Menu Close

Tag: Scientific Method

It Will Be a Cold Day in Hell: Dr. David Tee Demands That I Apologize to Him

21 Comments
dr david tee's library
Dr. David Tee’s Massive Library

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is a Fundamentalist Christian blogger who has spent the past few years using my writing without credit or attribution for what he calls “teachings.” He takes a similar approach with my friend Ben Berwick. Thiessen has written more posts about the two of us that I can count. Sometimes, I just ignore the man. He’s little more than a gnat flying around my head on a warm summer day. These days, I selectively ignore Thiessen, choosing to only respond to posts I consider so egregious that they demand a response or are personal attacks on my character, family, or the readers of this blog.

Twice this week, Thiessen has demanded that both Ben and me apologize to him, for what I am not sure. I assume he’s demanding an apology because we dared to challenge his assertions about science. Thiessen sees himself as a defender of young earth creationism, a Bible literalist who will resolutely defend all sorts of nonsense because it appears in the Bible or is a personal belief of his. No amount of argumentation will change his mind. (And his defense of clerics who commit sex crimes is beyond disgusting.)

Thiessen claims to have a doctorate, including four science degrees — a claim he recently made for the first time. Geoff, a long-time reader of this blog, had this to say about Thiessen’s education claims and his understanding of science:

I don’t really care what educational achievements Tee claims, the proof of the pudding is in the eating or, in Tee’s case, the writing. There’s almost not a single sentence he writes that I can’t take issue with. Grammatically he’s dreadful, a clear indicator of his lack of proper education. Writing style not withstanding, his reasoning is impossible to understand by anyone with the slightest grasp of logic. He just doesn’t understand the scientific method. He seems to think it’s some isolated part of human existence, standing on its own, when in reality it’s the foundation on which everything we know about the world is based. Science essentially is observation and testing, reaching provisional conclusions, and incorporating them as needs be. Science and the scientific method is actually the only way we have of determining reality.

I agree.

In a post titled, It is Lazy to Simply Say God Did It!, Thiessen wrote (all grammar, spelling, punctuation, and irrationality in the original):

How is exploring the natural physical world going to provide the correct answers to our origins if science is not looking in the right direction or looking in the correct places? Providing the best explanation is not sufficient enough as the best explanation is not the truth.

The best explanation is the lazy man’s way to avoid the problems that arise with scientific research, when that research leads them away from natural solutions and into the supernatural. The scientists are too lazy and dishonest to say that the supernatural method is the only method possible.

Hence, God did it is the correct answer when science has no solutions. Here are some examples of science/evolution cannot answer why something exists.

…

How can anyone trust science when it fails to provide the answers to these and a myriad of other mysteries? It is not lazy to say God did it because that is the answer to all the mysteries science cannot answer.

Science is incapable of digging for and finding the truth because it does not want the truth. it wants something that misleads, misinforms, and hides the truth. In other words, they want something they and their biases can live with, and that is not science, nor is it objective.

True science would recognize the weakness of the natural-driven science and recognize God as the creator, as there is no alternative answer. It would also recognize God’s creativity, power, and glory in all of these and other examples science cannot find a natural solution.

It is just idiotic to dismiss the phrase ‘God did it’ because science cannot accept the supernatural. That dismissal is arrogance and ignorance on display at the same time. It is also a demonstration that science is incapable of studying the past as well as deriving the correct answer.

Saying science is the only way to get to the answers is showing a great bias against reality and the truth. Science is no longer objective but a tool to promote one bias or preconceived conclusion over the truth.

Instead of providing the correct answer, science becomes a place for unbelievers to hide from both reality and the truth. No one can trust a research field that takes great pains and many steps to avoid coming to the right answer.

When one expounds the truth, God did it, they are not being lazy, but illuminating the correct answer for everyone so that they are not misled by the lies that come from the deceived and blind secular world.\Yes, God did it all and science is a tool used by evil to lead people away from God and giving him the proper credit and glory.

Only a fool would say or repeat the words in the title in the exact same sentence structure. God created everything supernaturally and without the aid of science. Science is in over its head and outside of its scope when it investigates origins.

The Bible has the correct answer every time.

This is a good summary of the way Thiessen thinks about science.

After responses from both Ben and I, Thiessen wrote a post titled, Even More Proof. What “more proof” of his assertions did Thiessen provide? An eighteen-minute video by Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder titled Scientific Research has Big Problems, and It is Getting Worse.

Thiessen confuses “science research” with “science.” They are not one and the same. Further, Thiessen might want to study what Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder’s critics think of her work.

Professor Dave responded to Hossenfelder’s video:

Video Link

Professor Dave later released this video:

Video Link

This brings me to Thiessen’s demand that I apologize. After posting Hossenfelder’s video, Thiessen wrote:

With the above video, we expect a very honest, public, humble, and personal apology for the attacks and off-the-wall comments from both MM & BG.

We know what we are talking about; they do not.

I still haven’t stopped laughing about Thiessen’s demand. There’s nothing I’ve said that deserves an apology. Thiessen is butthurt over our coverage of his bogus “four science degrees” claim. Until Thiessen actually provides evidence for his degrees, there’s no reason for anyone to believe he has them. All we know for sure is that Thiessen attended an unaccredited Bible college in Canada as a young man. And we didn’t even know that until I outed him. Thiessen claims “God knows, and that’s all that matters.” This is a common ploy of Thiessen’s. Don’t want to answer a question? Deflect or make some sort of God claim. End of discussion.

Today, Thiessen published a post titled, Not to Beat a Dead Horse, But. Here’s what he had to say:

MM [Meerkat Musings] continues to make false accusations against us [me], so we [I] are [am] ignoring his latest response. Yet, neither he nor BG [Bruce Gerencser] has [have] apologized for their false accusations and their lies about us [me]. They like to make things personal, which we [I] do not, thus they have no credibility or an honest character.

We [I] have proven our [my] point quite well and guess what. We [I] opened up YouTube a few minutes ago and at the top of the suggestion list was the following video:

….

We [I] do not make fraudulent or misleading statements about anything. As you may have noticed, we [I] use legitimate websites and books to support our [my] points, so our [my] readers know they are getting accurate information.

That video is 20 minutes long, and it is well worth listening to as it provides not only information to defend one’s views on science but also provides eye-opening information on what is going on behind the scenes in science.

Maybe MM [Meerkat Musings] is upset as his rose colored view of science is destroyed, and it is not as glorious as he thought it was. Do not be fooled. Christians cannot trust scientists, and they do need to be fact-checked, etc., to get to the truth.

The Bible warns Christians about unbelievers and what they say. Those warnings include scientists and science, whether done by unbelievers or believers. We [I] are [am] not saying Christian scientists are all pure and do not commit fraud.

Those ‘Christian’ scientists who accept and promote evolution cannot be listened to either.

So once again, we [I] are [am] expecting a public, honest, humble, and sincere public apology from both BG [Bruce Gerencser] and MM [Meerkat Musings] because they are falsely accusing us [me] and have done nothing but lie about us [me] through their personal attacks.

Make sure to listen to the entire video to get all the right information on science.

Once again, Thiessen demands an apology from me.

Thiessen believes that Hossenfelder’s eighteen-minute video PROVES that Ben and I are lying about him and his science prowess. This claim has no merit. Besides, does Thiessen really believe that an eighteen-minute video by a controversial theoretical physicist justifies his criticisms of modern science? As I mentioned above, Thiessen confuses “science research” with “science” itself. He stupidly thinks that because a small minority of researchers lie or manipulate data that science itself can be disregarded anytime it disagrees with young-earth creationism and his wooden, literalist interpretations of the Bible.

Speaking only for myself, no apology will be forthcoming. I stand by every word I have written about Thiessen and his errant views of science and the Bible. I do kinda, a little bit, — I mean a teeny, tiny microscopic bit, regret saying a few years ago that Thiessen wants a picture of me naked to hang on his bedroom ceiling, but outside of that bit of risque humor, I stand by what I have written about him.

And Derrick? The offer of a picture still stands, but my nude photos are no longer available. 🙂

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.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: World Renowned Young Earth Creationist Rages Against Science

9 Comments
dr david tee's library
Dr. David Tee’s Massive Library

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, recently wrote:

Unbelievers are very short-sighted when it comes to the topic of science. They think that science is the authority that provides all the answers, or will do so with enough research.

….

But we and most Christians know better.  Just a little research shows how bad science and scientists can be. Of course, unbelievers only give lip service to the destructive and harmful inventions that science, in general, has discovered and developed over the millennia.

….

We cannot forget that ‘science’ brought the world Covid. The ironic aspect of this disease was that the inventor, science, could not create an antidote. The so-called vaccines were worse than the disease and never could stop the disease or reinfection.

….

There is good reason for that. Scientists are not immune to sin, deceit, and are not omnipresent or omniscient. They are fallible human beings who have limited knowledge, and most of them are under the influence of evil.

….

What unbelievers want believers to do is not what they will do. But that is a side point. The real issue is the so-called blind trust in science, even though much of scientific research is unethical or does not follow any rules of morality.

….

Other examples is where ‘science’ developed heroin as cough medicine, radium for use in everyday items like toothpaste, forever chemicals which is a problem that has not been solved, thalidomide given to pregnant women to ease morning sickness, and even asbestos which took decades to clear up and even then it is not a job that has been completed (Ibid).

All of these examples and many more provide legitimate reasons to question and distrust science. No one knows the motivations behind the scientists’ work or why they included certain ingredients in medicines and everyday use items.

No one should be trusting scientists given their track. The original article [written by my friend Ben Berwick] we quoted provides another example of why believers should not trust scientists or even consider the words of unbelievers. They dismiss the experience, education, and other qualifications of believers simply because they hold to the religious views they disagree with.

….

Rather, it is the reverse, as Christian believers have God helping them get to the truth. Unbelieving scientists do not want the truth; they want a natural answer, and that is their fatal flaw. 

They are not looking for the right answer but one they can accept and live with. Unfortunately, too many scientists claiming to be Christian follow that ideology over what God has said in the Bible.

God has not said we cannot do science, but if we do participate in any form of that research field, Christians must follow God’s instructions over their unbelieving secular counterparts. We are not to lie, be unethical, but do science according to his will and for God’s glory.

That means we remove any element of sin in the process so that God can bring Christian scientists to the truth and the solutions. We do not follow the blind and deceived, for that takes us away from God and the truth, as well as solutions for the problems of this world.

No, we do not trust science as science is not an authority on anything, and that research field and its participants are not greater than God. God has the answers and the power to solve life’s problems. We do not put our trust in those who are mere humans who do not have the answer or the power to do the same thing.

— end of quote —

Thiessen says he has four science degrees, yet he refuses to name the the colleges he attended or how and where he “earned” his doctorate:

We find those quoted statements hypocritical because the author of those words does not believe one word we say, even though we have 4 scientific degrees behind our names.

Does anyone really believe Thiessen has four science (not scientific) degrees behind his name? When pressed on where he studied and got his degrees, Thiessen says “God knows and that’s all that matters.” This allows him to present himself as some sort of expert, when, in fact, he is anything but. Thiessen knows that if he ever posts his CV, it will likely reveal that he is a fraud or his “degrees” came from unaccredited institutions or diploma mills. Scientist, he is not.

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.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Bruce, Science Can’t Tell Us [Fill in the Blank], Yet You Are Certain There Is No God?

9 Comments
questions

A reader named Ron Lawson recently commented on the post The Scandalous Life of Jack Hyles and Why it Still Matters. That post is about Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) megachurch pastor Jack Hyles, yet Lawson’s comment says nothing about Hyles or what I wrote about him. Instead, Lawson wrote (all spelling and grammar in the original):

I am amazed at the incredible intelligence on this post. Science cant even tell how a single cell developed from non-life to life or where the book of our DNA came from or how it teaches cells to differentiate themselves into various organs, eyes etc. and yet we are certain there is no god.

I pray there is a God or we are cursed to be the highest intelligence and we have nothing to hate for all of the inhumanity to man that is caused by evil people… if evil is even a thing… that very concept presupposes there is a standard outside of ourselves that pre-dates our birth that has somehow come to the awareness that there is such a thing.

Lawson begins his comment by sarcastically saying “I am amazed at the incredible intelligence on this post.” Lawson makes no effort to respond to or address what I wrote about Jack Hyles. Instead, he wants to insult me personally — suggesting I am lacking in intelligence when it comes to biology. Granted, I am not a scientist, and I assume neither is Lawson, but he once spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express, so that means he is qualified to speak on scientific matters.

I will soon turn sixty-seven years old. I have made a lot of mistakes in life. As a young IFB preacher, I was certain that I was right. Arrogantly, I thought I could opine on every aspect of life even if I lacked knowledge, training, and education on a particular subject. This was especially so with matters of science. In high school, I took biology and earth science. In college, I took biology — which was a colossal waste of time. That’s it. While I have tried my best to advance my understanding of science over the years, I am in no way qualified to speak on such issues. I rely on experts in their relevant scientific fields to educate me when I have questions. When people raise science-related questions in the comment section, I typically defer to readers who actually know what they are talking about. I know what I know, but more importantly, I know what I don’t know.

Maybe Lawson has a science education. I doubt it, but maybe. Most Evangelicals who leave comments such as his lack actual science training. Their scientific knowledge comes from apologetics books, websites, and podcasts. Scores of Evangelicals have commented on this site, pontificating on biology, cosmology, or archeology. Yet, when pressed on their educational background or how they came to “know” what they know, you quickly find out that they have no knowledge beyond their literalist interpretations of the Bible, what their pastors say on Sundays, or what they read or watched on sites such as Answers in Genesis, Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind), or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — to name a few.

If Lawson comments again, perhaps he will let us know why we should listen to anything he has to say; what qualifications does he have to speak authoritatively about biology? If Lawson wants to discuss Evangelicalism or the IFB church movement, I am more than happy to do so. Why? Because I am an expert in these subjects, and I am conversant on religion in general. However, I try not to expose my ignorance when it comes to science. I am more than happy to have general conversations about science, but an expert I am not. So, anything I say about science should be understood from that perspective.

Science does not have all the answers about anything. We know more than we did yesterday, but there is much we still do not know, and it is certain that we will never know everything. Evangelicals wrongly think that just because they can read the Bible, all of a sudden, they are an authority on what it says. Thus when they read Genesis 1-3, Evangelicals think they know how the universe and the biological world came into being. God did it. And since science can’t answer everything — cue up the God of the gaps argument — God did it. Just because science can’t answer a particular question doesn’t mean God is the answer. Most Evangelicals can’t even explain why there are two hopelessly contradictory creation accounts in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The Bible is a dead, antiquated religious text. When it comes to science, the Bible has nothing to offer. We know the universe was not created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. We know the earth is not 6,027 years old. We know Adam and Eve weren’t the first hominids. We know that many of the stories in the Old Testament, such as Noah and the Ark, Moses and the Jewish exodus, the tower of Babel, etc. are myths. Science tells us these things. The Bible? It is a product of its time, not meant to be used for scientific inquiry.

Lawson says that because science can’t answer certain questions — and I have no idea whether it can answer his challenges or not — we cannot say “there is no God.” I have never said that there is no God. I am an agnostic atheist. Unlike many theists, I know the limitations of my knowledge. I cannot know for certain whether a deity of some sort exists. A God of some sort may exist that has not yet made itself known to us. Is this likely or probable? No, but possible. Thus, I am agnostic on the God question. However, when it comes to the extant deities (all gods and religions are of human origin), I am an atheist, confident that these gods are myths. When it comes to the Abrahamic deities, I am confident that these gods and religions are the products of human minds. I am convinced that the central claims of Christianity are false.

As far as morality is concerned, I am persuaded that moral and ethical values come from our DNA and personal experiences and beliefs. If there was some sort of objective moral standard outside of ourselves, we would all have the same moral and ethical beliefs, at all times, throughout human history. Of course, we don’t. Even Christians can’t agree on morality. Morals change with time, and from person to person. Thus, morality is inherently subjective. It is when we gather into families, tribes, communities, and countries that we begin to develop moral codes and standards (which, again, vary from family to family, tribe to tribe, community to community, and country to country). We, collectively, agree that certain behaviors are moral (good) and others are immoral (bad). Because our highest goals are happiness and well-being, we often punish behaviors that negatively affect these goals. Ultimately, WE decide what is moral and ethical. (So, you think we are God? Yes.) 🙂 There is no God, who else decides besides us? Unless you think all morals are hardwired, you must believe morality is subjective. A separate issue, which I will not address at this time, is whether humans have free will. Even without free will, if happiness and well-being — both individually and corporately — are our goals, we can (must) govern human behavior through expectations and laws. While religions can and do play a part in the formation of our moral values, this doesn’t mean that a particular religion (and its deity and divine text) is the source, the grounding of human morality.

As far as evil, is concerned, evil is what humans do, based on what I stated above. We don’t need religion or a deity to declare a certain behavior or action is evil. I don’t need Jesus in my heart or knowledge of Lawson’s deity to know that slaughtering children and innocent civilians in war — as Israel is currently doing — is morally wrong. I make moral judgments every day, without God or appeals to a religious text (though I will readily admit my moral framework is informed by the five decades I spent as a follower of Jesus).

Lawson prays there is a God. Why? Isn’t it time we grew up and put off childish things, the vestiges of a pre-scientific age? Simply put, we don’t need the God of classical theism. He is a crutch people hang on to instead of doing the hard work necessary to determine how to morally and ethically live their lives. This path is messy, laden with challenges and contradictions, but more honest and fulfilling than appealing to mythical deities and ancient religious texts.

I appreciate Lawson taking the time to comment.

Saved by Reason,

signature

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.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Quote of the Day: Science-Based Medicine (SBM) vs. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)

13 Comments
homeopathic killer

Good science-based medicine should endeavor to isolate variables as much as possible. That is what the entire placebo-controlled trial is about. We cannot make causal conclusion unless the variable of interest is isolated. The problem for CAM proponents is that when you properly isolate the variable that is at the core of their treatment, it doesn’t work. After thousands of clinical trials, for example, acupuncture researchers still have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that acupuncture points mean anything. They do not appear to exist – their own research concludes this. Similarly, there is no “life energy” behind energy medicine, subluxation theory has been essentially disproven, and the principles of homeopathy are demonstrable nonsense.

— Dr. Steven Novella, Science-Based Medicine, An SBM Advocate Goes To Washington, April 5, 2023

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.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Engineering, Science, Depression, Deconversion

5 Comments
guest post

Guest by Karen the Rock Whisperer

This is a personal story.

At nearly 62 years old, I’m an agnostic atheist (and a secular humanist). I don’t actually know that there are no deities. However, I don’t know of any real evidence for a deity. I can’t believe in someone(s) who supposedly affects the workings of the real world, and yet leaves no trail of evidence that meets the scientific standard. God, by whatever name(s), is so important to most of the human occupants of our planet, that I can’t believe such evidence wouldn’t make it into a paper in a top-tier journal like Science or Nature. I have specific problems with the Christian understanding of God, but those only become relevant when real evidence of that deity, or any deity, is established. This hasn’t happened.

What I can believe in, because modern psychology documents it and I’ve personally experienced it, is the ability of the human mind to acquire and persist in all kinds of beliefs that have no external justification. I spent the first three decades of my life being absolutely convinced that I am worthless, completely lacking in value to anyone, and a total waste of resources. I maintained this belief in the face of K-12 and university grades that said I was a good to very good student, the love and affection of a man who would become my husband, a sterling work record with regular promotions, and other evidence to the contrary. In my early thirties, my mental health finally deteriorated to the point of near non-functionality, and I had to get help. A prescription for an antidepressant calmed the tsunami waves of hopelessness that washed over me. Therapy, off and on over the last three decades, has helped me learn techniques for redirecting my mind away from the rumination that brings on those waves. The depression dragon that lives in my mind, and whispers to me about what a disgusting waste of good oxygen I am, is still there. I’ve simply learned how to coax her into sleeping most of the time.

I grew up Roman Catholic, in a very conservative, authoritarian household, dogged by undiagnosed depression. I attended Catholic elementary and high schools run by an order of very liberal nuns. If my parents had learned about the feminist environment of my schools or the nearly humanist liberalism of my nuns, there would have been explosions of volcanic proportions, but I wasn’t telling. (Those nuns planted the seeds of my current secular humanism.) My doubts about the veracity of my church’s teachings began in high school. One issue was that, although I prayed often and intently, I never felt any connection to a god in my prayers. It really felt like I was talking to the ceiling. Another was that Catholic theology was starting to not make rational sense, and having things make sense was becoming more and more important to me.

I went off to college to study engineering, and then married a classmate who came from an Evangelical background. Together we attended an Evangelical church for a few years before abandoning churchgoing entirely. Overall, that church was a painful experience for me, because the Evangelical emphasis on the worthlessness of humans fed my depression. It also baffled me as I gradually realized that my fellow church members actually believed in Biblical inerrancy. I knew enough science to realize that it couldn’t possibly be so.

So, many experiences, many indicators that Christianity was a hodgepodge of questionable beliefs, and I was ready for deconversion, right? Well, no. Depression kept me tied to the theology of human worthlessness. Engineering did the same. The mindset of an engineer is that there is an established body of knowledge, well-codified, and the engineer must design a solution to a technical problem by drawing on that established knowledge. All problems have solutions, though it might take a great deal of creativity to develop some solutions. Engineers live in a world of facts and (hopefully) reasonable extrapolations from those facts. Christianity (like other religions) offers what it declares is an established body of knowledge about God, his relationship with humans, and his demands and expectations. I was having issues with that supposedly established body of knowledge, but for several years I approached the problem as an engineer: clearly, if I was confused, I simply didn’t understand the established body of knowledge well enough.

Then came the WOW experience of the first antidepressant, and the questioning. The dragon in my mind had been telling me all these lies about myself. What other lies were hiding up there? Were my doubts and questions about religion actually justified? I soldiered on, questioning many things I’d considered as intractably true as the laws of physics. It was hard work, I stalled out many times, and struggled to shake the depression and improve my opinion of myself.

Middle age came around. (We never had children.) I’d gotten into the habit of being laid off, because my engineering expertise was in a fiercely contracting subfield. I’d find what seemed like a promising company, to have it miss a market window or not qualify for the last infusion of venture capital, and go bankrupt. It got very tiresome after a while. Then my parents needed extended support, which took me out of the workforce for a few years. I needed to retrain, and my heart wasn’t in it. Meanwhile, a casual interest in geology was becoming an obsession. With support from my wonderful husband, instead of going back to engineering school, I entered a master’s program in geology at our local university.

My geology education was another WOW experience, an extended one, because I discovered the scientific outlook. All knowledge is provisional, and everything is questionable. Scientific theories are established by not only their ability to explain real-world phenomena, but their ability to predict future phenomena. I acquired the ability to question everything I thought I knew. I lost the engineering mindset of seeing life as full of problems to be solved using a body of codified knowledge. Instead, I embraced the scientific mindset of seeing life as an adventure of discovery, where I was required to keep challenging my own understanding.

I became disabled and have never been able to work as a geologist (long story, not germane here). But the gift of that scientific education is the ability to truly examine my beliefs, disconnect them from all the oppressive ‘shoulds’ of my upbringing and the depression dragon in the back of my mind, and decide on their validity based on what I know about reality. And so, today, I can stand up and call myself an agnostic atheist, free of residual fears and doubts, because I have a good (and improving!) toolkit for evaluating the stuff in my own mind. Not that I’ve reached some pinnacle of self-knowledge, or that the depression dragon doesn’t still have some good days. I’m a work in progress. But instead of a default mental state of struggling and stalling, my default state is now up and flying.

I have discovered true freedom.

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.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.