Tag Archives: religion

What Is The Gospel? Part Five: The Eternal Gospel

414px-an_angel_with_the_eternal_gospel_-_google_art_project
But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve like other people who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so through Jesus God will bring those who have died with him. For we declare to you what the Lord has told us to say: We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have died. With a shout of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of God’s trumpet, the Lord himself will come down from heaven, and the dead who belong to the Messiah will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)

According to the Latin word translated here as caught up, this describes the rapture. The moment this takes place, there will be no believers left on earth to proclaim the gospel.

Not all of us will die, but all of us will be changed—in a moment, faster than an eye can blink, at the sound of the last trumpet. Indeed, that trumpet will sound, and then the dead will be raised never to decay, and we will be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52 ISV)

As a trumpet sounded on Sinai, so this trumpet not only signals the resurrection of the Church, but alerts the inhabitants of earth to God’s change in His methods.

This begins another phase in God’s plan of redemption. Satan will be cast out of heaven, his time will be short and demonic forces will have greater access to those alive on earth at that time. Many who accept Jesus as the Messiah during this time will face rapid martyrdom. It will be the time of 144,000 Jewish witnesses, 2 special witnesses, and an angel flying through the air to proclaim the gospel.

Then I saw another angel flying overhead with the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the time for him to judge has arrived. Worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” (Revelation 14:6,7 ISV)

Image Credit: Unknown  illuminator An Angel with the Eternal Gospel Date about 1255 – 1260 Getty Center Source/Photographer KwFA0VOH3o96DA at Google Cultural Institute Public Domain Wikimedia Commons

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

The High Priests Evangelize

note

Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking are members of the religion of Secular Humanism. I agreed with Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguilar, when he stated that “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. … Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” This is based on a series of minor court cases (see references below) by various secularist and humanist groups suing to gain tax-exempt status for their organizations. This goal was finally achieved in 1961, which Justice Scalia properly referenced.

But it is a little surprising to hear scientists openly express their true beliefs. It’s amazing to see them reveal themselves as practitioners of a religion, and evangelists seeking converts to that religion.

As referenced in our book Conflict of the Ages, Part One: The Scientific History of Origins, Michael Ruse, Canadian professor of philosophy and zoology, cited Dr. Duane Gish, a PhD. in Biochemistry from Berkeley. Ruse said,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

This statement by Michael Ruse explains that evolution for a secularist is more than a mere tenet of his religion. It is an integral part. Evolution is his expression of faith, and the secularist must become an apologist for Evolution, an evangelist for his religion. It makes very clear the true position of Richard Dawkins when he says,

“Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

As the Great High Priest of the Life Sciences, Dawkins takes the position of all High Priests. Yes, “Evolution is a religion.” (Ruse) and my religion “is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.” He willingly accepts the job of every High Priest, to convince, and if necessary force, people to follow his beliefs. An earlier High Priest, Carl Sagan, felt free to express it in even more religious terms.

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation of a distant memory, as if we were falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

In practice, the position of Richard Dawkins is identical to Stephen Hawking, the Secular Humanist Great High Priest of Physics. Stephen Hawking in his work A Brief History of Time, does not use the word religion, though he describes it. He says, “We still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.” He also said in A Briefer History of Time (chapter 8) “I put a lot of effort into writing A Briefer History of Time at a time when I was critically ill with Pneumonia because I think that it’s important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.” He also claims in A Brief History of Time “our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”

In the words of Satan in the Garden, “You will be like gods.”

Edwards v. Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987 “The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. …” Id., at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961)); 1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). “Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” 1 id., at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-312 — E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith).

The following excerpt from Chapter Nine of our book Antidisestablishmentarianism presents a chronology of secularists seeking tax-exempt status through the courts in America.

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 1956  The Fellowship of Humanity described itself as a non-theistic group but filed for tax-exempt status, which was granted on the basis that they held weekly Sunday meetings and met other criteria applied to religious groups. The Fellowship of Humanity case referred only to the term humanism. Justice Black apparently added the term secular when referring to the case in Torcaso v Watkins to distinguish the group from such beliefs as Christian Humanism.

Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 1957 The Washington Ethical Society honors ethical living but does not require a supernatural origin for ethics. It considers itself nontheistic and was granted tax-exempt status as a religious organization on appeal. This case is considered to have established generic Secular Humanism as a religion.

In the cases of both the Fellowship of Humanity and the Washington Ethical Society, the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions. These organizations applied for and accepted tax-exempt status on this basis. “If it walks like a duck … ”

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961. Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote (emphasis added),”Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 1956.

Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961.

Here are the other sources cited in this blog:

“Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion” Ruse, M., How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 May 13, 2000.

(The article quotes Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada. The “sic” is because Duane Gish is a PhD in Biochemistry and properly referred to as “Dr.,” not “Mr.”) From Answers in Genesis website http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/ruse.asp

Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution, Ch. 1, Free Press, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2009.

Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, NY, 1980.

2 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Grace and Salt on Twitter (And some Light, Too, I Hope)


(Pictured above are Rex, Nessie, Sonny and Sis from the Disciplesaurs Puppet Play Series)

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person (Colossians 4:6).

Someone shared a link on Facebook the other day, in an authors’ group to which I belong, and said it scared her. The blog post was about reasons why the writer might “block” someone on Twitter. I am so new on Twitter I don’t even know how to block someone, but when I went to read the post it didn’t tell me how to block anybody.

It did, however, berate anyone who promotes something that might be good and valuable, such as when I post a link to one of our books or those of another author. It also demanded that we not talk about anything that might be important or relevant, like politics or religion. In other words, don’t bother me with anything that might matter. I want my social media fluffy and self-centered.

So, I guess I won’t trip over my tongue running to Twitter to follow that blogger. I want my Twitter experience to be something beyond entertainment. I did take away some good advice from that post, however. I tend to post and retweet and copy tweets from files of people whom I want to support but leave it at that. The writer suggested I be conversational.

Uh-oh. My Twitterland experience must broaden. First I had to make my own Tweets. Now I have to make conversations. And I have to do it in 140 characters or less. Oh, wait, I’m kind of already doing that, I think. When someone retweets my tweets, or tells people they should follow me, or even becomes a follower, I make it a point to say thank you. That’s a tiny conversation.

(Pictured above is a scene from “It Ain’t Gonna Rain,” one of the Different View Bible stories Puppet Plays.)

I sometimes even show that I’m paying attention to who they are and what their profile says. One new follower has a focus on educational materials for younger children. I responded that I had written puppet plays about a dinosaur family and about animals telling Bible stories from their points of view. Another claimed to be an Ogre but said, instead of eating people, he ate vegetables. I thanked him for eating vegetables.

The politics and religion and sharing good authors will stay. If you’re offended, unfollow, bock, whatever. Because when it comes to Twitter, and everything else I do, I don’t just do it to socialize. It may be social media to you, but to me it’s another way to “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Wanna follow me on Twitter? @MaryCFindley.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

The Greatest Commandment


“Master Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40

Everything we do, every decision we make must have these two guiding principles. Does it glorify God? Does it show that I love my neighbor as myself? This blog post is inspired by a variety of topics that come across my Facebook page.

People have said in many different ways that they want their Facebook experience to be, in effect, “light and fluffy.” They don’t want to talk about religion or politics. A cute picture or a funny story receives many, sometimes hundreds of “likes,” reposts, and comments. Sometimes we like and repost such things too. But important posts, prayer requests for persecuted Christians or links to important news items, rarely show any evidence that anyone has even seen them.

As believers in Christ Jesus, we are not keeping these two commandments when we keep our lives “light and fluffy.” As believers, we are part of the Church, engaged in warfare. As believers we are faced with daily choices. Are our bodies temples of the Holy Spirit, or are they simply, as the Secular Humanist bumper stickers claim, amusement parks?

The Scriptures have detailed teaching about how a church should conduct itself and what it should expect of its membership, and vice-versa. Failure to follow these Scriptures is sin. A church or an individual needs to condemn failure to follow clear Scriptures or the making up of practices the Scriptures do not teach or allow for.

The Word of God clearly commands us not to fellowship with believers living in open sin. Though it grieves God’s heart, some people in positions of church leadership are living in open sin. Sadder still, unbelievers mock and ridicule the Word of God in the majority of the church buildings of Western Europe and the United States. We can neither glorify God nor love our neighbor in these services. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help us discern exactly what type of ministry we should join and support.

But some people say they won’t go to a church service if it does not meet their “needs,” whatever that means. Would you attend a church where men were segregated from women and children? What about a service without pews or chairs, where you had to stand for the entire service? What about a church that met in a different place each service because of threats on the worshipers’ lives?

There are three standards in the word of God for choosing to fellowship and support a local work by joining in membership. First, does it preach the Word of God? This means the whole council of God, not just what I want to hear. Second, is there a place for ministry? If the abilities and gifts God has blessed you with cannot be used in one fellowship, seek out another place where they can be used. Third, can I faithfully attend the services? The perfect fit a thousand miles from your house is not such a perfect fit.

These should not be such high standards. Instead, Christian Churches are filled with people “whose god is their appetites.” Philippians 3:9. These people will only attend a church which meets their appetites. The sad part is, what might be acceptable for one believer, might be a stumbling block and a sin for another believer.

The following is a brief list of some of the issues we have seen which cause people to leave a church. 1) The church is not the right size. These are “Goldilocks” Christians. This church is too big. This church is too small. They go through life forever searching for the church that is “just right.” 2) The music or worship service is not “contemporary” enough. They often tie this to other issues. They say the church is cold, unfriendly, judgmental, sometimes after attending for years and suddenly discovering that all these things have bothered them for years. Do they really mean to say, “I hate this church and I know this church hates me because I hate its music”? 3) The Church isn’t “giving” enough. What they usually mean by this is that other members are not giving them enough. 4) The Church is “legalistic.” This word is so overused that it has lost it’s meaning. In the Bible the word legalism simply means works salvation. Sometimes people simply mean that this particular church has standards they do not like.

So maybe our facebook pages, and our churches, and our lives, should not consist of what is light and fluffy, of what is pleasing to us, but rather of things that fulfill the Greatest Commandment.

7 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion

“Secular Humanism: Religious Mythology” is lettered on my computer bag. So “What is Secular Humanism?” The quick, simple answer is that it is the religion of self-indulgence with no possible consequences for the way we live in any kind of life after death. Beginning somewhere around the Kennedy administration, Secular Humanists learned that if they lied and claimed that they weren’t a religion, they could get federal funds. They also got political power to force everyone to practice their religion. The following more complete definition is from our book Antidisestablishmentarianism.

6. What Is Secular Humanism?

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” Edwards v Aguillard, U. S. Supreme Court, 1987. 

Almost every American colony had some form of establishment of religion. This was because their religion consisted of proven and necessary facts of existence. Religion was reliable, logical and rational to them. The modern established religion of Secular Humanism teaches that it is the only scientifically-based belief system in existence. It claims that all other religions are not scientifically-based, but the opposite is true. The Bible, upon which true religion is based, is a book of Science, and Secular Humanism is a religion of mythology.

“… Scientific history … is that the method that we use is something akin to the scientific method. It is based on at least three characteristics …. The first is to establish that the evidence is reliable. The second is making certain that the analysis being made is logical. And third, the analysis must lead to a generalisation that is based on rational argument.”2

Since time began man has only been able to take one of three positions toward a scientific fact. The first is belief, which means to accept the fact as it is and interpret its significance correctly. The second is unbelief, which means to reject a fact or give it the wrong interpretation. The third position is some degree of compromise between the other two, such as accepting a fact but wrongly interpreting its significance. It is also possible to misinterpret the true nature of the fact and misapply it to come to other wrong conclusions.

Belief does not mean mere opinion, as modern culture has degraded the word. The legal term belief means to accept something as true based on the facts available. Facts are true whether or not you choose to believe them. The Scriptures are the basis of scientific facts. This is the standard the founding fathers began with and also the colonials before them. All scientific facts are based on the Scriptures. “Facts are stubborn things;” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”3

Since the opposite is drilled into everyone through western culture and western education, we need to think the following example through slowly and carefully. The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is told in the Bible as a straightforward, factual, historic event. Charlton Heston, in his narration of the picturesque Bible video series, presents the Bible as part of the “oral tradition in storytelling” as if teachings passed on orally were understood to be less accurate or reliable and therefore merely legends and myths. Socrates, in Plato’s Dialogue “Phaedrus,” addresses the subject of oral versus written history.

“Theuth [Thoth] … was the inventor of many arts, … but his great discovery was the use of letters. … Thammus [the god Ammon] was the king of … Egypt; …To him came Theuth … desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of [his inventions]; … when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; … Thamus replied: … you … attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this … will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, … they will trust to the external written characters … This is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, … not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”4

Plutarch, in his discourse on the life of Lycurgus and his rule in ancient Greece, expresses the belief that oral tradition is a way of making the law more firmly fixed in the mind.

“None of his laws were put into writing by Lycurgus, indeed, one of the so-called “rhetras” forbids it. For he thought that if the most important and binding principles which conduce to the prosperity and virtue of a city were implanted in the habits and training of its citizens, they would remain unchanged and secure, having a stronger bond than compulsion in the fixed purposes imparted to the young by education, which performs the office of a law-giver for every one of them.”5

There is considerable disagreement about whether the Scriptures were in some part orally communicated before being written down. The point is that even if they were it does not make them less authoritative or reliable. Socrates may not be entirely justified in discounting the value of written records but he reinforces the point that oral communication of history does not make it unreliable or inaccurate. Memorizing and passing on history demands great discipline and does not result in a form of the child’s game “gossip.”

Gossip, sometimes called Telephone or other names, consists of a group made to stand in a line. The first person in line is given a piece of paper on which is written a phrase to whisper into the ear of the second person. Frequently there is only one opportunity to whisper the message. The second person whispers what he heard to the third, and so on down the line. The last person is to write down or speak aloud what he heard the person before him say. When the final form of the “gossip” message is made public, frequently it bears little resemblance to the original phrase. The distortion of the oral message in the game gossip is simply due to the indifference of the people playing the game. In fact, one simple change in the rules of the game of gossip produces correct transmission of the message even by children. Simply offer everyone who is playing a large enough reward, or punishment, if the final message is correct.

Modern prisoners of war, inmates in prison, gang members, spies and others today pass on important information without writing it down and without changing the message. Most American Indian tribes had no written language and saw no need for one, until Europeans demonstrated the ability to talk to people far away. In the popular TV series Mission: Impossible, the leader of the team received his orders on a recording that self-destructed after he had heard it one time. He was forced to memorize the mission immediately or he would be unable to complete it.

In the Scriptures, the Exodus is not recorded as a “story” which only “contains” truth. The Exodus is recorded as an historic event like WWII, Benjamin Franklin hearing George Whitfield preach or the invention of the steam engine.

The established religion of secular humanism would single out the invention of the steam engine as the only scientific fact included in these historic events. The word science, however, means something has been correctly observed and accurately recorded under controlled circumstances. For an event or experiment to be a scientific fact it must normally be reproducible. There are exceptions to this, however. The explosion of a supernova is a scientific fact, though no one on earth knows of any way to reproduce that explosion. And even though some of the information recorded about WWII is incorrect information, the historic fact of WWII is also a scientific fact. In fact, WWII is probably the most well recorded fact of history. The abundance of evidence allows modern observers to cross reference records to make a true scientific picture of WWII. Benjamin Franklin’s observations are just as scientific.

“He [Whitefield] … preach’d one evening from the top of the Court-house steps, which are in the middle of Market-street, … I had the curiosity to learn how far he could be heard, … I found his voice distinct till I came near Front-street… Imagining then a semi-circle, … fill’d with auditors, to each of whom I allow’d two square feet, I computed that he might well be heard by more than thirty thousand. This reconcil’d me to the newspaper accounts of his having preach’d to twenty-five thousand people … and to the antient histories of generals haranguing whole armies, of which I had sometimes doubted.”6

On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin’s observations of George Whitfield’s preaching were the scientific measurements of a single observer. Though a single observer, even a careful one like Benjamin Franklin, might be more prone to error than a large number of observers, Franklin’s measurements were still scientific. Franklin used a step-by-step process of investigation. He physically walked off the distance to determine the range of Whitfield’s voice. Next he compared his observation with previous witnesses of Whitfield’s audiences and range. Finally he adds similar established historic accounts of commanders addressing troops (adding that he previously doubted their truth).

In the following paragraph the Bible presents step-by step scientific proofs of the accuracy of the historical event of the Exodus. Three hundred years after the event Jephthah confirms its occurrence (Judges 11:26). At the time of the beginning of Solomon’s temple construction the official historical record of the event (I Kings 6:1) confirms that 480 years have passed. If someone falsely claims that the Biblical record of the Exodus is not scientific, that is an issue of his unbelief, not an issue of science.

In the book of Judges, part of Jephthah’s speech to the Ammonites includes an approximate date for the Exodus. …Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? (Judges 11:26, KJV) By the time of Solomon, the date of the Exodus was the foundational date for the kingdom. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (I Kings 6:1, KJV) Though the comparison of modern calendars with ancient calendars is very difficult and it is easy to be a few years off, I Kings 6:1 gives a precise date to the Exodus. Anyone who understands that Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in 966 BC of our Gregorian calendar knows that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC according to our Gregorian calendar. If you are interested in understanding these discrepancies, please see the Section Two Appendix on Calendars. Anyone who uses a slightly different date, such as 1444 BC or 1447 BC is not disagreeing about the date of the Exodus. He is simply disagreeing about the proper method of scientifically reconciling ancient calendars to our modern Gregorian calendar. Clearly this documentation of the Exodus is scientific history, actual events recorded and verified by scientific methods.

The believer understands that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC. In this case the word believer does not mean someone who has put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It simply means that he has examined the evidence and chosen to accept the facts. For example, Immanuel Velikovsky, author of numerous works on errors in the currently accepted dating methods of mainstream archaeology, believes the Exodus took place at the time recorded in the Bible, even though he rejects everything supernatural.

The unbeliever, however, does not understand that an Exodus ever took place. He simply rejects anything like the Biblical record. In other aspects of his life he may be a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist or almost anything else. He looks at the work of Egyptologists since James Breasted’s Ancient Records of Egypt and concludes that nothing like the Exodus recorded in the Bible ever happened. Mainstream history has no room for anything like the Exodus. A belief in the Exodus will keep doctoral candidates from receiving their doctorates, PhDs from getting a job, prevent professors from achieving tenure and will blacklist tenured professors. A brief look at a few people who have experienced some of this prejudice is documented in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled.7

The compromiser examines the Exodus recorded in the Bible and the massive works of mainstream historians and attempts to reconcile them. Though it is possible for as many reconciled dates as there are individuals doing the reconciling, the most common date compromisers arrive at is 1295 BC. The 1295 BC date often makes Rameses II the pharaoh of the Exodus, as in the Stephen Spielberg movie, Prince of Egypt and the 1956 classic Cecil DeMille’s The Ten Commandments. The 1295 BC date is a poor fit and is often ridiculed by mainstream historians who completely reject anything like an Exodus. Though it is the best fit these men can come up with, it is still wrong. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon said:

“A chasm is opening between the men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognize the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the “larger hope.” One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.”8

Compromisers want to “get along,” to make allowances for other views, to be tolerant. They won’t stand up for the truth because it doesn’t matter enough to them. These are people who believe that “getting along” is more important than honesty. Dorothy Sayer said, “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”9

Though massive tomes have been written on date of the Exodus, that is not the purpose of this work. The Exodus is but one example of the three possible positions of belief, unbelief and compromise. A juror for an automobile accident can be a believer, an unbeliever or a compromiser. A juror who makes a decision based on the evidence of the case alone is a believer. A juror who rejects the evidence and draws conclusions based on some other preconception is an unbeliever. A juror who combines evidence with preconceptions and jumbles it all together into a mess is a compromiser. We are all compromisers on issues where we fail to stand firmly on principle. Compromise is the most destructive thing we can do to our character. Yet as destructive as compromise is, it is an area in each of our lives that we have difficulty seeing clearly.

Throughout history, unbelief has taken many forms. In the Roman Empire the main form of unbelief was polytheism and Christians were viewed as atheists because they believed in only one God. Christianity was dangerous as a “foreign superstition,” and its followers “notoriously depraved,” said Tacitus, first and second century Roman historian.10Suetonius, a second century Roman historian, called Christianity a “new and mischievous religious belief,”11in his work The Twelve Caesars. In Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations Christians are called a “gang… of ignorant men and credulous women.” He believed they were guilty of lawlessness, or “mere contumacy.”12 Athenagoras, an Athenian who wrote to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, said that Romans accused Christians of “atheism, Thyestean feasts [cannibalism], [and] Oedipodean intercourse [incest].”13

Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, acknowledged the Roman perspective but made the Christian position clear to those who ignorantly or willfully misinterpreted it. “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort [the Roman pantheon] are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God…”14 Athenagoras pleaded with Marcus Aurelius to recall that every nation under Roman control was allowed to worship its own gods. Romans believed their vassal states were made better by religious practice, but Athenagoras said that Christians were “harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.”13

The Romans founded this empire-wide persecution of Christians upon the charge of Atheism, since Christians were not pantheists like the Romans. But beneath the mask of the worship of many gods, the Romans held the same beliefs Secular Humanists hold today.

Unbelief can take different forms in different cultures. In Japan it was emperor worship; other cultures have even degenerated into cannibalism. But the predominant form of unbelief in the world today is Secular Humanism. We use the term “Secular Humanist” or “Secular Humanism” because that is what they called themselves. The Humanist Manifesto I is a religious document, written by a Unitarian Minister, Raymond B. Bragg, in 1933. Thirty men who believed themselves to be representative of a vast multitude “forging a new philosophy” signed it. “… there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV)

The Humanist Manifesto I,II and III can be viewed on the website americanhumanist.org. It cannot be reprinted here because of the following notice on the site:

Copyright renewed 1973 by the American Humanist Association. Permission to reproduce this material, complete and unmodified, in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder to nonprofit humanist and freethought publications. All other uses, and uses by all others, requires that requests for permission be made through the American Humanist Association.15

These men quickly learned that using the word “religion” actually hampered their cause. If they could deceive people into believing that secular humanism was not a religion and that religion was bad, then they could get state funding (follow the money trail) and political power while putting ungodly restrictions on those who actually dared to call themselves religious. Humanist Manifestos II and III call traditional religions “traditional theism” and describe them as “obstacles to human progress.” Many have also dropped the word “secular” and simply call themselves “humanists.”This is an effective propaganda technique, since they are now denying that they are a religion.

The 1973 Humanist Manifesto II is lengthy and filled with doublespeak. It is exactly what George Orwell in 1984 and Aldous Huxley in Brave New World warned us about. It is important because it was signed by more than one hundred influential people, including doctors, university professors, and others like Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer, B. F. Skinner, Prof. of Psychology, Harvard University, Betty Friedan, Founder of N.O.W, and Sir Julian Huxley, former head, UNESCO, Great Britain. All the manifesto texts can be viewed online. Humanist Manifesto III is the most seductive. True intentions are cleverly obscured and it sounds very good. As commentator Bill O’Reilly points out, the term Secular Humanist is not very accurate. It is, however, the oldest and most accurate of the labels they have chosen for themselves.

It is also the term used in court documents, including the US Supreme Court, so we will continue to use it. “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”16 Justice Black based his comments on the 1957 case of Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda. In this case an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property “solely and exclusively for religious worship.” The court ruled that the activities of Fellowship of Humanity entitled it to an exemption. These activities included weekly Sunday meetings. The Fellowship of Humanity case used the word humanism, not secular humanism.16

Secular Humanism also made a separate manifesto, first published in 1980 as A Secular Humanist Declaration by CODESH (Council for Democratic Secular Humanism) co-authored by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, both editors of The Humanist magazine. Its principle purpose was to declare its compatibility with democracy and how enlightened man should view traditional religions as inferior to secular humanism.

Still, …there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). Plato praised many of these same follies in his dialogue The Republic. Since Plato is so verbose, few study him in detail today, which is good. Where Aldous Huxley in Brave New World and George Orwell in 1984 viewed the following principles as deplorable, Plato praised them as necessary. His philosopher king would use thugs he called guardians to enforce the will of the legislators on a hapless society divided into classes. Plato’s philosopher/king together with legislators and guardians would determine what the classes would be and who would belong to which class. The class you belonged to would determine every aspect of your life.

But Secular Humanism is older than Plato. It is older than anything written which is still in existence. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). Contrary to scientific facts, the modern version of the religion of Secular Humanism believes that a simple, chaotic universe evolved into

a complex, ordered universe. To oversimplify, everything came from nothing. Secular Humanists deny that they are a religion for the express purpose of attacking all other religions, collecting tax money and obtaining political power. They also deny that same political power to anyone who disagrees with them. As no two Christians, Jews, Taoists, etc. believe exactly the same way, so no two Secular Humanists believe the same thing. Despite their differences, Secular Humanists hold many beliefs in common.

People who hold beliefs in common can be labeled by those common beliefs. For example, the Niagara Bible Conference is where the term Fundamentalism first began to be used. The term was also used to describe “The Fundamentals,a collection of twelve books funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart. These men collected as many addresses of Christian teachers, preachers and other leaders as they could find. They published the books and sent them to these addresses over a period of time ending around 1910. This group of beliefs became known as Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists defined their beliefs so clearly that anyone willing to be called a Fundamentalist told others something about what they believe.17The term Fundamentalist, however, applies to every aspect of life. A football coach who emphasizes the basics of blocking and tackling as opposed to trick plays or a wide open offence like the West Coast offence is known as a Fundamentalist. An architect who designs simple, inexpensive buildings using the basics of engineering is a Fundamentalist. And a believer in the following list of fundamentals for Secular Humanism makes a person a Fundamentalist in Secular Humanism.

The Fundamentals of Secular Humanism

1.Secular Humanism is a religion based on feelings and emotion, not reason.

2.Secular Humanism denies anything non-material. Anything spiritual is redefined as “energy.” Various humanists use terms such as “Life Energy,” “Life-Force,” “Interdimensional Energy,” etc. The source of the energy is always material or natural, not supernatural.

3.Secular Humanism denies the existence of a supreme being including Intelligent Design.

4.While acknowledging the existence of evil it denies the concept of original sin. It believes in the perfectibility of man.

5.Though Secular Humanism is open to things not yet discovered, at this time there is no scientific evidence for life after death.

6.Man’s existence on the Earth, like everything else in the universe, is a result of chance and not a plan. The most likely explanation for this chance is evolution, which is based on uniformitarianism.

7.Secular Humanism demands that science include only what is within the scope of “natural law” but does not allow for any explanation for the origin of natural law, and therefore the origins of matter or energy; nor is there any reliable information on a possible end to the universe.

8.Only secular humanist beliefs are reasonable; all other religions raise false hopes, restrict personal fulfillment, or both.

9.The purpose of life is to make you a better person. This is accomplished by service to others and seeking

fulfillment in this life. Though each person might have a different concept of fulfillment, no one has the right to tell another person that what he is doing is wrong, unless it harms someone else. This is especially true with sexual gratification.

10. The accumulated improvements of many individuals will drive the evolution of the human race.

11. The best way for society to survive and thrive is to allow enlightened leaders complete freedom to guide all institutions and organizations that serve all people from the beginning to the end of life.

12. Man exists only as a member of the world community. The world community is responsible to provide for the protection and guidance of the enlightened society from the earliest age. Children must not be separated from the world community. Any persons of majority age who oppose the ideals of the world community must be forced into conformity through employment sanctions or reeducation. Opposition must be suppressed by any necessary means.

13. Improvement of society is the essential duty of the enlightened guardians and includes guidance to prevent nonproductive, undesirable or inferior types.

14. Enlightened leaders guide others to fulfillment in this life. The community chooses the values of these enlightened leaders. The enlightened leaders help to guide the community in developing their values system.

15. Compulsory education indoctrinates the citizen of the world community. It is the catechism of the new society.

16. Personal property is evil. This includes any type of marriage since marriage is a property arrangement. Since Secular Humanists recognize evil, it is the responsibility of the guardians to supervise the distribution of material possessions, including social contracts. Individuals corrupt material possessions by unnecessarily hoarding them.

17. National sovereignty is the cause of war, poverty, overpopulation, and waste or destruction of resources. A unified world government is essential to stable economics and freedom in the areas of communication, travel, arts, sciences and education.

18. Unity means eradication of opposition. Secular Humanists characterize anyone who differs from them on these fundamentals as opponents. Opponents are characterized as being oppressive, divisive, fearful of change, bigoted or guilty of hatred.

Some of these items may seem extreme, even to those who claim to be humanists. Some will protest, “I don’t believe that!” As was said before, not all humanists believe all these points exactly in these words. The position of the Secular Humanists has been evolving over millennia, not just centuries, and in the next chapters some surprising adherents will come to light. Prepare to hear from people who lived in times when they could see and touch the gods the state demanded they worship, yet their words produced the echoes secularists proclaim today as “new ideas for new times.” Look for parallels of these “modern” beliefs in the words of ancient writers who were required by law to believe in the gods of Sumeria, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Meso-America, Greece and Rome. They still spoke clearly about how they had already forged their own beliefs with man as his own prophet, priest and object of worship. Moving closer to modern times, hundreds of well-known humanists will make it clear that those who are influencing every aspect of our culture have believed these concepts for centuries and do, in fact, believe them and work for their realization today.

1 Edwards v Aguillard, U. S. Supreme Court, 1987. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

2 Professor Romila Thapar, Frontline magazine Volume 18 – Issue 19, Sep. 15 – 28, 2001 India’s National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU.

3 John Adams, “Argument in defence of the soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial,” December 1770.

4 From Plato’s Dialogue “Phaedrus,” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, 1871.

5 Plutarch, from his Life of Lycurgus, translated by John Dryden and others, 1683.

6 Franklin, Benjamin. Autobiography. First English version published London, 1793. (The Appendix of the Great Awakening includes the publication history of this work.)

7 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Prod. Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff and John Sullivan. Dir. Nathan Frankowski. Writ. Kevin Miller and Ben Stein. Assoc. Prod. Mark Mathis. Ed. Simon Tondeur. © 2008 Premise Media Corporation, Rampart Films Production.

8 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Our Reply to Sundry Critics and Enquirers,” The Sword and Trowel, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Elephant and Castle, London, Sept. 1887.

9 Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Other Six Deadly Sins,” Creed or Chaos, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York: NY, 1994, p. 81.

10 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, 109 AD, XIII. 32, Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, 1876.

11 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars, written c. 117 138 AD, translation J. C. Rolfe, 1913-1914.

12 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, XI.3, 167 AD, translated by George Long, 1862.

13 Athenagoras of Athens, Legatio pro Christianis [translated “Supplication for the Christians”], a letter to Marcus Aurelius written in 177 A.D. Translated by B. P. Pratten in “Athenagoras.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1954.

14 Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 6, “The Charge of Atheism Refuted,” Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Translators, 1867.

15 Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, http://www.americanhumanist .org/ Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I (II or III).

16 Torcaso v. Watkins,United States Supreme Court, 1961, Justice Hugo Black in a footnote. Justice Black based his comments on the 1957 case of Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda. Where an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property “solely and exclusively for religious worship.”

17 More detailed information on the Niagara Bible Conference and the Fundamentals can be found in the following sources: Ahlstrom.Sydney F. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972; Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity. Bob Jones University Press: Greenville, SC, 1986; Dollar, George W. A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

4 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books

The Religion of Physics II: The High Priest Pontificates

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”1 Stephen Hawking

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”2

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.”3 Justice Antonin Scalia Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillera, 1987

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy … At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: ‘What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”4

This funny opening to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time makes us smile and trust the author. It is also a not so subtle way of saying that anyone who disagrees with their belief in modern physics is crazy. Since this book is the best selling nonfiction book besides Shakespeare and the Bible, this is a very serious charge. This attitude sadly is repeated throughout the book.

“(Ptolemy’s model of a stationary earth) was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”5 Though the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Ptolemaic system the only system in accordance with Scripture, neither the Ptolemaic system nor any other system is found in the Scripture. I am not aware of any group which refused to acknowledge the authority of Rome to endorse the Ptolemaic system. The issue with Rome was authority. Rome wanted everyone to obey Rome. Though Stephen Hawking has room to include this great error of Rome, he complete ignores Sir Isaac Newton’s unorthodox Christianity.

“…On the general climate of thought before the twentieth century . . . It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time in the past more or less as we observe it today. In part this may have been due to people’s tendency to believe in eternal truths, as well as the comfort they found in the thought that even though they may grow old and die, the universe is eternal and unchanging.”6 So according to Stephen Hawking, people who believe in eternal truths are ignorant and have such a belief because they need to draw comfort. It is important to mention here that the eternal truths found in the Bible do not say that the “universe is eternal and unchanging.” The eternal truth found in the Bible says that universe was created in a point of time, that God is now stretching it out, and that it ends by melting in extreme heat.

“St Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 B.C. for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 B. C., which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)”7 Stephen Hawking makes archaeologists, or at least the dates which they give us, more authoritative than Scriptures. While this is the date any author who expects to be published must use, this is not even a commonly accepted date among archaeologists. Also, after calling St. Augustine a liar, or at least mistaken, a page is devoted to Aristotle and Immanuel Kant’s use of reason.

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”8 Why? Why does Stephen Hawkins believe, without any scientific evidence, that an expanding universe places limits on God?

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” Stephen Hawking believes that in order to do that, we must correctly understand the universe from it’s beginning. “…it appears that he (God) chose to make it (the universe) evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.”9 The Bible says very clearly that God “worked” on the first six days of creation. That is, the existing laws of physics did not apply to those first six days because God was making changes and inputting energy and order (design) into the universe. Stephen Hawking is promoting the religious leap of faith called uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past).

When Stephen Hawking faces the insurmountable problems of devising a unified field theory, this “single theory that describes the universe,” he turns to the religion of evolution. “The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past . . .”10

I have no desire to get anyone angry with me, but this was the well-stated goal of Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle). I am not accusing Stephen Hawking of any desire to murder anyone. But this philosophy he pens here is the foundation of the Star Trek movie about Eugenics, Khan in Star Trek The Original Series and the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the rationale for selective breeding and abortions, the impetus for the books 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm. To be fair to Stephen Hawking, I believe that all he intends is for a better person to find the answer in the future. But the reality of this race of supermen, designed by controlled natural selection, is a race of powerful evil which must be destroyed before they enslave and destroy us all.

“Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”10 This is an impossible goal when you begin, as Stephen Hawking does, by rejecting the scientific information about our origins which God revealed to us.

1 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

2 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win'” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

3 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

4 A Brief History of Time, 2001 Chapter 1 Stephen Hawking

5 Chapter 1, Hawking

6 Chapter 1, Hawking

7 Chapter 1, Hawking

8 Chapter 1, Hawking

9 Chapter 1, Hawking

10 Chapter 1, Hawking

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics I: What Is Physics?

“I put a lot of effort into writing A Briefer History [of Time] at a time when I was critically ill with pneumonia because I think that it’s important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.”1

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”2

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”3

“So Einstein was wrong when he said, ‘God does not play dice.’ Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.”4

Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is modern Physics. Only the Bible and Shakespeare have sold more copies in the nonfiction books category. The deep disagreements Stephen Hawking has with Albert Einstein’s meaning of general relativity are actually religious disagreements. Before reading A Brief History of Time you should grasp Albert Einstein’s understanding of general relativity. A clear and simple work is the 1938 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.

They take us to 221-B Baker Street where Sherlock Holmes ponders the great mystery of the universe. How do we go about solving this great mystery? What tools does Sherlock Holmes have available? How should he use them? What clews are available?

Since both Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld were born and raised as German Jews, English was a foreign language to them. The book is filled with archaic British spellings, such as clew for clue, which will either annoy or amuse you. While their writing style requires some thought, their perspective helps us think through some complicated issues. This book has no formulas or mathematics. The illustrations are very simple and the picture plates are black and white. This three hundred-page book only has four chapters.

“There comes a time where the investigator has collected all of the facts he needs for at least some phase of his problem. These facts often seem quite strange, incoherent, and wholly unrelated. The great detective, however, realizes that no further investigation is needed at the moment, and only pure thinking will lead to a correlation of the facts collected.”5 Sherlock Holmes hones in on the problem of defining motion. Because of the concepts of point, line, curve and vector developed by the ancient Greeks, we have the tools to analyze motion. Einstein and Infeld then expand to the rest of Euclid’s two-dimensional geometry. These ancient concepts are the foundation of modern physics.

The opening chapter, “The Rise of the Mechanical View,” covers almost 2000 years of thought, from Greece to the kinetic theory of matter developed by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Einstein, Newton was the most important physicist prior to the twentieth century. He wrote down two ideas which define classical physics. The formula for gravity allows for the prediction of mass, velocity and direction of objects. Even more important than the formula for gravity is the concept of inertia.

The Ancients, including the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Chinese, built massive stone structures which required advanced math. Whatever tools they developed are lost. The Greeks rediscovered some of these tools and their math is written down. In Einstein’s book, they developed physics in what we call three-dimensional space, but only used two dimensions. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler used three-dimensional physics in astronomy. The next step was developed by Newton. The mathematical basis of Calculus was written down by Newton, though the theory of Calculus goes back to Egypt.

The value of a theory is its ability to make a prediction. Though gravity was known and understood since Adam, Newton was the first to understand that gravity is field-related to mass and to derive formulas for the relationship between gravity and mass. With these formulas, careful observations of objects such as planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc. can be used to predict their orbits, determine their mass and calculate their relationships to one another. These gravitational formulas depend on a new discovery by Newton, inertia. He also wrote down the two laws for inertia.

His laws for inertia, building on the mathematics of the Greeks and Arabs and extending via gravity into the motion of heavenly bodies, depend on what Einstein calls absolute time and absolute space. That is, everyone views the same actions and reactions the same way at the same time. For the way the average person views the universe, this is true.

Newton even had a theory of relativity. Newton’s example uses a man with a ball bouncing up and down on a table with two observers. One man is traveling with the table and bouncing ball. To the man in motion with the table, the ball appears to be bouncing straight up and down. The other man is stationary and observes the other man, the table and the ball bouncing up and down to have an additional motion which the man traveling with the ball and table do not observe. Newton believed that even though the two men observed different motion of the ball, time was absolutely the same for both men. However, more precise instruments began to find problems with this.

The next chapter, “The Decline of the Mechanical View,” begins with these words: “The following pages contain a dull report of some very simple experiments. The account will be boring not only because the description of experiments is uninteresting in comparison with their actual performance, but also because the meaning of the experiments does not become apparent until theory makes it so. Our purpose is to furnish a striking example of the role of theory in physics.”6

This entire chapter is devoted to the problems of mechanical physics and is theoretical. Though the authors use humor and clever illustrations, it is a boring topic. It is also very necessary to properly understand the rest of the book. What are heat and light? What is magnetism? What is electricity? What is gravity? Are they energy? Are they properties of the substance emitting them? Do they have mass? The answers to these questions require a new examination of the facts and new theories to explain the facts.

The next chapter, “Field, Relativity,” begins about the time of Newton, so it covers much of the same time period as the previous chapter with a great shift in perspective. “The Decline of the Mechanical View” examines the problems and failed attempts to explain the universe with the mechanical view. “Field, Relativity” abandons the mechanical view and proposes different solutions. Modern readers will be more familiar with the term classical physics to describe what this book calls the mechanical view and field theory.

Field theory is better known today as electromagnetism. Field theory deals with the forces between neutrons, protons and electrons, rather than the matter made by atomic particles. Understanding the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity was the “death knell” for strictly Newtonian physics and the need for a new approach.

Though many men before him worked on the problem before he tackled it, Albert Einstein was the first to work out the math of special relativity. The real import of The Evolution of Physics is the distinctions between special and general relativity in Einstein’s own words. These distinctions are written in terms as simple and easy to understand as is possible.

Albert Einstein attempted to solve these problems with the mechanical view by using the mechanical view. His failure resulted in the theory of special relativity. He illustrates special relativity with a man in an idealized elevator falling forever towards the earth. He releases both a handkerchief and a ball. The elevator, the man, the handkerchief and the ball are all falling at the same rate. Inertia is real to the man because he is part of the closed system. Time, as well as gravity, is the same for all four because they are all part of what Einstein calls the same co-ordinate system (CS). Therefore, time is part of that CS. This relationship between this particular CS and time Einstein calls the space-time continuum. To the observer inside this CS, it is not much different from classical or mechanical relativity, except that time is added as part of space. It recognizes, however, that there are other co-ordinate systems existing at the same time as your CS.

General relativity, which Einstein worked on for years after publishing special relativity, is looking at the first CS (the man in the falling elevator) from a viewpoint outside of the elevator, an entirely different CS. Now time is moving at two different speeds. Time slows down with greater gravity and each CS has its own gravity. Now there is no inertia, only apparent inertia. Gravity warps time. Objects, such as photons of light, traveling outside of any gravitational field, such as between stars or galaxies will travel much greater distances in the same amount of time as an object in a gravitational field, such as on earth. The speed of light is a constant, but the time it is traveling is not.

Too much information, too quickly? This is why Einstein uses so many illustrations and spends many pages laying the foundation.

The chapter Quanta clearly shows differences between classical and modern physics. In the serious rift between the quanta physicists, such as Steven Hawking and the classical physicists, this brief chapter is a very fair presentation of the quanta position by a classical physicist. Modern physicists regard Albert Einstein’s views as classical and opposed to modern quantum mechanics. That is certainly the position of Stephen Hawking.

Newton wrote a theory of relativity which is called classical or mechanical today. The way Einstein describes classical relativity is a ball bouncing up and down on a table in a moving train. To the man on the train moving with the train, the ball seems to be bouncing straight up and down. But to a man standing on a platform looking into the window of the train, the ball is taking a zigzag path as it moves with the train. Both observers, however, use the same clock and the same space (CS, Co-ordinate System). This led to some problems with the results of several experiments with light.

“Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories – the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. They are the great intellectual achievements of the first half of this century. The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is, the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other. They cannot both be correct.”7

“However, we still use Newton’s theory for all practical purposes because the difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is very small in the situations that we normally deal with. (Newton’s theory also has the great advantage that it is much simpler to work with than Einstein’s!).”8

Einstein’s oft-repeated statement God did not play dice with the universe showed at least a deistic belief. As Einstein grew older, he seems to have returned to some form of liberal Judaism. He also stated quite often that the most miraculous part of the universe was that it made sense. The variety and complexity of the universe should result in chaos, not order. General Relativity to Einstein was an astronomical increase in complexity and order of the Universe.

“Modern” or “Progressive” physicists represented by Stephen Hawking see General Relativity as an infinite universe with life becoming insignificant. “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.”9

Stephen Hawking disdains religion, because religion “is based on authority” while science “is based on observation and reason.”3 The only honest scientific answer is that is this statement is a lie. The entire basis of the religion of modern physics is Stephen Hawking’s Papal pronouncement, “The life we have on Earth must have spontaneously generated itself. It must therefore be possible for life to exist spontaneously elsewhere in the universe.”10

Spontaneous generation is anti-science. Every attempt to generate life has failed. Spontaneous generation is pure religious belief without a shred of any kind of evidence, scientific, circumstantial or hearsay. It is a desperate belief in the ridiculous in order to ignore the scientific evidence.

1 A Brief History of Time Chapter 8 1988, 1996, 2001

2 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

3 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win'” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

4 During the 1994 exchange with Penrose, transcribed in The Nature of Space and Time (1996) by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 26 and also in “The Nature of Space and Time” (online text)

5 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, 2007, 2008, p. 4.

6 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, 2007, 2008, p. 69.

7 A Brief History of Time Chapter 1 1988, 1996, 2001

8 A Brief History of Time Chapter 1 1988, 1996, 2001

9 From an interview with Ken Campbell on the 1995 show Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken

10 From an appearance in the Discovery Channel program “Alien Planet” (May 14, 2005)

5 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific