Book Review: How To Read A Book

So, this review has actually been a long time coming (we're talking years). I have been hearing of the benefits of reading this book to my own efforts in reading for well over a decade (thanks to Ken Samples of Reasons to Believe). Its been on my bookshelf for a while, but I have only recently taken the time to find out for myself. "How To Read A Book" by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren is a great resource to take your reading comprehension and interaction to the next level, truly make books your own, and expand your knowledge. The basic ideas that I have gleaned over the years have been helpful, but seeing the level of activity required in analytical reading (its not just passive) and the reasoning behind the need to be so active has been further enlightening. Today, I want to take you through same basic points, give you some quotes, and finally recommend the book (don't wait years, like I did).

What Is Scientism?

Scientism is an epistemic philosophy that values science as the exclusive source of knowledge and truth about the whole of reality. Scientism is usually presented in two forms: strong and weak (though not always associated with those terms). The concept of strong scientism holds that knowledge cannot be obtained outside the sciences, so it holds all other disciplines as irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. Such disregarded disciplines are (but not limited to) history and philosophy (ironically). The main idea behind strong scientism is that if a claim cannot be tested by some form of the five senses, then it cannot yield truth. Strong scientism lends its adherent to an attitude of disdain and disregard for those in non-scientific fields who attempt to speak about reality based on their discoveries.

The concept of weak scientism holds that non-scientific disciplines are merely inferior to the sciences. If discoveries of reality from the other disciplines come into conflict with current thinking in the sciences, those discoveries are not allowed to judge or influence the interpretations of reality that come from the sciences. The other disciplines are always placed under the judgement of the sciences but never the other way around. The interpretations of reality that come from the sciences are valued over the other disciplines' discoveries and either denial of the data or reinterpretation of the other disciplines' discoveries is required. Discoveries from other disciplines are thus limited to what ever is implied by the interpretations already held in the sciences or what ever necessarily grounds those ideas. Everything else is judged false.

While weak scientism articulates tolerance of other knowledge disciplines as opposed to the intolerance of other knowledge disciplines of strong scientism, the two versions ultimately result in the same thing. Weak scientism is just a detour to the same destination of strong scientism.

Maintaining Scientism

I do not know anyone who actually defends strong scientism. Very few people who articulate a philosophy of strong scientism will maintain it after a few pointed questions are asked or observations are made. When the realization of the failure of strong scientism comes (whenever that is or was), the pivot is usually towards weak scientism. The person's goal in holding strong scientism was to place the sciences as the arbiter of truth, and weak scientism allows them to maintain that without the ludicrous claim that science is the only source of truth.

Philosopher J.P. Moreland addresses this subject in his book "Scientism and Secularism." I reviewed it earlier this year and have seen many atheists and science-minded folks (on social media) toss it aside as simply rejecting a strawman of scientism. They limit Moreland's concept of scientism to the strong version and do not consider his focus on the weak version. The value of Moreland's work is not in its defeat of strong scientism (what no atheist or scientist defends- the strawman) but in its demonstration that weak scientism is a clever detour to the same destination as strong scientism. Moreland demonstrates that if those who claim to reject strong scientism reject it because of the epistemic limits it has to investigate large portions of reality, they are logically obligated to reject weak scientism as well.

Quote from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland from his book "Scientism and Secularism": "These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one's claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue."

Moreland's point is that the obvious failure of strong scientism comes in its insistence that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses. What is not so obvious is that forcing discoveries made without the five senses to be judged by disciplines that are limited by the five senses results in the same thing- insisting that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses.

Ironically, those who have rejected Moreland's work on the subject are guilty of their own accusation: rejecting a strawman. That strawman comes by the atheist's or scientist's limiting of Moreland's point to the already agreed-upon failure of strong scientism. They do not accept that Moreland accepts that they accept the failure of strong scientism. But it is that agreement that serves as the foundation for Moreland's focus: the defeat of weak scientism as well.

Skip the Detour?

Once the atheist or scientist can get past their own strawman, they can find great value in Moreland's work. What is interesting is that for those who wish to maintain the sciences as the arbiters of truth, Moreland actually makes the case for the extreme inefficiency of weak scientism. If the goal and the results are the same, why waste the resources required by the detour when they could be spent on scientific discovery? Many atheists and scientists have already made it through this line of reasoning as well (another agreement they may discover with Moreland).

They recognize that the appearance of tolerance is inefficient and have doubled down on their strong scientism. But then they are jerked back to the reality of its failures. They are stuck between what they want reality to allow and what reality actually does allow or what they want people to believe that they believe and what they actually do believe.

Inefficiency Vs. Intolerance

As I said earlier, I do not know anyone who defends strong scientism (this includes atheists and scientists). However, I did not say that I do not know anyone who does not believe it. How is that combination possible? Because strong scientism cannot be defended. Those who believe it often change rhetoric from moment-to-moment, from tolerance (weak scientism) to ridicule (strong scientism). This lends proponents of strong scientism to accuse proponents of weak scientism of inefficiency, and it lends proponents of weak scientism to accuse proponents of strong scientism of intolerance. Some favor one or the other and spend more time in that rhetorical space, and you may hear them defend efficiency over tolerance or tolerance over efficiency, but you will never hear them include a solid defense of science as the sole arbiter of truth. Because of that, those who wish to maintain that science is the sole arbiter of truth are forced to pick their poison: inefficiency or intolerance.

Moreland Has A Better Idea

Instead of choosing between either intolerance or inefficiency, why not reject the essential premise of both weak and strong scientism? If the atheist or scientist truly rejects the idea that the sciences are the sole source of truth, they never need to maintain (much less defend) the idea. Further, any accusation of inefficiency or intolerance regarding discovery of reality or non-scientific disciplines, respectively, will be false and indefensible. Ultimately, if the atheist or scientist rejects scientism they are freed from the rhetorical distractions and investigative limits, but they are faced with more uncomfortable challenge: a Divine foot is now in the door. Are atheists and scientists who currently insist upon scientism willing to allow this, or will they continue on their indefensible rejection of other sources of truth?

To Investigate Further, I recommend these books:

Scientism and Secularism- J.P. Moreland
Stealing From God- Frank Turek
Where The Conflict Really Lies- Alvin Plantinga
Origin Science- Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson
Magna Carta of Humanity- Os Guinness

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

Book Review: Stealing From God

Book Review- Stealing From God by Frank Turek

It is quite common for atheists to claim that science and reason are completely on their side and rule out the possibility of God's existence. While it is to be expected that atheists would recognize that certain philosophical foundations exist in the world they (and we) live in, it is not necessarily expected that they would understand that their explanation of reality (without God) is incompatible with such realities. Laying out that explanation is the goal of Frank Turek's book "Stealing From God." In order to be a logically consistent atheist, many of reality's foundations must be denied. And if they do not wish to deny them, then they must steal those foundations from God to argue against His existence.

Turek describes seven CRIMES that atheists commit against reality and their everyday life in order make their case against God (or even to attempt to explain reality without God). As he shows that reality demonstrates atheism to be false, he shows not only how each one provides a negative argument against atheism but a positive argument for God. In the final chapters Turek argues for the existence of not just any theistic God, but the God of Christianity- the true worldview.

In this review I'll go over some of the key points Turek makes throughout the book, provide several of my favorite quotes, and give my specific recommendations.

Introduction- The Moral Freedom of Atheism

Many atheists today are embracing the fact that their worldview cannot support the existence of objective morality, purpose, or meaning. When objective morality, purpose, and meaning do not exist, that frees the individual to create their own morality, purpose, and meaning without the threat of judgment or damnation based upon their choices.

For the atheist, in a sense, this is quite freeing. It allows anyone and everyone to do whatever they want without any guilt or social discomfort. The freedom to do what one wants without limits opens up a world of possibilities that many have never even dreamed.

Book Review: Scientism And Secularism by J.P. Moreland

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today's culture for people to accept "scientism," which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book "Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology" Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity's knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians' internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide "...reasons for the hope that [they] have..." (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I'll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

How does an older generation communicate the truth of the Gospel to a newer generation?

We have to distinguish between content and method. The content (the Gospel) is the ontological truth that can not be divorced from reality, thus that content may not be changed from generation to generation. The method is how the content is communicated which may be changed from generation to generation within objectively true (more content) moral limits.

Tradition does consist of both content and method. It is important that we recognize that no matter how old or new a truth-claim is, if it is false, it must be rejected; but if it is true, then it must be accepted. The historical event of the Resurrection of Jesus is the content that has not changed since the day it happened (1 Cor 15). Part of our discipling the next generation must include historical instruction- a defense of the historical event of the Resurrection (the ontological truth that must be passed down to the next generation).

But if a method of communication falls outside the limits of morality, then no matter how old or new it is, it must be abandoned. If it is within the limits, then it may continue to be used. The Apostle Paul stated that he adapted his method of communicating the Gospel not just to a new generation but to different cultures. Part of our discipling the next generation must also include moral instruction- ethical views (and a defense of the particular view based upon both moral content given in Scripture and logic) that will give them both freedom and limits to guide how they communicate what must be passed down.

While there will always be differences in preferred methods of communication from generation to generation, there will always be methods of communication that are within the moral boundaries. If we wish to communicate the truth of the Gospel to the next generation, we must be willing to recognize that there is much more moral freedom in our methods of communication than some people realize, and we need to make the choice to adapt the method to the next generation.

Tradition, when its claims are true, meet the new generation of people in the older generation's choice to change how that truth is communicated so that the new generation will understand it, accept it, and transmit it when they become the older generation.

For more:

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

Book Review: The Magna Carta Of Humanity🗽

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai's Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

In today's world it is difficult to be online, at parties, with family, at work, or even just in public without hearing about the current cultural and political climate in the United States. Even if the Christian case-maker tries to avoid politics, they still confront culture and will be challenged with the hypocrisies of the Church and those who claimed to be members of the Church who just happened to also have founded The United States of America. And it is rare that challenges stop there.

People are passionate about one political view (or party) or another. Extremes on the different sides constantly accuse opposing sides of trying to destroy democracy, the Constitution, and even freedom itself. The rhetoric and apparent goals of different politicians can get our heads spinning out of control as we try to make sense of what is going on, how it affects us (and our future), what we can do about it to bring some measure of sanity in the conversations we inevitably get sucked into, and how we can respond logically with both gentleness and respect when the challenges come.

That is where I have found great value in Os Guinness' "The Magna Carta of Humanity" (Hard copy, audiobook, Kindle). Guinness digs into the foundations, principles, and histories of the cultural and political divide in America. He compares and contrasts them in such a way that brings crystal clarity to the current situation. He points out that before we can even talk about "make America great again" (MAGA), we must truly understand what made America great in the first place. And before anyone wishes to reject the ideals that founded America, they must first truly understand those ideals and truly understand the implications of the ideals they are trading them for.

In my effort to help you determine if this is a book that is worth your time (and I believe it is), I will include a few of the skeletal points of the book, several of my favorite quotes (mainly from the Introduction- I don't want to spoil too much), and my more specific recommendations.

All Worldviews Must Address Death and Suffering

Suffering is a great challenge of life and a great inconvenient truth to the world's religions and worldviews. Many different worldviews offer different ways to address this challenge. The worldview of naturalism simply makes the recognition that "life is suffering, then you die." If naturalism is true, then this is a very accurate, though bleak, view of life- you suffer for no apparent reason then you die and become worm food.

I have heard some people claim that this is quite satisfying because it frees them from any expectations of others and grants them the satisfaction of being able to do whatever they want to numb, avoid, or drown out the suffering of life. Granting that "life is suffering, then you die" is not satisfaction, though; it is surrender. It is not inspiring; it is depressing. But the truth is that if atheism is true, it really doesn't matter if this statement represents surrender or if it is depressing; if it is true, then we are stuck with it and its implications of surrender and depression.

Introduction

Evil and suffering are making their existence painfully known in our world. Whether we realize it or not or intend to do it or not, evil, pain, and suffering do cause us to reflect philosophically on their meaning and purpose. At some (breaking) point, they force us to ask deep philosophical questions of life:

Why me? Why now?
Is God really there?!
If he is, does he really care about my suffering?
What purpose could he possibly have for my suffering (not to mention everyone else's too)?

Many unbelievers think that the very existence of evil, pain, and suffering in life is incompatible with the all-loving and all-powerful God of the Bible. However, the truth is the exact opposite. Allow me to explain:

Why Suffering In the Life of the Unbeliever?

For many of us, it takes a profound, painful event or series of painful events that cause us to seek answers to the deeper questions. God desires to be known, and if there are any experiences that would cause us to diligently seek him, we can expect that those experiences would enter our lives.

"Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."- Hebrews 11:6b

When we reflect upon the philosophical questions triggered by evil, pain, and suffering, and we honestly search for an explanation to make sense of them, we are earnestly seeking answers. No one can escape the questions of purpose ("why" questions) without considering a Purposer (God) as an explanation. When we consider God's existence in the faces of evil, pain, and suffering, we cannot merely consider His existence on emotional grounds. Logical and evidential grounds are demanded as well.

"I have found that the more I reflect philosophically on the attributes of God the more overwhelmed I become at his greatness and the more excited I become about Bible doctrine. Whereas easy appeals to mystery prematurely shut off reflection about God, rigorous and earnest effort to understand him is richly rewarded with deeper appreciation of who he is, more confidence in his reality and care, and a more intelligent and profound worship of his person."- William Lane Craig

The evil, pain, and suffering that we experience in life has the ultimate purpose of bringing us into a loving relationship with the Creator and Savior that will last for eternity. The evil, pain, and suffering that we experience must be seen in light of Jesus' death and Resurrection. Hebrews 11:6a states that without faith it is impossible to please God. But the faith that is described here is not a blind leap into the dark; it is a trust based on evidence of the historical event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The evil, pain, and suffering in your life has brought you to examine the evidence of the reason for the evil, pain, and suffering of Jesus Christ. It is in the light of Jesus' suffering, death, and Resurrection that our suffering makes sense and is given an eternal purpose. God was faithful in the past; He is the same throughout eternity; therefore, God will be faithful in the present and in the future. You can reasonably trust Him with your life now and in the future.

Conclusion

God has a purpose for the evil, pain, and suffering in our lives- "...Our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18). If the suffering in this finite life brings you to Christ or closer to Him, then what comes of that finite time of suffering will continue into eternity, an infinite amount of time without suffering and only with pure joy.

For more:

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

Atheists Don't Need Hell To Be Good

Are Atheists "Holier Than Thou?"

Every now and then I come across an atheist who claims that atheists who choose good behavior are more moral than religious people (particularly Christians) who choose the same behavior. The reason that they give for this is that Christians need the fear of hell to scare them away from bad behavior whereas atheists do good for the sake of the behavior's being good. This is simultaneously a character attack as well as a philosophical attack. Both deserve to be addressed; however, today I will focus on the philosophical.

Monday Musings: COVID-19, Gratuitous Suffering, and God's Purposes

The last three years of the COVID-19 pandemic has taken its toll in many ways on every person. It has not really left anyone untouched. Many have had friends and family, if not themselves, in hospitals, barely clinging to life as doctors scramble to give them relief and a chance at recovery.

Rick Carr is one who found himself a victim of the virus, spent many months in the hospital and is still recovering from its effects today. As he could, he brought the readers of his blog along through the journey of pain, prayer, gratitude, and healing. You can read about it at his site Extreme Gratitude.

A line in his post on healing and prayer made a profound point:

"If this long, miserable process has resulted in others being helped, encouraged, strengthened in their faith, and praying like they haven’t before, then it has been worth it."- Rick Carr

Many people wonder how an all-loving God could allow them to suffer, even those who have followed Christ all their lives. The Apostle Paul states the purpose of our suffering in his letter to the Romans:

"We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose."- Romans 8:28 HCSB

"All things." Not just the good things. Not just the enjoyable or fun things. "All things" includes the suffering that we endure. Most people have no issues with that part; however, they often think that the suffering is for their good. The profound point made by Carr above, that may be difficult to consider in the middle of our suffering, is that the "good" of Romans 8:28 may not necessarily be for us but for someone else.

We, of course, are not the only one who "love(s) God: who is called according to His purpose." Numerous others are in that category, as well. It is very possible, if not probable, that the suffering that we endure is for the eternal benefit of someone else: whether that benefit is coming to salvation in Christ or coming to know Christ better. And please notice that my use of "or" implies only the minimum of one person's eternal benefit; multiple people stand to have eternal benefits that can include both coming to salvation in Christ AND multiple others coming to know Christ better.

Now, let us back-track in the eighth chapter of Romans to the eighteenth verse:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us."- Romans 8:18 HCSB

No matter how much suffering with a finite duration we endure (even all of it combined), it is overcome by a single good purpose of God's with an infinite duration. This means that your finite suffering is not gratuitous. There is a purpose for it, even if that purpose does not necessarily involve you. And a single infinite purpose is infinitely greater than all the finite suffering in the grand view of eternity.

This can be hard to understand, much less accept, when we are in the pain of suffering. But we know that because God has been faithful in the past and that He is the same ("yesterday, today, and forever"- Heb 13:8), we know that God WILL use our finite suffering for the infinite good of someone who is called according to His purpose.

This is not something that is merely hoped for, or blindly believed; it is something that is logically known- a trust that is grounded in the reality of who God is and the reality of what He has done. This is not a blind faith. This is a biblical and logical faith, a faith that demonstrates reason and purpose for our suffering, a faith that demonstrates how and why an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow so much suffering in our lives.

For more on suffering and God please continue your journey of faith with these encouraging posts:

Elon Musk Finally Buys Twitter- Is Truth Now In Jeopardy?

So Elon Musk has finally closed his deal with Twitter. We've been anticipating this purchase for quite some time, whether your anticipation of the inevitable change has been fearful or hopeful. Many people fear that Musk's purchase of the Twitter social media platform will bring a political change in the United States of America and, possibly, the world. They fear that elections in America will be affected due to Elon Musk's claimed dedication to "free speech" and lack of censorship.

It seems that those who fear Musk's claimed dedication fear it because they do not support it. Those who fear free speech and lack of censorship do so because they know that they cannot win in the public marketplace of ideas without suppression of contrary viewpoints, evidence, and arguments. It seems that they fear that they do not have enough logical, rational points to convince an educated and thinking public to accept their policies, so they must resort to fallacious and false appeals and suppression of counter-evidence and counter-points. It seems that such fear and actions are unfounded if those who exhibit this fear truly do have evidence and logic on their side.

If Elon Musk is serious about free speech on his platform and serious about ending censorship, then let the ideas and points be heard. Let them be analyzed. Let them be judged. If you think people are judging incorrectly, educate them on the proper and logical way to judge. Be willing to be educated, yourself, and to change your mind when the evidence and logic point strongly in the other direction.

Will free speech and lack of censorship affect elections in America and around the world? It certainly could. Where there is freedom of speech and freedom to hear and analyze points of view, outcomes have a chance to be different than if the public cannot hear, much less, analyze options. But that is nothing to fear, unless you fear a land that this governed by the will of a thinking and educated people. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear a culture and society that is shaped by the majority and not the elite few who control what information is given to the public. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear open discussion of ideas and the possibility that you may be found to be wrong.

Quote from "Before You Hit Send" by Emerson Eggerichs- “We are free to reject the beliefs we deem false. But civil people do not have a right nor desire to hate those who adhere to systems of belief they find abhorrent. Civility does not mean we sanction their 'truth claims'. However, to bring them out of their false persuasions, we must show them love and respect. If we do not, we will not win their hearts. Furthermore, we sour them to what we believe. When we detest people, they will not listen from the heart to the truth claims of our faith.”

Of course, if the majority is truly wrong, then it needs to be demonstrated, and logical and moral efforts must be made to persuade the majority, not limiting freedom and censoring the false ideas. Limiting freedom and enacting censorship appears weak. If you have the true ideas, why use a strategy that appears weak when you have the strength of reality on your side?

In the Twitter world that Elon Musk claims to be intent on creating, for those who do fear a lack of censorship on Twitter and cannot defend their claims logically, a different strategy will be employed. Truth and falsehoods will be heard. But because both will be heard, they can be analyzed and will be freely accepted or rejected. Falsehood is now in jeopardy of more people on Twitter not believing it, but as a logical consequence, so is truth. Your claims and my claims will be in jeopardy on Twitter in the coming months and years if Elon Musk is serious.

Those who wish to be free thinkers and not allow those with the loudest voice to think for them must prepare themselves to properly analyze the loudest claims that will come and be prepared to accept the truth even when it is not what you originally thought. We also need to be prepared to defend the claims that we believe to be true against both logical and illogical critique. No doubt that Twitter will continue to have plenty of illogical critique of ideas (even false ones), but if Elon Musk is serious about free speech and removing censorship from Twitter, then logical critiques and truth will soon be heard on Twitter once again, and users must prepare themselves to both deliver and consume tweets appropriately.

Quote from "Time For Truth" by Os Guinness- "Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it."

See the posts below for more on being focused on truth and using logic to judge the soundness of arguments presented.

Secularism: A World of Propaganda and Power

Logic is a reliable tool of knowledge because it is grounded in the eternal nature of God. Humans have access to this tool because they are created in the image of God. If God does not exist, then neither does the reliable tool nor the access to it (even if it did exist). The world of being a functional atheist outside the privacy of our homes (secularism) is a world with no knowledge and only propaganda and power.

There is a concerted effort to remove God from the public consciousness of America. If God is removed, then there is no higher moral authority by which to judge one party as moral or immoral, and no foundation on which to challenge the party in power.

While it seems that American politics is increasingly being characterized by secularism (regardless of which political party), it is important that we consider this trajectory when we go to the polls in November. If God is removed from the consciousness of America, there will never be an end to the power struggles among those who disagree until one has so overwhelmed the other that there is no discussion or intellectual debate allowed publicly or privately; even the implication of a challenge to those in power will be punished.

Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.”

For more please check out these posts and books:

Human Depravity and American Government

Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances.”

Human Depravity and American Government

“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”- Malcolm Muggeridge

"Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances."- Os Guinness

It seems that both parties in America are increasingly attempting to execute their policies without the objective moral foundations and boundaries of God's character or the truth of man's sinfulness. The "separation of Church and state" has been misunderstood, and that misunderstanding has necessarily led to this result. Both parties' policies will, when unrestrained by the recognition of these two realities, result in the abuse of citizens and the destruction of the nation. The only difference in the abuse and destruction will be the direction from which the they come.

"Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter."- Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Each party seems to operate on the idea that they are "God's gift" to this nation and cannot do or think any wrong. The lack of humility and lack of willingness to have intellectual discussions about policies in our nation's leaders is quite frustrating and even maddening. America's three-branch system was designed as a "check and balance" on such attitudes of those in power, for if there is no recognized moral authority above the government, then those in power will determine what is right and what is wrong for those they govern or dictate.

No matter which party "wins" in November, the American people cannot allow that party to undermine, override, or dismantle the checks and balances that exist in our governmental system. If we allow either party to do so, the depravity in the hearts of those in power will make itself known in painful ways.

For more please check out these posts and books:

4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Introduction- 4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today's culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible.

Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim "God does not exist in reality." Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one's beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly believe that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described.