Naturalism’s Missionary Zeal
April 25th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Modern naturalism is often promulgated with a missionary zeal that has powerful religious overtones. The popular fish symbol many Christians put on their cars now has a naturalist counterpart: a fish with feet and the word “Darwin” embossed into its side. The Internet has become naturalism’s busiest mission field, where evangelists for the cause aggressively try to deliver benighted souls who still cling to their theistic presuppositions. Judging from the tenor of some of the material I have read seeking to win converts to naturalism, naturalists are often dedicated to their faith with a devout passion that rivals or easily exceeds the fanaticism of any radical religious zealot. Naturalism is clearly as much a religion as any theistic world-view. The point is further proved by examining the beliefs of those naturalists who claim to be most unfettered by religious beliefs.
Take, for example, the case of Carl Sagan, perhaps the best-known scientific celebrity of the past couple of decades. A renowned astronomer and media figure, Sagan was overtly antagonistic to biblical theism. But he became the chief televangelist for the religion of naturalism. He preached a world-view that was based entirely on naturalistic assumptions. Underlying all he taught was the firm conviction that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation. That belief—a matter of faith, not a truly scientific observation—governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.
Sagan examined the vastness and complexity of the universe and concluded—as he was bound to do, given his starting point—that there is nothing greater than the universe itself. So he borrowed divine attributes such as infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence, and he made them properties of the universe itself.
“The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be,” was Sagan’s trademark aphorism, repeated on each episode of his highly-rated television series, Cosmos. The statement itself is clearly a tenet of faith, not a scientific conclusion. (Neither Sagan himself nor all the scientists in the world combined could ever examine “all that is or ever was or ever will be” by any scientific method.) Sagan’s slogan is perfectly illustrative of how modern naturalism mistakes religious dogma for true science.
Sagan’s religion was actually a kind of naturalistic pantheism, and his motto sums it up perfectly. He deified the universe and everything in it—insisting that the cosmos itself is that which was, and is, and is to come (cf. Revelation 4:8). Having examined enough of the cosmos to see evidence of the Creator’s infinite power and majesty, he imputed that omnipotence and glory to creation itself—precisely the error the apostle Paul describes in Romans 1:20-22:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Exactly like the idolaters Paul was describing, Sagan put creation in the Creator’s rightful place. Carl Sagan looked at the universe and saw its greatness and concluded nothing could possibly be greater. His religious presuppositions forced him to deny that the universe was the result of intelligent design. In fact, as a devoted naturalist, he had to deny that it was created at all. Therefore he saw it as eternal and infinite—so it naturally took the place of God in his thinking.
The religious character of the philosophy that shaped Sagan’s world-view is evident in much of what he wrote and said. His novel Contact (made into a major motion picture in 1997) is loaded with religious metaphors and imagery. It’s about the discovery of extraterrestrial life, which occurs in December 1999, at the dawn of a new millennium, when the world is rife with Messianic expectations and apocalyptic fears. In Sagan’s imagination, the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe becomes the “revelation” that affords a basis for the fusing of science and religion into a world-view that perfectly mirrors Sagan’s own belief system—with the cosmos as God and scientists as the new priesthood.
Sagan’s religion included the belief that the human race is nothing special. Given the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and the impersonality of it all, how could humanity possibly be important? Sagan concluded that our race is not significant at all. In December 1996, less than three weeks before Sagan died, he was interviewed by Ted Koppel on “Nightline.” Sagan knew he was dying, and Koppel asked him, “Dr. Sagan, do you have any pearls of wisdom that you would like to give to the human race?”
Sagan replied,
We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies, which make up a universe, which may be one of a very large number—perhaps an infinite number—of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. [ABC News Nightline, December 4, 1996.]
In a book published posthumously, Sagan wrote, “Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. [Pale Blue Dot (New York: Random House, 1994), 9.]
Although Sagan resolutely tried to maintain a semblance of optimism to the bitter end, his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair. According to his wordview, humanity occupies a tiny outpost—a pale blue speck in a vast sea of galaxies. As far as we know, we are unnoticed by the rest of the universe, accountable to no one, and petty and irrelevant in a cosmos so expansive. It is fatuous to talk of outside help or redemption for the human race. No help is forthcoming. It would be nice if we somehow managed to solve some of our problems, but whether we do or not will ultimately be a forgotten bit of cosmic trivia. That, said Sagan, is a perspective well worth pondering.
All of this underscores the spiritual barrenness of naturalism. The naturalist’s religion erases all moral and ethical accountability, and it ultimately abandons all hope for humanity. If the impersonal cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be, then morality is ultimately moot. If there is no personal Creator to whom humanity is accountable and the survival of the fittest is the governing law of the universe, all the moral principles that normally regulate the human conscience are ultimately groundless—and possibly even deleterious to the survival of our species.
Thanks Dr. MacArthur, for this post. For the past four months I tried to live as a naturalist, along with a few other philosophies, but in the end nothing could convince me that God did not exist.
Well, according to Romans 1, he knew better. Pity.
“If there is no personal Creator to whom humanity is accountable and the survival of the fittest is the governing law of the universe, all the moral principles that normally regulate the human conscience are ultimately groundless—and possibly even deleterious to the survival of our species.”
Interesting theory. But could I ask, if tomorrow you discovered that there was no God, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you feel compelled to act without moral judgment? I truly doubt your answer would be “yes.”
And I should hope that Christians do not only act morally because of a celestial surveillance camera. Actually, I’m not sure the human race could survive if it acted immorally…meaning, if we just went around acting in self-interest, killing and stealing at will, I’m sure our civilization would never exist.
Therefore, morality is grounded in doing the things that allows a species to survive. It’s a worthy cause, believer or non-believer. In fact, I am much more inclined to appreciate a moral non-believer who does good not out of a reward system, or fear of punishment, but rather that he sees the Golden Rule as a worthwhile ideal to follow.
And I have serious reservations that before the Ten Commandments, the Israelites didn’t realize that murdering and stealing might be a bad idea. As a people, as a species, and as a civilization, morality is necessary, God or no God, to prolong the species. It’s a built-in trait, and no faith has a monopoly on it.
scarysnow,
May I ask you how you know that being moral is morally good? Upon what basis can you make that claim? I’m just curious, that’s all.
You say, “Morality is grounded in doing the things that allows a species to survive.” But how do you know surviving is morally good? Maybe it isn’t. Just look at all the terrible things humans have done to the world due to our presence.
I have another question for you, if you don’t mind. I think you miss the point of John’s article. In a naturalistic, Darwinian worldview, some things are morally acceptable. For example, allowing a person who is congenitally physically or mentally disabled to reproduce would have negative consequences for the human race, according to Darwinian theory of evolution. If we allowed them to have children, chances are their children would also be disabled in some form or another. Let this go on long enough, and eventually the world will be heavily, if not overly, populated by humans who can’t survive. The Darwinian response would be to prevent them from having children, and since life is only the “survival of the fittest,” there would be nothing morally wrong with killing these people in order to “allow the species to survive.” But clearly in a Christian worldview, that is morally repugnant, and you agree that it is repugnant as well.
So my question, I suppose, is whether or not you think it is morally acceptable to kill off any group of people whose existence could prove detrimental to the the human species as a whole?
If you do not think so, then would you please explain, within a Darwinistic framework, how you would support your answer?
I thank you for asking, though. If more people did that, I think the world would be a better place. Ignorance is not a good place to reason from.
I’m sorry scarysnow, but you have missed the boat altogether. Atheism has no foundation for morality whatever. Atheists have to “borrow” from the Christian worldview in order to even talk about morality. Their creator, the cosmos, cares nothing for morality, or for them, and they will both perish in the slow heat-death of the universe. To say that “morality is grounded in doing the things that allows a species to survive” is to display an ignorance of the fact that everything is absurd in the atheist’s world view. Nothing has meaning, not even the survival of a species that is ultimately doomed; a doom over which nothing in the universe will shed a single tear. If Sagan was right, he proved too much. If we are an accident of the universe, and possess all the significance of swamp gas and inter-stellar dust, then it is ludicrous for us to ascribe to a morality of any sort.
Scarysnow,
If “morality is necessary, God or no God,” where exactly does this “built in trait” come from? Don’t you need some “baseline” for determining right from wrong? If there is no “builder” and no “baseline,” wouldn’t each of us be “compelled to act without moral judgment” because we would have no way of knowing what is moral? The whole idea of “morality” in the Godless world you describe would be a very subjective concept.
“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in how own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) I get the sense that what’s described here is NOT a good thing. Don’t you? It seems to be a nation on the verge of chaos. There was no leader. Self-interest was the driving force - not survival of the nation. With this in mind, can you imagine what would happen in and to a world with no King and people motivated only by self-interest? The prospects don’t seem very promising, do they?
Then my friend, you would not be someone I should like to know. For if you need heavenly rewards and a promise of everlasting life in order to be good and just to your fellow man, than I dare not meet you if you ever come to other realizations.
What can you possibly know of me and my motivations? And what is “good” in an amoral universe?
Scarysnow,
The point that Sky was making is that without God the universe is amoral. There is absolutely no basis for morality.
The Christian worldview doesn’t base morality on rewards or a promise of eternal life. We base morality on the idea that God is a moral being and has placed in us, as part of His image, morality. Therefore our basis for what is right and wrong is based on the nature of God, which He has revealed to us.
However because Adam and Eve sinned, part of the result is the suppression of truth (Romans 1). Therefore everyone people suppress morality to some degree (some are ok with murder, others are ok with speeding).
I know you won’t accept that, but you said it yourself: “It’s a built-in trait”. So I would ask you, what is your basis of morality, and who decides which set of morals are right?
By the way, the Ten Commandments were not the first exposure to the law, the first murder happened in Genesis 4, just a couple pages into the Bible. But even then Cain knew what he did was morally wrong.
Scarysnow, I just saw you last comment on yesterday’s post. You said, “Obviously, scripture provides its own set of challenges in the way of morality. Old Testament laws are no longer practiced; in fact, are rather abhorrent, if not dated or otherwise completely wrong. The New Testament has a few pickles to deal with as well.”
Would you mind offering some examples of morality in Scripture that is no longer in vogue?
Well, that would take a long time. I could speak on a lot of things. There’s a lot of scripture that says you ought to put people to death for reasons like, oh, working on Sunday, adultery, maybe getting a little smart with your parents. I mean, I won’t patronize you. You know the kinds of things I’m talking about, surely. (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.)
Prior to my conversion to Christianity, I myself thought about the world and the universe as Sagan did. As a young unbeliever interested in science, Sagan was a bit of a hero of mine. I watched and soaked up the images and psuedo-science on his program after school and on Saturday afternoons. I loved Cosmos. The music, images and Sagan’s sage-like dialog superimposed over stars and planets whizzing by facsinated me. I even produced a report for my grade school class explaining how great Sagan was for all his achievements and his views on the universe.
In college I even put one of those gastly Darwin fish on the bumper of my car. Convinced of this naturalistic viewpoint to explain ‘me’ and the world and universe around me, I refused to allow myself to be held under the authority of a higher power. Everything and anything I did was fine, because in my view of the world (and Sagan’s) what difference did it all really make? I hurt myself and a lot of people in the process. No, I didn’t commit murder. But I didn’t allow myself to be brought under the moral law of a higher authority which would have prevented a great deal of pain for myself and others. I did all this in spite of knowing deep down that God existed and that I was rejecting truth. (Scarysnow, listen carefully here.)
I was lost. And as John points out here, felt “led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair.” God ultimately delivered me from the personal despair I experienced from that life and through His grace offered me saving faith. A faith that rejects the falsehood of naturalism and glories in the truth of God.
Its a unique experience to read John MacArthur, a man who has become a personal spiritual example and father-in-the-faith to me (as much as one can be to another man he’s only met twice briefly in person,) defend the truth and explain the viewpoints of a man whom I once admired and built a false worldview around. Praise the Lord he has seen fit to free me from the same path poor Carl Sagan followed to his dying day.
Thank you for your faithful ministry John.
Actually, I’m not sure the human race could survive if it acted immorally…meaning, if we just went around acting in self-interest, killing and stealing at will, I’m sure our civilization would never exist.
Uhh.. you don’t see that happening?
To say that the rule of “survival of the fittest” governs morality completely contradicts phenomena like suicide, or altruism, or really even murder… that is, if humanity has any sort of consciousness of being united in a species that needs to prolong itself.
Christians don’t act morally because of a celestial surveillance camera. We do so because morality, given by God to His people, and then lived out by His people, pleases Him. And it’s our joy to please our God, whose ultimate glory and our ultimate good are synonymous. He is the most pleasing, satisfying, beautiful being imaginable. When we obey Him and follow after Him, it’s only because we see that pleasantness, satisfaction, and beauty, and want more of it. And not just in heaven (though that’s gonna be awesome), but also right now. I get to see more of Him and enjoy Him right now. That’s what I live for. So you see… it’s not duty at all… it’s delight.
What do you live for?
MIke said:
Christians don’t act morally because of a celestial surveillance camera. We do so because morality, given by God to His people, and then lived out by His people, pleases Him. And it’s our joy to please our God, whose ultimate glory and our ultimate good are synonymous.
That is so good, it deserves repeating. I weary of atheists suggesting that we Christians only ‘behave’ because if we don’t God will break out the Big Stick! We love Him and we even love the blasphemers who deny Him. So there, LOL!
Re: Mike, David
Well, I don’t want to question your integrity at all, so I hope I didn’t come across that way. But as you tire of people thinking you do good out of fear, I tire of the faithful saying that a non-believer cannot act morally and has no moral grounding.
We have plenty of philosophical literature to refer to, history to learn from, and what I deem as genetically built-in traits of morality, which are passed along from successful civilizations.
Are the faithful more likely to do good than non-faithful? I truly doubt that.
And as some have pointed out, if there is no meaning, no afterlife, then morality is moot. Which I disagree with for a plethora of reasons, but I would also point out that even the faithful do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God and Heaven exists. It’s a matter of faith, and we all face the possibility that there isn’t anyone waiting on the other line.
But does that deter either of us from acting morally? Of course not. And again, I truly fear the person who only does moral deeds because of their faith.
The issue is with definitions, scarysnow.
When we say the unbeliever can do no good or cannot be moral, we don’t mean that he can’t do what seems like good things to the human mind. The problem is… that’s not what “good” means.
Good, by definition, is the very character of the God of the Bible. Morality originates with Him, and is given only by Him. See, the Bible tells us that “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” That means, among other things, that God is absolutely pure and holy… He is absolute moral good. That also means that He cannot permit that which is not holy in the very same way He is to be in communion with Him. If He did, He’d cease to be holy, and therefore cease to be God.
Because all of humanity sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12ff, 1Cor 15:22), we are born into a human nature that is corrupt, and by nature opposed to the absolute moral good that God is (Eph 2:1-3). The result is that we cannot enter into God’s presence. We’re “darkness,” that has no fellowship with Light. (That’s an obvious point, right? Where there’s light, there’s not darkness, and vice versa.) So because of our position before God — not because we’re not good, but because we’re not perfect — we cannot properly be said to be good, or moral, or righteous.
Here’s the wonder of wonders. God, in His infinite mercy, sends His Son, who is God Himself in His very nature, who then lives a life worthy of God’s standard of Light and purity and holiness! And it gets better! God’s Son willingly lays down His perfect life as a sacrifice for the imperfect lives of a people, whose humanity, with its corrupt nature, is bent away from God and incapable of being truly good, or doing anything moral (again, because God’s standard is morality). His sacrifice imputes His life — His record of holiness — to those who believe in Him… to those who acknowledge their total inability to be truly good, who acknowledge their moral bankruptcy, and trust in a righteousness outside themselves for moral justification.
Now… here’s the glory in this: God, who is morality, can only be pleased with that which meets His own standard. But no one does… except Jesus Christ… except HIMSELF. So what does He do? He takes humans, who are by definition immorality itself, and gives them HIMSELF. Now, those humans which were dead, live by faith because He has given to them what He requires of them. And nothing short of God Himself pleases Him. For it to be so would be idolatry! Because it’s idolatry to not esteem that which is most worthy of esteem, and it’s idolatry to esteem that which is not worthy of esteem. God Himself is the only One worthy of such esteem. To accept anything but Himself, means He is no longer Light with no darkness, and thus is no longer God.
So that’s why we say unbelievers aren’t good and have no morality. Not because they’re as evil as they could possibly be, but because true morality only comes from God. And unbelievers don’t have Christ in them to present to the Father and say, “Look at HIS track record, not mine!” Outside of Christ, you have only your own merits. And I tell you in truth, that is a sad state to be in before a Holy God. You say, “Your God doesn’t sound all that loving if He punishes all those who aren’t Him!” Oh how you miss it! That would be true if He did not Himself grant that very thing that He requires. But He does! I plead with you, with no rhetoric or high-horse-ness, run to that Christ! Be emptied of yourself and run to Him who is able to wash you from your moral filth and to present you spotless before the throne of a Holy God! Run to Him while He may be found! This is the day of salvation!
I will point out that am an ex-Christian, and come from a family with pastors on both sides, and I would respect them still, if not disagree.
I want to also point out that it’s not as if the Christian community has got a monopoly on truth. Not even they can agree. Of just the Old Testament, other seemingly separate religions have sprouted from it, from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. From Christianity comes Catholicism, Mormonism, and then the countless sects (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) I am sure that I could delve into the previous posts on this blog and find a lot of argument over the meaning of your scriptures, and I’m sure each of you have been drawn to the specific sect that most fits your preconceptions.
This variable shows to me that even within faith, nothing is certain.
(And that doesn’t even speak of the thousands of independent faiths, from Native Americans to Greek Mythology, of whose Gods you are all surely atheists of.)
Scarysnow,
You’re right! We (i.e. Christians/believers) don’t always agree about the exact meaning of certain scriptures. We pray. We ponder. We study, but we don’t always agree.
Nonetheless, we Christians/believers almost certainly agree that it’s all about JESUS! He said, “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me.” (John 14:6) “There is no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we MUST be SAVED.” (Acts 4:12). Saved from what? Saved from our SINS (i.e. our immorality, our lack of perfect goodness, our unrighteousness). (Matt 1:21) Saved from this PRESENT EVIL AGE. (Gal. 1:4). Saved from the COMING WRATH. (I Thes. 1:10)
“For GOD’S WRATH is (and will be) revealed from heaven against ALL GODLESSNESS and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the CREATION OF THE WORLD His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what HE HAS MADE. As a result, people are WITHOUT EXCUSE. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were DARKENED. (Romans 1:18-21)
God is light, and in HIM their is NO DARKNESS at all. Run to Him! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be SAVED!
I don’t know it all. None of us do. I can only tell you what I think and believe and lay it out there for your consideration. Jesus is a person that you must reckon with. History speaks of Him. The Bible tells us about Him. Creation points to Him. He’s either legit or the biggest fraud every hoisted upon mankind. I commend Him to you!!
Scarysnow,
You’ve made some pretty bold statements… You have yet to answer my question about morals found in Scripture that are no longer valid. In the previous post you stated that the Bible says the earth is flat and the moon generates its own light. Where is that?
Also, just because humans can’t agree with what the Bible says, that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the Bible. That simply points to our defficiency. Just like when scientists can’t agree on the meaning of evidence. The evidence is what it is, so is the Bible. We just need to be constantly striving to find the truth.
Scary, there’s no such thing as an “ex-Christian”. 1 John 2:19. You can’t be born again and then be unborn. I know the guy who did “The God who Wasn’t There” maintains this but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Gabriel, he’s probably referring the the “corners of the earth”…(Isaiah 11:12, Rev 7:1) a saying we still use!
re: Gabriel.
I posted something earlier, but the blog administrators didn’t approve it (oddly) to loosely answer your question on relevant scripture. Sorry!
But yes, I agree! Evidence should be scrutinized, and retested and retested, and shown to support hypothesis. That’s why I’m such a big fan of the scientific principles and methods. This objective scrutiny is effective. They want to prove themselves wrong, and the stronger theories and hypothesis that can withstand these trials are what we might call “working theories.”
Do you know many believers who place the similar scrutiny on their own scriptural documents, or faith-based ideas? I don’t. Instead, they assume the Bible is 100% accurate, and anything that contradicts it is wrong. That’s called dogma. Even how illogical their claims might be.
I don’t know your personal approach, because as I’ve pointed out, many faiths are different, even those who have the same books. So I don’t want to say you fall under this category. But most believers I know either consider scripture infallible, or simply just gel it to meet their own personal bias or necessities. So what’s the point of having a moral foundation if everyone’s version of it is different anyway? Isn’t the Golden Rule good enough?
Scarysnow,
Most of us who frequent this blog hold to the same method of interpretation that someone use to interpret any ancient document: Literally according to what it says, what the words mean, in light of its historical context, and according the grammar of the language.
I’m not aware of anything in Scripture that has been proved false. Archeology continues to say certain things didn’t happen or didn’t exist… then they continually find evidence that proves the Bible right.
Science hasn’t proved the Bible wrong on anything because it can only offer unprovable theories.
As you know the Bible hasn’t changed for over 2000 years, the OT even longer. Yet archeology and science are constantly changing, coming up with new theories, throwing out old ones, etc. On the whole that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But a scientist cannot be dogmatic because who knows what evidence will prove him false next year.
I do believe the Bible is infallible, mainly because it says so, but also because no one has been able to prove otherwise.
Well, I think that’ll have to be the last point. As with any debate, it’s difficult to discuss something if we are using different definitions of the same terms.
Plus, it’s probably without point because your argument is circular.
1. The Bible is infallible.
2. If the Bible is fallible, refer to point 1.
I mean, there’s no way I can get through that cement wall, because no matter what evidence I point to, or sources I reference to, you will refer to point 1, and we’ll be right back to where we started.
And that’s fine, you can believe in whatever you want. Most people do. Even the faithful are divided. I’m more interested in learning to co-exist, and forming healthy relationships, regardless of faith (or lack thereof), which is why I’ve tried to clarify the scientific position on all this.
But again, I do appreciate the discussion. I doubt it has helped, but it has at least educated me a bit more on the fundamentalist perspective of the scientific community.
So for now, I’ll end spamming up your blog with my perspective, as I’m sure it’s not very proactive in an environment set up for fellow believers. Thanks for indulging me, though. Take care…
We appreciate your kind discussion, Scarysnow.
Do keep this in mind though, if we’re wrong, then no harm done. But if you’re wrong about God, and you continue to reject God, then there are eternal consequences. Don’t allow yourself to sleep until you have come to grips with that reality.
Take care,
Gabriel
The Naturalistic Fallacy in ethics is well established and has never been overcome. You cannot get “ought” from “is.” Thus, Naturalists must indeed borrow coded behaviors, in whatever form, and voluntarily abide by them.
But once they attempt to make an ethical pronouncement they deem should be applied to all, they fall victim to the Naturalistic Fallacy, or what’s been called “The Grand Sez Who?”
They can never, ever, justify a community ethic. For all it takes is one in the community to say, “Sez who?” and clonk you on the head.
scary, check out a site I think you’ll appreciate for its logical approach. It is
www.whyibelieve.org
I urge you to allow yourself to be wrong (in what you now believe) and allow yourslef to be corrected (by the truth). We have all been there. I’m sure many of us were not “indoctrinated” as children to fear any other view but the Bible. I myself came to believe at 28 y.o. by reading the Bible. As I grew I found the evidence bore it out. Mormons claim a ‘burning in the bosom’ feeling but what I felt was not that. EVIDENCE does vindicate the Bible’s claim to be the very Word of God. Take care, friend.