Category Archives: Philosophy

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on by
Reply

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

  1. The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy.  Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

SRI Religion V religion

Posted on by
2

Yesterday, the afternoon news carried a story about a banner being unfurled on a Melbourne billboard. My interest was initially piqued by the large picture at the centre of this banner. Here, being spread out for everyone to see was a picture of Jesus patting a dinosaur. Only after turning up the volume and having time to read the banner did I realise that this was actually a protest against Christianity.

The fist wavers (Psalm 2) were at it again. This time they were out to have SRI (Special Religious Instruction) banned from Victorian schools. For most of us, we realise that these campaigns are not new. Equally, we are aware that with the decline of Christianity, these demands are going to become common place and vociferous.

The truly disturbing aspect of this story was in listening to the ignorance and drivel of those demanding that SRI cease. Those familiar with our writings will be aware that we often speak of worldviews. This story is one more example of why we need to understand what a worldview is and the importance they play. (See here, and here, as examples.)

One of those interviewed stated, in essence, ‘that religion had no place in our schools.’ Interesting! What would they call Secularism, Humanism, or Evolution? In regard to Evolution, its own proponents acknowledge it as a religion. So what this person was really demanding, in our world of Tolerance and Equality, was that the Christian religion be excluded from our schools. They do not want all religions banned; only that religion which shows that they are idol worshippers.

Another example concerned a lady who stated that “the children go from a science class (read – absolute rational fact) to the SRI class (read – absolute irrational myth) where they are told that dinosaurs do not exist.” I have added the words in parentheses in order to highlight the intention of her words. Again, it is important to see the contrast. This woman is happy to subject our children to the religion of Evolution and to its god, science; but she is quite unwilling for our children to be subject to the Christian religion and the One Living and True God!

Equally, note the disparagement present when it is claimed, without substantiation, that these children would be taught that dinosaurs do not exist, simply because they are being taught by Christians.

At this point it is fundamentally important that we come to terms with how a worldview shapes a person’s outlook.  Here, we see that those interviewed had imbibed the fallacious belief that a religion is equivalent to an organised system of belief rooted in a god. As such, these people typically take aim at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Is Animism not a religion because it posits no belief in a god and has no system? Are Eastern religions in fact non-religions because, though organised, they strictly do not believe in a god (Buddhism rejects the notion of God as external; Hinduism has multiple gods, but they are all attempts at representing Brahman, the ultimate god that is beyond knowing)?

The answer is, of course, No! These are all religions. They are so precisely because a religion does not need of necessity to posit a belief in god, be organised, or, for that matter, codified. The essence of religion, like the exploration in Physics, looks for the god-particle, but it does not need necessarily to look for a god, personal or otherwise. In our day, the god-particle or god-idea can be reduced to searching for the essence of being or be the “central directedness [of a person] … toward the real or presumed ultimate source of meaning or authority.”[1]

The Christian has a religion based in God’s revelation. It is a religion “directed” to God as the absolute source of being. From this central tenet, the Christian’s worldview branches out to embrace and interpret all other fields and spheres. What needs to be seen here is that the same mechanics are at work in other ideals. God and revelation may be substituted, but there are still similar touchstones to be found. For example, the Rationalist seeks being / source / authority in the mind. The mind becomes as God and the mind’s projections become as revelation. At this point, he engages his worldview. The Evolutionist seeks being / source / authority in time and chance. The Humanist seeks these things in Man (capitalised, for Man becomes god). The Secularist seeks these things anywhere but in a God / god that cannot be manipulated.

So it is that, like the more comprehensive worldview, all men have a religion.

An anecdote I like to use in these situations is as follows: Many years back, I went with a farmer friend, a fellow Christian, to pick up some goods from another farm. Whilst there, it was disclosed that we were Christians. The owner of the farm trotted out the hackneyed, “Do not care for religion as it has caused so many wars!” Of course, this is offered as the final statement on religion and the conversation is supposed to end with respect and contemplative silence. Well, you should have seen the look on this guys face when I sympathetically agreed with his statement. I then went on to list the atrocities committed in those religious wars instigated by Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and so on. Suffice it to say, his mouth was agape.

You see, all too often, Christians are not taught adequately about worldviews / religion and how to expose a person’s basic premise for understanding. Consequently, when they run into statements like those mentioned in this article, they are stumped. They have no answer. They are immediately on the back foot and usually end up relying on a subjective and erroneous retort. Ask yourself, honestly, ‘How many times have you had “the Crusades!”, or “religion (Christianity in particular) causes war!”, or , “if God is love, how can he send people to Hell?” type statements or questions cast in your way in order to silence your proclamation of Christianity?’ How did you respond?

My plea here is that Christians might be taught and be willing to learn about worldviews. Every accusation that can be thrown at the Christian can be thrown back manifold to the opponents of Christ. Ban SRI! Why? Crusades. Hmmm. How many died during the Crusades? Too many, yes! So we throw out Christianity. What, then, of Evolution? What is its death toll? One hundred thousand babies a year in Australia. Fifty million babies in the US since Roe v Wade! According to the World Counter for abortions, we have murdered 9 million babies so far this year alone.[2] I am not really sure that the Crusades came close![3]

We might even go so far as to ask a more mainline question, namely, “How many lives are lost to Evolution through despair, injustice, lawlessness, non-accountability, Racism, and the other evils that flow from mantras such as “survival of the fittest”? Unlike Christianity, where death is an intruder and life is the norm, Evolution posits that life can only exist through death. Thus, Evolution exalts death and its devotees desire to mask this obvious truth because they do not want it known that their religion is worse than the one they are seeking to abolish.

In the end, it is important for Christians to realise that the debate is never about the questions: Will we have religion? Will we have law? Will we have government? Will we have morals? or Will / Should religion be taught in schools? The debate is summarised in the question, “Whose religion, law, government, and morals will we adopt and have taught in our schools?

Thus, those unfurling this banner were not objecting to religion, but firing salvos in a distinctly religious battle. They were protesting against our God only in order to exalt their god.


[1] B.J. van der Walt, Culture, Worldview and Religion ; (2000) 11.

[2] http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[3] Wikipedia suggests between 1 million and 3 million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll.

Losing my Religion 2

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, we looked at the whole concept of Losing my Religion. We noted that it was in fact an impossibility to lose one’s religion. One may change their fundamental outlook on life, but one cannot ever be devoid of such an outlook.

If it is possible to lose religion, we are of necessity faced with some “hairy” questions. I mean to say, where did you leave your religion so that it now has a “lost” status? Is it behind the dryer with that missing sock? Did you leave it in your other pants? Is it lost in the deep recesses of your makeup case – behind that fluorescent lipstick that you “just had to have”? Maybe it is at the grocery store with your car keys?

Then we have to look at the other possibilities. If someone finds your religion, do you want it returned? Did your mother sow name labels into your religion at the same time she was doing your underwear for just such an occasion? Have you gone to the police station to file a report in regard to your lost religion?

Now, to the truly perplexing. If you do not want your religion back, then it is not lost, it has been abandoned. That which is discarded is not lost, nor will it be sought. A conscious decision has been made to exchange one set of beliefs for another.

So, in the end, we reassert the fact that everyone is religious and all have a religion; whether or not you subscribe to God, gods, or you elevate Man to the position of “God”.

This morning’s news brings another story to our attention – another story that promotes the myth of neutrality and the diarrheic drivel that people can be areligious:

“Former ABBA star Bjorn Ulvaeus says people have become to [too] scared to criticise Islam and that “less religion in the world would be better.”

“Look at all the misery in the Middle East for example. All these countries have Islam in common, and far too few dare to criticize Islam as an ideology, and what it’s doing to these countries,” the 68-year-old told The Wall Street Journal.

“I know I might get punched in the face for saying these things, but my conviction is that less religion in the world would be better.”

Ulvaeus said he did not mean to single out any specific religion but rather believes that countries, like his native Sweden, should be “open, liberal, secular and democratic.”

“Religion is the root of so much misery in the world and I’ve always thought there is lack of criticism against it,” he said.

He is a member of Humanisterna (Swedish Humanist Association) which campaigns for an end to religious oppression and an open secular society.”[1]

I now wish to issue a full and unqualified retraction of all that I have said. Benny has proven me wrong. As Benny was instrumental in the success of ABBA, he must, of course, be absolutely right! NOT!!!

Once more, we a treated to the inane arguments of the humanist – “All evil in the world is because of religion!” This hackneyed argument is trotted out time and again, especially when criticising Christianity.

The astute among you will now call me a hypocrite. After what I have written, how do I deny or criticise the statement that “all evil in the world is because of religion”. Well, I do so for a number of reasons.

  1. As a Christian, evil is a consequence of sin. Sin is rebellion against God.
  2. My objection is not with the statement, but with the Humanist’s definition and implication.
  3. What of the “good” that religions, particularly Christians, do every day?

What I mean by this is very simple. In this statement, Benny uses the term religion” in the sense outlined in the first article. He uses religion in the sense of an organised worldview that looks to God or gods. However, as we have seen, this is a faulty view of religion.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic and would fall under Benny’s condemnation. What then of the many Eastern religions? Some have a pantheon. Some state that “god” is found within. Then we must consider those animistic religions. They are less formalised, but they still acknowledge a god or gods. Further, we have pantheism.

Who exactly is Benny criticising here?

As always, the Humanists take aim at the first three, for they are the codified “religions” that have a view of a Supreme God, who having revealed Himself, demands that His creatures obey Him. This, of course, does not sit very well with the Humanists who wish to follow the rebellious desires of their fallen nature.

Benny, openly criticises Islam, but his veiled comment about ‘criticising all religions’ includes Christianity. I am fairly confident that Benny is not about to enter into a diatribe against Buddhists and Animists. He attacks those codified religions. So let’s understand this point well. Benny criticises those religions that have structure and a rule book.

What then is Benny’s Humanism? As you can see, he belongs to an organisation, a body with rules; a structure. (Hmmm!) Dig a little further and you will find that it also has a rule book that defines its beliefs. (Quizzical look of baffled amazement!) Read the rule book and it calls itself a religion! (Gollum: Hospitals pleases. Silly Bennises has nasty bullet holes in his footses!)

So says the Humanist Manifesto 1933:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate. There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.[2]

There it is folks. At the very outset Humanism declared itself to be the new religion. Please also note that it was to be a true religion! It had dogma or doctrine. It spoke of salvation. It sought to dominate the world.

Benny is right when he speaks of religions (worldviews) being at the root of many world clashes. However, he is absolutely wrong in his application. Many of these so–called ‘evils’ arise when good men stand up to tyrants.

Benny is also incorrect in his assertion that Humanism is not a religion and is therefore exempt from the criticism. What of Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and the myriad other tyrants of recent times who have murdered, pillaged , and plundered in the name of their particular cause?

Similarly, Benny is mistaken in the substance of his comment which passively asserts that religion, Christianity in particular, does not do any good in this world. What would the world be like if the Christians were taken away? Maybe Benny should read the book or watch the video, ‘What if Jesus had never been born?’

The prophet says that the “heart of man is desperately sick.”[3] It is evil to the core and from it flow all evils.[4] The only panacea is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only Jesus can bring peace and wellness to the human heart. Only Jesus can deal with the human condition – sin. Only Jesus reveals that it is His redemptive peace that will see the nations beat their swords into ploughshares.

Once more we see, not an areligious soul, but a religious soul peddling a false religion. Benny has aligned himself with those who wage war against God and against His Christ.

Benny, “Kiss the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way!”


[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/too-few-criticise-islam-abba-star-bjorn-ulvaeus-says/story-e6frfmqi-1226717306347?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[2] Available at: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Humanist%20Manifestos.pdf. Accessed 12/09/13. Emphasis added. It may be for these reasons that there have been two more versions of the Humanist Manifesto,

[3] Jeremiah 17:9.

[4] Matthew 12:34-37; Matthew 15:19-20.

Murder and Monogamy: Lessons in Presuppositions

Posted on by
Reply

Readers of these pages will know that we often refer to worldviews and presuppositions. What are these creatures and why are they important?

1. Worldviews and Presuppositions:

A worldview is exactly what it says. It is a lens through which you interpret and make sense of the world around you. It is a lens through which you view your world; a lens that makes your world intelligible.

Just as a lens would gather light from without and transfer that light to the eye manipulating that light as it moves through the lens, so to a worldview acts in much the same way.

For example, if you place dark lenses over your eyes, you see less in some circumstances and more in others. If you place coloured lenses on your eyes, you may see things that were previously hidden to the naked eye. If you put a patch on your eye, you obscure your vision totally, regardless of the degree of light available, because you have placed a barrier over your eye.

If a worldview is like a lens, then a presupposition, to continue the analogy, is like the prescription in that lens. When we have our eyes tested, the optometrist moves through a range of lenses to ascertain which will give the clearest vision. Having established the best arrangement for our eyes, he gives us a pair of glasses with the appropriate lenses. Built into those lenses are the specifications that enable us to see – the right thickness of lens; the right curvature of the lens; even down to multiple lenses to give our eyes flexibility.

These specifications are the equivalent of presuppositions. They are simply there. They are assumed in that they are inbuilt. We do not need to adjust them each time we pick up our glasses.

Of course, worldview and presuppositions belong to the realm of philosophy and epistemology – the realm of knowledge, ideas, and concepts. However, they work exactly as the lens analogy shows. When you look out to the world, you are faced with observable facts. How you choose to interpret those facts depends entirely upon your worldview (lens), which in turn rests on certain presuppositions or faith assumptions (prescription or type of lens).

2. Purpose:

Why do I raise this topic? I do so in order to try and help my brethren by equipping them. Too few Christians today understand these concepts and, as a consequence, are often bamboozled by scientific claims or supposedly rational arguments that are presented. These arguments sometimes cause distress to Christian’s because the new claim runs counter to a Biblical doctrine or statement.

Thus, my intent is simply to help Christians to better navigate the world in which they live for Jesus Christ – always being prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

3. Neutrality:

Having outlined briefly what worldviews and presuppositions are, we need to address the most fundamental point in regard to these concepts – everybody has one! Worldviews and presuppositions exist in every person, whether they realise it or not, whether they are formed in detail or not.

In this regard, worldviews and presuppositions are like eyes. Everybody has them.

Understand this point well, please. It is extremely important. Oft times when you speak up for the faith, you will encounter someone who will tell you that you are biased whilst they feign neutrality. Do not believe them. There simply is no neutrality.[1] As the late Greg Bahnsen said so well in regard to the myth of neutrality, “They [the world] are not and you [the Christian] shouldn’t be!”

Therefore, when you hear censorious claims concerning Christianity, your first question or task should be aimed at discovering the presupposition of your critic. They have one, though they will, as stated, try and hide it and feign neutrality. There is, in a philosophical sense, not one person in this world who does not wear glasses!

Please grasp this. Please work to understand it. Every person wears glasses. All begin with the prescription of sin and rebellion. From that point, they may take on a further definition or prescription (set of presuppositions). Some of those glasses carry the prescription of Humanism. Some carry the prescription of Evolution. Thankfully, some of those glasses carry the corrective lens of Jesus Christ.

The point is simple. Do not believe anybody who seeks to feign neutrality. That very insistence on their part shows them to be a charlatan and a deceiver.

4. Basic Presuppositions:

When we consider a person’s presuppositions they can be myriad. However, they all begin from one fundamental presupposition – the existence of God. This is the initial presupposition that gives rise to all others.

Atheists and God-haters are prone to throw out the challenge, “Prove that God exists!” Many Christians pale at such demands and usually respond with some incoherent rant concerning faith. This gives the opposition the upper hand as they then denounce this faith – a choice to believe in something without proof[2] — and posit they stand upon that which is proven. The Christian’s response should be a simple, “Prove … (whatever it is that they are peddling)!”

In reality, both people adopt a faith position. The Christian cannot prove God. He can point to proofs for the existence of God, but he cannot prove the existence of God. This is primarily because the opponent is wearing his prescription glasses that block out all light on this subject. Similarly, the opponent cannot offer concrete proof for their position. They have started with the presupposition that God does not exist and built from that foundation. Thus, they will interpret the observable facts through their prescription lenses.

Let me show you what is meant with a Biblical example. John the Baptist was questioning whether Jesus really was Messiah. So he sends his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the One?” Jesus’ response was very simple and empirical in nature – ‘Go and tell John what you see. The lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and God’s Gospel is preached!’[3] Now, we are not told anymore in regard to John’s response, but presumably he was comforted and settled by the answer and the testimony of his disciples who had witnessed these miracles. John wore God’s glasses and understood these happenings as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.

Then there was another group of lads with whom Jesus had many interactions. These were the religious rulers of the day. They got their Pharisaic “knickers” in a huge twist when Jesus came along and began to set a few things straight. They too wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah. So they asked Jesus, “to show them a sign from heaven.”[4] What was Jesus’ response? In essence, He denied them a sign and told them that no sign shall be given but the sign of Jonah. Was this a bit uncooperative on Jesus’ part? Not at all. These Pharisees and Sadducees had witnessed and heard about all the miracles that Jesus had completed. They had seen the signs. They had witnessed great acts of power. They had, in truth, witnessed the proofs for God and His Messiah come in the flesh, but they did not receive these proofs. They chose to deny them and reinterpret them – even attributing Jesus’ works of power to the devil!

Then there is the case of the people amongst whom Jesus moved. At one point, we see Jesus speaking to the crowd and making comment to the effect that these people had sought Jesus because He filled their bellies, not because of the signs. Their comment, ‘What sign will you show us that we may believe?”[5] Now the irony here is that Jesus had just fed the five thousand with but a few loaves and fishes. However, they did not consider this a “big deal” because their forefathers had eaten manna in the wilderness.

What was the difference between John the Baptist and these other two groups? It was their basic presupposition. John believed God. John believed that God had promised a Messiah that would come to save His people eternally. Therefore, when he was confronted with a specific set of works, he understood clearly what those works declared.

The others, whilst belonging externally to the covenant community, did not truly believe in God or His promise. They beheld the same miracles. They benefitted personally from the signs. They even knew about the promised Messiah. However, the lenses that they had constructed for themselves perverted what their eyes beheld. These lenses blinded them to the truth.

Jesus Himself speaks to this issue:

To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. … “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. “And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I should heal them.’ “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.[6]

These Biblical examples clearly show us how basic presuppositions will shape our outlook on life and eternity. Two people can behold the very same proofs and do vastly different things with those proofs.[7]

Therefore, I encourage you to begin to think more in these terms. Understand the basic presupposition of your enemy and you will go a long way to silencing their poisoned tongues.

5. Logical Consistency:

Another aspect of a presupposition, at least a good one, is that it will have a logical consistency in which it never contradicts itself. To put it simply, a good worldview must verify itself. That is to say, if the worldview has to appeal to another source for verification, then that source is, in fact, the true root of your worldview.

It is at this point that the Christian worldview, based in the existence of Almighty God, shines through when all others fail. The Christian appeals to the existence of God as his presupposition. Then, if he is consistent, he constantly returns to God as the touchstone which gives both authority and verification to the claims made.

God exists. Who made the world? God. Who made Man? God.  Why does Man speak? God. Why does man love? God. Even on the flip side, where we would explore the darker side of human nature, the answer still reaches back to God as the touchstone. In this case, God’s revelation explains that Man rebelled against God and fell under God’s judgement – just as God had specified.

Evolution, as an example, cannot answer these questions by appealing to itself. If Man is the product of random chance, then there simply is no reason, no justification, or ability to explain aspects of Man’s being. Thus, when the evolutionist opens his mouth in an attempt to explain his position, he does nothing but place his foot into the open cavern.

In the last weeks, I have heard two evolutionists speak of design. Random chance becomes design! What of the designer? This is but one example of how evolution steals terms and concepts from the Christian worldview in an attempt to make itself intelligible.

6. A Practical Example:

The following news piece was published recently. Please read it. As you do consider what we have discussed regarding presuppositions and worldviews.

MURDER is the main reason why humans and other primates mate for life, according to scientists.

Infanticide was the key driving force that caused us to evolve into a monogamous species, it is claimed.

Males of some animals, including lions and brown bears, kill the young of unrelated females to improve mating opportunities.

The practice arises when females nursing slowly developing and vulnerable young are forced to delay further conception.

Monogamy both provides extra protection for the infant and, by sharing the burden of care, shortens the period of infant dependency.

Females are then able to reproduce more quickly, and can afford to have more costly young that mature slowly.

A long childhood appears to be necessary for growing a large brain, making monogamy distinctly advantageous to humans.

It could explain why, uniquely among primates, humans have both a very long childhood and mothers who reproduce quickly.

Scientists explored the evolutionary pathway that led to human monogamy by gathering data from 230 primate species.

The information was used to construct a family tree of inter-species relationships.

Analysis of evolving traits revealed that male infanticide was the chief reason for the switch from a multi-male mating system to monogamy.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Lead researcher Dr Kit Opie, from University College London, said: “This is the first time that the theories for the evolution of monogamy have been systematically tested, conclusively showing that infanticide is the driver of monogamy. This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates.”

Colleague Dr Susanne Shultz, from the University of Manchester, said: “What makes this study so exciting is that it allows us to peer back into our evolutionary past to understand the factors that were important in making us human.

“Once fathers decide to stick around and care for young, mothers can then change their reproductive decisions and have more, brainy offspring.”[8]

These are the obvious presuppositions:

  1. God does not exist;
  2. As God does not exist; revelation to explanation of our world is also non-existent.
  3. As a consequence, study of the world in a closed system is the only possible means by which understanding and explanation may result.
  4. Studying the world, it is obvious that Man stands apart.
  5. Therefore, it is necessary to explain Man’s otherness.
  6. Enter the theory of evolution; an explanation of Man’s origins and progress up to the present.
  7. Man is not separate from the animals, but is simply a more evolved form of animal.
  8. Therefore, to explain Man’s behaviour, we study other animals, bears and lions, to understand Man’s practices.
  9. Studying these animals, it is noted that a practice of infanticide is present.
  10. Studying these animals, it is noted that males, wishing to dominate, will kill the offspring of other males in order to procure mating rights.
  11. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Man evolved the practice of monogamy, to combat this infanticide.
  12. Similarly, by adopting monogamy it meant that smarter, but more dependent, offspring could be raised.

As a consequence of placing the “God is dead / Evolution is alive” lenses in their glasses, these deluded scientists have not only wasted their time, but money from the public purse, in a futile quest that proves absolutely nothing.

We have tried to outline, in a basic way, the presuppositions in the article. These presuppositions have formed for these scientists a set of lenses that cause them to view the world as nothing more than a closed system of animalia. In essence, the earth is just a cosmic zoo. Man is simply an animal at the top of the food chain. For now, he is dominant. In eons, who knows? His practices are just hollow actions. They have no consequence and no meaning outside of the purely pragmatic.

The tragedy before us is that these scientists, in order to form these conclusions, had to deny substantial parts of themselves. These people had to deny their own rationality, morality, eternity, being, and status.

7. Some Obvious Holes:

When we look at this piece of scientific research, there are a number of glaring inconsistencies that are immediately apparent. Let’s look at some:

  1. Murder. The very first word is unwarranted. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Those other primates studied are not Human and they have no law-code. This term cannot apply.
  2. Infanticide. This too is a word properly reserved for the offspring of humans. Whilst there is a zoological category, it is a recent taxonomy.
  3. Evolution. This term is mentioned several times. It is assumed to be factual and thereby a correct interpretive worldview.
  4. Evolution knows nothing of anything. In short, evolution knows naught of absolutes. A thing is what it is. There is no compulsion for it to advance or retreat, for no judgement can be passed upon its current form, its lack of progress or regression.[9]
  5. As evolution knows naught about absolutes, from where did the conscience and the morals derive? If the male had to change his behaviour from infanticide based on ego to nurture based in “care”, from where did this rational ability to moralise originate?
  6. Why have lions and bears been so slow to catch on?
  7. Prepare for the Feminist backlash. Monogamy is only a mechanism to allow women to “spit out babies” on a regular basis. Women’s Lib just got shot down by evolution. There it is ladies, of with the shoes, back to the kitchen – baby bump and all!
  8. The article claims to have studied 230 species of primate. Wonderful. When did they study them? In recent living history or over the 50 million years or so since Primates appeared? If it is the former, then what you have is an exhaustive examination of current practice and not an explanation of how that practice came into being. Of course, option 2 is not really possible. If you find me a 45 million year old zoologist, I will apologise.
  9. Beside the miracle of thought and morality that the male bears spontaneously developed, there is the amazing ability of the female, not only to have rationally worked out that a longer childhood would result in a superior child, but to actually be able to recode the DNA of her offspring to allow them to follow that pattern.
  10. Why are Humans still set apart as the only ones who have adopted this concept? Research is based on 230 species. Obviously, 229 of these species have short childhoods and mothers that reproduce slowly? The article is built on the scientific presupposition of sameness between ape and Man, yet what seems to be proven is dissimilarity.

In this short list we have highlighted some apparent inconsistencies. Some are subtle, some more obvious. If you are struggling with some of these, then you will be helped by returning to the presupposition. Evolution adopts several presuppositions that are unprovable and contradictory. First, evolution is pure chance. Second, time equals improvement. Third, evolution rises to meet challenges.

Now, if you look at these three, you will see that the first contradicts the second and third. If evolution is chance and chaos, you cannot guarantee that anything will improve, even if you give it billions of years. Similarly, chaos and chance militate against transcending obstacles.

Think this through. Evolution gives no viable basis for either rationality or morality. Let me put it bluntly. How does a house brick begin to think, feel, and behave in a correct manner? How then does a primate begin to rationally make moral choices that result not only in a better external arrangement, but also in radical anatomical changes? From where did they glean the necessary data to understand that these changes were in fact improvements? If all is chance, then there are no absolutes, morally or otherwise; so how did the primate know what an “improvement” was and that this concept was for one’s betterment?

8. The Glaring Holes:

Whilst this article is all about proving where monogamy came from, it is interesting that the report does not seem to deal with the present. Upon first reading this article, I was struck by substantial questions:

  1. Monogamy, heterosexuality, and family are declared to be the best option for Human existence and success.[10] These are the pinnacle of evolution, thus far. So why do current human primates clamour for promiscuity, homosexuality, and singleness?
  2. Infanticide gave rise to monogamy. In short, Monogamy was embraced to “provide extra protection for the infant”. So why do the current human primates indulge in abortion and infanticide? Is this evolutionary regression? Have the recipients of this evolutionary marvel, monogamy, now grown tired of long childhoods and speedy reproductive systems allowing again for the wholesale slaughter of their offspring?
  3. Why is it that the current human primates have systematically attacked monogamy in the last five decades? Why is it that, in the current climate, antimonogamic ideas abound and are regularly propagated?
  4. One author is quoted as saying, “This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates”. ‘Game, set, and match!’ to the evolutionist. Not likely. The hidden invective is aimed at Christians whose worldview gives another explanation for monogamy and family. So let us throw out a real teaser for them. Why does the human primate have such an innate sense of God? Most evolved humans worldwide, gathered into their respective tribes, have a sense of religion and of God / a god? If God does not exist and has never existed, how do you explain this phenomenon which is also unique to humans? When will this study begin?

Conclusion:

When you break these ideas down, you can see that evolution as a worldview simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In this current case, monogamy for the protection of the young is hailed as a great evolutionary advance. Yet, these same advanced primates now seek to kill their young; turn their back on monogamy, and, in a startling turn of events, give up on reproduction altogether by turning heterosexuality to homosexuality.

The evolutionist must provide us with an answer for this turn of events from his own worldview. The problem is he cannot. Evolution is all about breeding and reproduction. Listen to any naturalist with an evolutionary worldview and you will hear often about sex and reproduction. So why are the advanced primates, after hitting such a high note, regressing in their evolution? Why is it that the evolutionary wonder of monogamy is now passé? Why is it that this marvellous primate, who wrought such marvellous rational, moral, and anatomical changes, is giving up on reproduction and simply settling for meaningless sex acts by adopting homosexuality?

Evolution cannot answer these questions. In one sense, it is not even in a place to proffer an answer or a hint of an answer. Let us be frank. In terms of an evolutionary worldview, this research and subsequent paper are illegitimate. After all, how do you study rationally and make sense of random acts, accidents, coincidences, and chaos?

Man is monogamous because God made Man to be such. God made Man male and female. God instituted the family. God gave Man the ability to reproduce after his kind. It is rebellion against God’s order that brings us trouble; abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.

“Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.”[11] “The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”[12] “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.”[13]


[1] Jesus Himself dispels the Myth of Neutrality in Matthew 12:30, when He says: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”

[2] This is not a Biblical definition of faith. It is, however, the commonly held view. Faith is perceived by most as a personal choice. Thus, it is conceived of as completely subjective and without empirical substantiation.

[3] Luke 7:18-23. See also Matthew 11:2-6.

[4] Matthew 16:1-4; See also Mark 8:11-12.

[5] John 6:26 ff.

[6] Matthew 13:11-16

[7] It is for this reason that I often ask people to argue Biblically rather than rationally or scientifically with those who would oppose us. God’s word alone breaks down false presuppositions and worldviews. Christ alone removes the false lens and grinds them to powder.

[9] Evolution rarely speaks of regression as evolution. Typically it is all about “onward and upward”. However, they whole concept of chaos and development by need means that regression is as much an evolutionary possibility as progression.

[10] This is implied in the article. It addresses males and females and their offspring.

[11] Psalm 119:89

[12] Psalm 119:160

[13] John 17:17