Modern Science & The Principle of Causality

"Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study" - Alfred North Whitehead 

Scientific discovery, determinations, and just plain good logical reasoning to conclusions require that we properly understand and apply the principle of causality. The principle of causality is one of the first principles of science because, after all, science in its most rudimentary definition is simply a search for causes.  When science goes astray, the reason usually has to do with bad reasoning due to a bad philosophy which is either not known or not understood by the scientist who holds it. This is critical so that one avoids confirmation bias when looking for causes and when interpreting results. In short, bad philosophy always produces to bad science.

Since one can get a PhD in science and never take a class on logic and critical thinking it should not surprise us that many scientists have no idea that the philosophy of naturalism/materialism is the worldview that is being smuggled into their work. I was on an apologetics panel at McLean Bible Church with three men who all had advanced degrees and I made this statement. One gentleman, who had two PhD's, confirmed my statement to the surprise to many in the audience.

Image result for basketballSo what is my point? The philosophy of naturalism/materialism has neutered the principle of causality by minimizing it to merely material and efficient causes which is only two of the four causes! The four types or aspects of causality are final, formal, material, and efficient causes. The material cause is the matter or stuff that a thing is made of. The efficient cause is what brings a thing into its form, or to put it philosophically, what moves a thing from a state of potentiality to actuality. The formal cause is the form, structure, or pattern the matter exhibits. The final cause is the thing's purpose or end goal; i.e., why the thing exists in the first place. When you put all of this together, you have a complete explanation of a thing, whatever that thing may be.

The best way to explain it is with a common example. If I was holding a basketball in front of you and I ask you, "What is this and what caused it?" How would you explain it? First, you would notice that it is a basketball. Now, of course prior experience informed you already what a basketball looks like, but let's leave that aside for a moment.

In this example the rubber and leather are the material cause, the machines in the factory running on electricity and controlled by people are the efficient cause of the basketball. The formal cause or design would be the shape that the basketball fills into. Now, the final cause is it's purpose which is to be used to play the sport of basketball. All four causes give you a complete picture of the effect, a basketball, and it's cause, how it came to be, why it has the shape it does, and most importantly, why it exists in the first place. Maybe you can see the philosophical problem of minimizing the principle of causality already. What if you said that you do not know why the ball exists and tried to tell me that it is not designed because your philosophy removes those two causes from the very beginning. How questions are both incomplete and unsatisfying without why questions.

Image result for teapotHow about one more example. Let's say that you are a modern 2-cause scientist, which means you are half baked, and you come over to my house to visit. As you come into the kitchen you see a teapot on the stove and I ask you, "why is the water boiling on the stove?" So, you proceed to tell me that the heat from the stove is causing a reaction (efficient cause) among the H2O in the teapot (material cause), thus this explains the phenomena. Is that a complete answer? No, you left out the big why and only gave me a how. For a complete explanation, you missed it. The complete answer of why includes the fact that I wanted to make you a cup of tea (final cause/purpose) which is why I chose a teapot over a frying pan (formal cause/design).

Let me make it personal with the number one question people ask themselves: Why am I here and what is my purpose? This is internal evidence within you that the material "how" answer is incomplete. God, provides the why.

Until He Returns,

Peter P. Lackey, Jr.

Secular Fundamentalism Pillar #4: "God is Created in the Image of Man"

Pillar #4: "God is Created in the Image of Man"

Well, we made it!  This is the last post in my series of Secular Fundamentalism and I pray that you really learned something about this dangerous religious movement that cleverly disguises itself as a "secular tolerant non-religious" movement. This final post is really important to understand as we get to the emotional reasons for the rejection of Father God which has led to the worship of Mother Earth in His place.

The Faith of The Fatherless

The one thing about humanity that drives the secular fundamentalist crazy is the fact that human beings, in spite of the increase in education, are incurably religious.  If one posits a purely atheistic outlook on life then one would suppose that man created religion for some evolutionary survival purpose.  From a secular standpoint this makes perfect sense given their view that no god exists for any religion to be true about.  Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis and one of the most influential scientists of the twentieth century,[1] provided a psychological argument on why there is the existence of religion that he tied to Darwinian evolution.

Freud argued that the concept of God originated during the ignorant period of human development and psychologically is tied to an illusionary desire to have a cosmic father figure to comfort us during the woes of life.[2]  Freud based this on his clinical observations that showed a child’s ambivalence (i.e., strong negative and strong positive feelings) toward his or her father.  What Freud seemed to miss is that this sword cuts both ways.  If the strong positive feelings toward the father can cause a projection of one’s desire for a protective father figure god to exist, then one can reason that the strong negative feelings could cause a deep-seated wish projection of a cosmic father figure god not to exist.[3]

Moreover, one can more effectively argue that the negative side of this ambivalence is even more influential than the positive side!!!  Imagine if you will the child, especially the boy, who has a physically absent, or sometimes even worse, physically present but emotionally absent father during the critical time in life that we know as childhood.  In addition to the normal emotional needs of children during childhood, there is an early emotional developmental stage that only occurs in boys between the ages of three and five that was not known in Freud’s day.  This first crisis in male child development is known as ‘disconnection and differentiation’ and is the process by which a little boy emotionally disconnects from his mother and begins to move more emotionally toward his father.[4]  In an effort to formulate a masculine identity, the child recognizes during this stage of development that he is not like his mother but more like his father.  It is not at all unusual during this time to find the little boy trying to emulate his father’s behavior and mannerisms.[5]  When the father is absent during this time the boy is left behind to virtually pull his masculine identity out of thin air.[6]  Using Freud’s own theory of the Oedipus complex, the negative consequences of an absent or abusive father during these years would cause an intense desire for a father god to not exist.

Paul Vitz, a professor of psychology at New York University, makes the case that the negative side of this ambivalence is exactly what led some of the most famous atheists in the world to desire that God not exist, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and you guessed it, Sigmund Freud himself.  In his book Faith of theFatherless, Professor Vitz postulates “the defective father hypothesis” as a theory to explain what he refers to as intense atheism:

"Yet in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all of our neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of the rejection of God.  After all, the Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood, and above all its dominant motive is hatred of the father (God) and the desire for him not to exist, something represented by the boy’s desire to overthrow or kill the father.  Freud regularly described God as the psychological equivalent to the father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful, unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God.  Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself. . . .The belief that “God is dead,” therefore, is simply a Oedipal wish-fulfillment—the sign of seriously unresolved unconscious motivation."[7]

In summary, by Freud’s own scientific model, an atheist who is left disappointed and resentful of his father has an unconscious justification for his rejection of God.[8]  This is the type of atheism that I would say lies under the surface of the Secular Fundamentalists of our day who are trying to "kill the Father" and His views most evident in historical Christianity. So, reflect a moment on a friend, a leader in the world, or even your own view of your earthly father and how that has fueled a possible irrational belief that God does not exist.  The cure is to simply allow God the Father to re-father you all over again.  Begin first by taking the tools of Faith & Reason and check out this letter from me to you.

Click this link to my letter

Secular Fundamentalism Series Conclusion

The atheistic foundation and four pillars of secular fundamentalism hold up the rest of the secular house of our society that is being constructed with the blueprints of the humanist manifestoes.  Furthermore, the media frames the way that the debate is presented to the public because they themselves have been involved in building this secular temple.  The media levies the straw man fallacy by only focusing on the religious beliefs of the theistic scientists and philosophers that are crowded outside of this secular temple.  As an example, Richard Dawkins has never been asked about how his secular faith shapes his scientific views.  After all, Dr. Dawkins is one of the signers of Humanist Manifesto 2000; thus, he has made his faith public.

The four pillars of secular fundamentalism that hold the load of the secular house of our society has severe cracks that are beyond repair.  The shifting in the foundation of atheism has caused enough cracks in them to condemn the house and it is time to begin building again, but this time on a new theistic foundation.  The new fideism of a dichotomy between faith and reason has proved to be unreasonable and begging the question.  The very scientific methods and first principles that the secularists used to propose the ‘death of God’ are the very same tools that are bringing Him back to life, one might even call it a resurrection.  The first principles of all rational thought that science itself relies on have proved useful in reasoning back to a universe that has a beginning; moreover, the Beginner of the universe has been shown by the evidence to be an intelligent cause.  Bringing something into existence out of nothing makes miracles a reality, for creating something out of nothing is the greatest miracle of all.  If that were not enough, the psychological evidence points to wish-fulfillment of the atheist desiring God not to exist.

Please feel free to share this in e-mail, Facebook, Twitter using the buttons provided below.

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas

[1] Associate clinical professor of psychiatry Dr. Armand Nicholi lists in his book The Question of God some fascinating facts that highlight Freud’s enormous influence on the secularization of our culture.  The list is as follows: He appears on most lists of the greatest physicians in history; he is ranked sixth in a book on the hundred most influential scientists; and, some scholars refer to the twentieth century as “the century of Freud”; he appeared on the cover of Time next to Einstein for an issue dedicated to the greatest scientific minds of the century; and his photo even appears on Austrian currency.

[2] Geisler, “Freud, Sigmund” in Apologetics., 264.

[3] Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and The Meaning of Life, (New York: The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, 2002), 46.

[4] Dr. James Dobson, Bringing Up Boys, (Wheaton, Illionois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 58.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Paul C. Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless, (Dallas, Texas: Spence Publishing Company, 2000), 13.

[8] Ibid., 16.

Secular Fundamentalism Pillar-3: "Miracles Are Impossible"

Secular Fundamentalism Pillar-3: "Miracles Are Impossible"

Happy Easter! Every holiday season millions of Christians around the world will celebrate, the “miracle” of Christmas and the cornerstone of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. For the Christian Christmas represents the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who came into the world because God miraculously fertilized the ovum of the virgin Mary in order to bring forth his Son Jesus Christ—sinless!  Given that the sin-nature passes on to every generation of human beings through the seed of the man, God chose to intervene miraculously, therefore, bestowing upon Jesus two natures united; thus, making Him 100% God and 100% sinless man. Jesus, the God-man, became sin for us by dying on the Cross for our sins, satisfying God's justice while at the same time demonstrating His love for us.  Easter is the evidence of this fact and promise of eternal life when Jesus resurrected from the dead as promised in the bible.
Now it should be obvious that both of these events assume that two things are true: (1) God exists, and (2) miracles are possible. Consequently, both holiday celebrations are meaningless if God does not exist and miracles are impossible since the heart cannot really rejoice in what the head rejects. Now the secular "spiritual" person will grasp the Secular Fundamentalists false dichotomy between faith & reason and "believe by faith" in these events which means that they do not really believe it at all.  However, this should not be the case, and the biblical definition of faith does not support this "blind faith" approach to life. This post is going to demonstrate that there is good news in that both the head and the heart can rejoice together because recent scientific discoveries have provided enough evidence that God exists and therefore miracles are possible. This is FAITH & REASON working hand in hand so that you can really celebrate this year--enjoy!

Recent Scientific Evidence Supporting

The Teleological Argument
[Click the image above to watch this engineering marvel]

The teleological argument can be stated this way: 
(1) Every design needs a designer; 
(2) The universe and life have highly complex design; 
(3) Therefore there is a designer.   

The reality that the universe came into existence at a single point in time also provides us some information about the cause of the universe itself.  Since space, time, matter, and energy—the four dimensions of our universe—come forth at a single point in time, the cause of the universe must lie outside of the universe itself.  This is exactly what Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking sought to prove when they formulated their space-time theorem of general relativity.  Astronomer and physicist Hugh Ross points out that this theorem proved “that an Entity transcending matter, energy, space and time is the cause of the universe in which humanity lives.”[1]  Additionally, utilizing the principle of uniformity we can reason from the effect—the universe—that the cause must be an intelligent personal Being and not an impersonal force given that intelligence and design are part of the universe.

The topic of design fills many scientific books and has been formulated into what is known as ‘The Anthropic Principle.’  This principle of science states that the universe appears to have been designed for the sake of human life from the very beginning of the Big Bang.  Astronomer and physicist Hugh Ross points out that, “By the end of 2001, astronomers had identified more than 150 finely tuned characteristics.”[2]  Every one of these characteristics of the universe is necessary for human life to exist on earth.  For example, one of the fine tuned characteristics is tied to the very beginning of the universe itself showing that if the rate of expansion of the universe had been smaller than one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have immediately recollapse on itself.  Arguably, science has shown that the universe was created out of nothing by an intelligent being for the purpose of human life.  A purpose or a plan is yet another characteristic of a mind, in this case a divine Mind.

In the fields of microbiology and biochemistry, it has been determined that the living cell is highly complex and shows signs of intricate design. In Darwin’s day, the cell was considered quite simple, nothing more than a simple blob of protoplasm. With advances in microscopic technology that can look intently at the inner workings of the cell, scientists have discovered that the cell is incredibly complicated. As biochemistry professor Michael Behe states:

The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.  The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein.[3]

If we assume intelligence with simple orders of information in everyday life, how much more so should we assume intelligence when we find volumes of information located within a single cell? For example, if you were walking in the woods with your friends and you saw “Jim loves Sharon” written on a tree, what would you immediately assume: Rain damage? A termite came and did it?  Naturally, you assume that an intelligent being must have made the inscription. Hence, for an evolutionist to claim that a single cell with all of its complexity came into existence by random processes would be like claiming that we got Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary by an explosion in a printing shop.  What is most intriguing is the fact that the December 2008 issue of Science magazine has a cover story celebrating the 2008 scientific breakthrough of the year “Reprogramming Cells”.  Now, does it not seem rational that if one can reprogram a cell, then there must have been an original program?  If the scientist used their mind to discover the program, are they not engaged in the task of trying to think the thoughts of the original Programmer after him?

Mind Over Matter?
Since the effect contains minds with the ability to discover laws, mathematical formulas, design, and intelligence, does this not obviously point back in time beyond matter itself to an immaterial Divine Mind in the cause?  Neurologist Michael Egnor lists six salient characteristics of the mind, generally accepted by materialist and non-materialist scientists and philosophers.[4] They are intentionality, qualia, persistence of self-identity, restricted access, incorrigibility, and free will.  These are all properties of the mind that make up what is known as the mind-body problem in philosophy.  With the new evidence that the all of the matter of the universe had a beginning, and it was further designed from the beginning to produce life, we already have established the amazing scientific fact that of mind influencing matter in a similar way that our minds influence us.  Each of these six salient properties of the human mind, which is evident in the effect are by definition implicit in the cause.  Since these properties are immaterial, could it be that this is evidence that there is an immaterial part of us as dualism contends?  Nobel laureate and the father of neurophysiology Charles Sherrington, the father of epilepsy surgery Wilder Penfield, and Sir John Eccles Nobel laureate and pioneer in the study of neuronal synapses are all dualists who believe that the evidence is clear—there is!

Miracles Are Supernatural Events That Are Discernible

Since overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that it is reasonable to believe that the universe was created ex nihilo by an intelligent cause, David Hume's famous argument against miracles simply does not stand.  Hume's argument against the possibility of miracles can be summarized as follows: (1) miracles by definition violate natural laws; (2) natural laws are unalterably uniform; (3) therefore, miracles cannot occur.[5]  Hume’s argument falls short because the ability to create something out of nothing is obviously the greatest miracle of all.  What’s more, if it is true that a theistic God exists then his argument violates the law of cause and effect because only those in this space-time continuum are bound by the laws of nature.  The law of cause and effect that flows out of the principle of causality which simply states that the effect can never be greater than the cause.  The universe had a cause, thus, the universe is an effect.  Consequently, the cause of the universe, God, has sovereignty over the laws of nature as its Lawgiver and governing authority.  Hence, the Lawgiver has the authority to intervene any way that He sees fit without violating natural laws, since He is the one who put those laws in place and governs them.  In Hume’s argument, he reverses the roles given that he has God, who is the cause, subject to the laws of nature, which is the effect.  More to the point, this use of the term ‘laws’ when speaking of nature is disingenuous given that these supposed laws simply state how nature operates not how nature must operate.

A recognized authority over the law intervening at times is something that we experience in everyday life, yet we never view this intervention as a violation of the law. For example, every Sunday I approach a stop sign while exiting McLean Bible Church onto Route 7.  As I approach the stop sign, I see a police officer waving his hand directing me to continue through the stop sign, without stopping, onto Route 7.  Is this a violation of the law?  Does this now mean that I can speed through every stop sign that I approach from now on?  I recognize that the answer to both of these questions is—no!  This was simply an intervention by a recognized person of authority who had the sovereignty to intervene at a specific point in time for a specific purpose.  The same principle holds true for God who is the recognized authority over creation.  He has the authority to intervene in His created world any time that He sees fit, and for whatever specific purpose He has for doing so.

Since the weight of the evidence points to a God who exists and has the ability to create the world out of nothing, then the greatest miracle has already occurred—creating something out of nothing.  A God who created something out of nothing can certainly create something—that is miraculous to us—out of something.[6] In addition, given the fact that God created the world, He has the authority to intervene without violating His laws that He placed in nature.  In short, because a God exists who can create something out of nothing miracles are not only possible but actual.


Seeing as we cannot apply the scientific method to the cause of the universe, which lies outside of the universe, we are left with an interpretation of the evidence in the effect to best explain the cause.  Therefore, both atheistic and theistic views of reality require faith and the debate has always been which view requires more of it. In light of the scientific evidence many astronomers, physicists, and philosophers are concluding that they no longer have enough faith to be an atheist.  Furthermore, in a theistic universe one should expect a God who acted in times past to miraculously bring about something out of nothing, to do something that is miraculous to us with the purpose of sending us a message.  Given that human life was part of the original design at the very beginning, and given the fact that we have minds that discover laws and order, we would be able to discern the miraculous when it occurred for it would have to temporarily suspend the natural order.  In doing so, the Divine mind would be once again influencing matter intentionally, with free-will, for a purpose and possibly with the expectation that we have the mind to discover this message.

So during this holiday season when someone gives you the ‘weird eye’ for believing in miracles, remind him or her of the facts above and boldly proclaim "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist!"  As a bonus, you might want to provide this quote by Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance: He is about to conquer the highest peak: As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (God and the Astronomers, p. 107).

May your heart receive God’s miraculous gift of Jesus Christ this Holiday Season.

God’s gift was wrapped on Christmas morning,

Offered on Good Friday and,

Is ready to be received today

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas

[1] Hugh Ross, “Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity,” Facts for Faith, Qtr.1, No. 8 (2002): 29 [emphasis in original].

[2] Ibid., 26.

[3] Michael Behe, Darwin’s black box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 232-33.

[4] Michael Egnor, “The Mind and Materialist Superstition,”, (accessed November 26, 2008).

[5] Geisler, “Miracles, Arguments Against” in Apologetics, 458.

[6] Ibid.

Secular Fundamentalism Pillar #2: Evolution is a Fact That Accounts for Origins

Pillar #2: Evolution is a Fact That Accounts for Origins

Important Note: Before you read any further I want to define the term “evolution” since the Secular Fundamentalist media and professors purposely equivocate when using the term so as to include transitions from one species to another  while only providing evidence of transitions within a species. We have all experienced this "bait and switch" tactic in highschool and college biology textbooks; for example, pictures of horses in a circle. The important fact is that they are still horses! EVERYONE believes in transitions within a species in what some call “micro-evolution”, but Intelligent Design and Creationists patently deny “macro-evolution” (changes from one species into another) as the evidence is clearly not only lacking but missing. In this post I am referring to Macro-evolution as the myth that is challenged logically by using the tools of faith & reason that all of us use to grasp reality as noted in my earlier post here. This is the sneaky tactic that sacrifices logic in order to be clever; thus we have the equivocation of the term “evolution”. To see some examples from the high-school and college texts that I mention above please read the post on my One Year Bible Site by clicking here

So let us begin with a simple syllogism:

All people are biased,

Scientists are people,

Therefore scientists are biased.

As noted earlier, scientists do hold certain presuppositions when they approach the topic of origins. This is not a fault per se, since the origin of the universe is not something that can be determined empirically so the scientist must start from somewhere. However, this does become a fault when these assumptions “evolve” into fact, thereby committing the fallacy known as “begging the question.”  These assumptions that serve as a scientist's starting point should be subject to change because they are a theory, viewed as reasonable by some, accepted by faith and reason, but not an empirically verifiable fact. All people have a tendency to be biased, and since scientists are people, they are not immune to this tendency.  For instance, the scientist that is a theist will assume that God exists, and a scientist that presupposes atheism starts his or her analysis of the empirical data believing that God does not exist.  Contrary to the logic and common sense that we are all biased, we have been conditioned by our secular society into believing that only the theist is biased with his or her faith.  However, the atheist is equally as biased with his or her faith guiding him or her to look at the data and insist on only naturalistic and materialistic explanations.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause,

The universe had a beginning,

Therefore the universe had a cause.

Recent scientific discoveries in the field of Astronomy indicate that the four dimensions of our universe: space, time, matter, and energy, came into being ex nihilo-out of nothing.  Given that the universe came into existence out of nothing, both theists and atheists are together in the realm of faith when it comes to origins.  This is due to the fact that the cause of our universe lies outside of the universe itself, the place where empirical science and the known laws of physics no longer apply.  As Astronomer Robert Jastrow put it when commenting on the Big Bang singularity and scientific faith in his book God and the Astronomers: "The religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control.  As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications. . .The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends at the moment of creation."[1]

Until the discovery of evidence that the universe had a beginning, known as the Big Bang, the now defunct steady-state theory of the universe was the dominant view among scientists.  According to the steady-state theory of cosmology, the universe expands and new matter is continuously self-generated at all of the points in space that are left open by the receding galaxies.  The universe was thus infinitely old and in a steady state, new matter continuously arising in the space vacated by the receding stellar systems.[2]  The problem with this theory is that it relies on the logical absurdity of self-generation, namely, nothing creating something.  The idea of self-generation ignores the obvious contradiction that no self exists to do the generating.  This very notion of being coming into existence out of non-being goes against one of the first principles of science—the principle of causality.  The principle of causality teaches that everything that comes to be is caused by another.[3]

Rewind the universe like a movie and you come to a point of nothing! Physicist PCW Davies said of the Big Bang that “It is the coming into existence of ALL material things.” Now what did the Bible say in the book of Hebrews? “By faith we understand that the Universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” - Hebrews 11:3.  Anthony Kenny of Oxford University said that “A proponent of the Big bang Theory, at least if he is an Atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” But the first principle of metaphysics, and all rational thought, is that “out of nothing, nothing comes!”

Besides the evident logical fallacy with the steady-state theory itself, the theory officially died in 1965 when two physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a primary piece of evidence that proved that the universe had a beginning. The two astronomers discovered a radiation echo in space that was determined to be the sound of the initial explosion that brought the universe into existence.  Penzias and Wilson were rewarded for their discovery when in 1978 they received the Nobel Prize in physics. As a result, this discovery placed certain death to the steady-state theory, by proving that the universe had a beginning.  Since the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, then one must conclude that the universe had a beginner, what one might call, God.  Physicist Robert Wilson expanded on this fact in an interview, “Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis”[4]

Now the Secular Fundamentalist Atheists are inventing new theories like a "multiverse" to avoid the obvious conclusion. Unfortunately for them Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin put forward the BGV Theorem proving that independent of physics any hypothetical model of the Universe must include a beginning.  In view of the fact that the universe had a beginning, it follows, both logically and scientifically, that it must have had a Beginner since everything that has a beginning has a cause.  This fact has triggered uneasiness among some in the modern scientific community predisposed to atheism while at the same time it has triggered others, like Robert Jastrow, to write about the subject.  However, in the field of science that has moved from a theistic philosophical basis to a purely atheistic philosophical basis over the past one hundred and fifty years, the topic of God’s existence has been removed from possibility a priori.  Astronomer Robert Jastrow is an example of an agnostic who wrote about this subject and the reaction among his colleagues to the new evidence and its obvious conclusions.  In his book Jastrow best describes the sentiment among some in the scientific community of naturalists when he writes, “When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers.”[5] So follow the logic here and answer honestly which view requires more faith:

Why does this matter so much to the Secular Fundamentalists?

Because as you can see this view is held with a strong FAITH conviction, and nobody likes an error in his or her religious thinking being exposed. Furthermore, they cleverly place "Evolution" in the Reason category, when you can clearly see that it belongs in the FAITH category. As Norman Geisler & Frank Turek note "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist"

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas


[1]Robert Jastrow. God and the Astronomers, 2d ed. (New York / London: W.W. Norton, 1992), 105-106.

[2]William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1995), 40.

[3]Geisler, “Causality, Principle of,” in Apologetics, 121.

[4]Robert Wilson, “Interview with Robert Wilson,” interview by Fred Hereen (18 May 1994), Show Me God, (Wheeling, IL: Day Star Publications, 1998), 157.

[5]Ibid., Jastrow, Astronomers, 9.

[6]Hugh Ross, “Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity,” Facts for Faith, Qtr.1, No. 8 (2002): 29 [emphasis in original].

[7]Ibid., 26.

[8]Michael Behe, Darwin’s black box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 232-33.

Secular Fundamentalism Pillar #1: A dichotomy between Faith and Reason

Pillar #1: A dichotomy between Faith and Reason

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" Colossians 2:8

A lot has happened since my last post. Frank Turek has an excellent article on Christian Post about how we are now losing freedoms and being forced by the courts into submission to the religious fundamentalism of Secular Humanism. Check it out here. In Part-2 of my series on Secular Fundamentalism I introduced you to the pope of this religious movement Paul Kurtz. Paul Kurtz's latest dogmas can be found in Humanist Manifesto 2000. I want to focus this post on the first pillar of Secular Fundamentalism which I alluded to in part-2:

"Professor Paul Kurtz 27 years later drafted Humanist Manifesto 2000 and called Humanism “a nontheistic philosophical and scientific viewpoint that could not be equated with religious faith.”[1] Just because Kurtz states in 2000 that Humanism cannot be “equated with religious faith” what he called “religious” in 1973 does not make it so. What’s more, Kurtz is presupposing a dualism between faith and reason asserting that all religious faith is totally divorced from reason; hence, all faith is unreasonable and unscientific. For Kurtz reason is in a separate compartment where he believes that humanism resides, along with the modern scientific method, totally devoid of faith. Using this false dichotomy between faith and reason Kurtz then asserts that his atheistic view of reality is the only view that is reasonable and scientific; thus, requiring no faith."

Kurtz’s view that there exists a dualism between faith and reason is a powerful orthodoxy that typifies both the modern & post-modern era. Ever since philosopher Immanuel Kant built the wall of separation between the physical phenomenal world that we experience in our space-time continuum and the metaphysical noumenal world that we do not experience, the tools of reason have been thought to belong on this material side of the wall only. Kant’s epistemology synthesizes the empiricists’ a posteriori position that knowledge is gained through experience, and the rationalists’ position that there exists an a priori dimension of knowledge. Kant stressed that all knowledge is gained through the senses via experience and placed into a priori categories in the mind that helps one individuate the data.[2] The Ding an sich, or thing-in-itself, really exists in the metaphysical world but our knowledge of it is beyond the reach of our senses; thus, God may exist but can never be perceived.[3] The phenomenal world that we sense is where we apply the laws of reason that our mind knows a priori, however, these laws can never be applied to God in the metaphysical world that we cannot perceive. For example, if the principle of causality, one of the laws of reason in my mind, inform me that a Necessary Being (i.e., God), must exist, that does not mean that in actuality God does exist. This is why Kant was considered an epistemological agnostic in that you cannot know for sure that God exists because the principle of causality does not apply to the metaphysical world. In short, the tools of reason are applied to the physical world and faith is applied to the metaphysical world.

Kant’s wall of separation between the knowable phenomenal world and the supposedly unknowable noumenal world is self-falsifying in that one cannot build a wall between two realms without knowing something about both. How do you know where to place the wall? In other words, to say that true reality is unknowable is to make a knowable statement about reality—that it is unknowable; thus, if you cannot know then how do you know?[4] Furthermore, Kant’s application of reason and inquiry to only this world is puzzling. As Christian philosopher Dr. R.C. Sproul rhetorically asks, “If everything in the phenomenal world requires a cause, why does not the phenomenal world itself require a cause?”[5]

The Biblical View of FAITH & REASON

“Faith does not destroy reason, but goes far beyond it and perfects it”— Thomas Aquinas

A lot of Christian's hold the false view of a dichotomy between faith and reason without really understanding the implications of it. In fact this view of faith is not the biblical view. Christianity does not, never did and never will, support blind faith! There are two tools that everyone, Christian or non-Christian has in order to grasp reality: (1) FAITH (2) REASON. Like Michael Jackson wearing just one glove will never give one a full grasp of reality--he he. You heard his voice didn't you?--Sorry!

The Biblical definition of FAITH can be found in the book of Hebrews. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible….And without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists." - Hebrews 11:1-3, 6

The Greek words used in this verse are very interesting. Let's take a look:

#1 “being sure” – Gk: hupostasis = A mental assurance
#2 “faith” – Gk: pistis = Has 3 basic elements:
- The 1st entails ‘knowledge’ and knowledge is when the knower & the known become one
- The 2nd involves ‘agreement’ (This demonstrates oneness)
- The two of these are meaningless without the 3rd element ‘TRUST’

I personally do not have enough faith to be an Atheist!

Now let's apply this verse and demonstrate the partial overlap view of FAITH & REASON:

(A) Truths of Reason and not of Faith: Not revealed by God but provable by reason; for example, 2+2=4 or “I am teaching at class today”—Which is proved by reason now because you can see me but is proved by both faith and reason tomorrow as you tell a friend that I spoke here today.

(B) Truths of Faith and not of Reason: Things revealed by God but not provable by reason; for example, the Trinity. However, these views must not contradict reason.

(C) Truths of both Faith and Reason: These may be revealed by God but provable by reason; for example, the existence of God. This is what we call “Natural Theology”. This view is beautifully articulated in the book of Romans:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse " - Romans 1:20

Two Types of Science That Prove the Partial Overlap View

The faith-reason false dichotomy has its root in a misunderstanding of the two types of science: operation science and origin science. Operation science deals with empirical scientific data by observing and drawing conclusions from present regularities. On the other hand, origin science is a type of forensic science that deals with past singularities.[6] However, operation science and origin science work hand-in-hand through the principle of uniformity which holds that the present is the key to unlocking the past.

Through the principle of uniformity, built on the principle of causality, I can know something about the metaphysical world by drawing from the physical world. The principle of uniformity states that only Necessary Being can produce or cause contingent being, which entails: (A) The effect must resemble the cause, since both are being, hence, the cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess; (B) While the effect must resemble the cause of its being, it is different from its cause in that it is contingent.[7] Therefore, there is an analogical likeness between the cause and the effect that we can discern using the tools of reason. The apostle Paul makes this point in his letter to the Romans, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made….”[8] Paul stresses that the entire world can know something about God by observing the natural world with the analytical tools of reason.

Even if one allowed for this false dichotomy between faith and reason, an atheistic view of reality that presupposes naturalism, in the end, still requires faith. Faith is not something that is based solely on reason, then it would not be faith; however, faith is something that should be supported by reason.[9] For example, secular fundamentalists may believe by abductive reasoning—an inference to the best explanation—that the scientific data observable in the world shows that it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist; nonetheless, this view ends in the realm of faith. As a matter of fact, a growing number of philosophers and scientists looking at the scientific evidence and using abductive reasoning come to a different conclusion; namely, that it is reasonable to believe that a theistic God exists.

A Metaphysical Sleight of Hand

The secular fundamentalist falsely builds on this philosophy of a separation of faith and reason by placing every theistic or deistic metaphysical claim about reality into a box labeled ‘religion’ while at the same time placing only atheism[10] into a box labeled ‘science.’ The religion box is then placed into the faith realm where truth claims are subjective and a matter of personal preference given the secularist view that objective knowledge of the noumenal realm cannot be known. On the other hand, the science box is placed in the reason realm where the tools of reason can be applied in discovering truth. The metaphysical game employed here is that science’s metaphysical claim of atheism is bypassed by making atheism part of the very definition of reason. Leading proponent of Intelligent Design theory Phillip Johnson writes about this metaphysical sleight of hand in his book Reason in the Balance:

Modernist discourse accordingly incorporates semantic devices—such as the labeling of theism as “religion” and naturalism as “science”—that work to prevent a dangerous debate of fundamental assumptions from breaking out in the open.[11]

Dan Crawford from the University of Nebraska reveals this categorical bias when evaluating the arguments of Phillip Johnson, who argues against this atheistic presumption in science, and philosopher Robert Pennock who argues for it. Pennock writes of the wall of separation between the two realms and the faulty assertion that scientists work in the rational real world and priests and theologians work in the irrational spiritual world. Crawford writes that:

Science is then awarded exclusive authority over the natural realm, while the spiritual realm falls under the jurisdiction of the theologian or priest. A second and more subtle part of this proposal is that the natural realm is identified with the real and the rational, while the spiritual realm is judged to be unreal (or not fully real) and irrational (or not fully rational).[12]

Crawford goes on to note that “Pennock favors this view that religion belongs to another realm.”[13]

However, the view held by the atheist that scientific methods in the physical real world are the only sources of knowledge is a view that itself cannot be established by the scientific method. Furthermore, the very notion that scientific knowledge is limited to naturalistic (i.e., atheistic), evolution commits the fallacy of ‘begging the question.’ Also circular reasoning is employed when one assumes atheism in the definition of science and then asserts that the theist is the only one making religious statements that are outside of the realm of science and reason. This metaphysical sleight of hand is exactly what the philosophers and scientists in the Intelligent Design movement have committed themselves to exposing.

Conversions From Secular Faith

A religious conversion from atheism to theism has been on the rise among scientists and philosophers due to exciting developments in the fields of astronomy and biology. In response to the growing number of philosophers and scientists that believe that the universe came into being by an intelligent cause, Kurtz dogmatically states that:

Neither the standard modern cosmology nor the evolutionary process provides sufficient evidence for intelligent design, which is a leap of faith beyond the empirical evidence.[14]

Nevertheless, Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, fellow secular fundamentalist and signer of Humanist Manifesto 2000, is quoted in London’s The Daily Telegraph as saying that, “I believe, but cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”[15] Dawkins statement “I believe, but cannot prove” is an accurate picture of the atheist’s “leap of faith,” the same faith that Professor Kurtz and those that share his secular worldview have in common. Additionally, Antony Flew, the famous philosophical atheist and signer of Humanist Manifesto II, recently changed his position of faith to accepting the existence of God based on the evidence derived from intelligent design. The Associated Press reported on December 9, 2004 that:

At age 81, and after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. . . Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “Intelligent Design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.[16]

Antony Flew just took his name off of the deed to the secular house that he has been so prominent in building. This conversion from Atheism to Theism would be like Billy Graham converting to Atheism after spending his entire life dedicated to converting the world to Christianity.

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,

Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas


[1] Kurtz, Manifesto 2000, 10.

[2] R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000), 121.

[3] Ibid., 122-3.

[4] Norman L. Geisler, “Kant, Immanuel,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 404.

[5] Sproul, 127.

[6] Geisler, “Origins, Science of” in Apologetics, 567.

[7] Geisler, “First Principles” in Apologetics, 252-3.

[8] Romans 12:20, NIV.

[9] Geisler, “Faith and Reason” in Apologetics, 243.

[10] When I use the term atheism I am including philosophical naturalism and materialism which both presuppose that God does not exist in their strong form. This view has been also been called “metaphysical naturalism” or “methodological naturalism.” There is a moderate form of metaphysical naturalism that proposes a deistic god that is actively separate from the world that he brought into being and cannot intervene in it without ‘violating’ the natural laws. This would appear to be the type of god that Antony Flew now embraces.

[11] Phillip Johnson, Reason in the Balance: A Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 45.

[12] Dan D. Crawford, “Does Evolutionary Science Rule Out a Theistic God?: The Johnson—Pennock Debate,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2003): 182-3 [emphasis in the original].

[13] Ibid., 183.

[14] Kurtz, Manifesto 2000, 26.

[15] Roger Highfield, ”Science’s Scourge of Believers Declares His Faith In Darwin,” The Daily Telegraph 5 January 2005, 10.

[16] Richard N. Ostling, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” The Associated Press, 9 December 2004, Domestic News.

Secular Fundamentalism Part-1 "A Secular Religious Orthodoxy"

Secular Fundamentalism Part-1 "A Secular Orthodoxy"

As promised in my post on my friend and brother in Christ who is suffering religious persecution from the Secular Fundamentalists in the military, here is part one in a 5 part series on the dangerous new fundamentalism-Secular Fundamentalism. If you missed my post on Nathan Somers story it can be found here. Nathan has demonstrated the virtue of FORTITUDE as he is pursued by fundamentalists chasing him with the chains of FEAR.

A Secular Orthodoxy

Secular Fundamentalism, the rigid bullying form of Secular Humanism, is by far the dominant religious worldview in Western civilization due to secular fundamentalists’ successful "evangelism explosion" for secularism in the public school systems, universities, and the media.  The four pillars of Secular Fundamentalism are resting on a shaky atheistic foundation that, in time, will cause the entire secular house to fall. In fact, I believe that the rise of the "new" Atheism of old ideas is due to the fact that atheism seems even more unreasonable thanks to the microscope, telescope, and neuroscience. Here are the four apostles that write and hold revivals for atheism, the foundation of this dangerous new fundamentalism:

Sam Harris (or Zoolander--do you see it?)

Richard Dawkins                             Christopher Hitchens                Daniel Dennett

They even go around the US and Europe and hold Secular revivals! Here is a flyer for one of their revivals in 2007 right here in Washington DC:

Now that we have the foundation, we move to the four pillars of secular fundamentalism: (1) A dichotomy exists between faith and reason; (2) Evolution is a fact that accounts for origins; (3) Miracles are supernatural events that are impossible; (4) God is created in the image of man. Mounted on top of these four pillars, the house of our society has been under construction for the last 150 years with the blueprints of secular humanism derived from ideas that can be found in the humanist manifestos.

However, these four pillars that hold the load of the secular house of our society have severe cracks in them that are beyond repair.  Will this secular house still be standing twenty years from now?  How severe are the cracks?  The secular fundamentalist owners of the house are trying to avoid having to answer these questions by keeping the questioners out through good old-fashioned name calling and bullying as I mentioned in my initial post here.  The owners of the house are made up of evolutionary scientists, media personalities, and the self-proclaimed elite of our educational institutions that serve as the new gnostic spiritual guides transforming our Universities into Seminaries for Secularism.  Nevertheless, the crowd of theists outside is growing, the evidence is mounting, and numerous secular owners are turning in their keys and removing their names from the deed.

Presenting a Religious Worldview

Throughout the various news media outlets in the United States and Europe there is only one religious worldview that is permitted to be openly orthodox—Secular Humanism[1].  Given that the media has an enormous influence over the thinking of our culture, ideas and their acceptability are unfortunately controlled and managed by this one worldview.  Worldview is defined by the dictionary as: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; and a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.[2]  I use the term religious when referring to Secular Humanism because both Humanist Manifesto I and II define this worldview as religious and the United States Supreme Court has agreed with this conclusion in at least two rulings.[3] (Please checkout footnote 3 below. I got this information from Lexis Nexis Legal database)

Some history may be helpful at this point. The secular worldview is best expressed by the three manifestos written by humanists and promoted by the many humanist organizations around the world.  Indeed these manifestos serve the same purpose as the many creeds, dogmas, and statements of faith found in the numerous world religions.  Nevertheless, humanists were very careful when choosing the term ‘manifesto’ instead of ‘creed’ or ‘dogma,’ two words with religious overtones.  The word manifesto is derived from the Latin word manifestus, literally, gripped by the hand; hence, palpable or obvious.[4] Thus, to the secular fundamentalist these manifestoes are public declarations of the obvious—what, to them, is obviously true about reality.  In actuality, the term itself does not matter since the purpose and usage of these manifestos are the same as the dogmas and creeds of any religion; namely, putting forth a system of core beliefs, principles, or opinions that are rigidly held.[5]  A manifesto is slightly different from a religious creed or dogma in that it also outlines specific goals and aspirations necessary for the implementation of the stated beliefs and principles in a society. We are well past the implementation phase and are rapidly entering the extermination phase where beliefs and those whom hold them are bullied and removed from the market place of ideas.

Some of you will be shocked when we enter the phase where the people themselves are exterminated as has happened in every atheistic society in the 20th century where more people have died under crusades for atheism than the Crusades of all other preceding centuries combined! Stalin was responsible for 20,000,000 deaths. Mao Zedong whom Anita Dunn named "her favorite political philosopher" (See link) is responsible for an incredible 70,000,000. Believe it or not Hitler comes in a distant third at 10,000,000! At this point these new atheists usually get upset because this is "unfair" to make this comparison; however, it is not untrue. These regimes were supposed to be atheist utopias, free from what Karl Marx called the "opiate of the masses". Dinesh D'Souza notes "Atheism became a central component of the Soviet Union's official ideology, it is still the official doctrine of China, and Stalin and Mao enforced atheistic policies by systematically closing churches and murdering priests and religious believers. All Communist regimes have been strongly anti-religious, suggesting that their atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology."[6] Some utopia!

With that foundation in place and on top of the four pillars, the secular worldview expressed in these Humanist manifestos has indeed moved to the forefront as the worldview held by those in the media as the obvious truth.  Now, truth is defined as conformity of assertions to reality.[7] Consequently, secularism’s fundamentals are the implicit truth used by this cultural force as the measuring stick for determining the validity of ideas and views. In other words, Secular Humanism’s principles as spelled out in the manifestos, is the overall perspective that those in the mainstream media use to interpret the data of reality.  As a result, any individual or group that holds to secular orthodoxy is presented by the media as "mainstream" or "middle of the road", while those that hold to the more conservative worldviews that challenge secular fundamentalism's claims are presented as "right-wing" or "far right".

The conservative views are not the middle of the secular worldview’s road; instead they are to the right of their presumed secular orthodox center.  For example, a 1996 survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found that only 2% considered themselves conservative.[8]  In another study by Professors Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman that looked at the socio-economic makeup of the most influential news outlets found that 86% of journalists seldom or never attend religious services.[9]  The conclusion of the study: “A predominant characteristic of the media elite is its secular outlook.”[10]  And recently on CNN’s program Reliable Sources Steve Roberts, Professor of media and journalistic ethics at George Washington University observed, “I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism.”[11]  Later on in the program Professor Roberts admitted that, “I worked for the New York Times for 25 years.  I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith."[12]  Moreover, a recent more in depth media study found that the when the media wanted to quote a think tank or policy group as an authority for a given subject, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the legal arm of secular fundamentalism— ranked number two overall.[13]  Consequently, the media has revealed by their views, lifestyle, and authoritative references that secularism is their religious worldview of choice.

The secular fundamentalism held onto by the mainstream media is important because in today’s culture with multiple 24 hour news sources, news magazines, newspapers, and news websites, the media controls the way public debates are framed.  The topic of origins, for instance, is usually framed in light of the media’s secular worldview and presented to the public as faith versus reason (pillar #1), religion versus science, or even church versus state. For example, the front page of The San Francisco Chronicle read “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools; Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism”[14]  The article goes on to present Intelligent Design, the scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution (pillar #2), as if the challenge is not scientific at all.  The message is clear: Darwinian naturalistic scientist is for reason and Intelligent Design scientist is for faith.  PBS even went so far as to pull Unlocking the Mystery of Life, a science film that explores the theory of intelligent design, from airing and no longer sells the DVD on its website.[15]    This labeling is unfortunate because the secular worldview that is embraced by those in the media is also a religious one.

If you are interested in this important topic of origins the absolutely best book that I have ever read on the topic is called New Proofs For The Existence of God  that can be found on Amazon here . Please note my review of the book on the Amazon. It is the top pick, so let's keep it there!

So friends who love politics I have news for you. The media bias is not toward Democrats as you may believe, but toward Secular Fundamentalism! It may land in one political camp more often but that is because this politician is seen as more closely aligned to the Secular Orthodoxy of the media itself.

In closing, let's look at the 2013 commencement speakers. The LA Times reports "conservatives need not apply" in an article on 2013 commencement speakers that can be found here.  What is once again the case not one single conservative was invited to speak at our infamous poison ivy leagues, and in the top 100 ranked schools the evidence that the university has become seminaries for Secular Fundamentalism is clear. Now don't get caught up in political categories, but the worldview of these speakers.
I will post part-2 in this special series on Secular Fundamentalism soon. In the meantime please share this with your friends and family by using the easy social media or e-mail buttons below this article.

Building men of virtue in a culture of vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the good" - Thomas Aquinas


[1] The terms secularism, secular humanism, and humanism are used interchangeably when referring to this worldview, and the terms humanists and secularists are used interchangeably when referring to those that promote this worldview.

[2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) 4th ed., s.v. “worldview.”

[3] For more information about these cases see United States v. Kauten, No. 134, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 133 F.2d 703; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882, February 8, 1943 and United States v. Seeger, No. 50, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 163; 85 S. Ct. 850; 13 L. Ed. 2d 733; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1666, November 16-17, 1964, Argued, March 8, 1965, Decided.

[4] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “manifesto.”

[5] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “dogma”, “creed.”

[6] Dinesh D'Souza,  What's So Great About Christianity, (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), 215.

[7] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995) 3rd ed., s.v. “truth.”

[8] Rowan Scarborough, “Leftist press? Suspicious right,” The Washington Times, 25 April 1996, A-2.

[9] L. Brent Bozell III, And That’s The Way It Isn’t: A Reference Guide To Media Bias (Alexandria, Va: The Media Research Center, 1990), 50, quoting S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, “Media and Business Elites” Public Opinion (October/November 1981).

[10 ]Ibid., 51.

[11] Steve Roberts, “Battle Over Terri Shiavo; Are Journalists Paying Enough Attention to Religion,” interviewed by Howard Kurtz, Reliable Sources, 27 March 2005.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, “A Measure of Media Bias,” December 2004, [study on-line] available from; Internet, accessed March 15, 2005.

[14] Anna Badkhen, “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools;
Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 30 November, 2004, A-1.

[15] “PBS pulls intelligent design documentary,” United Press International, January 8 2004.

1 John 2 False Positive: How can You Tell If You are A Christian?

In my class at Crossway Fellowship? Here is a link to the slides until there is a page on the Crossway page:  Being The Church In The W...