The Secular Trojan Horse

I encountered a pro-choice argument that went something like this: "The pro-life position is a religious position and therefore has no role in public debate."

The argument rests on two false premises. The first premise is that the secular world belongs in the public world of facts while the religious world belongs in the private world of opinions and preferences. For the secular humanist, any position that is religiously informed ought to be excluded from public debate. In effect, the opposition can be silenced if its position is framed as religious. It's a clever form of censorship. In the abortion debate you may hear someone say something like, "I personally would never have an abortion (private, religious) but I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. (public, secular)." This sentiment is indicative of someone who has grown up in the secular culture where this false dichotomy is neither questioned nor examined. Many, if not most, Christians have imbibed some form of this postmodern dichotomy.

The other premise (which the first is dependent upon) is the idea that the secular point of view is not religious. I would argue that secular humanists are just as dogmatic and religiously informed as anyone else. The anti-science transgender movement illustrates the religious nature of today's secular humanists. Gender designation is now by faith and not by sight. Nevermind the genitals, beards, testosterone-infused body structures, and DNA. Gender, in the secular world, is now regarded as a subjective taste relegated to personal preference. This smacks of religion.

Consider the secular stress on equality. Equality is a religious belief. Should supporters of human equality not have a public say on the matter since their position is religious? While the Christian has a theological basis for promoting equality the secularist does not. Do the ideas of the secular saint Charles Darwin not imply that certain breeds of the same species might be more likely to survive and are therefore superior to their kin? In order to maintain a belief in equality secular humanists must borrow from the theology of their religious neighbors.

Consider some of the faith-based assumptions in the scientific community. Naturalism, which under-girds the secular-scientific approach, is the idea that everything in the universe can be explained by natural causes. Is that not an item of faith? What about science itself? Is science not built upon the dogma that the universe is ordered and that it is governed by fix laws? Science rests on the assumption that there is law, order, and uniformity in the universe. These assumptions require a leap of faith.

Not only are the pet secular dogmas faith-based but so is the secular reaction to those who challenge their dogmas. Discussion is not permitted and those who waver from secular dogma are branded as haters (heretics). In the secular environment of the university there seems to be an uptick of thought policing and censorship resembling the methodology of witch-hunting inquisitors.

Secular humanists once understood that they preached dogma. Consider the first and second theses of the Humanist Manifesto written in 1933: "First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-creating and not created. Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Interesting. Notice the prominence of the words "religious" and "believe." At least they were honest back then.

That was 1933. Today the semantics have changed. Secular humanism is now sold to the public as the neutral position. This is their Trojan horse. By pretending to not be religious they give themselves the only legitimate voice in the public sphere. The inhabitants of the horse now control the culture, media, higher education and even mainline Christianity.

To see the secular Trojan horse in action consider the history of Princeton University. Princeton was initially a Presbyterian school set up to train students in theological matters. The first professors were ministers. In recent years one of Princeton's more notorious professors, Richard Rorty, candidly said the following,“The goal of education is to help these youth escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents…. We are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” The Princeton Presbyterians allowed the secular Trojan horse into their gates and as a result they have been replaced and pushed out by the likes of Richard Rorty. The same thing has occurred in most American colleges and universities.

There are two things that Christians need to do to protect themselves from the secular Trojan horse. First, we need to unmask the horse. The secularists need to be exposed for what they are: religious adherents, and some could rightly be labeled as fanatic iconoclasts.

Second, we need to stop playing their game and following their rules. Why should secular humanists be allowed the neutral position? Why should they be allowed to push their dogmas in the public world? Why should we allow this secular, postmodern mindset to strip the Christian faith of its objective claims to truth?

Secular humanists are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are bent on consuming the sheep and taking over the pen. Christians have done very little about it. The temptation is to safely hunker down in our pens and ignore the ravishing of the other pens. But when the wolves invade, it will be too late. A couple will sneak into the pen, one will hold the gate open for the other wolves and then the sheep will be gone.

Facebook status: Prayer bombs or F bombs?

A recent study analyzed the status updates of 12,000 religious and non-religious Facebook users from the United States and the United Kingdom. The study performed a differential language assessment or "DLA" indicating which words the religious and non-religious used in their statuses. The vast majority of  those in the religious category identified themselves as Christian. The 75 words that are most common to each group are visualized below. The size of the word indicates how well it correlates with the group while the color indicates its frequency (red is frequent, gray is less frequent).



Wow.

As a whole, I would describe the religious cluster as gracious, thankful, content and happy while the non-religious cluster is angry, bitter, vulgar and critical. The most prominent word in the cluster for the religious is prayer while the most prominent word for the non-religious is f---. Life, love and smile are prominent in the religious cluster while dead, bloody (British respondents?), and sh-- are prominent in the non-religious cluster.

Religious Facebook users were more likely to use plural pronouns: us, we, you, let's and pronouns that referred to other people: you, u, ur, him. The non-religious used more 1st person singular pronouns: I, I've, I'd, I'm, my.  

The religious were more likely to use words that referred to family and friends: mom, father, fam, friends, friendship; while the non-religious used words that referred to media and entertainment: internet, film, episode, album, computer, laptop.

The non-religious were more likely to use descriptive words, adjectives and adverbs while the religious used words that referred to emotional states of being. This seems to indicate that the non-religious tend to be more critical and judgmental in their statuses.

As Christians the proper response to this study is to not pat ourselves on the back or to think we're better than our non-religious neighbors. The Bible teaches us that a thankful heart and gracious words are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit of God our natural default is to be miserable, vulgar, and self-absorbed. As the Apostle Paul said, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature" (Rom 7:18).

Godly attitudes and godly words originate with God as he breathes his Spirit into us through his Word.

New Atheism Is Aging Terribly

In the early 2000s the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse charged out of the starting gates to declare war on religion. The four militant atheists included Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the now-deceased Christopher Hitchens. Others who hopped onto the religion bashing bandwagon included Bill Maher, Dan Barker, Matt Dillahaunty, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss and even Penn & Teller.

What caused such a godless commotion in the early 2000s? Some would argue that 9/11 and a religiously charged political landscape triggered the new atheist movement. Progressives worried that they were being sandwiched in-between fanatical Islam and fanatical fundamentalist Christianity. The LGBT movement also saw a useful ally in the new atheists.

But times, they are a changin'. A theocratic boogeyman has not taken over the White House. We are no where close to the dystopian world of the Handmaid's Tale. The last two presidents have not appeared to be very religious. The LGBT movement is getting its way. College-aged kids now have no recollection of 9/11 and the person who is currently the greatest threat to the United States is a chubby little atheist in North Korea.

What do post-9/11 millennials hate these days? They hate “hate-speech.”  This has become a huge PR problem for the new atheists. I'm not sure when "hate-speech" became a popular phrase but it seems that most secular thinking people are distancing themselves from certain new atheists over incendiary remarks. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have all lost followers due to crude remarks. While harsh criticisms of Christianity seem to be tolerated, a religion like Islam has achieved special-interest status among progressives and criticism of the multi-ethnic religion of Islam is seen as racist. Consider the following interchange between atheist Bill Maher and Hollywood progressive Ben Affleck:

While the new atheists are being silenced on the secular front it seems that they have met their match on the religious front. The new atheist movement breathed new life into Christian apologetics. Christian thinkers met the atheist challenge by not only defending Christianity but by exposing many of the new atheists argument and as untenable and the atheistic worldview as irrational. The new atheist movement took on 2000 years of Christian thought and philosophy and found themselves lacking.

Does this mean that the world is becoming increasingly religious? No, not really. For the Christian, atheism is a mere outlier in the world of unbelief. Just because the secular world is not inherently atheist does not mean that they are inherently Christian.

Atheists, Unicorns and Narwhals

"God is a myth like the unicorn." 

"Prove to me that an invisible pink unicorn does not exist and I'll prove to you that there is no God." 

The unicorn is a common symbol for atheists. Atheists love to compare God to unicorns.

In his book, Illogical Atheism, Bo Jinn exposes the fallacious thinking of atheism. Bo includes a memorable discussion on the unicorn as it relates to the discussion on God:

"There is a theory that the myth of the unicorn first came about when ancient nomadic people of Europe discovered strange objects washed up along their shores. These objects were long, pointed conical and had the weight and texture of bone. So, the nomads inferred that they must have been the horn of some kind of animal. The only animals they knew of with horns were land animals like the antelope and the elk. But these horns looked like they could not belong to either. The ancient nomads would have proposed the best possible explanation for what animal the horns might have belonged to, by observing their own surroundings and reasoning things out. So, they concluded that the best explanation was that the horns must have belonged to a large and powerful species of horse that roamed some far away land. If one considers the position of the ancient nomad, one might appreciate that this is hardly an illogical explanation. A horse was a land creature, it was large enough and strong enough to bear the weight of the big horn and since the horns were found washed up on shore one may assume that these large horses died at sea, their bodies were devoured by sea beasts and that the horns floated to their coastal waters. And that is how the myth of the unicorn came about." (Bo Jinn, Illogical Atheism: Book II, chapter 5).

The horn of course is the tusk of a narwhal.

Bo uses this story to make the following two points:

First: The unicorn is not a random concoction of some imaginative ancient person but rather a possible explanation for the horn. 

Let's add to this scenario. Suppose another nomad comes along and disputes the idea that the horn came from a horse-like creature. Perhaps this nomad has some additional evidence that suggests that the horn comes from a sea creature. Maybe he's seen a walrus and thinks that the horn is a tusk that came from a similar type of animal. Let's imagine a few more nomads arrive and argue about the origin of the horn. Most of them agree that it came from a creature that died at sea. They may not know that the horn is actually the tusk of a narwhal but the nomads have correctly concluded that it came from an animal that died at sea.

Now compare the nomads to practitioners of different religions. Does the existence of many religions indicate that there is no God as some atheists presume? Hardly. The many religions of this world are a testament to the fact that God has left knowledge about himself in the natural world. More evidence, however, is needed. Christians would point to the additional evidence in the prophetic scriptures which center around God's Son who became one of us poor nomads and then resurrected from the dead.

Second: The unicorn hypothesis was not refuted by saying that there was a lack of evidence but by new evidence that the horn was a tusk that belonged to a narwhal. Atheists have yet to find their narwhal!

When an atheists refutes a theistic position they will often claim that they are doing so due to a lack of evidence. They will go so far as to say that there is no evidence at all and that faith in God is blind and tantamount to believing in an invisible pink unicorn. The problem for the atheist is that while they claim that God is not the explanation to the universe they are unable replace God with a substitute explanation.

Bo Jinn adds to the nomad scenario by proposing the arrival of another nomad who tells the others that they are all wrong. This nomad claims that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the horn came from an animal. Naturally, the other nomads press him for an alternative explanation of the horn. The dissenting nomad offers one of two explanations: 1. "The horn popped out of nothing." 2. "The horn has always been there." Obviously, this nomad would not be taken seriously by the others. What he's advocating is unreasonable and more incredible than a miracle.

Atheists have a similar problem. Their explanation for the universe is that it has either always been there or it popped out of nothing. For this reason, out of all the belief systems in the world atheism is the most illogical. Atheism is also the most exclusive of all faiths in that it shares nothing in common with other views. The nomads could all agree that that the horn came from an animal. Most religions agree that there is at least one higher power.

If God is not the proper explanation to the universe then what is? The atheist should not ridicule the notion of God and offer nothing to replace it. The atheist ought to admit that they simply don't want there to be a god. As Thomas Nagel put it, "I don't want the universe to be like that." At the heart of atheism is not evidence or the lack thereof but a stubborn and rebellious heart.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." - Psalm 14:1

Pseudomodernism: A Fake New World

By the mid-nineties we tossed the last few shovelfuls upon Truth's grave and looked about the grim reality that Americans possessed everything and yet at the same time had nothing. Science and technology had bequeathed history's bloodiest century. The Soviet Union dissolved. Our aspirations for space travel petered out with the Challenger explosion. Utopias had become as unreachable as the stars. Global-warming alarmists prophesied doom. Reckless presidents dabbled in the Mideast and philandered with interns. Seattle grunge and the Midwest melancholy existential musings of the Smashing Pumpkins echoed postmodernism's postmortem of the enlightenment. From Kurt Vonnegut to Kurt Cobain the message was clear - the truth is that Truth was dead. Truth had been deconstructed, dismembered, and disemboweled - never to be disinterred. Only ignoramuses in the hinterland held on to a bygone absolutism.

Then, some jetliners pierced our existential fog eliminating New York's lofty pillars. We ran about like disoriented farm animals in a hail storm. We needed Truth but we had buried her. Our golden eggs were threatened and the mangled carcass of the goose lay on our dinner table. Then, a strange and unexpected deus ex machina descended upon us; the internet sprinkled its benevolent digital pixy dust upon the corpses of Truth and her children. The grim reality of our world was replaced by a new world, an undiscovered country. Our whirling compasses finally settled on a direction. All the needles pointed back to their operators.

The postmodern world eliminated truth and then gave us the digital tools we needed to create our own truths. We became the standard bearers. We became masters of a new universe that lay quite literally at our fingertips. Search engines and social media fed our preferences. We no longer had to be meaningless pawns in a chaotic universe; rather, we were given Brahman-like power to create one of many universes where our avatars can run amok. Welcome to the pseudomodern world.

The first dozen years of the new millennium had a pleasant veneer. We clicked and voted through our mobile devices controlling reality stars and elevating nobodies to prominent positions. We recognized the great interconnections of all things and if our codes and timing were correct we could tap into power, a power similar to the power wielded by ancient Shamans who sought to control their world through mantras and spells. Like Zeus we could cloud ourselves in the elements of our new universe and sow our wild oats in disguise. We could assume even more power through endless social pantheons by advertising ourselves through various "upvotes" "likes" and "followers." The thrill of power caused a lust for more. Something else happened, all the unpleasant failings and character flaws of the former world no longer needed to haunt us. We filtered, edited, selected and morphed. Like chameleons we could adjust to the demands of our surroundings. Gender, religion, sexuality, education, history and marriage were uprooted from their absolute moorings and placed upon a digital smorgasbord. We could feast without restraints.

Vestiges of objective Truth remained, threatening the autonomy and authority of a billion new gods and goddesses. Once the dust of the twin towers settled we looked skeptically at religion. Christianity closely resembled the Truth that the West had deconstructed. Secularists placed pressure on her from the outside like a horde of elitist Romans while the Judases of subjective spiritualism continued the onslaught from within. Like parasites they feasted upon the Christian worldview, using the sustenance to attack the host. If the parasites were to emerge they would need a new religion, a meta-narrative that would provide meaning, hope, goals, morality and value. The secular vultures left their religious prey, combed their feathers, and embraced a new, secular religion that advocated social justice, diversity, inclusion and permitted a divinity that could be found only within. Universities became temples where a secular priestly caste of professors preached dogma ensconced in a flowery perch of terminology known only to the enlightened. The media functioned as their prophets and the culturally elite regurgitate their platitudes. They walk on two legs like Orwell's pigs, scorning their roots, and we follow blindly choosing the path of least resistance.

But a tension lingered unexamined. We embrace new truths after deconstructing Truth. We embrace new moralities after deconstructing morality. We elevate ourselves to godhood after deconstructing life to blind mechanistic forces of zero value. We vocally give our approval and distaste but our pronouncements have no force because their foundation is nothing but preference.  We hurdle about in a moral vacuum driving ourselves mad because we have no firm ground to push off of and nothing to orbit. We have climbed into God's throne and we have found that we do not fit. Our wings melt off as we strive to achieve his brilliance.

And so when there is nothing left to consume we must consume ourselves.The parasite has tried on the costume of its host but a parasite without a host will cannibalize itself.  In our goal to become like God we become less that human. Our utopias become hell. Our desire to become like the ancient stars results in black-holes, the gravitational pull of which there is no escape. We can bide our time by pulling and tugging on our fellow man, climbing and clamoring over his shoulders but soon we'll be consumed. The pseudo-secular dam is about to burst and the coming deluge is prophetically reflected in the vacant eyes of the opioid addict who wanders around a land flowing with milk and honey.

Postmodernism removed fences and we embraced the freedom without considering why the fences were there in the first place. We have forgotten that the greatest thing we need protection from is ourselves. Nations rise and fall. Their eventual demise comes not from the outside but from a decay within. We mask the decay with progressive semantics but one day a passerby will walk by the wall and put his hand through it realizing that it is brittle paper mache. He will then urge his friends to walk through the wall and gorge upon the ruins of the gods.

Jesus Myth #3: Santa and Pasta

Some atheists can't help but get into the holiday mocking spirit. An atheist group set up a large billboard In Time Square comparing Santa and Jesus Christ. The caption says, "Keep the MERRY! Dump the MYTH!" This sort of objection to God's existence is a favorite for atheists that manifests itself in various ways. God is often compared to the many pagan gods of the past, an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster that benevolently extends its noodily appendages to bless the inhabitants of earth (yes, atheist geeks apparently laugh at the words noodle and appendage).

This “God is like any other myth” objection fails because it is a faulty analogy. While all analogies limp in some way, this one fails for a couple of reasons. God is in a different category than Santa or spaghetti. One is physical and the other is not. One is contingent on something else while the other is not. If we are to compare God and pasta we would have to lower God to the physical realm in order to make the comparison – thus debunking him. The common question of "Who created God?" is another example of this category mistake. Asking who created God actually redefines God into a being that needs creation. This is sort of like denying the existence of Shakespeare for the same reason that someone may deny the existence of Hamlet or Othello.

The other main failure of this argument is that it gives an excuse to not examine the evidence for God. A person can indeed compare the God of the Bible to the mythical gods of history. There is a reason why one has lived on while the others have not. The reason is evidence and the convincing power of that evidence. There are various arguments for the existence of God but more specifically, for the Christian God there is the prophetic Scripture. The Bible is a collection of testimonies that give a great amount of historical and prophetic evidence of God. The prophet Isaiah often challenged skeptics to consider their mute gods to the God of Judah who alone is able to predict the future. Consider also the resurrection of Jesus Christ – without which Christianity would never have started. The evidence for the event is compelling: multiple trustworthy witnesses, an empty tomb, transformation of the disciples, etc. Alternative evidence for the non-resurrection of Jesus is lacking. 

An atheist may think they are being rational by dismissing Jesus as a myth but they are actually being very irrational by ignoring the evidence. What is the evidence for a pink unicorn, Santa, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? What is the evidence against such things?  An atheist must admit that there is evidence for the Christian God and for the person of Jesus Christ. At best they can say that there is no convincing evidence for God, which says more about their bias than it does about God.

Religion is a matter of faith. I have faith in Jesus Christ for the same reason that I have faith in my spouse and the chair that I’m sitting on. I trust those things because they all convince me of their trustworthy nature and there’s a pile of evidence that supports my trust.

Jesus Myth #2: Zeitgeist

On occasion I receive questions from students concerning a film called Zeitgeist. I decided to show it to my high school seniors. Part one of the film attacks religion and specifically targets Christianity connecting it with all of the worlds problems today. The film was released in 2007, created and narrated by Peter Joseph. Joseph contends that Christianity is derived from astrological myths and pagan religions. Most of the information he received was from D.M. Murdock author of The Christ Conspiracy.

For a Christian unfamiliar in this territory (pretty much every high school aged Christian that heads off to his secular institution of humanistic learning) the immediate response to this video might be "Oh crap, am I believing a lie?" - but upon further inspection they'll quickly realize the movie is nothing but a house built upon sand. A quick perusal of the atheists on the website Reddit demonstrates their disappointment with the movie as it sent their hopes sky high only to be dashed to pieces by historical reality. I like showing this to my kids in high school because it demonstrates some important truths. 1. There's a lot young Christian adults need to learn. 2. The attacks on Christianity are fierce. 3. It's easier to defend your faith than you might think.

Rather than picking apart any minute detail I like to point out the systemic errors that flow throughout this film.

1. "The Bible is an astrotheological hybrid." This is like saying that the Satanic Bible is really a Christian book. The Bible is firm throughout that the heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon, and stars should not be worshiped. One of the supporting facts that Zeitgeist cites is that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th. The problem is that Jesus wasn't born on De.c. 25th. The Bible says nothing of when he was born - in fact it probably was not winter since their were sheep in the fields.

2. "Jesus is plagiarized from other mythical Saviors." The film relies on apparent similarities between astrological myths and pagan saviors. The problem is that once one explores these general claims it becomes apparent that these claims are stretched. The dozens of gods that were born of a virgin are mere supernatural births resulting from the dirty old gods like Zeus. The virgin birth of Horus hardly resembles the birth of Christ as his mother hovered in falcon form over her dead husband's erection in the underworld.

3. Who copied who? Interestingly some of these traditions from other religions probably post-date Christianity. For instance, the stories of Krishna's life that resemble the stories of Christ's life seem to postdate Christianity. There are Hindus today that still like to link Krishna and Christ as being different avatars of the same being - how does that Beetle's song go? Anyway, the resurrection of Jesus is of special importance in this point. A physical resurrection like Jesus' does not occur until well-after the resurrection of Jesus. The other resurrection myths were stories of the god or hero in the afterlife.

4. Similarities? So what? Why must similarities between religions be a result of them copying one another. One can find similarities in every belief system. The film claimed that the 10 commandments were copied from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. One could probably look at all sorts of law codes and find similarities. I'm pretty sure most will have statements against things like stealing and murder.

5. Should we expect seeds of the truth in false theologies? Why not? The Christian worldview believes that the ancestors of all humans at one time had the truth. Why wouldn't some of those ancient messages and prophecies have been handed down over time? Every ancient culture for instance has a flood story - the account in Genesis being the best put-together. The prophecy of a virgin birth and dying Messiah came from Isaiah's hand 700 years before Christ. Why wouldn't we expect more parallels especially since the Israelite's history of being exiled in places like Egypt, Greece and Babylon?

For more details on some of the more specific claims check out the following link: http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?id=124&option=com_content&task=view

Also, here's a fun little video that deals with the same issue:

Atheist Psychology

I interacted with a young lady who attended a Christian college and shortly afterward decided to become an atheist. We had an interesting interchange in which we discussed the psychology of atheism. She used a study of the famous Myers-Briggs personality type index which indicated those with an ISTP (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving) tend to be more represented by atheists. It was a bit amusing to tell her that I am an INTP (Intorverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). INTP is also well represented in the atheistic community.

We also discussed Asperger and autism disorder since there seems to be a correlation between the disorder and atheism. Studies indicate that atheists tend to be higher on the autism spectrum than the religious. The reasoning behind this deals with the ability of humans to empathize and to see purpose. A lady with Asperger once described herself as being "thunderstruck" when she, as a child, realized that houses were planned, built, and didn't grow randomly like plants. Interestingly, INTPs and ISTPs may also be generally higher on the autism spectrum. According to Robert Chester  INTPs and ISTPs youths can be misdiagnosed as children with Asperger syndrome.

So is atheism to be chalked up to psychology or personality? No. There are plenty of INTPs, ISTPs, and those with various social disorders that are strong Christians. Atheism is rebellion, and even those who may not be as empathetic or have a harder time seeing purpose in things still have ample evidence for God's existence rendering them without excuse.

Godlessness will manifest itself in various ways. There are plenty of people who are godless but may not identify as atheist. To announce yourself as an "atheist" takes a thought process that many are simply unmotivated to do. I read somewhere that the godless can be divided into two categories "high atheist" and the "low atheists." The "high atheists" tend to be your higher thinking outspoken atheists. The "low-atheists" are simply the non-religious. High and low atheists may have different personalities and levels of intelligence. Theologically, rebellion is their common denominator and the ultimate source of their godlessness; their psychology is the vehicle through which the godlessness manifests itself.

There is no excuse (Romans 1:20).