Thursday, August 29, 2019

A Trip Around the Worldviews: New Age Spirituality

While preparing for the next stop on the trip around the worldviews, I needed to consult my guidebook more frequently.  I have spent a lot of time mentally chewing on the differences between the Christian and secular worldviews, but have limited exposure to new age spirituality.  Although difficult to exactly pinpoint, by new age spirituality I am referring to both modern new age movements and Eastern religious traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which share similar foundations.  Like all the worldviews that we will explore, the answers to life’s big questions must be consistent with the foundational beliefs.

The Foundation
While there are variations in beliefs and practices, new age spirituality is broadly based on the following premises1:

1)    Everything is consciousness

Consciousness is an often vaguely defined energy and impersonal force that binds the universe together and unites everything within it.  That may sound oddly similar to Obi Wan Kenobi’s description of “the force” to Luke Skywalker: “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power.  It’s an energy field created by all living things.  It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.”  Popular spiritual teacher, Eckhard Tolle puts it this way, “The whole is made up of the existence and Being, the manifested and the unmanifested, the whole and God.  So when you become aligned with the whole, you become a conscious part of the interconnectedness of the whole and its purpose; the emergence of consciousness into this world.”2

2)    Every person is God

People are not separate, distinct physical realities but part of the consciousness that composes the universe.  The Dalai Lama explains it this way, “Each of the physical and mental parts of which I am composed is similarly empty of any identifiable existence…Our initial reaction to recognize that things do not possess objective or inherent existence is understandably one of surprise.  We are discovering that the actual way things exist is so very contrary to how we naturally relate to them.”3

In this view, God is also not a distinctive being with thoughts and a will, but consciousness itself.  Since all things, including ourselves, are ultimately consciousness, then we ourselves are ultimately God.  Meher Baba asserts, “There is only one question. And once you know the answer to that question there is only one answer – I am God!”4

3)    Consciousness can be harnessed to achieve personal perfection

Since everything is energy, part of the consciousness that binds and unites the universe, our thoughts are also energy and have the power to alter to world.  This power of consciousness is called the law of attraction and endorsed in Rhonda Byrne’s international best-seller, The Secret: “Your thoughts become the things in your life…Your transmission creates your life and it creates your world.”5

4)    The purpose of life is overcoming “self”

Contrary to the secular worldview in which the “self” is an autonomous individual and the basic unit of life, there is no “self” in new age spirituality.  Self is an illusion that we must break free of in order to join the “universal self” through a series of reincarnations.  After a cycle of lives, deaths, and re-births, the goal is to reach an enlightened state that will enable us to completely break free from individuality and melt into the stream of consciousness, a state called nirvana.

These foundational beliefs can be very mind-boggling when viewed from a Western perspective, but it is essential to wrestle with them to better understand how new age spirituality answers life’s big questions.

Origin - How did we get here?

Despite scientific evidence that indicates that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, new age spiritual teachers teach that consciousness, which is the ultimate reality, is eternal.  The Dalai Lama explains, “From a Buddhist point of view, the continuum of substantial causes preceding our conception can be traced back to before the Big Bang, to when the universe was a void.  Actually, if we follow the line of reasoning by which we trace our continuum back to before the Big Bang, we would have to acknowledge that there could not be a first moment to the continuum of substantial causes of any conditioned phenomenon.”6  In other words, the universe is actually eternal.

Likewise, the true nature of human beings is not as either created or evolved individual beings but as part of the same eternal consciousness that preceded the physical universe.  According to Gary Zukav, “All that I am can form itself into individual droplets of consciousness.  Because you are part of all that is, you have literally always been, yet there was the instant when that individual energy current that is you was formed.  Consider that the ocean is God.  It has always been.  Now reach in and grab a cup full of water.  In that instant, the cup becomes individual, but it has always been, has it not?  This is the case with your soul.  There was an instant when you became a cup of energy, but it was of an immortal original Being.  You have always been because what it is that you are is God, or Divine Intelligence, but God takes on individual forms, droplets, reducing its power to small particles of individual consciousness.”7 

Identity – What does it mean to be human?

As part of the great universal consciousness, the answer to this question is both exalting and humbling.  Shirley McClain encourages people to affirm their divinity: “You can use I am God or I am that I am as Christ often did, or you can extend the affirmation to fit your own needs.”8  Yet, everything else in our world is also part of the same consciousness – every person, every animal, every plant – and is also divine.  This sense of interconnectedness has provided a spiritual basis for radical ecological movements, such as deep ecology, which the idea that all living things should have legal rights.

While interconnectedness taught by new age spirituality would seem to provide fertile ground for compassion towards fellow man, belief in consciousness and karmic cycles has historically produced the opposite effect.  Each person is not uniquely created in God’s image, but is an energy wave temporarily separated from the universal consciousness.  Furthermore, the trials and challenges that a person faces in life are the result of karmic debts that are preparing them for final enlightenment and freedom from individuality.  To lend aid to a suffering person is seen as disrupting the karmic cycle and, instead of helping the individual, would actually impede their progress towards joining the universal self.  Biblical teachings regarding compassion for the poor and the service of Christian missionaries, “awakened in [Mahatma Gandhi] a revulsion for the caste system and for the maltreatment of outcastes”9 and led him to act inconsistently with his Hindu foundations to incorporate a Biblical system of ethics.

Morality – How should we live?

Moral obligations do not come from a divine law-giver or from societal expectations, but from the “truth” that resides within.  Eckhart Tolle teaches that moral truth cannot be found in “doctrines, ideologies, sets of rules, or stories,”10 but, “The Truth is inseparable from who you are.  Yes, you are the Truth.   If you look for it elsewhere, you will be deceived every time.”11  From the new age perspective, this is a proper response to the realization that we are God.  Shirley McClain agrees that our God-likeness grants us freedom to act in accordance with our personal understanding of the truth, claiming, “Free will is simply the enactment of the realization that you are God, a realization that you are divine: free will is making everything accessible to you.”12

Older Eastern religions do not follow the brazen individuality of the American new age.  Buddhism teaches followers to refrain from the ten non-virtuous acts – killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, idle gossip, covetousness, malice, and wrong view.  In the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s sacred texts, Krishna condemns “hypocrisy, insolence, anger, cruelty, ignorance, [and] conceit.”13  These actions are wrong because they cause separation instead of promoting universal oneness.

In new age spirituality, moral accountability is provided by the system of karma in which the consequences of what each person does for good or evil will inevitably return to them, either in this life or in future reincarnations.  Shirley McClain explains, “Whatever action one takes will ultimately return to that person – good and bad – maybe not in this life embodiment, but in the future.  And no one is exempt…For every act, for every indifference, for every misuse of life, we are finally held accountable.  And it is up to use to understand what those accounts might be.”14  One has to wonder how she defines “indifference” and “misuse of life” when “the realization that you are God…is making everything accessible to you.”  This raises a dilemma for the new spiritualist.  How can karma exist apart from objective, absolute standards of right and wrong?  If such standards exist, how do we justify their source if reality is non-personal consciousness?  However, if such standards do not exist, how can karma ever guide our actions, since we can never really know whether our actions are right or wrong?  At this point, morality in the new age worldview deteriorates into nebulous and incoherent moral relativism.

To resolve the dilemma, new age spiritualists muddy the water further by insisting that since everything is part of one consciousness, differences between good and evil are simply illusory.  Marilyn Ferguson insists, “This wholeness unites opposites…In these spiritual traditions there is neither good nor evil.  There is only light and absence of light…wholeness and brokenness…flow and struggle.”15

Yet, we live in the real world and a worldview must provide a basis for answering basic moral questions.  If morality is based on following our inner truth, is there a time that we should persuade others to behave differently?  If so, on what basis to we make this assertion?  Were the villains of history expressing a wrong morality or were they choosing a life path that helped them on their journey toward enlightenment?  I am afraid that new age spirituality cannot provide coherent, intellectually satisfying answers to these questions.

Meaning – Why are we here?

The purpose of live in new age spirituality is to achieve enlightenment, completely detaching oneself from any sense of self and entering into a transcendent state of ultimate peace known as nirvana.  The Dalai Lama explains, “Our pursuit of this peaceful state of nirvana is a quest for protection from the misery of samsara [the cycle of rebirths], and particularly from the afflictions such as attachment and aversion that bind us within the viscous cycle of rebirths.”16  In other words the goal is to completely detach ourselves from any desires, known as attachments, and fears, known as aversions, that we might achieve complete freedom and melt into the universal self.

The new age goal of losing all desire stands in contrast to the Christian worldview, which does not condemn our desires in general, but exhorts us to rightly place our delight in God.  “Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

Destiny – What happens to us when we die?

According to new age spirituality, death is not the end of the road.  Remembering that everything is ultimately consciousness each “person” will return to Earth through reincarnation, unless they have already reached an enlightened state.  In this return they may take the form of another human or a completely different form of life in which they will pay-off karmic debts from previous incarnations as they progress towards freedom from self and complete enlightenment. 

Ultimately, there will be a happy ending in the new age view as the human species spiritually evolves towards collective consciousness.  Prominent new age teacher Deepak Chopra says, “Spirituality can be seen as a higher form of evolution, best described as ‘metabiological’ – beyond biology.”17  While human physical evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection, new age teachers emphasize that evolution is psychological.  Peter Russell states, “Evolutionary trends and patterns…suggest a further planetary consciousness or Supermind: a completely new level of evolution, as different from consciousness as consciousness is from life, and life is from matter.”18  Even people who do not embrace new age spirituality will be caught up into this evolutionary leap into a collective higher consciousness in which oneness, collective godhood, and unity will be achieved.


I have three major questions and concerns related to the new age worldview.  First, new age beliefs often seem to be vaguely defined and drawn from the minds of humankind.  Although some ancient writings are held in high regard, truth does not come from divine revelation, but through awareness of the universe.  Rhonda Byrne writes, “Trust the Universe.  Trust and believe and have faith.  The truth is that the Universe has been answering you all of your life, but you cannot receive the answers unless you are aware.”19  How do we achieve this awareness?  How can we test this awareness and know that we are not merely deceived?  From my vantage point, it doesn’t seem that the new age offers any answers other than to trust and believe.  For those who think the Christian worldview suffers from the same fault, I plan to address such questions in a series of posts on the reasonableness of Biblical faith later this year.

Which leads to my next concern – What if my awareness leads to me different moral truths than another person reaches through their awareness?  New age spirituality seems hopelessly relativistic when it comes to morality.  In a worldview that teaches that truth comes from within, how do we discover the objective moral truths on which a karmic cycle must be based?  If we are all ultimately on a path towards enlightenment, how do we coherently respond to those who are pursuing a path that seems objectively evil and immoral?  I don’t see satisfying answers in new age spirituality.

Finally, if one fully follows the new age worldview, they should be seeking to empty themselves of all attachments to this world.  This includes the love that we feel for family members, the compassion that we feel when we see someone in need, and the desire for justice that we experience when we see a world of inequality.  I don’t think these are attachments that we want to abandon in the name of seeking detachment from self.

I would agree that there is a spiritual hole in our lives that the secular and materialistic worldview cannot, but would disagree that new age spirituality provides coherent, objectively true answers to life’s big questions.  I will admit that my experience with new age ideas is less than some other worldviews, so if I misrepresented new age spirituality’s core beliefs and answers to life’s big questions, I’d love to hear from you and continue the discussion.


1.      Myers, Jeff and Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015. 128-132.

2.     Tolle, Eckhart.  A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose. New York: Plume, 2005. 277

3.     The Dalai Lama. A Profound Mind. New York: Three Rivers, 2011. 93-94.

4.     Cohen, Allan Y.  “Meher Baba and the Quest for Consciousness.”

5.     Bryne, Rhonda. The Secret. New York: Atria Books, 2006

6.     The Dalai Lama. A Profound Mind. New York: Three Rivers, 2011. 45.

7.     Zukav, Gary. Seat of the Soul.  New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. 85-86.

8.     Smith, LaGard F. Out on a Broken Limb. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1986. 181.

9.     Myers, Jeff and Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015. 139.

10.  Tolle, Eckhart. A New Earth. New York: Plume, 2005. 70

11.  Ibid. 71

12.  Goldstein, William. “Life on the Astral Plane.” Publishers Weekly, March 18, 1983. 46.

13.  Mitchell, Stephen (translated). Bhagavad Gita. New York: Three Rivers, 2000. 170.

14.  MacLaine, Shirley. Out on a Limb. Toronto: Bantam, 1984. 96, 111.

15.  Ferguson, Marilyn. Aquarian Conspiracy.  Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1981. 381.

16.  Spangler, David. Reflections on the Christ. Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1982. 73.

17.  Chopra, Deepak and Mlodinow, Leonard. War of the Worldviews: Where Science and Spirituality Meet – and Do Not. New York: Three Rivers, 2011. 54.

18.  Russell, Peter. The Global Brain. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1983. 99.

19.  Byrne, Rhonda. The Secret. New York: Atria Books, 2006. 57, 172.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

A Trip Around the Worldviews: Secularism

I recently watched an interview of Ravi Zacharias, a Christian philospher and apologist, and he made a distinction that I think is helpful to frame this post.  He said that we should be egalitarian with respect to personhood, but not with respect to ideas.  In other words, we should treat everyone with the equal respect that is due to a person with inherent worth, value and dignity, but we should not treat all ideas as being equally valid.  Some ideas are better than others and some ideas have drastic consequences if they are pursued to their logical ends.  While the modern definition of tolerance promotes embracing and celebrating all ideas equally, a traditional definition requires that there be significant differences in ideas over which to "tolerate" one another. 

I hope that I am able to embody that spirit as I begin my trip around the worldviews, examining how major worldviews provide answers to life's big questions of origin, identity, morality, meaning, and destiny.  While I will be providing my honest critique of different ideas, I hold no animosity to those who hold such positions and hope to be able to communicate my position with civility and generosity.  If you happen to hold an opposing position, I would love to engage in respectful dialogue over these important issues.

With that disclaimer aside, our journey begins with an examination of secularism.

The Foundation

All worldview's are built upon a foundation of ideas and premises, and, if the worldview is going to be coherent, all of the answers to life's big questions must be consistent with that foundation.  Secularism is built upon the foundation of atheism, materialism, and naturalism.  While some secularists may not claim to be strict atheists, secularism requires that God be removed from the public square and that God has no legitimate impact on reality.  Many secularists are not only openly atheists, but also openly anti-theist, as characterized by Harvard paleontologist Richard Lewontin's admission: "Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.1

Materialism and naturalism work hand in hand.  Materialism is a philosophy that claims that matter is the fundamental substance in nature and that all things are ultimately the result of material interactions.  Naturalism is the philosophy that everything in the universe has a natural explanation and that supernatural explanations should be excluded and disregarded.  To the secularist, a scientific method based on naturalism and materialism is the only reliable epistemology (way of knowing things), as summarized by evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley: "Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.2  It is important to note that materialism and naturalism are philosophical presuppositions not scientific facts.  Science itself can not prove that materialism and naturalism are true, so to claim that a scientific method based on those ideas is the only way of knowing anything is self-referential and incoherent.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand secularism's starting point of atheism, materialism and naturalism because secularism's answers to life's big questions must not contradict these presuppositions. 

Origin - How did we get here?

According to secularism, we are either incredibly lucky or the result of brute necessity.  Based on scientific discoveries within the last century, scientists have learned that the fundamental parameters of the universe are incredibly fine-tuned to allow for the existence of complex life.  To give only one example, according to Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford, "If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 1040, the universe would have suffered a similar fate (would not exist).  The nature of the universe (at the atomic level) could have been different, but even remarkably small differences would have been catastrophic to our existence.3  

Even if this evidence would seem to point to an intelligent designer, secularism can only offer naturalistic explanations.  The most popular explanations are that the fundamental properties were finely-tuned due to necessity or that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, the multiverse, out of which at least one universe would certainly end up with the correct parameters to support life.  While the multiverse is driven by philosophical assumptions, not evidence, the important thing is that the universe we observe has no purpose and no design, but is the result of blind, indifferent natural forces.

Life originated and evolved by the same basic principles – purposeless, unguided natural forces, despite a lack of scientific evidence to support the possibility of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.  Richard Lewontin admitted the scientific community holds onto a "tolerance" for "unsubstantiated just-so stories, because [they] have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.1 Our species, homo sapiens, is a newcomer to Earth, a highly evolved ape that traces its ancestry back to the very first single-celled organism to emerge from the primordial goop.  Coherent answers to life’s other big questions must align with secularism’s account of humanity’s origin.

Identity – What does it mean to be human?

Do human beings have intrinsic worth and value that calls for each person to be treated with dignity and respect?  Based on secularism’s initial premises and explanation of human origins, I see no way to rationally answer in the affirmative.  Keep in mind, in the secular worldview, nothing exists beyond the material realm.  Humans don’t have a spirit, soul, or even a mind.  We are simply bundles of cells, biological machines with no more intrinsic value than any other organism.  What makes humans any different than the chimps from with we allegedly evolved, or if we go further back, the fish and bacteria in our family tree?  If we don’t protect “fish rights” and “bacteria rights,” what rational basis is there for protecting human rights?

This is the first point at which we see the incoherency of the secularist view.  Thankfully, most secularists do live as if human beings have intrinsic value, though I would argue that this value is not consistently extended to all humans, particularly to those still in their mother’s womb.  Secularists can treat others with dignity and respect, and they often do, but the problem is that the philosophical foundation of the worldview actually contradict such action.  We should mind the lessons of history, from western slavery to the Holocaust to the Soviet death camps, to realize that the devaluing of human life brings tragic consequences.

Morality – How should we live?

Similar to the last section, I want to make it clear that secularists can live admirably moral and ethical lives, but the worldview does not provide the foundation necessary to support absolute moral obligations.  To be consistent with its initial premises, the secular worldview must assert that morality is not absolute or objective, in other words, there is not any action that is truly right or wrong.  Instead, morality is relative and subjective, depending either on shared cultural values or individual preferences.  Consider the following quotes from well-known atheists.

“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists.  Reason doesn’t decide here.  The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one.  Reflection on it depresses me…Pure practical reason even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.4

Kai Neilsen

“The whole nature of moral reasoning has such an immense configuration to it, that it is impossible to actually arrive at a rational defense of it apart from invoking a moral, personal first-cause.5

J.L. Mackie

“I cannot believe that I find my values are simply a matter of my personal taste and so I find my own views actually quite incredible and I do not know the solution.6

Bertrand Russell

Secularism does not provide a foundation for morality, leaving moral direction to the culture or the individual.  This is a frightening game to play.  If there truly is no objective standard of morality to which mankind can refer, what happens when an ill-bent regime rises to power and rewrites the rules?  As the rock band King Crimson penned

Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hand of fools7

Even more frightening, secularism removes the rational basis for assigning praise or blame to a person’s actions.  In order to be consistent, I would claim that an atheistic and materialistic worldview requires determinism.  If we rewound the history of the universe and hit replay, the exact same series of events would have occurred.  If we reduce humans to matter, every action that we undertake and every thought that we have is ultimately the result of atoms colliding in our bodies.  There is no mind or soul that could have chosen to act differently than it did.

The following video clip shows a conversation with YouTube atheists Cosmic Skeptic, Rationality Rules, and Matt Dillahaunty.  Rationality Rules and Matt Dillahaunty want to hold a compatible view between determinism and moral accountability.  In other words, they want to maintain that people ultimately do not have free will but can still be held accountable for their immoral actions.  I think it is pretty obvious why one would want to hold onto the idea of moral accountability.  However, Cosmic Skeptic interjects, “The fact of the matter is every part of my psychological state that exists right now, the chain of causation that caused that to occur, does trace back to inanimate matter, and that’s the point, so the only thing the compatibilist can do is make an arbitrary distinction between whether a chain of causation exists entirely inside of the brain or whether it just sort of comes from outside of the brain, and the likelihood is most all of them actually originate, if you go far back enough, outside of the brain… If that’s the case, then your psychological state is completely determined by things over which you had no control. To me that’s not making anything compatible… The reason why [compatibilists are] reluctant to accept that [free will] doesn’t exist is because of the fact that you have to do away with concepts of praise and blame.8  If you would like to watch, the conversation on determinism starts at 44:30 and Cosmic Skeptic begins to explain why determinism is incompatible with moral praise and blame at 52:58.

I think that Cosmic Skeptic, who has over 276,000 YouTube subscribers, is the one who is being intellectually consistent.  While his comments, particularly with a charming British accent, do not sound particularly insidious, consider the ramifications.  You cannot rationally assign blame for moral misdeeds.  The Hitlers and Stalins of history cannot ultimately be blamed for their heinous actions because they ultimately could not have done any differently.  Ironically, in the days following this episode, Rationality Rules was assigned moral blame by the producers of this episode, The Atheists Community of Austin, for a video he had previously made raising concerns about transgender athletes competing with biological females.

Meaning – Why are we here?

Once again, someone can hold a secular worldview and lead a productive life in which they find personal satisfaction and meaning, but there is not any ultimate purpose that can be supported by this worldview.  Bertrand Russell saw this clearly and asserted, “only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.9  To be sure, people can find purpose in their work, families, and hobbies, but this purpose is ultimately illusory.

Further devaluing humanity, Richard Dawkins claims, “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…This is exactly what we are for.  We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process.  It is every living object’s sole reason for living.10  I would love to ask Professor Dawkins whether people who are unable to propagate their DNA or have passed that stage of life have any reason for living.

Destiny – What happens to us when we die?

When asked in a question and answer session what he would do if he was facing death without having any assurance of eternal life through faith in God, Neil deGrasse Tyson replied, “I would request that my body, in death, be buried, not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna.11  This position is consistent with the premises of secularism and holds a certain romantic appeal.  However, a good follow up question would be, “What if you’re wrong?”

While I think there are much better reasons to believe in God, Pascal’s wager does present an interesting dilemma for the secularist.  If I am wrong, I have met the secularist’s demand to find satisfaction in this life, and ultimately come to nothing.  However, if the secularist is wrong, they have not met God’s demand for righteousness, and there is no going back. 


In order to be coherent and consistent the secular worldview diminishes any intrinsic value in humanity, undermines an objective basis for moral obligations and accountability, and denies any ultimate purpose for living.  Unfortunately, I fear that many don’t grasp the consequences of adopting an atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview.  Some stand behind one podium to deny the existence of God and then hop over to the other podium to morally condemn an action as being "truly wrong."  In contrast, Friedrich Nietzsche fully understood the gravity of proclaiming that “God is dead,” as brilliantly evidenced in "The Parable of the Madman."

“The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”12

If you are reading this and hold to a secular worldview, please know that while I hold an opposing worldview, I sincerely care about you as a person, one who I believe is created in the image of God and endowed with great intrinsic value and worth.  I would love the opportunity to further discuss life's big questions.


1)  Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons."  The New York Review of Books,  January 9, 1997

2)  Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1942), 457

3)  Quoted in J. Warner Wallace, God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015)

4)  Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?"  American Philosophical Quarterly, January, 1984

5)  Quoted in Ravi Zacharias, "The Incoherence of Atheism." YouTube, September 15, 2014

6)  Bertrand Russell, "Letter to the Observer." October 6, 1957

7) King Crimson, "Epitaph." A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson, 1976

8)  "Atheist Experience 23.18 with Matt Dillahaunty, Cosmic Skeptic, & Rationality Rules."   YouTube, April 28, 2019

9)  Bertrand Russell, Free Man's Worship, 1903.

10)  Richard Dawkins, "The Ultraviolet Garden." Lecture, 1991.

11) "Neil deGrasse Tyson - Flora and Fauna." YouTube, March 23, 2014

12)  Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Parable of the Madman." 1882