SAME TIME. What natural selection benefit could have come from a partially evolved eye? Even fully “evolved” eyes can have difficulty seeing, as anyone who wears glasses can confirm. What benefit could arise from a fully evolved eye without an optic nerve, or if the nerve entered into a partially evolved visual cortex? This does not even cover how the brain processes, analyzes, and remembers what is seen.

Science Makes a Feeble God

As we have seen, some concepts are not even accessible by science. Furthermore, things such as the laws of mathematics and morality have stronger claims to truth than does any scientific experiment. Mathematicians cannot even decide what mathematics is. Einstein said that, “The series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences.”[82] Everyone knows that if a person has two rocks in one hand and two in the other, he or she has four rocks. Not even a child would have to set up a scientific experiment to know this. Furthermore, most civilized people know that it is not right to torture babies for fun. People have proposed ideas how we came about this altruism, but they all fall short if there is no accountability.

In addition, science is powerless to evaluate, much less fix anything of real importance, such as love or beauty, war or hate. In fact, when used outside the scope of its purpose, it can be downright destructive. History has proven to the world that a cold, calculating scientific paradise is not possible, and is in fact evil. Marxism removed all emotions and ultimate accountability and slaughtered or starved millions of civilians. The idea of a scientific paradise also led to the horrors of eugenics that still survives today.

Scientism Endangers All Humanity

Roger Olson writes, “The twentieth century has been called the genocidal century. Its horrors forced reexamination of the Enlightenment’s optimism about inevitable progress through reason.”[83] Scientism tends to lead to a cold, callous, pragmatic view of life. In order to consider such concepts such as love and human compassion, it would have to appeal to metaphysics—concepts outside the sciences. Under scientism, people become little more than statistics; if they get in the way of progress, they must be removed. This is not science fiction, merely a theory, or “what if” scenario, but has happened and continues to happen in real life.

G. K. Chesterson lived in the early 1900s when England was beginning to practice eugenics. Eugenics is the brainchild of Charles Darwin’s cousin—a British statistician named Francis Galton. Eugenics was an effort to improve the quality of life for the entire human race by using the principles of the new science of genetics. The original idea was to discourage or prevent people with undesirable traits from reproducing (the negative form of eugenics), and to encourage people with more positive traits to reproduce among each other (the positive form), much like breeding livestock. This idea quickly caught on, and as Philippa Levine explains, laws were enacted “By the first decade of the twentieth century…. prohibiting marriage among ‘mental defectives’ and permitting their sterilization.”[84]

These were the sort of laws that G. K. Chesterson wrote about when he chided “The Feeble-Minded Bill.” This was the nickname he gave a bill in which British Parliament had made a step toward making eugenics law by broadening Britain’s “Lunacy Act” of 1890. Lunacy would now include,

persons who though capable of earning their living under favourable circumstances… are nevertheless… incapable of managing their affairs with proper prudence… which is exactly what all the world and his wife are saying about their neighbours all over this planet.[85]

In other words, Chesterson objected that by using this definition, anyone could be judged imprudent, thus a lunatic and potential victim of eugenics. The “feeble-minded bill” itself failed, but a similar bill passed shortly after World War I. Chesterson explains that its proponents succeeded in pushing the bill through, in part, by avoiding presenting its victims as human. They did this by using language, “which suggests that things are dead things; that things have no souls. Thus they will not speak of waging war…. they speak of the ‘outbreak of war,’ as if all the guns blew up without the men touching them.”[86]

Eugenic practices caught on worldwide in a very short time. Levine further explains, “This trust in the universal power of science made eugenics an international movement and not one limited to Western countries.”[87] Both positive and negative forms spread globally in varying proportions. The negative form sometimes even allowed for euthanizing the undesirables. Hitler immediately passed eugenics laws when he took power in order to “‘purify’ the German population.”[88] The Nazi party passed a compulsory sterilization law in 1934 making it law that people with certain conditions deemed to be hereditary were to be sterilized. Then in 1935, Hitler passed laws prohibiting the marriage of Jews to non-Jews. This was not just Germany; entire races were deemed unfit to reproduce in other countries, too. For example, Sweden forcibly sterilized the Tattare people. Eugenics was also very popular in the United States where the policy was considered “harmless and humane.”[89] In one 1937 poll, 84% of Americans favored sterilizing the mentally ill. Involuntary eugenic sterilization laws were enacted in the U.S. as early as 1907, and remained on the books (and in use) until the 1970s and 80s. For example in California, more than 20,000 were sterilized; Virginia sterilized 8,000 and North Carolina nearly 7,000.[90]

Angela Franks reports that Planned Parenthood (PPFA) was a child of eugenics, and even today its leaders (if only subconsciously) still think in terms of eugenics—even racially motivated eugenics. Although African-American women are less likely to believe in abortion, Planned Parenthood aborts three times more black babies. Furthermore, a former employee of Planned Parenthood reports, “‘There was a strong eugenics mentality that exhibited disdain, discomfort, and ignorance toward disabled babies.’ That mentality is what drives the acceptance by PPFA of ‘search and destroy’ abortions, in which amniocentesis is used to target unborn children who have disabilities.”[91]

One must wonder how such an inhumane concept like eugenics could take hold and spread so quickly. Philippa Levine, a historian formerly at USC, now at the University of Texas in Austin writes, “What set eugenicists apart was their belief that it was science, and specifically the science of heredity and genetics, that would be the key to the betterment of the human race.”[92] Richard Williams rightly shares a concern with many about the dangers of “over-reliance on and overconfidence in science as the source of knowledge regarding all aspects of human life and, ultimately, all human problems.”[93] Truly if morals are merely pragmatic as Dawkins asserts, and these morals evolved to promote the survival of the fittest, it has produced a barbaric standard of morality.


Some people are satisfied with the explanations that science proposes for the existence of the universe and life. The atheistic “Freedom from Religion Foundation” quotes actor Bruce Willis who said,

Organized religions… were all very important when we didn’t know why the sun moved, why weather changed, why hurricanes occurred, or volcanoes happened. Modern religion is the end trail of modern mythology. But there are people who interpret the Bible literally. Literally![94]

Christians are often accused of invoking “the God of the Gaps,” in which if anything is inexplicable, we simply attribute the event to God or some superstitious or mythical explanation. Some believe that since science is closing the gaps by explaining many natural phenomena, we no longer need to invoke God. However, J. P. Moreland argues that “even if the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are getting smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all.”[95] Actually though, Moreland gives science more credit than it deserves. It is all gaps. As we saw previously, there is no way for naturalism to explain the ultimate origin of anything much less ever hope to explain everything.

Marcelo Gleiser, the physics and astronomy professor admits that, “‘What happens after we die?’ is one of those questions every parent hears, and most struggle to answer.”[96] So what does happen to us when we die? If the atheists/ naturalists are correct, there is a funeral, we get buried and that is that. However, it should be becoming clear that naturalism has no plausible answers, and leaves many serious questions. What if they are wrong? If the Hindus are correct, we may come back as some animal. However, if the big three monotheistic religions are correct, all will face judgment and punishment or reward—for eternity. Would a parent be considered a responsible parent if he or she taught their children that their actions have no ultimate consequences? In light of all the above arguments, what would be the responsible answer to Pascal’s Wager?[97]

Scientism is Dangerous to the Church

J. P. Morgan explains that scientism is in the very air we breathe. It pervades every aspect of contemporary Western thought. He says that, “we consider it both normal and essential,” and that “It puts Christian claims outside of the ‘plausibility structure’,” and has even changed “how our culture processes reality.”[98] Christian beliefs are now seen as “not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”[99] Even many Christians’ core beliefs are based upon the idea that science provides “fact”, and that faith is merely a subjective preference. Faith, historically, was considered to be trusting in what we know, but today has been replaced with “blind faith”—believing something even if there is no evidence for it. Therefore, if a Christian accepts scientism, they are unable to defend their faith, because of course scientific “fact” trumps “faith.” Biblical truths are no longer perceived as Truth. They may be true for you, but they are not scientific truths, and are therefore meaningless or even absurd. This thinking is a foundational belief of nearly everyone in the “first world” (or westernized world, if you will).

Scientism has infected Christians’ worldviews, and therefore determines their presuppositions. Even the highly respected Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig, believes the universe is billions of years old.[100] There is nothing in the Bible that hints that the universe is anything approaching a million years old. It is true that Archbishop Ussher’s dating of 6,000 years is most likely wrong. He used genealogies, which probably did not list every single ancestor, but tended to include mostly the most prominent. However, there is no plausible way to reconcile Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 with even a million years. The “Gap theory,” which proposes that there was a long period of time (gap) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, has been soundly refuted.

A billion is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp. Imagine one inch denotes one year. Using that scale, Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 years is not even 1/10th of a mile. Fifty thousand (the lifespan of Carbon-14) is a large number—50,000 inches is about ¾ of a mile. A million inches is a little less than 16 miles—about the distance from the Dallas Cowboys’ Stadium to the Fort Worth Water gardens. A billion inches, however, is from Dallas to Perth, Australia… and halfway back! Furthermore, billions of years are not even necessary unless a person is trying to reconcile how vast numbers of small incremental changes in life forms progressed from amoebas to zoologists. It is difficult to imagine that a man as brilliant as Craig would have ever dreamed of 4.5 billion years if it were not for the ubiquity of scientism.

One more danger to the church is that many of scientism’s believers are openly hostile toward Christianity. One needs only to see the list of books that Richard Dawkins wrote to understand just how he feels. The God Delusion (2006), How to Prove God does not Exist (2012), Outgrowing God (2019). Dawkins is not famous for having civil discussions about God, as evidenced by his book The God Delusion, where he entitled Chapter 8, “What’s Wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” And he begins Chapter 2 with this allegation:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[101]

Scientism is Dangerous to… Science?

Oddly enough, scientism is dangerous to science itself. Science is based upon the idea that objective truth can be found by performing experiments and the like. However, scientism pulls the rug out from under science in its most fundamental presumptions. First, since all knowledge can only be acquired through science, presuppositions are automatically disallowed because presumptions are philosophical in nature, and not subject to the methods of science. Second, is that scientism is bound to its own naturalistic perspective. In naturalism’s theory of natural selection, an organism stands the best chance of surviving when it adopts better faculties. These faculties are generally understood to be random. A mutation occurs, and when it facilitates the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce, the adaptation/ mutation becomes a part of the gene pool; if not, it dies off. Natural selection cannot select for the truth of a situation, only its success. A gazelle can survive because it perceives a lion nearby and flees. It is not necessary for the gazelle to come to any sort of accurate belief about the lion; all it needs to know is it is time to go elsewhere as quickly as possible.

The idea of true beliefs is a real problem under scientism. Since scientism is limited to natural explanations, there are really only two ways to account for beliefs. Both require that a creature’s nervous system has become sophisticated enough that its perceptions acquire “content,” and become beliefs. “I believe that is a lion; I think I’d better run.” The brain is nothing more than a large collection of neurons, connected in such a way that when one “fires,” it triggers other neurons in succession. These patterns of firing do not require that the patterns reveal truth, only that it promotes the creature’s survival. In Plantinga’s words, “natural selection is interested, not in truth, but in appropriate behavior.” [102] Charles Darwin, himself, recognized this problem, and other non-theists such as Nietzsche, Nagel, and Stroud all recognized that, as Plantinga reports, “(naturalistic) evolution gives one a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs.”[103] Plantinga calls this “Darwin’s Doubt.” The problem with the idea that our cognitive faculties produce true perceptions is the randomness that evolution is based upon. Considering this randomness, Plantinga gives the odds of any given thought being true as 50/50. However, people generally have more than one thought. If a person has 1,000 thoughts at the 50/50 ratio, then the odds of at least 75% of the thoughts being accurate is 1 in 10-58 (one in ten to the negative 58th power).[104] Such a number is a mathematical absurdity; therefore, it is absurd to think that naturalism and evolution could be depended upon to produce true beliefs. Since most people (including—or even especially—the proponents of scientism) intuitively trust their beliefs to be at least mostly reliable, scientism has a problem.

Theism and Science Combined Give a More Solid Grasp of Truth

Science is unable to answer the most fundamental questions of our existence. Scientific “facts” are always changing, therefore in which scientific truth-of-the-day do we place our trust? Scientism attempts to answer metaphysical questions with naturalistic explanations that are self-defeating, circular, and have many other serious logical fallacies. Scientists cannot agree on many things, so which scientist are we to believe? It is true that Christians may not agree on some interpretations, but the Bible itself is consistent in its core doctrines. Theism is not forced to dream up any number of implausible schemes to stay afloat.

History and archaeology strongly support Biblical truths. Jesus’ resurrection is one of the best-attested events in ancient history, and all of the theories that attempt to debunk it fail. Disregarding Bart Ehrman’s unsuccessful attempt to overthrow it, the “trilemma” (made famous by C. S. Lewis), is probably the strongest argument for Jesus’ divinity that anyone has ever used. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. There are only three possible explanations: Either Jesus was crazy, He was lying, or He is God. Ehrman claims that the fourth possibility is that Jesus was “legend,” but sources are centuries too early for legend to have developed.[105] The sources, even outside the Bible are too varied, and some of the sources were hostile with no motive to help fabricate a legend.

Science is great for what it does best, but it makes a poor idol. The best solution is not to separate science from faith as Immanuel Kant hinted in the late 1700s, but to combine them where they naturally overlap. As Francis Bacon (1561-1626) suggested, “let no man, upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy.”[106] God wrote both “books”—scripture and nature—and each for its own purpose. Science can do what it does best: research. And religion can explain the existence of the things that science attempts to study. Religion can concentrate on metaphysics. Science can keep an eye on religious doctrine, as did Galileo; and religion can keep an eye on science.


Epistemic Scientism claims that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through science or science’s methods. Scientism has extended science far beyond its limits, to the point that it uses science to explain concepts that science is incapable of answering—to the point that scientism has become a religion. Scientism has all the trappings of a religion except a supernatural god, which is not required for religion, anyhow (cf. Animism, Pantheism, Buddhism, etc.). Science is great for what it does, but it is a poor god. It cannot explain how the universe got here, nor can it explain many things that mere chance cannot possibly produce, such as DNA transcription. In fact, it is downright dangerous to humanity because it removes the most important things, such as love and emotions, from its attempted solutions. It is dangerous to the church because it has infiltrated even believers’ thinking to the point where even in their minds, science is fact, and biblical truths are just one subjective choice among many. A carefully balanced blend of biblical teachings and scientific observations is the best way to get an accurate view of life.


Albert, Daniel M., and David M. Gamm. Optic Nerve — Britannica Academic. November 1, 2007. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Anidjar, Gil. “Secularism.” Critical Inquiry 33, no. 1 (Autumn 2006): 52-77.

Astika, Made. “Historicity of the Resurrection: A Theological Approach of Evidence of the Resurrection of Christ in the New Testament.” Jurnal Jaffray 10, no. 1 (2012): 1-21.

Atchison, David A, and George Smith. Optics of the Human Eye. Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 2000.

Britannica Academic. Human Nervous System — Britannica Academic. March 27, 2019. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith (G. K.). Eugenics and Other Evils Illustrated. Kindle. London: Feedbooks, 1922.

Craig, William Lane. #605 Hermeneutical vs. Scientific Young Earth Creationism. November 18, 2018. (accessed September 25, 2019).

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Kindle. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006.

Delfino, Robert A. “The Failure of New Atheism Morality.” Studia Gilsoniana, July-September 2015: 229-240.

Franks, Angela. “Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: The Eugenics Connection.” National Right to Life News 31, no. 7 (2004).

Geisler, Norman L. “Scientism.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L Geisler, 702. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Gleiser, Marcelo. The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning. Kindle. New York: Basic Books, 2014.

Hakfoort, Caspar. “Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald’s energeticist world-view and the history of scientism.” Annals of Science 49, no. 6 (1992): 525-544.

Hutchinson, Ian. Monopolizing Knowledge: A scientist refutes religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism. Kindle. Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011.

Jennings, Byron K. In Defense of Scientism: An Insider’s View of Science. Kindle. Byron K. Jennings, 2015.

Levine, Philippa. Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction. Kindle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

McGraw-Hill Animations. DNA Transcription and Translation. June 2, 2017. (accessed October 26, 2019).

Merriam-Webster. Naturalism | Definition of Naturalism by Merriam-Webster. n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

—. Secularism | Definition of Secularism by Merriam-Webster. n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

Midgley, Mary. “Evolution as a Religion: A Comparison of Prophecies.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 22, no. 2 (June 1987): 179-194.

Moreland, J. P. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Kindle. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Olson, Roger E. The Journey of Modern Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015.

—. Where the Conflict Really Lies. Kindle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Stenmark, Mikael. “What Is Scientism?” Religious Studies 33, no. 1 (March 1997): 15-32.

van Lommel, Pim. “Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1234, no. 1 (October 2011): 19-28.

Williams, Richard N., and Daniel N. Robinson, . Scientism: The New Orthodoxy. Kindle. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.

Willis, Bruce, interview by George Magazine. (July 1998).

[1] Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015), 3.

[2] Mikael Stenmark, “What Is Scientism?” Religious Studies 33, no. 1 (March 1997), 16.

[3] Stenmark, “What Is Scientism,” 18.

[4] Stenmark, “What Is Scientism,” 19.

[5] Ibid., 19-20.

[6] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 29-30, Kindle.

[7] Ibid., 30.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ian Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge: A scientist refutes religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism, (Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011), 301, Kindle.

[10] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 266, Kindle.

[11] Byron K. Jennings, In Defense of Scientism: An Insider’s View of Science, (Byron K. Jennings, 2015), 290, Kindle.

[12] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 569-573.

[13] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 310.

[14] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 317-319.

[15] Merriam-Webster, Naturalism | Definition of Naturalism by Merriam-Webster, n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

[16] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 311, Kindle.

[17] Merriam-Webster, Secularism | Definition of Secularism by Merriam-Webster, n.d. (accessed September 25, 2019).

[18] Gil Anidjar, “Secularism,” Critical Inquiry 33, no. 1 (Autumn 2006), 54.

[19] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 656-657.

[20] Ibid., 654.

[21] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 660-663.

[22] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 33.

[23] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 303.

[24] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 3.

[25] Mary Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion: A Comparison of Prophecies.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 22, no. 2 (June 1987), 191.

[26] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion,” 190.

[27] Ibid., 189.

[28] Ibid., 180ff.

[29] Ibid., 189.

[30] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 180.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 6-7.

[33] Ian Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge: A Scientist refutes Religion-denying, Reason-destroying Scientism. (Belmont, MA: Fias Publishing, 2011), 2895, Kindle.

[34] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 2784.

[35] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 187.

[36] Robert A. Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality,” Studia Gilsoniana, July-September 2015, 230.

[37] Williams, “Introduction”, 17.

[38] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 8.

[39] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 1726.

[40] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 185.

[41] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 31.

[42] Ibid., 32-33.

[43] Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”, 191.

[44] Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality”, 229.

[45] Caspar Hakfoort, “Science deified: Wilhelm Osstwald’s energeticist world-view and the history of scientism.” Annals of Science 49, no. 6 (1992), 528.

[46] Ibid., 527.

[47] Hakfoort, “Science deified,” 528.

[48] Ibid., 529.

[49] Williams, “Introduction”, 3.

[50] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 311, Kindle.

[51] Dawkins, The God Delusion, 39-40.

[52] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 52.

[53] Williams, “Introduction”,  3-4.

[54] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 54.

[55] Williams, “Introduction”, 13.

[56] Ibid., 14.

[57] Williams, “Introduction”, 7.

[58] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 863.

[59] Ibid., 892.

[60] Ibid., 926.

[61] Norman L. Geisler, “Scientism.” In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L Geisler, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 172

[62] Jennings, In Defense of Scientism, 1189.

[63] Pim van Lommel, “Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1234, no. 1 (October 2011), 20.

[64] Ibid., 19.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Delfino, “The Failure of New Atheism Morality”, 231-232.

[67] Ibid., 232-233.

[68] McGraw-Hill Animations, DNA Transcription and Translation, June 2, 2017,  Accessed October 26, 2019,

[69] David A, Atchison and George Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, (Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 2000), 4.

[70] Atchison and Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, 4.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid, 6.

[73] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System — Britannica Academic, last modified March 27, 2019, accessed October 26, 2019.

[74] Daniel M. Albert and David M. Gamm, Optic Nerve — Britannica Academic, last modified November 1, 2007, accessed October 26, 2019,

[75] Atchison and Smith, Optics of the Human Eye, 9.

[76] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Albert and Gamm, Optic Nerve.

[81] Britannica Academic, Human Nervous System.

[82] Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge, 245.

[83] Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 295, Kindle.

[84] Philippa Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 2-3, Kindle.

[85] Gilbert Keith (G. K.) Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils Illustrated, (London: Feedbooks, 1922), 298-304, Kindle.

[86] Ibid., 568.

[87] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 7.

[88] Ibid., 10.

[89] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 65.

[90] Ibid., 64.

[91] Angela Franks, “Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood: The Eugenics Connection,” National Right to Life News 31, no. 7 (2004).

[92] Levine, Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction, 63-64.

[93] Richard N. Williams, “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by Richard N. Williams & Daniel N. Robinson, 1-22, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 2-3.

[94] Bruce Willis, interview by George Magazine (July 1998),, Accessed November 17, 2019.

[95] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 169, Kindle.

[96] Marcelo Gleiser, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 11.

[97] “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God [exists]… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” Accessed December 12, 2019

[98] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 31.

[99] Moreland, Scientism and Secularism, 31-32.

[100] William Lane Craig, #605 Hermeneutical vs. Scientific Young Earth Creationism. November 18, 2018, (accessed September 25, 2019),

[101] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2006), 51, Kindle.

[102] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 316, Kindle.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, 333.

[105] Made Astika, “Historicity of the Resurrection: A Theological Approach of Evidence Of The Resurrection of Christ in the New Testament,” Jurnal Jaffray 10, no. 1 (2012): 14.

[106] Hutchinson, Monopolizing Knowledge, 3502.

When Will the Rapture Be?

Will the Rapture Happen Pre-Trib, Post Trib, or Mid-Trib?

Why I am “Mid-Trib”

There is an ongoing debate about eschatology (The study of the end of the world)  that has been raging for decades. When are Christians going to be raptured? Are we even going to be raptured? Will we be raptured before the tribulation, sometime during the tribulation, or after?
Interest in the rapture has trickled down from Bible scholars to the common people. Even the ordinary person senses that the end times are drawing near. People want to know.

What is the Rapture?

At some undetermined point in the future, Jesus promised that believers would be taken out of the world.

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:21 KJV)

This is also described by the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17

What do pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib mean?

Most scholars in modern times are “Pre-trib”. They believe that believers will be raptured before any of the events of the great tribulation occur (The Great tribulation is described in the biblical book of Revelation and elsewhere) It will be a time of great suffering worldwide. People who believe that Christians will be raptured before the tribulation are nicknamed “pre-trib” (for pre-tribulation). This is the mainstream belief. If you listen to Hal Lindsey or read Tim LaHaye, and most preachers who preach on the subject, this is their point of view.

Mid-trib: believe that Christians will have to suffer along with the rest of the world until some point in the middle of the tribulation, then will be caught up in the air to be with the Lord.

Post-trib: believe that believers will have to suffer the entire tribulation.
There are also people who do not believe in the rapture at all.

When will the rapture Happen?

Several times through the Bible, we are told that no man knows the day or the hour. But we are given signs to watch out for, and a specific sequence of events that must happen. These are laid out in Matthew chapter 24 as well as 2 Thessalonians.

  1. The day will not come until the man of sin is revealed (2 Thessalonians Chapter 2)
  2. Believers will be arrested, persecuted and killed. (Matt. 24:9)
  3. The abomination of desolation will be in the Holy place (Matt. 24:15)
  4. False prophets and false messiahs will be rampant (Matt. 24:23-24)
  5. There will be great wonder in the heavens, such as the sun darkened. (Matt. 24:29)
  6. Then Jesus will come and take the chosen ones. (Matt. 24:31)

Notice that there are going to be some serious events before the elect are taken out of the world.

So, why mid-trib?

It boils down to when you think the Tribulation starts. There is a seven-year period specifically laid out in Revelation. Leading up to that time, the biggest part of the misery in the world is going to be inflicted by worldly powers. God will not be inflicting generalized judgment at that time.

  • Daniel 7:25 says the Saints will be handed over to the fourth beast for a time, times, and half a time. We cannot be handed over to the beast if we are already raptured!
  • And the verse that really cinches it is when the Lamb of God opens a scroll sealed with seven seals. As each seal is opened, something tragic happens on the earth. There is going to be famine, pestilence, and death. But if you notice, in Revelation, there are martyrs in heaven who ask God how much longer this can go on, and: “they were told to rest a little longer until the full number of their brothers and sisters–their fellow servants of Jesus–had been martyred.” (Revelation 6:9-11 NLT)


So, whenever you mark the time that the Tribulation begins, believers are clearly going to be severely persecuted before the rapture takes place. Take heart, though. It is pretty clear that the believers are gone before the horrible “Trumpet” judgements (beginning in Revelation 8:6) and “Bowl” judgements (Beginning Revelation 15:5) begin. When God pours out the bowls of wrath. Nobody wants to be here for those! Things are going to get bad very quickly.

Find Jesus if you have not already. Then go get baptized right away if possible (you do not have to be baptized for eternal life, but it sure helps down here on earth).

Note that there are also very good reasons why people are “Pre-trib”. Ultimately, we need to wait and see! Nevertheless, come Lord Jesus!

‘Brotherhood’ Crucifying Dissenters

“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah”

Read the Story on Atlas Shrugs


In Darwin’s Own Words

Darwin, himself, knew that there must be innumerable transitional species. There must be millions if we gradually evolved from, as my professor likes to say, “from Amoebas to College Students”

In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty… But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.
Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

But there are none. Not one, although they are still desperately looking. Lucy was a lemur, not a human.
Where is the half-fish-half amphibian? Where is the half-amphibian-half reptile?
Where is the half-man-half-ape?
He doesn’t exist.
He never did.

The only explanation is: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7 KJV)

Spiritual Gifts

My second sermon.

Listen (mp3)


Indonesian headhunter, BMW, New suit (Romans 6:4)
He is not going to just sew a spiritual gift onto your old garment.
You have to learn. Sure there is child-like faith, but you have to grow. (Later Pg. 3)
Watchman Nee
Body, Soul, and Spirit 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12.
The Tabernacle and the veil rent
Conscience: C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity”
Communion: Romans 8:16

Intuition: 1 John 2:20b, 27 (NLT)
…the Holy One has given you his Spirit, and all of you know the truth.
Pp. 86-87 Big Book.
In thinking about our day we may face indecision. We may not be able to determine which course to take. Here we ask God for inspiration, an intuitive thought or a decision. We relax and take it easy. We don’t struggle. We are often surprised how the right answers come after we have tried this for a while.
What used to be the hunch or the occasional inspiration gradually becomes a working part of the mind. Being still inexperienced and having just made conscious contact with God, it is not probable that we are going to be inspired at all times. We might pay for this presumption in all sorts of absurd actions and ideas. Nevertheless, we find that our thinking will, as time passes, be more and more on the plane of inspiration. We come to rely upon it.
Spiritual gifts are a God-given talent to do things that are beyond a person’s unaided capability.

Fruits (mature Christian) vs. Gifts (What you do for the body of Christ) vs. Witchcraft. (God is not giving you “powers”)
The purpose of the Spiritual gifts are not to make the gifted person famous, they are intended to benefit the entire body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).
1 Corinthians 12 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit (NIV).
? message (word) of wisdom
? message (word) of knowledge
? faith
? healing
? miraculous powers
? prophecy
? distinguishing between spirits
? speaking in different kinds of tongues
? interpretation of tongues
Greater things than these: (John 14:12)
“Sign” and “Serving” gifts: (Healing, tongues, miracles, interpretation)
What is our gift?
We can choose our gifts!  We need to eagerly desire them! 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1

Probably not Gifts
“Everything from laughing, crying, barking like a dog, meowing like a cat, passing out at the altar, jumping over pews, to transforming into Superman seems to be claimed as a true manifestation of the Spirit”.
Greg Heisler, Spirit-led Preaching (Nashville, Tennessee, B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 13.
Ecstatic experiences with soulical characteristics.

Some people overemphasize the gifts, some have erred to the other extreme and even attributed the gift called “speaking in tongues” to demonic activity.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
Acts: more accounts of people who did not speak in tongues than who did.
Paul interrupted Chs. 12-14 with Chapter 13.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts
Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body
The Preacher and little old lady with the pot-luck and a hotline to God.
Baptism Romans 6:4-6
God has to break through the soul to get to the spirit
Living Sacrifice
Let the cross do its work
You are not your own!
Like ripping off a Band-Aid. Peter never prayed for people’s relief, he prayed for them to be strengthened. Nor did Paul (1 Peter 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 1:4)
Let God rip off the Band-Aid

Spiritual advancement is measured by faithful obedience.
~ Watchman Nee

How to get God to fill you with the knowledge of his will:

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. (Colossians 1:9-12)

1. spiritual wisdom and understanding
2. live a life worthy of the Lord
3. please him in every way
4. bearing fruit in every good work
5. growing in the knowledge of God
6. being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might…

Crystal Jesus
Altar Call

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

My Math class brought up a subject that I had no background in. I was very hard pressed to find an explanation of inductive and deductive reasoning for dummies 🙂
I did some research on the Internet and still could not find something simple. So after much adieu…

Inductive Vs. Deductive Reasoning Explained.

Deductive: Think of a detective. He deduces (reduces). He sees the big picture — a crime was committed. He then takes the evidence and deducts the parts that don’t fit until he comes up with the core of the matter. Deductive deducts the false. Elementary my dear Watson…

Inductive takes small pieces of information in and puts them together into a big picture.

Inductive study takes various individual pieces of evidence and looks for patterns (For instance, individual Bible verses) and cements them together into the big picture — a cohesive whole — perhaps into a theological proposition.

Debate with a Pluralist

Below is an email discussion I had with my dear friend whom I’ll call “Conversant” who was an atheist a few years ago, but now is a self-avowed Pluralist. He wanted to debate politics…

Don’t know if you were joking around last night, but debating politics is too much on the fringe of importance to risk bad emotions.

But I am interested to know, however: disregarding what the the skeptics say, and un-Christlike behavior of so-called Christians, why do you reject Jesus?

I don’t reject Jesus. I believe that Jesus lived in a time of many men teaching different parables at that time. I believe that the Christian faith grew from that and used his teachings as a foundation to grow a religion in order to inspire or control (depending on your point of view if you follow this theory) the population at that time in history. What I do reject is the notion that if I don’t accept Jesus as my personal savior I (and all other persons on this earth who are non-believers or of another faith are damned to Hell).
As far as us debating politics and having ill feelings towards each other……I would hope that our friendship would trump that from ever happening. I enjoy our debates and find them a good exercise in voicing and reflecting on what I believe (something I rarely did when I was using and boozing). What I am learning to do is to respect all peoples faith and learn a little bit about them so that I may grow spiritually. What I feel inside is that life lived through the positivity of love and tolerance is an indescribable force and that when I operate in that manner I feel that I am on a good spiritual path.
Thanks for the question….and perhaps you would like to answer this. Does your belief in Jesus preclude any other faiths beliefs in your spiritual quiver.

In short, yes. Because Jesus was not a mere man — he was God came down to Earth in human form.

A good man or teacher would not claim to be God unless it were true. Otherwise he was a maniac (how many people have been put in insane asylums claiming to be God – but Jesus was not – in fact time itself is divided by the (albeit miscalculated) date of his birth) or he was completely evil. There can be no middle ground.

I can find at least 5-10 places where He claimed to be God without even trying. That is why he was crucified.

Therefore, if God says the only way to heaven is through Him, He must know what he is talking about!

Admission to Heaven is not based upon being good. Otherwise Heaven would be completely devoid of humans.

Well, I’m grateful we don’t live in another place or during another time period where we would feel compelled to kill each other.


You didn’t get it, did you?
Sigh. Yeah, glad I don’t have to burn you at the stake… 🙂

get what?

Multiple choice…

Was Jesus:

  • A. Lunatic
  • B. Liar
  • C. Lord

You forgot
D. None of the above

None of the above is not possible. He could not be an ordinary man and claim to be God unless he was a liar or a lunatic.

He claimed to be God, and every time He claimed it, the Jews wanted him dead.

Below are just a few.


Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”. At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. John 8:58

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly… Jesus answered them, “I told you, and ye believed not… I and my Father are one…
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 10:24-31

Jesus saith unto him… Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Matthew 26:64-66


The apostle Paul confirms:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. Philippians 2:5-7

And the apostle John confirms:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-14

I don’t think that in this instance that you can change my belief by stating yours. I respect your interpretation of scripture as one of absolute truth. I do not share this belief. Therefore; while D. None of the above is impossible for you to consider, it is the choice for me.
Consider the existence of the color red. Consider your perception of the color red. Can you say with certainty that what your human brain has processed and is replicating in your image-sensory world….. that it is the same as another persons perception of the color red. Could you prove it?


It’s not a subjective issue. Just because someone thinks the world is flat does not make it true.

You don’t have to believe the Bible is infallible. There is tons of historical, archaeological, and forensic evidence to back it up.

Have no fear. You don’t have to change your life, become “good”, start going to chuch, or anything except believe to get to heaven.

I thought that if you want to get to heaven…… got to raise a little hell.

Obviously end of discussion.
I pray at least a seed was planted.
I stand on the statement that God’s word will not return to Him void.

Islam a Religion of Peace?


The politically correct people in the US are being led to slaughter like the Eloi people in H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine.

“Killing is a great Divine gift.”

Ayatollah Khomeini: “Those who say Islam should not kill don’t understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete. Those who claim that Jesus was averse to killing and war, harm his prophetic mission… Killing is the same as mercy.”

“Violence is the heart of Islam.”

Ayatollah Yazdi – Senior Advisor to Ahmadinejad and IRGC Leaders: “We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam… we have decided and are determined to argue that violence is the heart of Islam.”

Jihad Watch

The Law vs. Grace

My First Sermon!

Tony got my names transposed. All three of my names can be first or last names, so after 51 years, I’m used to it. 🙂

Note that if you download it, it registers as being about 44 minutes long, but it is only 27. I used the RealPlayer trimmer. Tried it twice. It is just mis-marked on the file. I may try to trim it with another piece of software.

Player may not work on Firefox browsers? If player doesn’t work, you can download by right-clicking the link, below and choose “Save Target As”.

Right-click here to Download

Exodus 20

Rabbi Simlai 3rd century AD says there are 613 laws in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.


A bunch of rabbis over the centuries had put together an enormous library of
interpretations of these laws. There were laws telling you how far you could
walk on a Sabbath day, and how much weight you could carry without breaking the
Sabbath, and numerous others. These are the kinds of things that the Pharisees
went by that Jesus complained about.

Law is necessary for an eternal society

Sin is destructive.

Housebreaking a puppy

During the World War

a luxurious French villa lay in the path of the oncoming armies. Although
deserted, it was shelled and left with great gaping holes in its stone sides. A
few swine, which had somehow escaped extermination, rooted their way into the
magnificently furnished drawing room. Over the rich, velvet carpet they tracked
their muddy feet, overturned the upholstered furniture, tore the expensive
draperies and chewed whatever gave any promise of satisfying their hunger. The
beauty, the elegance, the cultural characteristics of the place meant nothing to
the beast nature. They were not partakers of the intellectual or spiritual
qualities of the owner.

To the unregenerated millions of earth, the glories of Heaven would be like
the French villa was to the swine. They are not partakers of the Divine nature
and would have no capacity for enjoying the holy atmosphere of the Glory Land.

I’m sure the pigs were “good” as far as pigs go. But they did not belong in a
French villa.

Isaiah 55:8-9

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Jesus will bring you peace, joy, love, lasting happiness…

A lot of people try to entice people into the Kingdom: “Jesus loves you! He
will make your life better” Which is true, but not true from a fleshly
standpoint. Jesus promised tribulation (John 16:33). He did not promise a bed of
roses. People who are told, “Seek Jesus, he will make your life better” will be
disillusioned when life happens. “I thought you told me…!”

Gal. 3:21b (NIV)

the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by

How should Christians deal with the law?

We obviously cannot go around killing people and committing

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. ……I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be
an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

  1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
    pleasing odor for the Lord as written in Leviticus.1:9. The problem is my
    neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite

  2. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
    clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
    myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

  3. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
    abomination, Leviticus. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality?
    I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

  4. Leviticus. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
    a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
    vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

  5. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
    their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus. 19:27.
    How should they die?

  6. I know from Leviticus. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
    me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

  7. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus.19:19 by planting two different
    crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
    different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
    blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
    getting the whole town together to stone them? Leviticus.24:10-16. Couldn’t we
    just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who
    sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus. 20:14)

We’ll see if we can go back and answer these later.

“There are lots of people worse than me. It’s not like I killed

Try saying that to a judge.

Law is a schoolmaster (Gal. 3:19-25)

Law was not meant to save.

Galatians 2:16

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified
by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no
one will be justified.

Adam was not promised damnation.

The Ten Commandments never offered eternal life.

The Jews had only a vague understanding of the concept of hell

Judaism 101

Torah emphasizes immediate, concrete, physical rewards and punishments rather
than abstract future ones…


Abraham’s bosom

The law cannot be kept

See how successful the Hebrews were

James 2:10

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is
guilty of all.”

Romans 3:20 (NIV)

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the
law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Grace has superceded Law

Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Fulfilled the sacrificial law and holidays

(except the ones that are future)

Jesus said he did not do away with the law. But Paul said we are not under
the law!

Confused? Me, too…

The concept of laws being superceded is not foreign to the Jews:

Exodus 20 vs. Jeremiah 31:29-30

… visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation…

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on
edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes–his
own teeth will be set on edge.

The book of Galatians

Circumcision on the 8th day

Galatians 3:10

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse

Romans 10:4

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone
who believes.

I Corinthians 15:56-57 (NIV)

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks
be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:14 (NIV)

God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled
the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood
opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 (NIV)

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with
regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These
are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in

Hebrews 9:9b-10

the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience
of the worshiper.

Matthew Henry wrote:

So Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets by his additions
and [clarifications]… the Christian institutes … promote [the law] to the
highest degree. The gospel is the time of reformation, not the repeal of the
law, but the amendment of it, and, consequently, its establishment.

Love thy neighbor vs. Ten Commandments

(Which were divided in two: Love the Lord thy God 1-4 and Love they neighbor

The law won’t save you, but we are expected to act like the
King’s kids

Jesus’ first sermon

Some behavior will keep you out of heaven:

1 Corinthians. 6:9-11

God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7)

We will be Judged according to our works (Rev. 20:13 )

Don’t use grace for an occasion of the flesh (Gal 5:13)

Galatians 4:4-7 (Abba)

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the
Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

2 Peter 1:5-8

(These things do not save us, they keep us from being unproductive.)

Answer the Leviticus questions.

Get on the Ark

Secular Humanism vs. Christianity

The Secular Humanist Worldview



The secular humanists believe that the entire universe and life are simply an
incredible coincidence. They believe that the universe created itself 4.5
billion years ago, and lucky for us, some combination of chemicals combined to
make a single-celled life form that mutated over billions of years into the
incredible array of life we see today on planet earth.


To the secularist, we are nothing more than an advanced animal (Weider
& Gutierrez, 2011, p. 57), or a bunch of cells and atoms.

Meaning/ Purpose

I would venture to say that for most unbelievers in the western world,
their main purpose is to the pursuit of some sort of temporal happiness.
Everyone has a different idea about happiness. Some try drugs, others pursue
money, some it’s a misguided concept of love. The list is virtually endless. In
the inner cities, some people’s purposes may be mere survival.

Life can not possibly have any deep meaning to a pure secularist since life
is “just an accident”. When taken to extremes by those who don’t believe in God,
on one hand life can either be considered cheap (for instance Communist purges)
or if taken to the other extreme, all life is considered precious and humans are
no more value than other animals (Weider & Gutierrez, 2011, p. 57). In an
astonishing dichotomy, the same groups of people who vote for a candidate who
promotes abortion are also the most vocal environmentalists. And they obviously
cannot see any problem with this.


The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) bylaws assert that
humanists want to build “a more humane society through an ethics based on human
and other natural values…”and they reject “supernatural views of reality” (IHEU,
2009). But there are no genuine natural values. Only someone from a western
culture could come up with an idea like that. A real unbeliever raised in a
third-world country with no Western values would laugh at such a “wimpy”
concept. “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” (Commonly
attributed to Josef Stalin). Without a moral God, there is no reason why Stalin
would not be able to send the entire IHEU to the firing squad if they complained
about his morality.


Though they may try to leave an earthly legacy behind, the only thing a
true atheist can look forward to after death is annihilation.

The Secular Worldview vs. the Christian Worldview


In contrast to the Secularist’s view that everything was an accident, the
Christian believes that God created the universe and all life. The Christian
believes in “microevolution” or adaptation. This is where an animal will undergo
slight changes in order to adapt to changing conditions, but no new species is
formed. For instance the beaks of Darwin’s finches change with the environment,
but the finch will never evolve into, for instance, an eagle. There is no
scientific evidence that any life form has transitioned into another life form.
And God was careful to make note that this would not happen (Genesis 1:11-12,


In contrast to the secularist idea that we are but mere animals, the Bible
tells us that we were a special creation, formed in God’s image. The animals
were spoken into existence in groups, but Adam was made from the dust into a
living soul (Genesis 2:7). We were to be caretakers of, and have dominion over
the earth (Genesis 1:28). Adam changed the whole thing when he disobeyed God,
and we were cast out of paradise. But God sent us a Savior; and under the new
covenant, we are now to be conformed to Christ’s image (Romans 8:29). He was our
perfect example, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can grow to become
more and more Christ-like (2 Peter 1:5-8).

Meaning/ Purpose

In contrast to the vain and empty pursuits of the unbeliever, the
Christian’s purposes are to know God (Weider & Gutierrez, 2011, p. 61); to
love one another (John 13:35); and to serve each other (Matthew 25:34-40). There
is no higher calling, no occupation so satisfying. Anybody who has ever given a
gift to a child and watched them excitedly open it knows first-hand that it is
more blessed to give than to receive.


Without God, morals have no real clout. The IHEU (above) wants to build a
utopian society based on “natural values”. Which is an exercise in futility
because there is no such thing. The strong arm of God backs the Christian moral
code. But happily, we do not live by the letter of the law under the New
Covenant. God writes His laws in our hearts. In my experience, I don’t
want to sin. This is in stark contrast to before I believed! Before God
found me, I vigorously pursued nearly every form of carnal pleasure I could
think of. God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7); we cannot use grace for an occasion
to sin (Galatians 5:13); but God knows we are weak and we will stumble (2
Corinthians 12:9).


In contrast to the Secularists’ bleak hope of annihilation, the believer
has the hope of eternal joy. The hope of being welcomed into the eternal Kingdom
of God (Matthew 25:23). Some of us will even be kings and priests (Revelation
… And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be
no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.
(Revelation 21:4)

IHEU (2009). IHEU Bylaws. Retrieved July 31, 2011 from




Weider, L., & Gutierrez, B. (2011). Consider. Virginia Beach,
VA: Academx Publishing Services, Inc.

Nature Nurture and God

What Would I Have Become?

When I was about two years old, my parents got a divorce. Dad got custody of my brother and me, and Mom soon moved back to Kansas never to contact us again. In later years, Dad would tell me that when I was a baby, a rich old Indian (Native American) man wanted to buy me from my parents because he had no heir; but Dad would not sell. After that, from time to time, the question would come up in my mind: what would I have grown up like if I had been raised by a rich old Indian?

Then when I was about 18 years old, my brother found my natural mother. By this time, she had two girls from subsequent marriages. She was a working mother and the girls, in stark contrast to my strict upbringing, had very little supervision – they were allowed to do just about whatever they felt like. Later, my brother moved down to Oklahoma to spend his last couple of years of High School with Mom and was essentially allowed to do whatever he pleased. This again sparked my interest in how I would have “turned out” under different circumstances.

My Thoughts on The Nature Vs. Nurture Argument

I don’t think that any thoughtful person could attribute 100% of our characteristics to either nature or nurture alone. “You need nature to be able to absorb nurture” (Ridley, 2003, p. 173). The extent that each affects us will probably be debated until Jesus returns. Which is a great segue into my next thought: There appears to be very little mention of spirituality and probably none about how the Holy Spirit and the “Renewing of the mind” in psychological circles. I can attribute much of my mental foibles to genetics as well as my environment. But since I was about age 20, the Holy Spirit has been renewing my mind into something that I could never have accomplished myself. Many emotional diseases could be attenuated or eradicated by the Holy Spirit if people would seek Him. I’ve worked with alcoholics and addicts for years, and have seen several be able to completely rid themselves of antidepressant medication after they stay sober for a while and let God do His work.

The History of the Nature Vs. Nurture Issue

The concept has been around even before Shakespeare’s time (Ridley, 2003, p. 71). Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was credited with coining the phrase: “Nature versus Nurture” (University of Indiana, 2007). Some people strongly affirm that genetics influence what people become, while the other side favors “nurture”. Ridley (2003, p. 69) says that “it was Galton’s fate to ignite the feud in 1864”. Since then, the discussions have often been very passionate. The feud has raged for over a century. And by all appearances, it will not be over in my lifetime.

What are The Most Essential Characteristics of This Issue?

Psychologists want to know to what extent our traits are genetically inherited from our parents, and what is the influence of our environment (i.e. upbringing) on who we become. Certainly some physical features are exclusively inherited (I have blue eyes because my ancestors had blue eyes.). Some, like a propensity to gain weight, are partially inherited, and partially influenced by our environment (Myers, 2010, p. 460). But since this is a psychology paper, I’ll be concentrating on the psychological aspects.

What do we inherit from our ancestors, and what role does our environment play?

Some traits are more inheritable than others are. For example, a person’s temperament is almost exclusively biological (inherited) (Myers, 2010).


David Myers (2010) says that personality is virtually 100% inherited: “The environment shared by a family’s children has no discernable impact on their personalities.” (p. 139). And I know this to be true. My brother and I are 21 months apart. We were raised almost as twins. We both got nearly identical clothes, and same treatment. We were grouped together as a unit. It was “The kids” as though we weren’t even individuals. But we have always been as different as night and day in personality. My biological mother affirms that I was easy-going, and my brother was “wild” even from birth. And to this day, despite nearly identical upbringings, we are still very, very different.


There are a few things that are not so strongly tied to genetics. Among those are “attitudes, values, manners, faith, and politics” (Myers, 2010).

Nature in the formative years

Matt Ridley (2003) shows how complex the issue really is:

Nurture is reversible; nature is not. That is the reason responsible intellectuals have spent a century preferring [environment over genes]… But what if there was a planet where it was the other way around? … [A] world in which lived intelligent creatures whose nurture they could do nothing about, whereas their genes were exquisitely sensitive to the world in which they lived.

Search no more… You live on precisely such a planet. To the extent that people are products of nurture… they are largely the products of early and irreversible events. To the extent that they are the product of genes, they are expressing new effects right into adulthood, and often those effects are at the mercy of how they live. (p. 151)

If a person is exposed to certain environmental factors while in the womb, or during critical phases in childhood, there can be irreversible catastrophic consequences. A girl named Genie was raised chained to a potty chair or a crib most of her childhood. She was finally found and freed. But tragically, the only words she learned to speak were “stopit” and “nomore” (sic). She was deprived of appropriate verbal input at a critical age. (Ridley, 2003, pp. 169-170)

Jensenism: The heritability of intelligence.

Arthur R. Jensen (1923-) became the focus of a very emotional controversy when in 1969 he published an article saying that intelligence was a result of genetics, followed by biological environmental differences. He asserted that socioeconomic status (SES) had little or no influence on intelligence. This was published at a time when it was popularly believed that the 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites was attributed to financial status. People were outraged that Jensen suggested Black people were genetically less intelligent. (Miele, 2002, p.18)

So, was Jensen right? Is intelligence inherited? Intelligence seems to be a product of genetics. But perhaps not as much as Jensen thought. David Myers (2010) says that the heritability of intelligence runs about 50 percent (p. 429) though he then goes on to explain (p. 434) that there is a “stubborn” ethnic gap in intelligence scores. But that has been narrowing since 1970.


“Mental similarities between adopted children and their adoptive families wane with age, until the correlation approaches zero by adulthood” (Myers, 2010, p. 428). I could expect my native intelligence and personality to be about the same after I grew to adulthood. What I would do with this mind would certainly be influenced by my environment. I could not imagine that if I had been whisked off to Libya or the Soviet Union as a child that my life would be much the same, for instance.

Like Bandura’s reciprocal determination (Myers, 2010, p.577), my genes most certainly affect what I am interested in. So discounting an environment of inadequate resources, I would still have been interested in paleontology as a child and not so interested in math. Genes ultimately control who we become, but our experiences add shades of hue to our genetic dispositions. “Our genes shape the experiences that shape us” (Myers, 2010, p 429).

So, all secular things considered, with similar advantages, I probably would still have grown up to be just about what I am today. And Jesus would have had to step in and mould me into someone He can work with. Because left to my own devices, I did not do very good!



Miele, F. (2002). Intelligence, race, and genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Myers, D. (2010). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

Ridley, M. (2003) Nature via Nurture. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Published again in 2004 under the title: The agile gene: How nature turns on nurture

University of Indiana (2007). Human intelligence: Francis Galton Retrieved June 16, 2011 from

Jesus: More Than Just a Man – He is God

What does Mark 9:2-29 tell us about Jesus?
First, it tells us that Jesus is divine – or at least more than just a mortal man. While walking down the mountain, He asked the disciples not to tell anyone about the transfiguration that had just happened — certainly not an everyday event! He had requested several times for certain deeds not to be proclaimed (i.e. Mk 7:36, Mt 8:4, etc.). Probably for several reasons, but the first thing that comes to my mind is for His own safety. His life was in constant danger, and every time He alluded to His divinity, the people wanted to throw Him off a cliff or started picking up stones. But it was not yet His time. Secondly, the talk of resurrection (v. 9:9) shows that Jesus is more than an angel (or other supernatural being), but the actual Messiah, Himself! Jesus alluded to the fact that John the Baptist was the Elijah predicted to precede Him, further demonstrating that He is nothing less than the predicted Messiah (vv.

The central message:

As mentioned, above, clearly one central message of these verses and the surrounding context is Jesus’ Divinity.
If we include the verses before and after (Mk. 9:2-29), it is a panorama or
snapshot of Jesus’ history. The transfiguration shows Jesus in His glory before the world was (vv. 2-12); then He came down among men (vv. 9-13) to teach and to do for us what we could not do for ourselves (vv. 14-29). It spoke of His pending resurrection (v.9). And by casting out the demon that the disciples could not (vv.14-27), He displayed His dominion over demons and superiority to man.

It also shows that we are completely blind and powerless without Jesus:

a.) Peter is completely bewildered at the transfiguration.
b.) The apostles cannot grasp the concept of the coming resurrection.
c.) The other disciples are unable to cast out the demon, and
d.) There were possibly still questions in their minds concerning Jesus’ Messiah-ship as well. For instance, it had been prophesied that Elijah would precede the Messiah. So they may have been politely asking: “Ok, so if you are the Messiah, where is Elijah?” (v. 11)

Judaizers – The Law vs. Grace

The Judaizers

The entire book of Galatians is Paul’s effort to correct the heresy of Judaizers who were trying to tell people that they had to be circumcised and follow Jewish law to be saved. Paul explains at length that we are not saved by law or ritual (i.e. Galatians 4:4-5). In Chapter 5, he is talking about circumcision: how if a person trusts in circumcision to save them, then Christ is of no value (5:2). Paul was furious! He even went so far to say that he wished the people who were trying to convince the Galatian believers to be circumcised (Judaizers) would emasculate themselves!

How Paul deals with the Judaizers

In Galatians 5:19-25, Paul helps distinguish what proceeds from the Spirit, and what proceeds from the flesh. He describes the evidences of living by the flesh (sexual immorality, drunkenness, etc.) and then he proceeds to describe the results (fruits) of walking in the Spirit (Love, Joy, Peace, etc.) and encourages us to continue to walk in the Spirit.

Judaizers were telling people that they had to follow Jewish law to be saved. If they had succeeded, Christianity would have become just another Jewish sect (Barclay, 1976). In the preceding verses, Paul is talking about how if a person trusts in circumcision to save them, then Christ is of no value (Gal 5:2). Paul was furious! He even went so far to say that he wished the Judaizers would emasculate themselves! In verse 13, he warns the church not to use our Christian freedoms to indulge the flesh. Verses 5:16-18 may have been seen by the 1st century church as a “how-to” guide for living in grace instead of under the law. Paul explains that if we live by the Spirit, we will not satisfy our fleshly nature. It’s not going to be easy! Our flesh and spirit are at war, and this conflict does not allow us to do what we want (cf. Romans 7:14-25). And that if we walk in the Spirit we are not under the law. The verses that follow (vv. 19-26) are indications of a life of walking in the flesh contrasted to those of walking in the Spirit. Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

How might the Galatian people perceive Paul’s letter?

The poor Galatian people had to be so confused! Judaizers were telling people that they had to follow Jewish law to be saved (Barclay, 1976). Paul was furious! (Gal 5:12) If they had succeeded, Christianity would have become just another Jewish sect (Barclay, 1976, p. 3). Paul devotes most of this letter to answering the judaizers. Chapter 5 is the peroration (summary) of his argument (Fausset, 1871). In the preceding verses, Paul tells us we are called to freedom but warns us not to use our Christian freedoms to indulge the flesh (v.13). The poor Galatian people might see vv. 5:16-18 as a “quick-start” guide for living under grace: Live by the Spirit, and we will not satisfy our fleshly nature. But it’s not going to be easy! Our flesh and spirit are at war; we are never free from this conflict (Gl 5:17b NLT). Verse 18 reminds us that if we walk in the Spirit, we are not under the law. The verses that follow (vv. 19-26) describe the fruits of a life of walking in the flesh vs. those of walking in the Spirit.

We could relate to the Galatian people!

We in the Western World could easily relate to the Galatian people. The Galatians, as a part of the Roman Empire, would have been bombarded on all sides by a myriad of religions competing for their attentions just as we are today. And I dare say the subtleties of law vs. grace would easily be lost on the average new believer in America. A new believer in America (and many “old” believers) would be easy prey for a slick-talking judaizer.

The Theology of Galatians 5:16-18

Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The theological principles of Galatians 5:16-18 are: 1.) How to live a clean life – to keep from following through with our carnal desires with the help of the Holy Spirit (v. 16); 2.) The ongoing war between our flesh and spirit (v. 17) and; 3.) Christian liberty – living by grace rather than under the law (v.18).

How can we apply God’s Grace to our lives?

1.) In the year 1531 AD, Martin Luther wrote: “When I was a monk I thought I was lost forever whenever I felt an evil emotion, carnal lust, wrath, hatred, or envy. I tried to quiet my conscience in many ways, but it did not work, because lust would always come back and give me no rest…” You don’t have to be a monk to feel this way. I also tend to be a “perfectionist” and have a very hard time dealing with any shortcomings. It is comforting to know that we are not under the law. And as I walk in the Spirit, though I feel unholy desires at times, when I walk with God, I need not carry them out.

Today I am free of the obsession to drink by the grace of God. When I first got sober, I tried everything I could think of to be at peace when not drinking – to no avail. Today, I am doing what is suggested in the 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12 steps are a “spiritual program” based on Christian principles. It is not about being “good”, it is about getting rid of the garbage in our mind that is blocking God, then improving our relationship with God and helping others. Today though once in a while, a drink sounds tempting, it is no longer a losing battle because I walk in the Spirit. I quit trying to cure myself long enough to let God in to do His work.


Barclay, W. (1976) The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Fausset, A.R. (1871) A. R. Fausset commentary on Galatians: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians

Luther, M. (1531) Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians

Wikipedia (2011) Retrieved April 3, 2011 from

Finally a Sensible Approach to Westboro “Church”

I saw an article today that gave me hope. A pastor in Seattle has invited Westboro protesters to donuts and a sermon.

This is the kind of thing that will beat Westboro’s evil: love. Perhaps if even one member is touched by a truly godly sermon, the word will spread and Westboro will be defanged.

Read the story here.

Make doughnuts not protest — Seattle pastor offers Westboro Baptist picketers sweet treats

Does Jesus Teach Tolerance?

In a word, “no”.
He tolerates things that appalled the “religious” of the times. But notice, for instance, Zacchaeus who immediately offered to pay restitution; and clean up his act, repentance was implied (why pay people back then start ripping them off again?) Or the woman caught in adultery, He instructed her not to sin anymore.
Jesus accepts sinners, but he expects us to turn from our sins.
His first ministry, after the temptation, but before he called the disciples was walking through the countryside proclaiming “repent!” (Matthew 4:14)
On the other hand, Jesus did not tell people to go out and kill infidels. But would that be considered “tolerance”?
You decide.

Step 2 of AA – A Christian Standpoint

Step 2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Restore us to sanity?

Yes, we are insane. Everybody is to some degree. No not necessarily ready for the rubber room, but a form of insanity nonetheless. Insanity has many different definitions like most words. But clearly doing something destructive time and time again is a form of insanity.

The first time I read the 12 Steps was on the wall of a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in Ardmore, Oklahoma. I read step 2, looked around the room, and thought smugly, “Maybe these guys are insane, but not me. I can just skip to step 3.”

Turns out I was probably the craziest one in the room at the time. I was over 5 years sober before I realized that.

That’s real insanity.

And in AA you will hear stories galore. Once you are around for a while, what seemed to be normal behavior when you were drinking, you will see is entirely insane.

But that’s not the insanity they are talking about. Again, they are talking about the insanity of the first drink. Knowing this behavior is destroying your life and the lives of those close to you… But here you are drinking again.

In Step 1 we learned we had a problem. The problem can be serious and often fatal. Our lives are unmanageable. (If it were not unmanageable, there would be no reason to quit drinking.) And there is no solution for it within our own power. We are powerless.

In Step 2, we find there is a solution. The solution to homelessness is a home. The solution to powerlessness is power. And since we have found we do not have the power, the solution must lie outside ourselves. The solution lies within a power that is greater than we are.

AA is very liberal about what higher power you choose. Some even go so far to say a doorknob can be a higher power. Which is of course hyperbole. A doorknob has no power. People who suggest such things are trying to get you to reach outside yourself… for something. Anything. A power that is truly greater than you will come later after you become willing to reach out.

AA’s success was due partly to the fact that people did not have to believe in God the same way you do to stay sober. Some people I hear in AA circles have had bad experiences in organized religion. They judge God by the mistakes His people make. Which is sad, but a fact of life.

But there is clearly a solution. I’ve met people who have been sober over 30 years. And I had a hard time staying sober 24 hours! They solved the problem – but how?

Some people who have had a bad experience with religion choose to use the AA group as a power greater than themselves until they can manage to eject the prejudices that they have. Surely the AA group with many sober members is more powerful than one poor soul who can barely draw a sober breath.

Then there are people who belong to other faiths or are atheists in AA and remain so. I’m not going to argue with them here.

How to find God?

God cannot be seen with the human eye. He is not electromagnetic. He does not reflect light in the tiny bandwidth we can see with our eyes.

He must reveal Himself to you.

And you have to ask Him. He will reveal Himself to you in a way that will make sense to you. It will not be the same way that made sense to me. It will not be in the same way He revealed Himself to your sponsor. Everybody is different. God will customize His revelation to you.

Note: It will probably not be a “burning bush” or a spectacular supernatural event. Things will happen in just the right way at just the right time that when it all gels together, you will have what they call in AA a “Spiritual awakening”.

Note also that there is no mention of doing any rituals or incantations or other special things to find God. Simply ask Him with a humble heart, and start watching for His answer.

We found that God does not make too hard terms with those who seek Him. To us, the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive; never exclusive or forbidding to those who earnestly seek. It is open, we believe, to all men.
Alcoholics Anonymous “The Big Book” Page 46

Step 1 of AA – A Christian Standpoint

Alcoholics Anonymous’ Step 1 is about desperation. How desperate a person must be depends upon the individual. Some have to sink quite low; others “get it” without going so far down.

Step 1 states, “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.” (Alcoholics Anonymous Page 59)

Two things are going on at the same time. We are powerless over alcohol: No matter how much willpower we exert, we are not able to stop drinking. Our lives had become unmanageable: No matter how much it wrecks our lives, we are not able to control our drinking or stop.

Why don’t you just quit? If willpower alone would do it, there would be no alcoholics. We’d just quit. Some people can be quite heavy drinkers and not be actual alcoholics. Alcoholism is actually a threefold disease. It is a disease of the mind and of the body. It is also a disease of the spirit, though some people do not believe in spirits.

Why don’t you just read your Bible, pray and Jesus will remove your alcoholism? If that were so, then then AA would never have had to been formed – the alcoholic would just go to church and that would be that. In the 1930s when AA was being born, people were going to church and reading their Bibles even if they didn’t really believe in what they were doing. Remember “Otis” the town drunk on The Andy Griffith Show? Even he went to church. Sure, Jesus could just cure you by a miracle, but that would not be getting to the core of the problem.

It is a disease of the body. It is an allergic (abnormal) reaction to alcohol. The reaction is not sneezing like hay fever, or not hives like an allergy to strawberries. The allergic reaction to alcohol is to immediately want another drink. Non-alcoholics to not experience this reaction. A non-alcoholic will want to stop drinking after a while. The alcoholic will want a drink worse after the 5th drink than he did after the first.

It is a disease of the mind. In AA lingo, it is called the obsession of the mind. The alcoholic’s mind wants a drink. The alcoholic cannot stop thinking about a drink for any appreciable amount of time. This is a very compelling desire, and can go on for months or even years (in my case, a little over two years. Dr. Bob, co-founder of AA obsessed for 2-1/2 years. I thought I was going to match or beat his record. I got close! But by the grace of God, it finally went away after 25-1/2 months). An obsession is described as an idea that overpowers all ideas to the contrary. The result is: at first the alcoholic may have made a solemn promise to himself never to drink again (And he really means it!) only to find himself sitting at the bar just a few hours later wondering how it happened.

It is a disease of the spirit. Sometimes called a soul-sickness. Alcoholics can be filled with resentment: Churning over and over in their minds bad things that other people have done to them. Alcoholism brings fear. Fear of just about everything. Whether the fears are founded or not, they are very real. One of the first things that happens in your mind is that alcohol lowers a person’s inhibitions. People will do things while drinking that they would not do sober. This is why men try to ply women with drink. Doing things that you would not do otherwise will cause you to have a guilty conscience. Spending money on drinking that, for instance, should be spent buying your children shoes can lead to a guilty conscience. Some people become violent when drinking. People drink to drown their sorrows. You lose all self-respect. One great AA speaker said, “I became everything I detested in a human being.”

A person really arrives at step one when still drinking. Some people will call the trip to step 1, step zero. You have come to the end of your rope. You can’t live with it and you can’t live without it. You realize that you have to have help. You are powerless over alcohol.

Step one is not just admitting — “saying” — you are an alcoholic. People used to call me an alcoholic all the time, and I’d say, “Heck, yeah! Bring me another beer!”
Admitting you are powerless is an entirely different process: a process of helplessness. A feeling of desperation.

The Theology of “For the Bible tells me so”

“For the Bible Tells Me So” is a documentary that attempts, among other things, to prove that the Bible says it is ok to be gay. Is that the case? Is homosexuality divinely ordained? Read on….

At 20:20, Reverend Steven Kingle, “If you read the Bible at a face value level, it leaves out some very important things. The first one is just a few verses before that; that Moses teaches it is an abomination to eat shrimp… it is an abomination to eat a rabbit.

Call it what you want. It was not a capitol offense to eat a rabbit. However, they even mentioned in the movie that homosexuality and certain other sexual abominations were capitol crimes.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu… “The Bible was written in the idiom of the time… We don’t take it as literally so…”

Et Tú Tutu? Bible scholars have poured their hearts into accurately translating the Bible. They know that their very souls are on the line… This was especially in the forefront of people’s minds the 1600s. Any Bible student knows that it has been remarkably well preserved, and the King James and most modern translations, such as the NIV are meticulously translated. There is no mystery about Biblical idioms if you study. Secondly… There is nothing idiomatic about the statement that someone should be put to death! It is obvious, either Tutu doesn’t know what an idiom is (I find this unlikely) or he is deceived.

At 21:36, Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene: When the word “abomination” is used in the Bible it is always used to address a ritual wrong. It never is used to refer to something innately immoral… Eating pork was never “innately” wrong… (The word “always” was emphasized in his speech. It was not added by me.)

This guy is truly scary. He does not know Hebrew and is misleading his followers – and anybody else watching this video: I cannot trust another word he says.

Strong’s H8441 – tow`ebah: a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

  1. in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
  2. in ethical sense (of wickedness etc.)

At 22:12 Reverend Susan Sparks That particular section about a man not lying with a man was about procreation…

  1. Where did she come up with that? Where is her evidence?
  2. God did not say “why”. Does knowing the reason why not to kill make murder any less of an offense? God rarely explains Himself – He said not to. God also talked about not having sex with close family members and animals. He did not explain why.
    How ridiculous does this sound? “Oh, well. I’m not in the mood to procreate, the planet is overpopulated, anyhow. So I’ll just have sex with that animal over there – or maybe my sister…”

At 21:36, Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene: Onan spilled his seed on the ground. It was an abomination.

Commentators are virtually unanimous: God struck Onan down not for the act of coitus interruptus. Onan spilled his seed on the ground to keep from getting Tamar pregnant because any child born to her would have belonged to his late brother…

At 23:12 They show a clip from an episode of TV’s West Wing where actor Martin Sheen proposes a scenario: When someone works on the Sabbath – who should put him to death?

The Sabbath being a capital offense was superceded by Jesus when He said that the Sabbath was made for the man, not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27) However, homosexuality was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Homosexuals (and many others) will not be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10)



For insight on this movie from the perspective of the ex-gay, see the “For the Bible tells me so” Movie Review by Thomas Coy



Palestinian Children Sing a Catchy Tune!

When we die as martyrs

Muslim Children Trained for Combat and Martyrdom

Is teaching children to be suicide bombers and terrorists right or wrong? Religion of Peace? You decide…

WordPress Themes