2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump recently said that, if elected, he plans to turn conspiracy theorist and all-around nutjob Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. loose on the Federal government — specifically the FDA. What could possibly go wrong, right? What follows is an excerpt from an article on the Science-Based Medicine website by one of my favorite Internet doctors, David Gorski. If you are not familiar with the Science-Based Medicine site, please check it out. You will find long-form articles filled with important information/discussion about medicine and science.
Let’s look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims. Basically, it’s a misrepresentation of what the FDA has done and, of course, the promise of all the things listed. Again, I will start by saying that the FDA has never engaged in suppression, much less “aggressive suppression” of exercise or sunlight that I am aware of. Moreover, as we’ve complained about before, the FDA, if anything, has been far too lax in regulating, for example, quackery involving unproven stem cell treatments for conditions ranging from autism (for which quack clinics have even set up unethical and scientifically dubious pay-to-play clinical trialsregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov to sell their quackery), to stroke, to cancer. There are even profitable companies marketing stem cell quackery without evidence that it works. Ditto chelation therapy, which has never been shown to work for anything except acute toxicity from heavy metal poisoning and has even been studied for cardiovascular disease in two very expensive and unnecessary (and negative) randomized clinical trials. Let’s also not forget that neither hydroxychloroquine nor ivermectin have been demonstrated to work against COVID-19—quite the contrary, in fact—nor ivermectin shown to be efficacious against cancer. As for raw milk, it has no health benefits greater than pasteurized milk, but it does have a much higher risk of food borne infections. (It is, however, “natural,” I guess.)
Of course, nutraceuticals (and vitamins and supplements) are already legal and weakly regulated (if you can call it regulated at all), thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which we’ve written about here many, many times, most recently how it helped conspiracy theorist Alex Jones fund his media empire. Basically, as long as you are vague enough about the health claims for your supplement, nutraceutical, or vitamin concoction, you can sell it to treat almost anything, and the supplement industry has, through its powerful patrons, prevented any strengthening of the law to deal with all the quacks who claim without evidence that their supplements treat disease. On the rare occasions when the FDA does try to crack down on quacks selling unproven or even potentially harmful supplements, the health freedom movement inevitably portrays it as “fascist” or “jack-booted thugs” trying to “suppress” all those “natural” cures.
….
So what would the FDA look like if Trump were to win next week and actually follow through with his appointment of RFK Jr. to a high-ranking health position? The answer illustrates a bit of the dilemma that the “health freedom” movement has, being, as it is, an uncomfortable alliance between crunchy “all natural” health freedom lovers and more hard core libertarians like Nick Gillespie, who believe that the “power of the free market” will “unleash innovation” if only the nasty old FDA were less strict about its standards for pharmaceutical companies. There is an inherent tension there between wanting to be more strict with the “bad” pharmaceutical companies, while approving modalities (or at least much more weakly regulating them) that alternative practitioners want.
On the one hand, MAHA would seem to want to muzzle the FDA with respect to all the quackery listed in RFK Jr.’s post, basically letting quacks do whatever they want with almost anything. Remember, a lot of what is in RFK Jr.’s list is not “natural.” Certainly extracting and isolating stem cells and injecting them into the bloodstream is not “natural,” nor are chelation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen—and especially ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, peptides, and psychedelics, all of which are manufactured drugs. Again, what “health freedom” really wants is the freedom for quacks to ply their grift without interference from the government.
What will be fascinating to watch is how tensions between the libertarians who believe that big pharma should be unleashed in order to produce “innovation” and cures and the “natural” crunchy crowd and its overwhelming suspicion of anything produced by big pharma will be resolved. Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t want to see RFK Jr. in any sort of official capacity with power over federal health care policy, but, in the unfortunate event that Trump wins and he is appointed HHS Secretary (or, at least, keeps helping Trump pick leaders of the FDA, CDC, and NIH), in particular because his MAHA agenda conflicts with so much of Trump’s other agenda:
Being responsive to public opinion doesn’t necessarily make someone smart. It makes them pliable. And perhaps that’s why Kennedy and his followers are willing to take a chance on Trump. They see him as a person who—in his lust for adulation—can be changed or manipulated.
The challenging thing about being around RFK and his crowd is that while their ideas can be hard to take seriously, the underlying concerns they carry are basically unimpeachable: frighteningly high healthcare costs, the murky relationship between pharmaceutical companies and doctors who prescribe their pills, and a very real decline in overall health among the population.
But they are seeking solutions to real problems in the wrong places. Looking into the past won’t save us any more than forgoing your vaccine shots, drinking raw milk, or voting for Trump will.
That is precisely the issue. There are very real concerns about US health policy, but, as is the case with the nostrums RFK Jr. champions for disease and to demonize vaccines, he’s applying policy quackery to address these problems in a way that is inherently self-contradicting. After all, the “free market” contingent of the “health freedom” movement that wants to “unleash innovation” by neutering the FDA is good at manipulation too. I hope we never have to see which faction of the health freedom movement will triumph if there is a second Trump administration. I fear that federal health policy will end up being the worst of both worlds, with far less regulation on big pharma and much laxer standards for drug approval, plus a lot more freedom for quacks to peddle quackery like bogus stem cell therapies, chelation, and “repurposed” ivermectin for everything, while NIH is forced to waste even more money studying useless quackery.
As for a “corrupt system,” no one out-corrupts Donald Trump.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, World Renowned Denier of Science, Observations, October 24, 2024.
On the back of the book (Stephen Hawkings — The Origin of Everything), and we are quoting from memory, the book said that scientists have finally got to the point where they understand and know where are origins began. Or something close to that.
As we read those few lines, the first thought was, what a waste of time. The secular scientists still have no clue about our origins because they omit the truth concerning that topic. They have yet to verify that our origins were by natural means.
They come up with different theories but not one of those theories puts the biblical supernatural creative act in jeopardy. The second thought we had and another reason we consider the book and the secular scientific work a waste of time is that God already explained our origins.
The scientists exploring and pursuing an alternative to the Biblical creation act simply wasted their intelligence, time, and money. They have spent years and valuable resources pursuing a topic that has already been answered
That is a waste considering the millions of people who could have benefitted from a wiser use of those three elements. But is the secular world for you. They would rather waste precious time, money, and intelligence pursuing a false idea than humble themselves and accept the truth.
….
As we have said for years, unbelievers always take the wrong paths, in the wrong directions and look in the wrong places for the wrong answers. They never learn or refuse to learn when the truth is presented to them.
Unbelieving scientists need our prayers so that the truth is revealed to them and their eyes are opened once and for all. Those prayers need to include all those Christian scientists and students who listen to the unbelievers and follow their counsel and not God’s
….
Throughout the world Christians can see the difference between the unbelieving world and the believing world. When they do recognize this difference, they will understand why God said to not follow or listen to unbelievers.
Unbelievers do not have the truth and many do not want it. We have read on many occasions where unbelieving scientists say that even if the Bible is proven true, they would not accept it. That is a sad state to be in and shows Christians we still have a lot of work left to do.
The unbelieving world uses its immoral standards and self-righteous attitudes to attack Christians, not realizing how bad off they are. They are merely pawns being used to harm unwary Christians
….
The right information does not come from unbelievers.
It comes from God and the Bible. Learn the truth and teach your children the truth before they come under attack from unbelieving teachers and professors. Giving them the right information is protecting your children.
Thiessen is not a scientist, and, as far as I know, has no science training apart from what he was taught in Bible college. He is no more qualified to opine on evolution than I am physics. That’s not to say that Thiessen doesn’t know anything about science. He knows enough to make it seem to uneducated Evangelicals that he is some sort of authority figure. This is common in Evangelical churches where preachers are viewed as authority figures in areas in which they have no relevant expertise.
What follows are excerpts from Thiessen’s latest posts. Laugh, ridicule, or weep, but never forget that scores of people agree with Thiessen, even if they might disagree with his ham-fisted approach.
There is only one single view that all Christians must accept and hold to. That view is the creation act revealed in Genesis 1. Every other viewpoint that alters or disagrees with this one biblical revelation is false teaching.
….
Evolutionary scientists make a lot of assumptions. The reason for this is . . . they cannot replicate claims made about ‘historical evolution’. It is an impossibility as they have no way of developing partial samples to experiment with.
This failure is another piece of evidence showing that evolution is not true. We do not have to worry about scientifically replicating any results of god’s creative act as it is done on an hourly basis every day.
….
No, other approaches do make scientific sense if science would be more open-minded about our origins. Science cannot study the one-time act nor replicate it. But it can prove that all life goes as stated in Genesis 1. That means God’s creative act makes scientific sense.
….
The truth never changes which is why Christian colleges, etc., need to stand with God and the Bible. Neither has changed over the thousands of years this world has existed. Evolution is whatever the evolutionist wants it to be no matter who it hurts.
….
There is no scientific evidence for any alternative to Genesis 1. All scientific evidence for those alternatives is manipulated to show support and read into any experiment they make. Plus, science has not discovered or tested one mechanism they say is involved in evolutionary human development.
….
To many unbelievers and unbelieving scientists, scientific media outlets and organizations evolution is dogma and settled science, not a theory. Evolution should never be taught in any school except to show why it is wrong and never existed. It is a theory that should never be considered for anything else.
….
It [the Bible] also tells us how God created. There is no room for any other theory to explain our origins. We know everything about our origins as the Bible reveals this creative act correctly. The opinion of Mr. Wright is one that is used to justify denying what God wrote about himself and says that God is incapable of writing about himself and his actions.
….
Any form of evolution is not true, it is not honorable, especially towards God, and it is not right or pure. Plus, evolution is not lovely or commendable as it caused great harm to millions throughout history and today, and it is not in any way shape, or form excellent or worthy of praise.
Evolution is nothing but a deceptive lie that has no place in any part of Christianity or its academic institutions. One cannot take science over God as the former is not the ultimate authority over anything.
Science, like many tools, is used to destroy people and Christians need to be aware of it before jumping on board scientific research. Christians can not teach other Christians to accept science over God’s word. If they do, they are leading those students to sin against God. That is very wrong.
If you don’t teach creation [ism] as true, then why teach the Bible at all? Or another good question why claim you are a Christian if you think the Bible is in error?
….
Good exegesis does require that everyone accept God’s word and does not hint at him being a liar. There is no evidence in scripture or nature that a process was involved in the origin of everything.
….
The very first biblical verse [Genesis 1:1] does not imply a process. Neither do the words ‘Let there be’ Every step of the creative act supports a supernatural creative act leaving no room for processes.
….
First, there is no evidence supporting evolution. To get evidence, scientists would have to produce the original conditions and let life take its course. With no intelligent being involved in the origination or development of life, scientists cannot be a part of any evolutionary experiment.
Then their ‘experimental’ set-up would have to produce the same results as scientists claim took place in their version of human history. If millions of years are needed for this production of verifiable evidence, then evolution is not true. One does not have evidence to support their extraordinary claims.
….
While the information about the fossilization of life forms is true, evolutionists will ignore this fact and claim the fossil record supports evolution. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, everything about evolution is read into fossils not taken out of it.
Fossils do not support an evolutionary process. They are pawns in a high-stakes game that evil uses to deceive people.
….
If Christian colleges are not pursuing truth but academic freedom, then the truth is lost and Christians are not getting the right spiritual food to grow strong and maintain their faith. You get what we have today, false teachers teaching false doctrine to vulnerable people. That is not a recipe for success.
After browsing the science books placed on the tables [at a book fair], we came to the conclusion that we do not need to read unbelieving science books anymore.
There are good reasons for following that realization. First, all the authors are telling the same story. They all do not depart from the main evolutionary claims or themes. Thus, they are boring to read. We figure they are writing these works to avoid the perish part of the academic publish-or-perish mentality.
Second, they offer no new evidence especially any that would be considered groundbreaking or history-changing. No new ‘physical evidence’ has been discovered or reported from the evolutionary side of the creation debate.
Anything they would present would be preceded or followed by the words ‘We Think’, ‘We Believe’. ‘it is possible’, ‘we do not know’, and similar phrases all evolutionary scientists cover their theories with. The last one is the most telling as it openly tells everyone they cannot find an alternative to God’s creative act.
Their evolutionary theories, etc., are merely wishful thinking and a waste of everyone’s time. Third, those first two points add up to the fact that it would be a giant waste of time reading those books.
They are nothing but false teaching and no Christian should be reading them unless they are looking for data and points to refute as well as show students why evolution and the Big Bang are wrong. These books provide no other type of valuable information.
Save your money or use it to buy solid, good Christian books written by true Christian scientists who believe in a 6 24-hour day creation. Remember, unbelievers do not have the truth and that includes all research fields under the science umbrella.
Every alternative to God’s creative act found in the Bible is false and untrue. Find Christian works that support Genesis 1 and 2 and learn the truth about our origins. Learn to strengthen your faith, not undermine it by accepting and adopting false information written by deceived people who are far from the truth.
Only God was there when creation took place and scientists cannot see back in time. It is laughable to think that evidence would survive billions and millions of years untouched by anything else.
— End excerpts
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Several years ago, an Evangelical man by the name of Steve left the following comment on the post titled, An Atheist Thanksgiving:
You went from being unsaved to a flat out reprobate buddy. You rejected the God of the Bible to believe you evolved from a rock which came from and explosion 13.8586.678 billion years ago. I agree that these old IFB pastors you pick on all the time have no spine and are just in it for the money but to believe you came from a monkey which nobody has ever seen a monkey turn into a human! Never! You just traded one religion for another. You traded Paul the apostle for that Pedo Richard Dawkins! Have fun in hell buddy
I will leave it to Brian — a former Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preacher’s son — to answer Steve’s comment:
I read Steve P’s post sentence by sentence and tried to find even one sentence that approaches an accurate statement. I was unable to see even one in the lot. Accuracy/truth seems very unimportant to Steve P. Is this true belief in God, this parrot-dull squawking? (with apologies to parrots, who at least make their dull repetitions entertaining!)
Some day, perhaps, Evangelicals will realize that threatening me with their God’s judgment and Hell has no effect on me. The only God I fear is Polly and the only Hell I know is Trump’s America.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Warning to easily offended Evangelicals: Snark and R-rated humor ahead. You have been warned!
Those of us raised in Evangelical churches often heard our pastors speak of every unsaved person having a God-shaped hole in their lives. Where this hole was exactly never was explained. It couldn’t have been in the physical, blood-pumping heart. Surgeons can repair holes in hearts — no God needed. Perhaps, this hole was in the soul — another thing pastors never could explain. Where, exactly, does the soul reside? How can any of us know we have a soul, or a spirit, for that matter? And I have to ask at this point, if unsaved people have a God-shaped hole in their hearts, does that make them HOLY? 🙂
Regardless of where said hole is located, Evangelical pastors assure sinners that it exists and that God, on purpose, created this hole in every human being. In other words, all of us were born with a birth defect. Supposedly, God created this hole so all of us would one day want and need him. Well, except for the non-elect — according to Calvinists. They go through life with holes that can never be filled by God because God put a steel plate over their holes. (I am restraining myself here. All this hole talk makes me want to talk about sex.) Arminians, on the other hand, believe all humans are born into this world with God-shaped holes in their lives. But, even for Jacob Arminius’ clan, if sinners repeatedly reject God’s plan for hole-filling, God will pour cement into their hole — giving them a hardened heart. Having committed the unpardonable sin, sinners with cement-filled holes can never, ever be saved.
The Bible, of course, mentions nothing about unsaved people having a God-shaped hole in their lives. That unbelievers have one is based on inference; a common way Evangelicals use to construct new doctrines. Take a verse here, a verse there, and another verse over here, and BOOM! there it is. Surely you see it, right? Evangelicals often use inference to prove various points of their eschatological beliefs. For example, the Bible doesn’t mention the rapture — the moment when Jesus will come again (no sex joke here either) in the clouds and gather up all the Evangelicals to take them home to Heaven. You will search in vain for a verse, any verse, that says Jesus will soon return to earth’s atmosphere to catch away the saved. If you start pressing Evangelicals on some of their beliefs you will find that their interpretations are based on presuppositions. We believe that the rapture of the church is imminent, says Pastor I.M. Fullashit, and this and that verse — twisted, contorted, and pressed — proves it! So it is with God-shaped holes.
If unsaved people have a God-shaped hole in their hearts, does that make them HOLY?
Bruce Gerencser
The implication of the God-shaped hole is this: unsaved people live empty, hopeless, desperate, unfilled lives lacking meaning, purpose, and direction. Without God filling the pothole he created in your life, you are vile sinner who hates God. Six years ago, my partner and I went to Promedica Hospital in Toledo to visit grandchild number twelve. Ezra was born seven weeks early so he is in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Here was this precious, wonderful little boy. I shed a tear as I looked at him sleeping, wondering what he would one day become. I wondered about what kind of world he is being born into now that Donald Trump is trying to burn the United States to the ground. So many questions Grandpa had about his future, but today, he’s my grandson, my daughter’s first child, and I love him.
If I were still an Evangelical, perhaps I would have uttered a prayer, asking God to quickly fill my wicked, vile grandson’s life with the presence of the Holy Spirit. You see, Evangelicals believe that infants, too, have a God-shaped hole. King David, a murderous, adulterous man who supposedly had a heart for God, had this to say about himself: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5) Evangelicals extrapolate from this verse the belief that ALL children are conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity (the doctrine of original sin). Of course, this is a conclusion without corroborating evidence. All that can be said here is that David thought he was wicked from birth. Press Evangelicals on the notion of original sin and you will quickly find that this doctrine is built upon a rotting foundation; that this doctrine requires playing Bible gymnastics to affirm its teaching. If you want a good illustration of how this game is played, please read John Piper’s post titled, What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin? Now, without the doctrine of original sin, there’s no need for human redemption and salvation. Evangelicals need the human herd divided into two groups — saved and lost — for their salvation scheme to work. Without this division, why, we would all just be humans, each capable of good and bad behavior. If there’s no sin, there’s no need for Jesus’ death on the cross or his resurrection from the dead.
Piper sums up his nonsensical defense of infants being born hellions with these two points:
Infants die, therefore they are not innocent.
If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn’t we expect there to be some people who have “beaten the odds” and never sinned?
Makes perfect sense to Evangelicals. But, to those of us outside of the bubble, we know that infants are fine just as they are; that what they need is LOVE, and not salvation. What, exactly, had my grandson done to need redemption? In the first week of life, all he did was sleep, eat, occasionally cry, poop, and pee. Fortunately, his parents will not be taking him to a Christian indoctrination center any time soon. I had to stop attending religious rituals for my newly-born grandchildren after almost having a stroke when a priest said my granddaughter was possessed by the Devil and must be exorcised — which he promptly proceeded to do. Quite frankly, I wanted to hold that priest’s head in the baptismal font water for about five minutes. There, another demon exorcised!
The only hole Christians have is in their minds; a hole made in their intellect by religion. I am not saying that Evangelicals are stupid or ignorant, though more than a few comments left on this blog over the years might lead me to conclude otherwise. What I am saying is that Evangelical beliefs cripple the minds of believers; that their minds are shut off from certain paths of inquiry. Instead of following the path wherever it leads, Evangelicals, much like the Israelites wandering in the desert for forty years, intellectually wander within what they believe is a God-approved box. Their pastors warn them if they dare to peek over the top of the box or wander from its confines, that they risk falling into heresy or sin; that only within the box will their soul and life be safe and secure.
Evangelicals have created what I call the Christian Ghetto®, a world where Evangelical versions of everything exist. Evangelical congregants are encouraged to only read Christian books, attend Christian movies, and watch Christian TV. I remember one congregant whom I tried my darnedest to convince to read the Calvinistic books I recommended to members. She would take the books home, but never read them. One day, I stopped by to visit her. Usually, congregants would hide anything that would lead me to conclude that they were not following the commands, edicts, rules, laws, and regulations of Pastor Bruce, uh I mean God. On this particular day, this dear woman forgot to hide the reason she wasn’t interested in reading the latest, greatest eighteenth-century book by a dried prune of a Puritan preacher. On her living room table sat a large stack of true-crime books. I looked at the books, picked up one of them, briefly leafed through it, and said nothing. Back then, I could do passive-aggressive quite well. Point made, preacher, point made. You see, she wanted to roam outside of the box. This woman found theology books boring, whereas true-crime books were filled with all sorts of exciting stories.
As an Evangelical pastor, part of my duty was to make sure people stayed within the confines of the box. People who dared to leave the box often did not return, putting their eternal destinies at risk. The Bible says in 1 John 2:19:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Let me translate this from the original Hungarian:
Those people who left our church were not True Christians®. Had they been True Christians® they would have kept their asses in the pew and continued to listen to Pastor Bruce’s Holy Spirit-filled sermons, obeying his every word. But, they left, and this is proof that they never were really True Christians®.
Evangelicalism is all about obedience and conformity. Independent thinking is discouraged and is often taken as a sign of a person who isn’t right with God. Congregants are expected to believe, by faith, that whatever the Bible says is true (inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility). While doubts and questions are tolerated to a small degree, True Christians® are expected to eventually, after being properly schooled and corrected, toe the line. And if they can’t or won’t, these rebellious church members are expected to leave the church. Of course, by leaving they prove they weren’t True Christians®, or at the very least prove that the pastor was right to have serious doubts about their salvation.
Fortunately, an increasing number of Evangelicals (and Christians of all stripes) are propping up a ladder on the inside wall of the box and escaping into the night. Once free, these escapees wander the wild, woolly, dangerous streets of the world. (See The Danger of Being in a Box and Why it Makes Sense When You Are In It and What I Found When I Left the Box.) No longer bound by church doctrine, orthodoxy, and the like, these people are free to follow the path of life wherever it leads. Few ever return to the box. Most of them find homes in progressive/liberal Christian churches, Unitarian Universalist churches, or embrace non-Christian beliefs. Some of them say they are spiritual and have no interest in organized religion. An increasing number of these runners become agnostics or atheists. You see, once you are truly free, life becomes all about the journey and not the destination. Evangelicals fixate on right beliefs and practices because where they spend eternity depends on them believing and practicing the right things. Believe the wrong things and Hell awaits. Believe the right things — by faith — and put those beliefs into practice (good works), and a room in God’s Trump Hotel awaits you after death. Life, then, is just preparation for eternity (Amos 3:3). Life is all about getting ready to meet God and move into the room Jesus has spent thousands of years preparing for you.
Once free from the pernicious, intellect-killing, mind-rotting grip of Evangelical dogma, people feel a great sense of freedom, yet, at the same time, they, once again, sense a hole in their lives. This hole, however, is real. It is a knowledge-filled hole; a hole located in the mind that only can be filled with intellectual inquiry. Most former Evangelicals lament the fact that they had so many bat-shit crazy beliefs. Who among us hasn’t said, I can’t believe that I believed THAT! I see all those hands! For those of us who were Evangelicals for years, we realize that we burned a lot of brain cells (and daylight) searching after “truths” that were mirages; “truths” that were passed down from generation to generation by the tribal elders of our blood cult; “truths” that have no grounding in facts and evidence. Once we reach this point, there’s often a mind-flushing of sorts that takes place. For some of us, we had to push the handle numerous times before our minds were free of a lifetime of detritus. Once cleansed of Biblical “truth,” former Evangelicals realize that there’s a lot they don’t know about the world. Spend your life having truth defined by the Bible and God-ordained men alone, and you are going to miss out on a lot of important stuff.
Most Evangelicals are creationists. No need to study science, right? The Bible says, In the Beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and earth. What else is there to know? Come to find out, a hell of a lot of stuff. I have spent the last seventeen years trying to educate myself on matters of biology, archeology, geology, and astronomy, to name a few. The same could be said about history and the social sciences. So much to learn, but here’s the problem: I am sixty-seven years old and in failing health. I do what I can, but I am so grateful for the fact that my children and grandchildren are free from the cult; that they value intellectual inquiry; that they are skeptical — and often humored — of claims made by Christians. It thrills me down to the bottoms of my painful feet that my grandchildren are voracious readers; that they are not held captive by the Bible or Christian books. Freedom, for them, yea, for all of us, comes one book at a time.
The impetus for this post came from an email I received from a friend of mine. She told me of a discussion she was having with a sibling over the plurality of Gods in the Old Testament — specifically the Hebrew words Yahweh and Elohim. Evangelicals, of course, believe that these words are the same name for their God. There is ONE God, Evangelicals say, yet they worship a triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Well, God is three in one, Christians say. Three, yet one. Makes perfect sense, right? Anyhow, my friend, as I do, thinks that the Old Testament Gods were plural in number. A natural reading of the text, without pushing it through a Trinitarian sieve, reveals that Christianity rests on a polytheistic foundation. My friend’s sibling would have none of her “worldly” thoughts, reminding her that pride was man’s first sin, and that pridefully attaining “worldly” knowledge is futile. Her sibling told her that he was focused on his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is his all-in-all; the only person who can fill the God-shaped hole in his heart.
My friend said to me, “His God-shaped hole is filled with God, but I don’t have a God-shaped hole; I have a knowledge-shaped hole and I am having fun filling it.” She sure hit the proverbial nail on the head! With no thoughts or worries about God or eternity, we are free to read and study that which interests us. The goal is to be a more informed person today than I was yesterday. I will never become as competent in matters of science as younger skeptics will, but I can, by the grace of my almighty intellect, know more about how the world works today than I knew as a card-carrying member of the Ken Ham Were You There? Club®. Much like my friend, I intend to fill the hole in my life with knowledge. I invite Evangelicals to dare to scale the walls of the box. Freedom awaits, as does a library card.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Peanut Gallery, a group of people whose opinions are considered unimportant, a source of insignificant criticism, the cheap seats.
(Repost from 2015. Unedited, except for paragraph formatting.)
A reader named Wayne K sent me two emails, one with some questions I answered and another email objecting to a post I had written about his questions. (What Happened to the Churches I Pastored?)
Here’s Wayne K’s first email:
Hi Bruce,
Regarding the churches you pastored and started, do they still exist today or have they changed their names ? I could not find any of the church’s personal websites. Sorry if you feel I wasn’t trying hard enough. I don’t know what I missed as there are hundreds of ‘google’ links. Another question I have is, why did or what led your mother to commit suicide at 54 ? I have heard a few stories of suicide committed by various people and I am just curious to learn why.
Thanks
Wayne
PS: For your info, I currently do not have a personal website address and I do not live in the United States. I currently do not go to church and I am not an evangelical.
Here’s Wayne K’s second email:
Hi Bruce,
Since January, I have been visiting your blog at least twice a week to get to know you. While you did answer one of my questions, i was able to find some clues about your mother’s suicide from your blog- long after i received your email. In face to face conversations, if you didn’t want to answer my question about your mother’s suicide, you probably would tell me that you prefer not to discuss it, otherwise it would be considered rude not to answer me.
I noticed that you had posted my question on your blog dated March 5. My motive was that i was interested to know, not because i was nosy. Did you decide to post because i didn’t subscribe ?? Just guessing. No, i am not part of a group of tin hat Christians. I almost found this statement offensive. There is no need to assume or presume who I am. I am not interested in friendship with you. I do not doubt whatever and wherever the churches you pastored.
I had other questions for you that is not on your blog but after reading some of your recent posts, i didn’t think it was necessary any longer since i found your blogs disturbing and very negative. I am guessing that since you are a socialist, you are probably on social government assitance like most low life atheist drug addicts.
Bruce, we live in a very deceptive and conspiracy driven world, and it appears to be getting worse. Most or all of the world’s problems are contributed by certain wealthy, influencial people in high places. Here are some of the following groups involved; Islamists, Hinduism, Roman Catholicism/Vatican, atheism, freemasons, satanists, luciferians, evolutionists and agnostics. Google “bohemian groves”, “freemasonry american dollar”, “911 inside job”, “cancer research fraud”, “fluoride deception” on and on I could list so much more. Also click on images for these keywords to view other websites. No conspiracy is a theory if it has been proven.
Furthermore, your blog is more than just shameful and unhelpful. It added to the world’s misery. It doesn’t contain any qualities of love or unity. While it indicates your hidden character, I would be ashamed to follow you or to honor you as the best blogger in Ohio.
Now be cautioned because there is a cultish group in America whose website called atruechurch(dot)info – they may add your name to a list of false teachers? – probably not. I dare you write about them. I would have to agree that you are telling lies and blogging false information about many things. These lies are coming from your own deluded mind. Therefore, I would strongly encourage you to go and do something more useful than spend your wasteful hours blogging and ridiculing the “minorities”. Leave them alone. You appear to be THE real threat.
Regarding the churches you gave me that no longer exist, that doesn’t indicate a high failure rate. Instead of explaining what I mean, let me analyse it this way; YOU are the failure because you didn’t know how to guide your so-called “church”. It appears that Your foundation was ‘fake’ and weak. When you build a house, you need proper foundation or it would collapse. Isn’t that logical Bruce !?? Now, you like to point fingers and blame others for the failures, don’t you ?! There are alot of people who have gone through many bad and worst experiences than you but didn’t start a blog like you and pointed fingers. They just moved on and tried to improve upon where they left off. But you seem to be worse off than when you started in your early years of church. That is a common thing I see among so called “ex-Christians”.
Many people are secretly not interested in your blog Bruce. And I am not interested to visit you either. You don’t sound friendly. I wouldn’t want you to give me advice when I need help or have inquiries about important matters.
Anyways, having much I could say, i am not interest in further correspondence with you.
Wayne K’s first email was quite civil, so I answered him. After doing so, I thought others might have the same question about the churches I pastored, so I wrote a post. Evidently, Wayne K thought the post was all about him. This is a common reaction to my writing. People read a post and think, HE IS WRITING ABOUT ME! Unless I mention someone by name, no one should assume I am writing just about them. I suspect the real issue is that my writing gets a little close to home and they don’t like it.
The next email is from a Kiwi named Kate:
Hi there bruce , i stumbled across your site …. somehow as you do . Yes i am a God fearing believer ,no that that is why i am writing to you.
i have never written to someone like this before, but somehow was very intrigued about your story. Many twists and turns in your life for what ever reason that seem to be quite clear to me reading your blog have lead you to were you are now.
One thing as i read your questions seems to be that your passionate about your family. And yet as a young man having such a large frame and most probably due to your illness do not seem to read health books. my question to you is if you are not going to be with your family in heaven why would you not want to be with them on this earth for as long as you can.
You yourself are writing a book and you have obviously spent countless hours reading studying why you don’t want to believe in god, and yet your passions the most important thing to you on this earth will get the very least of you because you are too busy telling people what you don’t want to do or believe in. i don’t speak to be viscous or negative. but what i know is that our health is crucial to your thinking.
If you are telling the truth that your family are your passion, get well and tell us how you did it and let that benefit some people. start by looking at your food. food is your first medicine. i know in America you can get everything under the sun with some fake name resembling food im not surprised most of you are unhealthy sick or dying.Go on a juice fast for 3-4 months and tell me your not feeling better !!!! or find some diet like the cohens diet. Or blow me over with a feather and jerf …. just eat real food, nothing that comes out of a packet cause its contaminated with goodness knows what.
Anyhow you could read all about it,and cure your self. i hope this doesn’t sound sarcastic it is not at all meant to. So be in health Bruce not in atheism cause theres no meaning to that. Just being alive has a meaning and im sure you matter to your family and they have a meaning to you … you said so yourself.
respectfully kate .otherwise know as a recovering hoshimotos sufferer, curing myself through diet and meaning……my three children my husband and life. its massive that word life !!!
Kate assumes I am NOT eating well. She is certain that me being overweight is because I spend all day eating Oreo cookies, ice cream, candy bars, and Pop Tarts. She is certain that I am killing myself with prepackaged food. How could she know this? Is she a mouse in the cupboard, watching what groceries we buy and observing Polly cook our meals? Of course not.
The food and diet police think that they have all the answers. Just do ______________and all will be well. Oh, if it is only that simple. These days, I find belligerent food Nazis more oppressive than the rankest of Fundamentalists. They are closed-minded, judgmental, unwilling, or unable to understand the complexity of the human body, diet, and the environment. They seek simple answers, quick fixes, and when they descend from the mountain top with the Ten Commandments of Atkins, Cohen, Dash, Weight Watchers, Orinish, TLC, Mayo Clinic, Mediterranean, Flexitarian, Jenny Craig, Volumetrics, Nutrisystem, Paleo, ad infinitum, they go about preaching their new-found gospel to fatties.
Of course, since I wrote this post in 2015, I lost one hundred pounds and watch my diet carefully, Why? Not that I got healthier. I have gastroparesis and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Trust me, these diseases are an effective weight loss program.
One cannot trust scientists in any aspect of life. Their conclusions are influenced by their lack of Christian beliefs and adoption of the concept humans are animals, thanks to the evolutionary theory.
Humans are not expendable except in the eyes of scientists and some other people groups bent on wresting power and control from legitimate government processes. it is better to trust God and his word as he is the legitimate authority and he has set forth ethical and moral guidelines he will enforce.
His ethics and morals do not change from year to year or when technology is updated. His rules govern every aspect of life equally and the invention and application of technology is submissive to those regulations. They do not change, ever.
This is why we can say what is right or wrong. We have a set of objective moral and ethical guidelines that are not influenced by money, power, or romance. It is also why we can say you cannot trust scientists. They run by their own flexible rules that only benefit them and their work.
It is the scientist who is wrong, not God or the Bible.
— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site For The Glory of Scientific Ignorance, Why People Do Not Trust Scientists, September 18, 2024
An Evangelical pastor whom I have known for over forty years sent me some questions, the answers to which appear below. He previously asked me some questions which I answered in a post titled, Four Questions from an Evangelical Pastor. I found his questions sincere and honest, unlike many questions I receive from Evangelicals. Far too often, ulterior motivations lurk behind some questions, but I don’t sense that here. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find my answers helpful.
Are There Different Levels of Atheism
The short answer is no. Atheism is defined thusly: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That’s it. Unlike Christianity — a hopelessly fragmented group — all atheists agree on one thing: atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. From that point, atheist beliefs go in all sorts of directions.
Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: “I do not believe, I know.” De facto theist.
Very high probability but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”Leaning towards theism.
Higher than 50% but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.” Completely impartial.
Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.” Leaning towards atheism.
Lower than 50% but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”
Atheists debate amongst themselves Dawkins’ scale, and whether agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Agnostics believe that the existence of God, of the divine, or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. (Wikipedia) Another definition of agnosticism is as follows:
In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. (Richard Rowe, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
Enlightenment deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (a) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (b) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. Different deist authors expanded on these two assertions to create what Leslie Stephen later termed the “constructive” and “critical” aspects of deism. “Constructive” assertions— assertions that deist writers felt were justified by appeals to reason and features of the natural world (or perhaps were intuitively obvious) — included:
God exists and created the universe.
God gave humans the ability to reason.
“Critical” assertions— assertions that followed from the denial of revelation as a valid source of religious knowledge— were much more numerous. They included:
Rejection of all books, including the Bible, that are claimed to contain divine revelation.
Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious “mysteries”.
Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc.
True Christianity
All deists rejected the Bible as a book of divine revelation. If you define “a Christian” as a person who accepts the stories in the Bible as true, divine revelations, the deists were not Christians. They rejected the miracle stories in the Bible and rejected the divinity of Jesus. Many, however, accepted Jesus as an actual historical person and held him in high regard as a moral teacher. (This position is known as Christian deism and was Thomas Jefferson’s motive for assembling his famous Jefferson Bible.) On the other hand, if you define “a true Christian” as a person who regards the historical human person Jesus as a great moral teacher and attempts to follow Jesus’ moral teachings, many deists considered themselves to be true Christians. Some deists were of the opinion that Jesus taught timeless moral truths, that those moral truths were the essence of Christianity, and since those truths are timeless, they predate Jesus’ teachings.
I have long believed that someone could look at the night sky and conclude that a deity of some sort created the universe; and that after creating the universe, this deity said, “There ya go, boys and girls, do with it what you will.” This God is unknowable and non-involved in our day-to-day lives. Believe in this deity or not, it exists. Some readers of this blog will call this deity divine energy or power. Of course, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that what we call “life” is, in actuality, a Westworld-like alien game simulation. Once I was freed from the authority and bondage of the Bible, I was free to think more freely about human existence. Who knows, maybe “reality” is an illusion.
Here is my take: I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot know for certain whether a deity of some sort exists. It is possible, though unlikely, that a deity of some sort might reveal itself to us someday. Possible, but improbable. For me, it is all about probabilities. (And the probability of the existence of any deity, let alone the Evangelical God, is minuscule.) On the Dawkins scale I am a six. The currently available evidence leads me to conclude that there is no God or gods. I am open to the possibility of the existence of one or more deities should evidence of their existence ever be provided, but, until then, I live my day-to-day life as an atheist. The only time thoughts about God enter my mind is when I am writing for this blog.
That said, let me be clear: I am not an anti-theist. Some atheists are vociferously and stridently anti-religion. I am not one of them. This has led to all sorts of criticisms and attacks from what I call the Fundamentalist wing of atheism. On occasion, I have had anti-theists tell me that I am not a True Atheist®. I laugh when such arguments are made, thinking, “Is this not the same argument Evangelicals use against me when they say I was never a “True Christian®?”
Do All Atheists Rely Strictly on Science and History for Answers?
Strictly or solely? No. Once we move from the base definition of atheism, atheists go in all sorts of directions philosophically, politically, socially, and even religiously. Yep, you will run into atheists who view themselves as “spiritual.” I have been blogging for seventeen years. I have met all sorts of atheists. Over the years, several pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual atheists/agnostics have commented on this blog. I don’t understand their viewpoints and logic, but I don’t have to. Atheists are free to meander every which way from “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” One can be an atheist and be irrational; and believe me, more than a few atheists are as dumb as rocks. Some atheists will comment on this blog and leave me scratching my head, saying “huh?” I rarely respond to such people. I let them say their piece, hoping my silence tells them all they need to know.
This would be a good point to mention the fact that most atheists are humanists. There’s nothing in atheism that gives a person moral or ethical grounding. Atheists look to humanism to find a framework by which to live their lives. The Humanist Manifesto remains the best summary of humanism:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Do All Atheists Believe in Evolution?
Since I am not party to what all atheists believe, I can’t speak authoritatively on the matter. I can say that all of the atheists I know generally accept biological evolution as a scientific fact. While the word “belief” can be used in a variety of ways, in the context of evolution, atheists don’t believe in evolution. Belief, in this context, much like with religion, implies the use of feelings to come to a conclusion. Most atheists I know would say that their acceptance of evolution and other scientific conclusions rests on evidence, facts, and probabilities, not their feelings.
For most of my life, I was illiterate when it came to science. I believed that Genesis 1-3 told me all I needed to know about biology, cosmology, and the like. God created everything just as it is recorded in the inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible — end of discussion. I had a few creationist-oriented Evangelical apologetical books in my library. All these books did for me was affirm that I was “right.” It wasn’t until I was disabused by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others of the notion that the Bible was some sort of perfect, supernatural book that I was able to question what it was exactly I believed about science.
Let me be clear, I am not a scientist. I know a hell of a lot more about science today than I did a few years ago, or when I was a Bible-believing preacher, but that doesn’t mean I can speak authoritatively on matters of science. I continue to educate myself, but at my age, I will likely run out of time before I master any specific scientific discipline. I hope that one or more of my grandchildren will do so and become what their grandfather could not. Many of my grandchildren are straight-A students, so I have high hopes that some of them will enter STEM programs post-high school.
I know where I am lacking knowledge-wise, and I do my best to not speak beyond that which I know. Want to talk about the Bible, Evangelicalism, theology, photography, Lionel O Gauge trains, or Windows-based computers? You will find that I generally know what I am talking about. However, when it comes to biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, and other scientific disciplines, I am, in every way, a novice. It is for this reason that I rely on experts to tell me what I need to know about science. Smart is the person who values expertise. I have certain scientists I trust to tell me the truth. “So, Bruce, does this mean you put “faith” in what they say?” Yes. Many atheists shy away from the word faith because of its religious connotations. However, I refuse to let religion hijack certain words. Faith means “confidence in a person or plan.” There are scientists that I put great confidence in; when they speak, I listen. No, these men and women are not infallible, but they have given their lives to understanding this or that science discipline, so I trust what they say.
In Christianity, There is so Much Disagreement! How About Among Atheists?
There’s no doubt that Christianity is the most fragmented religion on the planet. I have long argued that if Christians were unified theologically that I might at least pause for a moment when considering the “God question.” However, there are thousands and thousands of Christian sects, each with its own version of the “faith once delivered to the saints.” This disunity says to me that Christianity is very much of human origin.
I wish I could say that atheism is monolithic, and everyone thinks and believes the same things. Sadly, atheism is quite divided too. Not so much on the core belief: “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Every atheist I know believes this statement to be an accurate definition of their view on God or gods. However, recent years have brought attempts by some to expand the definition of atheism to include social justice issues. This spawned a group called Atheism+. While there was a moment when I thought Atheism+ might be worthwhile, I quickly thought better of it after seeing who it was that was driving this attempt to redefine atheism. Socially and politically, I am as liberal as you come, but I saw Atheism+ as a purity test; an attempt to divide atheism between us and them. I concluded that the proponents of Atheism+ were using methodologies eerily similar to those I saw in Evangelicalism. No thanks. And let me be clear to Atheism+ flag-wavers, I have zero interest in re-ligating this issue with you in the comment section. Been there, done that, still bleeding.
Here’s one thing I know about most atheists. We can heartily disagree with one another and later enjoy each other’s company at a pub or restaurant. Back in my Evangelical days, every disagreement had eternal significance. Not so with most atheists. I don’t understand how an atheist can support Donald Trump or the present iteration of the Republican Party, but I am not going to let that affect our relationship (if we have one). I have booted several pro-Trump atheists off this site, not because of their politics, but because they were assholes. And as much as I hate to admit it, there are atheist assholes; people who don’t play well with others; people who think throwing feces at people on social media is “good conversation.”
I hope I have adequately answered my Evangelical friend’s questions.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
First off, we need to look at the source of scientific information. Are the people bringing us the alternative to Genesis 1 or scientific discoveries actually and truly Christian? If not then we know that they are being led by evil and are deceived people.
They are the blind trying to lead the blind.
….
God separates education into two distinct categories—true teaching and false teaching. If the scientists are not following God and the Bible then they are not bringing true teaching to the faithful. They may mix some of the truth in with their alternative ideas but as all con men know, to deceive people you need some truth to make the con work.
….
Secular scientists and alternative believers bring a different gospel than the one Jesus and the disciples taught. They are saying that Moses is wrong but Jesus, Paul, and the apostles never corrected Moses and in fact, Jesus stated in John 5:45ff that if you do not believe Moses how can you believe his words? So believing Genesis 1 is important to one’s salvation.
Secular scientists and alternative believers do not believe Moses thus they try to alter the gospel message because they cannot bring themselves to follow God’s rule of using faith to accept a supernatural origin.
….
We have help [God and the Bible]. The secular scientist does not have this aid so we know that whatever they conclude or say is not coming from God but from evil. They do not know what the truth is.
….
There is only one way for secular science to be compatible or harmonized with scripture and that is for those in secular science to repent of their sins and get right with God then toss out all false teachings from the field of science.
God and the Bible do not humble themselves to secular scientists, science, or alternative believers. Those groups are to humble themselves and give up what is wrong. We cannot put the truth into secular science because it is not made new but a very sinful and corrupt field of research and the Bible teaches us.
….
One is not blessed by God for taking sinful words and counsel over God’s words. Here is a question I have asked many an atheist, alternative believer, and secular scientist: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to take secular science over their words?
So far not one of the people I have asked has been able to provide an answer.
They can’t because both God and Jesus tell us to follow them over the secular world and to use faith when we believe. We do not have to use secular science and its rules to combat secular science. We just need to know who God is and what happens if he is wrong to see that the truth lies in Genesis 1 and not with those who have rejected that passage of scripture.
It is not the amount of educational degrees behind a name that finds the truth nor is it the amount of expertise or years of doing experiments that lead us to the truth about our origins. It is following the Holy Spirit that gets us to the truth and the Holy Spirit will not contradict God or the Bible.
— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of Scientific and Theological Ignorance, Harmonizing Science and Scripture, September 3, 2024
This is not a science blog. I have no training in science, outside of high school and college biology classes and whatever knowledge I have gained from the books I’ve read. I don’t engage in long, protracted science discussions because I don’t have the education necessary to do so. I know my limitations. I know what I know, and, most importantly, I know what I don’t know. Theology, the Bible, Evangelicalism, and sex are my specialties, and this is why I primarily write on these subjects (okay, maybe not sex). 🙂
When I post a science article, I do so because I think it will either help readers or illustrate the ignorance that is pervasive in many corners of the Evangelical world. I don’t have the skill or knowledge to adequately defend evolution, but I know people who do, and I trust them because they have the requisite training, knowledge, and experience to speak authoritatively. All of us, to some degree or another, trust experts. No one knows everything.
The problem that arises when I post a science article is that it attracts young-earth creationists. Armed with a limited understanding of science, colored by creationist presuppositions, creationists want to debate and argue with me about the article I posted. Generally, I try to steer such arguments back to the Bible and theology because I think that is the best way to disembowel creationism. Ask yourself, when’s the last time you’ve seen creationists abandon their beliefs as a result of a blog debate or discussion? It doesn’t happen, and the reason is quite simple: abandoning their beliefs would require them to also let go of their faith. Until creationists are willing to entertain the notion that they might be wrong about the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible, it’s impossible to reach them. Facts don’t matter because faith always trumps facts.
Young-earth creationists love to come to blogs such as this one because they can make themselves look like they are experts in disciplines such as biology, physics, archaeology, and cosmology (think Dr. David Tee, a world-renowned Evangelical archeologist). They know I am not going to engage them in a science discussion, and unless someone with a science background responds to them, that’s where the discussion ends. I’m sure they think they’ve won a mighty victory for the triune God of the Protestant Christian Bible, but all that has happened is that no one wanted to waste their time with someone who has no desire or ability to follow the evidentiary path wherever it leads.
I am content to let them play a scientist on this blog. If those of you trained in the sciences want to engage them, please do so. I will stick to what I know: theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism. And even with these things, I have backed countless Evangelicals into a corner only to have them throw their hands up and tap out by saying FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! Once someone appeals to faith, all discussion is over (at least for me).
Each of us has competency in certain subjects or disciplines. I know where my competency lies, and I don’t pretend to know what I don’t know. Now, this does not mean that I have no understanding of science and the scientific method. I do, and my knowledge increases every time I read a science article, blog, or book. But I could follow this path for the next twenty-five years and still not have the necessary expertise to pass myself off as a science expert. I find it laughable that someone — anyone — thinks they can read x number of books and be as competent and knowledgeable as those who have spent six to ten years in college training for a specific scientific field and now work in that field every day of their lives. Such thinking is called hubris.
I am not suggesting that someone can’t become conversant and competent in a specific subject without going to college. I know firsthand the importance of study and hard work. That’s what I did for twenty-five years, spending hours and hours each week reading and studying the Bible and theology. Would I have been better off if I had gone to Princeton and not an Evangelical Bible college? Sure, but I did a pretty good job over twenty-five years plugging up the lack-of-knowledge holes. I still have gaps in my knowledge, but that can be said of every person. None of us knows everything, even when it comes to our particular area of expertise.
The good news about my areas of expertise — theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism — is that rarely is there any new information. Outside of archaeological finds that might have some connection to the Bible, there’s not much happening in Bible Town. Sure, small skirmishes are going on over the historicity of Jesus and what the Bible really, really, really says about _______________, but for the most part, it’s just the same shit, different day. I don’t wake up in the morning and say, Hey, I wonder what new and exciting story about the Bible, theology, or Evangelicalism awaits me.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
