Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth

 The trend away from general acceptance of the idea of universal Truth, with a capital "T", has been centuries in the making.  It was helped along by the individualism of the Enlightenment, even inadvertently by the stand against collective authority taken by Martin Luther.  While Truth was losing ground in the realms of ethics, philosophy, and religion, Fact (again with the capital letter) was gaining ground in a host of scientific endeavors through the Industrial, Agricultural, and Modern Medicine revolutions.  We, as humanity, knew with certainty more facts about the universe we inhabited than our ancestors could have imagined possible.  Their senses were limited to their own eyes, we could examine the world through both microscopes and telescopes.  Even if we were losing firm ground in the spiritual realm with the breakup of Christendom into competing Catholic and Protestant camps, and the splintering of Protestantism into still further groups, we were gaining a common understanding of objective reality that led, not without bumps along the way, away from Thomas Hobbes' description of life outside of society's embrace as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'  Life expectancy was on the rise, starvation and childhood death rates were plummeting, work was less back breaking, leisure was invented.  In short, aside from the rude wake-up calls of war and genocide, optimism was a warranted conclusion.

In this world of increasing scientific fact, there was an opportunity for religion, Christianity in particular, to trumpet God's proclamation that lying is beyond his nature.  In other words, Christianity should have embraced scientific discovery as a further revelation of God's nature.  The relation between science and religion, which could have been harmonious, was instead rocky.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (NIV) 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

The Church made the mistake of viewing Scripture as a scientific journal rather than simply observational reporting.  The prime example is the way in which the heavens are described, the 'firmament' of Genesis 1, as it was observed by the ancients.  This was not a scientific description of what lay beyond earth's atmosphere, but only how it looked from where they stood.  Without telescopes, what more could they have known, and why would God have explained it to them in ways they could not have understood?  Thus when Copernicus and Galileo revealed through observation that the earth revolves around the sun, the Church should have welcomed this new insight, but instead insisted that Scripture declared that the geocentric model was correct.  Thus began a long and fruitless fight against scientific discovery that later encompassed numerous fields beyond astronomy, all fought misguidedly in the effort to defend things that holy scripture had not asserted.

Fast forward to 21st century American Evangelicalism (and to a lesser extent American Christianity in general).  The cause of objective spiritual Truth is seemingly at a nadir, long held moral beliefs are challenged forcefully by the culture at large, and what is the response of the Church?  A seemingly all-out assault on Fact.  Rather than defend Truth, American Evangelicalism has largely embraced a no-holds barred war against science.  It began, in earnest in 1925 with the Scopes Trial pitting an interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis against the theories of biology, but quickly expanding to hold that interpretation also against discoveries in archaeology, astronomy, geology, physics, and more as the defense of an earth that could be no more than 6,000 years old was seen as the Rubicon of scriptural inerrancy.  If Science is allowed to explain the origin of the universe and of life on earth, the war would be lost and religion would be discarded, so we have been warned with increasing fervor.

With what end result?  A significant portion of evangelicals now believe that the scientific community is engaged in a massive demonic conspiracy to discredit the Bible.  It is now common belief among many that your average paleontologist or astronomer is an atheist that hates God.   On the flip side, many of the West's most educated people have grown cynical about spiritual things in general, and Christianity in particular, in part because of this anti-science stance.  What we are left with is never ending trench warfare with evangelicals touting attempts to refute science through organizations like Answers in Genesis, a process that has inevitably become more and more political, less and less theological.

In recent decades this war over the Facts of Creation has expanded to touch upon other scientific discoveries.  Because millions of evangelicals look at science with disdain once reserved for Voodoo witch doctors, there is little wonder that an anti-vaccine movement has developed, that Climate Change is one of the most divisive political issues in America today, or that we now live in an era when a phrase like 'alternative facts' can be uttered with a straight face.

Is Science, if something so nebulous can be taken as a whole, blameless in all this?  Certainly not, one need not be a fan of Michael Crichton (I am) to recognize that human genetic engineering requires significant safeguard and raises massive ethical questions, nor to agree that recreating carnivorous dinosaurs would be a bad idea, if it were possible.  In virtually every field Science has ethical questions to answer.  As Crichton's character Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, “Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.”  Here's the irony in all this, Science can't answer questions about what whether or not they should do something.  Those questions are ethical questions, and ethics lies in the realm of philosophy and religion.  Science NEEDS the spiritual realm to answers questions that go beyond the test tube, that are not answered by a peer reviewed study, but rather than act as a counselor and guide, much of American Christianity has treated Science as the enemy.

No matter what you believe about HOW God Created the World, the war on Science has already begun to boomerang. 

I know that many Christians are firmly convinced that only a literal 6 Day Creation occurring approximately 6,000 years ago can possibly do justice to Genesis.  {I've written about this issue previously: Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward?}  If this is the only option, we are at an impasse, for scientific discoveries have not invalidated previously put forth theories about the age of the universe.  To continue in this stalemate is a lose-lose situation.  The more Facts are eroded by religion, and especially by the politics of the religious, the less and less trust will be placed upon Truth by the culture at large.  Facts and Truth are inextricably linked, you can't have one without the other.  Faith and Science NEED each other, whether either side is willing to admit it or not.

If there are no objective Facts that can be agreed upon, there is no Truth either.  On what basis will you build the case that the Bible is True while at the same time you preach that human beings cannot trust their own senses?  Radical empirical-ism, that each of us can only trust what we sense and no objective reality lies beyond our senses, is a death knell not only for any hope of a democratic republic, but of organized religion as well.  But that radical individualism is the foreseeable end result of a constant dismissal of Facts.  If Facts and Truth do not exist independent of us, but are rather subject to our will to believe or disbelieve them, they cease to have any useful meaning.

2020 has shown us the acceleration of this process.  Recently highly influential evangelical pastor John MacArthur has declared against a mountain of scientific evidence, "there is no pandemic", a statement that was met with thunderous applause by the 3,000 non mask wearing people in the sanctuary of his church.  Here's the problem, the virus doesn't care if you believe in it or not.  Science denial is now a political badge of courage, but this is not surprising, it was the next step in the ongoing assault on Fact by many Christians.

{John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation}

{John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response}

It doesn't have to be this way, we don't need to sow the seeds of our own destruction.  We can't have Truth without Facts.  When you assault one, you attack them both.  If Christians want to be people of Truth, they need to be people of Facts too.

For more on the topic of Truth and its relationship with Fact: 

The apparent blasphemy of My Pillow founder Michael Lindell regarding a COVID-19 'cure'.

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Why is the Truth treated like a second rate commodity? Life lessons from an ESPN article: Happy 59th! Or is it 58th? Cracking the mystery of Don Mattingly's birthday - by Sam Miller

Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

The ungodly growth of Holocaust Denial

Those are just the last two years, when you minor in philosophy the idea of Truth is never far from your mind. List of 37 posts on my blog about Truth

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.

Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

There is a misconception, among both Christians and non-Christians, that the faith that is centered upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in some way anti-fact.  In other words, to believe in Jesus Christ is irrational.  There are some within the Christian community, both now and historically, who would applaud that characterization, for their understanding of faith tends toward the mystical and away from the logical.  While it is true that at the heart of Buddhism there lies an illogical contradiction (i.e. that I don't really exist, that the things I sense are not in fact real), this is not the case with either Judaism or Christianity.  Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) are predicated upon a God who created this universe rationally because God himself is a rational being, and while the nature of God may be beyond our understanding, limited as we are in time and space, we do not believe God to be self-contradictory.  God, whose is spirit, chose to create a universe governed by the laws of physics, a universe in which 2+2=4 and cannot at the same time also equal 3 or 5.  As beings created in the image of God, part of our existence is the way in which our minds understand and utilize logic.  The Rationalist philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the idea of a priori knowledge, that which we do not need to be taught, but which is hard-wired (as it were) in the human mind. 

How then does faith fit with logic/rationality?  This is of course a large topic, one which has been the subject of many books arguing various nuances.  Let me simply take a brief look at the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 and the examples that follow it.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

At first glance, this verse might seem to lend weight to the idea of faith as an irrational thing, after all, what else can you say about believing something you don't see?  The listing of the Jewish saints that follows 11:1 confirms that the description is not intended to be one of irrationality.  Beginning with Abel, the author lists one after another of the men and women who, by faith, acted righteously.  If you look back at the stories that these examples refer to, you see that these people were not acting contrary to what their senses were telling them, they were not ignoring the facts on had, they were instead listening to the voice of their creator (often directly through conversations, dreams, or visions), responding to the evidence that they and their ancestors had seen regarding the reality of God (such as the birth of Isaac, the parting of the Red Sea, or the preservation of Rahab when the walls of Jericho fell), and obeying the Word received from God himself.  They were willing to live their lives now, even risk their lives, on the basis of what they knew to be true about God, his power, holiness, and love and were thus making a choice that was both rational and logical to value that which is eternal over that which is temporary.  As the soon to be martyred missionary Jim Elliot wrote in his journal in 1949, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."  It might seem crazy to an observer who does not know of God's history of utilizing his power on behalf of his people, to put one's life at risk to obey God rather than men, but it was not crazy at all to the likes of Daniel, who knew who God was, and acted accordingly.

Obviously, this is only scratching the surface of the discussion of faith and reason and how they interact with each other, but it does lend us an important warning about how Christians ought to think and act in this world.  We are not intended, by God, to be those who reject facts, evidence, and the like.  We are not supposed to be irrational, we are not supposed to ignore truths which are inconvenient to us.  Science is not the enemy of faith, neither are its sub-disciplines of archaeology, astronomy, biology, and the like. 

When Christians reject factual evidence out of hand, often for political reasons, they are simply chipping away at the foundation upon which they stand, strengthening doubt and weakening Truth by rejecting truths they do not like.  It is a dangerous game to insist that an event which occurred 2,000 years, and was witnessed by many and duly recorded, it absolutely True, but that which is observable and quantifiable right here and now is a conspiracy or a lie. 

I am not a Christian in spite of evidence to the contrary, my faith is not an act of defiance against rationality and logic.  I do not claim to have attained faith on my own (as if to give credit to my own mind), it is indeed an act of the grace of God to call lost sinners home through the Holy Spirit, but it is at the same time an action which confirms the evidence which my mind saw then and sees now, not one that ignores it.

Sermon Video: Know Christ, Know Wisdom - Colossians 2:1-8

When explaining to the church at Colossae his goal for them for which he was willing to contend and even suffer, the Apostle Paul speaks of not only their need to be encouraged and united in love, but also their need to have "the full riches of complete understanding".  But where would this understanding come from?  Mystical experience, meditative contemplation, angelic messengers?  No, Paul was clear that the people of the church could know the "mystery of God" simply by knowing Jesus Christ.  In Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."  Want to know God?  Know Jesus.  Want to learn more about God?  Learn more about Jesus.  As the incarnate God/Man, Jesus Christ is the fullness of God, the more we learn about him, the more we learn about God.  That being said, Paul encourages the church to remain firmly rooted in Christ, to not be "taken captive" by other ideas or philosophies, for all those which are no in Christ are "of this world".

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Celibacy or Marriage? - 1 Corinthians 7:8-11

Is a life of celibacy make one closer to God than a life which includes marital sex?  Is Celibacy a spiritually superior choice?  The Apostle Paul had the opportunity to make that claim in his first letter to the church at Corinth when he addressed the topics of celibacy and marriage, but Paul did not make any such claim.  Why not?  Because as a Jew and a Christian, Paul understood that God's creation was "good" prior to the Fall, that there is no moral distinction between the physical and the spiritual.  This Judeo-Christian worldview contrasts with the Platonic dualism of Greek philosophy which envisioned the physical realm as the source of evil and the spiritual as the source of good.  As such, that dualism led toward viewing asceticism (self-denial) as a potential solution, thus supposedly elevating the spiritual by denying the physical.  This viewpoint was absorbed with the rest of Greek philosophy by the Church, resulting in a new non-biblical, and even anti-biblical viewpoint regarding virginity, sex, and marriage which eventually led to the monastic movement and many centuries later, to priestly celibacy. 
In the end, the embracing of celibacy as holier than marital sex by portions of the Church has led to a variety of non-biblical attitudes, including the association of "dirty" with sex, and the view that marital sex ought not be a pleasurable aspect of the "one flesh" union of marriage, but rather simply a means to procreation, a sort of necessary evil.  The Church has much to be thankful for to Greek philosophy, the inclusion of spiritual/physical dualism is not one of them.  God created humanity as male and female with a sexual capacity and desire, God created marriage, both of which must be inherently good, not evil.  Is celibacy superior to marriage?  Not at all.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-20

The Message of the Cross, that is the Gospel message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has always been foolishness to those who don't believe it.  In the first century, it was the shame of dying upon a cross that Paul had to overcome, and while that connotation has been replaced by the much more positive symbolism of the cross following the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire, the message itself still remains hard to accept.  Why is that?  It isn't the message, per se, but what the message requires of us.  To accept the Gospel, we must first admit our own failure and allow God to save us from our sins.  The problem with this step is of course human pride.  It is an act of humility and submission to bow before Jesus Christ, and plenty of the Lost are unwilling to countenance that step.
The difficulty of the Gospel message raises an important question about the relationship between faith and reason.  Do we arrive at faith through reason or do we abandon reason in order to have faith?  While there have been famous Christian philosophers who embrace their God given reasoning ability in service to their faith, there have also been Christian theologians who reject the use of philosophy in connection with theology.  In modern American Christianity, those rejecting the role of reason in faith evidence an anti-intellectualism that in particular tends to despise science.  It is not, however, all wisdom that God thwarts, only that of the world that in opposition to God, his people ought to be using their God given reason to serve his kingdom.  It is true that we do not arrive at faith by reason alone, nor is it true that faith ought to be devoid of reason, when we understand our faith properly it has reason as a partner.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Avoiding a "softening of the brain"

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton has a quote that I thought worth sharing, "Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.  Every man who will not have a softening of the heart must at last have a softening of the brain."  (p. 34)  At that point he was referring to the willingness of Nietzsche, and countless others like him since, to doubt everything.  Yet those who doubt everything in the end doubt themselves.  On what basis can you doubt everything?  There must be some standard, some truth, that is beyond doubt or all expressions of doubt become meaningless.  "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." (p. 34)  In the same way, those who say that all paths are true are equally stuck in a quagmire.  If every path is equally valid, how can any choice be made?  If no outcome is more desirable than any other, what is the point of choosing at all?  Thus the rebel who rejects everything, and the man of tolerance who accepts everything find themselves sitting at the same crossroad.  Chesterton pictured Nietzsche and Tolstoy sitting there together, our world today isn't short of others willing to join them.  "They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads.  The result is - well, some things are not hard to calculate.  They stand at the crossroads." (p. 34-35)
It is amazing that in 1908 Chesterton clearly saw that these two forces in philosophy/morality/government were on a collision course that would leave both without anything meaningful left to say.  In the last hundred years his prediction has certainly proven true.  Today our world is convulsed by rebels who hate everything and everyone and idealists who profess to love everything and everyone.  In the end neither of them is leaving that crossroad.