Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 114

Daring God to Do Evil Makes Atheists Nervous

Researchers in Finland decided to examine “whether atheists exhibit evidence of emotional arousal when they dare God to cause harm to themselves and their intimates.” I’m not sure how much can be concluded definitively from this study, but it’s certainly interesting. From Pacific Standard:

Some of the statements were direct dares to a deity (“I dare God to make my parents drown”). Others were similarly disturbing, but did not reference God (“It’s OK to kick a puppy in the face”). Still others were bland and neutral (“I hope it’s not raining today”).

The arousal levels of the believers and non-believers followed precisely the same pattern: Higher for both the God dares and otherwise unpleasant statements, and lower for the neutral ones.

Compared to the atheists, the believers reported feeling more uncomfortable reciting the God dares. But skin conductance data revealed the underlying emotional reactions of the two groups were essentially the same. This suggests that taunting God made the atheists more upset than they were letting on (even to themselves).

Of course, perhaps it wasn’t the presence of God, but rather the subject matter of the statements (such as the death of their parents) that caused the atheists’ emotional arousal. The second experiment was designed to test that hypothesis. It featured 19 Finnish atheists, who participated in an expanded version of the first experiment. It included 10 additional statements—variations on the God dares which excluded any mention of supernatural forces. For example, in addition to “I dare God to turn all my friends against me,” they read out loud the statement: “I wish all of my friends would turn against me.”

The results: The atheists showed greater emotional arousal when reading the God-related statements than while reading the otherwise nearly identical sentences that omitted the almighty. To the researchers, this indicates that “even atheists have difficulty daring God to harm themselves and their loved ones.”

The researchers offer a few different possible explanations for this, and of course I favor the one that matches Romans 1: we can suppress our knowledge of God’s existence, but we can never completely escape it.

But there’s one possibility the researchers don’t seem to have considered (also suggested here). Since persons have the ability to act, I do think there could be something about daring a person to do evil, or speaking to a person whom one thinks is evil (as many atheists believe the Christian God is), that causes distress, even if the dared individual doesn’t currently have the power to carry it out or never existed at all. I wish they would have controlled for this by also having people dare someone like Voldemort or Hitler to do something evil. My suspicion is that neither of these dares would cause the distress of daring God, but I’d love to see that tested.

Incidentally, I’m surprised Christians agreed to take part in this (assuming at least some of the “believers” studied were Christians). I don’t think their agreement shows they don’t truly believe in God (I’m sure they assumed God would not take their coerced dares seriously), but I fear it might show they think lightly of God’s holiness, being willing to use His Name in this manner. Or perhaps it just reveals an unwillingness to refuse the instructions of men in white coats. Neither possibility is a good one.

(HT: @drewdyck)

All of Life Is God's

Contrary to stereotypes, the Puritans were engaged in life on this earth because of their thoroughly integrated Christian worldview that "all of life is God's."

In Puritan thinking, the Christian life was a heroic venture, requiring a full quota of energy. "Christianity is not a sedentary profession or employment," wrote Baxter, adding, "Sitting still will lose you heaven, as well as if you run from it." The Puritans were the activists of their day. In a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Oliver Cromwell crossed out the words wait on and made his statement read "who have wrestled with God for a blessing."

Stressing the God-centered life can lead to an otherworldly withdrawal from everyday earthly life. For the Puritans, it produced the opposite. Richard Sibbes sounded the keynote: "The life of a Christian is wondrously ruled in this world, by the consideration and meditation of the life of another world." The doctrinal matrix that equipped the Puritans to integrate the two worlds was their thoroughly developed ideas on calling or vocation.

Read more about this.

Nazi Paganism

We rarely hear about the pagan religious ideas promoted by the Nazis, but every once in while, I come across another story. This one is from an article by Timothy George at First Things, who wrote about Paul Schneider, “the first Protestant pastor to die in a concentration camp at the hands of the Nazis”:

Schneider…was asked to preside at the funeral of a seventeen-year-old member of the Hitler Youth named Karl Moog. Before the benediction had been pronounced, the local Nazi district leader, Heinrich Nadig, interrupted the service to declare that young Karl had now crossed over into the heavenly storm troop of Horst Wessel, to which Schneider replied: “I do not know if there is a storm of Horst Wessel in eternity, but may the Lord God bless your departure from time and your entry into eternity.”

Sturmführer Horst Wessel was a Nazi party activist and author of the popular Nazi hymn “The Flag on High” (also called the Horst-Wessel-Lied). After his violent death in 1930, he was elevated as a hero in the Nazi pantheon. The Wessel story was incorporated into the pagan mythology the Nazis were seeking to revive. Alfred Rosenberg, the master of Nazi ideology, claimed that Wessel had not really died but now led a celestial storm troop. Those who died in the service of the Nazis, like young Karl Moog, were summoned to join the Wessel storm troop above. Just six months prior to the funeral incident, the Nazi bimonthly Der Brunnen declared: “How high Horst Wessel towers over that Jesus of Nazareth—that Jesus who pleaded that the bitter cup be taken from him. How unattainably high all Horst Wessels stand above Jesus!”

Pastor Schneider refused to subordinate the Christian Gospel to such a pagan myth. When Nadig repeated his graveside claim about Horst Wessel, Schneider said: “I protest. This is a church ceremony, and as a Protestant pastor, I am responsible for the pure teaching of the Holy Scriptures.”

After this confrontation, Schneider was placed in prison for five days, but he did not back down.

Eric Metaxes wrote a bit about Nazi paganism in Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy:

Since Hitler had no religion other than himself, his opposition to Christianity and the church was less ideological than practical. That was not the case for many leaders of the Third Reich. Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and others were bitterly anti-Christian and were ideologically opposed to Christianity, and wanted to replace it with a religion of their own devising. Under their leadership, said Shirer [in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich], “the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”

I would love to find a resource that delves more thoroughly into this topic. Your recommendations are welcome.

The Centrality of Jesus' Death Defies Relativism

There are many out there who see Christianity as being mainly about teaching us how to be better people. Sadly, this includes a large number of pastors who are passing on this too-common theology of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. There’s a good possibility that many of these pastors are not doing this purposely, but because their preaching focuses on moral lessons, their congregations learn that the moral lessons are what’s important.

I’m convinced that this moralistic focus is a major contributor to a relativistic view of religion amongst Christians. After all, if the goal of religion is to teach us to be good people, one religion can do this as well as another. What reason do we have to say one is right and the other wrong if they’re all right in the way that matters?

This is why I think the religious relativism of Christians is but a symptom pointing to a much deeper problem—a lack of understanding of the Gospel, a lack of knowing that Christianity depends on something objective happening outside of ourselves rather than being just a set of good rules to live by.

The Christianity of the Bible, when it’s explicitly taught, leaves no room for relativism because it depends on an objective event that accomplished a particular purpose for us. You’re probably familiar with the pre-biblical creed recorded for us by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, clearly defining the Gospel:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you stand, by which also you are saved….

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received [and here is the creed], that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

In The Cross of Christ, John Stott points out yet another part of New Testament history that proclaims the centrality of the cross:

The Lord’s Supper, which was instituted by Jesus, and which is the only regular commemorative act authorized by him, dramatizes neither his birth nor his life, neither his words nor his works, but only his death. Nothing could indicate more clearly the central significance which Jesus attached to his death. It was by his death that he wished above all else to be remembered. There is then, it is safe to say, no Christianity without the cross. If the cross is not central to our religion, ours is not the religion of Jesus.

This is not to take anything away from the resurrection, which is included in the 1 Corinthians creed, and without which Christ could not have “entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle,…not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood,” “into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us,” to be not just our sacrifice, but our one and only living high priest:

Jesus,…because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

But it is to say that any proposed “gospel” that leaves out the defining historical moment of Christ on the cross is missing the point of Christianity, and to miss that point is to leave us with nothing but bad news.

Confession and Salvation (Video)

How many of our sins do we need to confess to be saved?

Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to James?

Many Christians (especially young believers) are unaware of the ancient non-Canonical stories and legends related to Jesus. Maybe that’s why so many are easily shaken by critics who claim these late religious fabrications are true. Some skeptics, like Bart Ehrman, maintain these non-canonical texts describe versions of Christianity lost to the modern world, as if these stories were once considered authentic by those who were much closer to the action. This is not the case. The non-canonical texts were written far too late to be legitimate eyewitness accounts. While they were constructed around the core truths of Gospels (albeit altered and embellished by authors with specific motivations), there are good reasons to reject these texts. I’ve been examining many of these non-canonical stories in an effort to discover how they differ from the reliable accounts, why they were rejected by the Church, and what we can learn about Jesus, in spite of their unreliability. Today, we’ll examine the work of ancient authors who attempted to legitimize their stories by attributing them to Apostle James:

The Second Apocalypse of James (130-150 AD)
Like the "First" Apocalypse of James, this Gnostic text was discovered in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt. Scholars actually date the "Second" Apocalypse of James earlier than the "First." While the manuscript discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to the 3rd or 4th century, scholars believe that the original text was written in the middle of the 2nd century. The Second Apocalypse of James was written as a reported dialogue between Jesus and James the Just (Jesus' brother) and allegedly recorded by a priest named Mareim.

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
Like other Gnostic texts, this document first appears well after the death of the living eyewitness it reportedly represents (James). Scholars do not believe that James is actually the author of the text, and the Gnostic nature of the document fits well within the catalogue of late, heretical, Gnostic texts rejected by the early Church Fathers.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
In spite of this, the Second Apocalypse of James acknowledges several truths from the canonical Gospels. Jesus is referred to as "Lord," the "righteous one," the "life," and the "light." He is described as the judge of the world who attained a multitude of disciples while here on earth. He is acknowledged as a wise teacher who is the source of spiritual wisdom from God.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
The Second Apocalypse of James presents a Gnostic view of Jesus, "rich in knowledge," with a "unique understanding, which was produced only from above" that is "hidden from everyone," Gnosis is the mechanism through which mortal humans are to be "saved." There is some confusion in the text as to the relationship being described between Jesus and James. While the First Apocalypse of James clearly describes them as biological brothers of a sort, this text does not seem to affirm the relationship. Interestingly, there is also a scene in the text where Jesus kisses James on the mouth in a manner that is similar to the way that Jesus kisses Mary in the Gospel of Philip. Jesus also calls James His “beloved” here. The text appears to describe this form of kissing as a metaphor for the passing of Gnostic wisdom, and the context of this text coupled with the Gospel of Philip supports this understanding.

The Infancy Gospel of James (140-170 AD)
The Infancy Gospel of James (also known as “The Gospel of James” or “The Protoevangelium of James”), is believed by scholars to have been written in the 2nd century. It was very popular during its day, and approximately one hundred thirty ancient manuscripts have survived. The earliest copy of the Infancy Gospel of James is a text discovered in 1958 and dating to the 4th century. The manuscript describes the birth and life of Mary, her pregnancy, and the birth of Jesus. It is the earliest non-canonical document to openly claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin (never having had sex with a man, neither before nor after the birth of Jesus).

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
The Infancy Gospel of James claims to have been authored by James the Just, the half-brother of Jesus and son of Joseph from a prior marriage. But scholars have observed the author of the text appears to know little or nothing about the Jewish customs of the 1st century. James would certainly have been familiar with these customs. The Infancy Gospel of James was first mentioned by Origen in the 3rd century. He considered the text to be untrustworthy and said that it was a late heretical work. Pope Gelasius condemned the text in his 5th century “Gelasian Decree,” describing it as one of the books “to be avoided by catholics.” The Infancy Gospel of James is by all accounts a late text, and was not written by James or any eyewitness to the account it describes.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
In spite of its condemnation from the earliest orthodox Church Fathers, the text does affirm a number of elements found in the reliable Gospels. The text acknowledges the identity of Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents and the sequence of events leading up to the birth of Jesus, including the angel's visit to Mary, the virgin conception of Mary, the angel's declaration of this fact to Joseph in a dream, and the census that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem. It also affirms the arrival of the Magi, the sequence of events that led them to find the Christ child, and the response of Herod when the Magi did not return to him.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
The Infancy Gospel of James adds a number of details to the story of Mary and Joseph and the birth of Jesus. Like other apocryphal authors of the 2nd century, the writer of this text was also interested in satisfying the curiosity of those who were interested in those areas of the canonical Gospels where detail was lacking. These fictional details often became part of the legends surrounding Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of James includes narratives describing Jesus being born in a cave rather than a stable, describing Joseph as a man who was significantly older than Mary when Jesus was born, and describing Mary as a perpetual virgin.

The Apocryphon of James (150-180 AD)
The Apocryphon of James is a mid to late 2nd century text claiming to contain the secret teaching of Jesus to James and Peter following the resurrection, but prior to the ascension. It was first discovered in Egypt along with other Gnostic documents in the Nag Hammadi collection in 1945, and only one damaged copy has ever been discovered.

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
Scholars once again date this text far too late to have been written by any eyewitness to the life of Jesus. It was discovered along with other Gnostic texts, many of which are Sethian, and the Apocryphon of James also uses Gnostic terminology. The text fits well within the other heretical late writings that Irenaeus described as “forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures.” Interestingly, the Apocryphon of James, like the Gospel of Mary, describes Peter as incapable of understanding the teaching of Jesus. It is as if the writer of the Apocryphon sought to legitimize his own heretical, secret teaching to James and Mary by attacking the orthodoxy of Peter.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
The Apocryphon of James acknowledges many claims of the canonical Gospels, even as it distorts and adds to the orthodox eyewitness accounts. The text presumes Jesus lived, died on the cross, and was resurrected (after which the dialogue of the text is supposed to have occurred). It also acknowledges Jesus had twelve disciples, and the life of Jesus was eventually recorded by these disciples. Jesus is described as the “Son of Man” and His death on the cross is mentioned. The Apocryphon also affirms that Jesus spoke in parables to his disciples, and it even recalls the parables of “The Shepherds,” “The Seed,” “The Building,” “The Lamps of the Virgins,” “The Wage of the Workers,” “The Double Drachma” and “The Woman” by name.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
The text is clearly influenced by Gnostic notions related to the power of knowledge with regard to Salvation. Jesus reportedly tells James the secret knowledge He is giving James is necessary for Salvation: “blessed are those who are saved through faith in this discourse.” Jesus tells both James and Peter they should desire to be “filled” with special knowledge and he calls them aside from the other disciples to provide them with this privileged teaching. This is consistent with the high regard Gnostics had for secret, esoteric knowledge.

The First Apocalypse of James (250-325 AD)
This document was also discovered in 1945 along with other Gnostic texts as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt. As described earlier, the "First" Apocalypse of James actually dates later than the "Second" Apocalypse of James and purports to be a dialogue recorded between Jesus and James the Just (Jesus' brother). The contents of the document include an inference related to the crucifixion and a series of spiritual "passwords" are provided by Jesus so James might ascend to the highest heaven.

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
Scholars agree this text appears in history no sooner than the middle of the 3rd century. As a result, it simply cannot have been written by James or anyone else who lived early enough to have witnessed the reported dialogue. Scholars also recognize the existence of theological principles within the text very similar to Valentinian Gnosticism. The teaching of Valentinus (a Gnostic teacher who lived from 100-160 AD) was condemned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, and it is reasonable to assume this text was similarly received.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
In spite of its Gnostic inclinations, the First Apocalypse of James does acknowledge a number of canonical truths about Jesus. Jesus is described as a wise teacher who possesses the knowledge of God and the secrets of heaven. He is called "Lord" and "Rabbi" and He is described as having many disciples and followers; Salome, Mary and Martha are mentioned by name. The crucifixion is also inferred and the martyrdom of James is mentioned in the closing lines of the text.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
The Gnosticism of the First Apocalypse of James is evident in the manner in which secret, esoteric knowledge is revered and described as the key to ascending to the highest heaven. Like other Gnostic texts, this document describes Jesus more as the revealer of this saving wisdom than as the sacrificial redeemer, although His suffering is inferred. The theology of the First Apocalypse of James centers on the idea salvation is simply the liberation of the soul from the burden of its material, mortal existence. This salvation is attained through the secret wisdom provided by texts such as these.

As with other non-canonical documents we’ve examined (and will continue to examine over the next weeks), there’s an emerging pattern related to dating and accuracy. Earlier documents tend to be more orthodox in their presentation of Jesus than later texts. As time progressed, religious sects of one kind or another co-opted the person of Jesus and “reshaped” Him to fit their particular theological perspective. The later the non-canonical text, the more dramatic the “reshaping.” That’s why the first question we must ask any eyewitness is simply, “Were you really there to see what it is you said you saw?” That’s also why we can trust the New Testament Gospels are the only true eyewitness accounts related to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Find all of J. Warner Wallace's posts in this series here.]

Timothy Keller Sermon Archive on Logos

I’ve had Logos Bible Software for some years. It’s a vast Bible study tool with tons of features and an enormous library of resources; I’ve only scratched the surface in my use. I recently had the opportunity to learn more about it and read one of their new resources that I’ve been anxious to read.

I like Timothy Keller’s preaching. He’s pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. I find his teaching intellectually engaging and biblically insightful, but also well-balanced. It would be easy for someone like me at STR to only listen to eggheads. That’s not healthy. I need my relationship with God to be challenged spiritually and emotionally in ways that may not come as naturally to me. So I listen to his sermons regularly. There are a lot of times he says something I want to remember, but I can’t write it down at the time. So when I heard Logos was releasing transcripts of his sermons, I was interested.

Keller often quotes an author he’s read that makes an excellent point. Listening, I’d try to remember or make a quick note to follow up. I’d Google it, and sometimes I found it, a lot of times I didn’t. Now I can search the archives and find the exact quotation and source.

I can also apply the lesson of the sermon better. After listening, I can read what I just listened to and make notes of the main points to remind myself and reflect on so I can learn and apply it better. Some circumstances in my life have changed pretty radically recently, and I’m trying to figure out the way forward. It was really helpful to be able to refer in print to a sermon on Philippians 4:1-9 I’d listened to recently. It helped me focus on applying the points: “Re-see all of your circumstances through the wise love of God by offering all of your petitions to Him through thankful prayer.” Remember your standing as a child of a loving and faithful Father. Practice the discipline of “the presence of God.” Even reviewing it from the text now is a really helpful reinforcement to practice this in my circumstances.

The transcriptions are great reading resources apart from the audio I listen to. I can tell Keller spends a lot of time preparing his sermons so they’re biblically sound. They have biblical depth and insight from the language, the culture, and the context. He’s apologetic-minded, and I get a lot of helpful insights, little points and big ones. I benefit most by how practical he is. He gets the lesson from the text, teaches the passage, and then applies it. His teaching has impacted my living.

The sermon archive is searchable chronologically, by passage, and topically. Did I say it’s 25 years worth of sermons? Great devotional material.

I’m really thankful that at about the same time I got this resource to read, we also got some in-house training from some of the Logos team. I learned about features and apps I wasn’t aware of that make it even easier to access the sermon archive. Here’s what I found out.

Logos is multi-platform, so my library of resources is available on them all, and they sync. So when I read Keller’s sermon archives on one device, all my marks and notes are available to me on all my devices, and I can pick up where I left off. Since they’re part of my library, they’re indexed and show up in my search results. The thing I was probably most excited to find out about was their book app called Vyrso. It’s like iBook and Kindle. There’s a bookstore with lots of great resources, including Christian fiction, so there’s more variety than the study library of resources. The coolest thing is that my library in Logos can be read in Vyrso – and all the marks and notes transfer over. It even syncs where I left off reading. It takes a bit of time to get used to navigating, but it’s worth it.

I was excited to learn about a Bible app that they’ve released – Faithlife Study Bible. Again, it syncs information with the other software once you’re signed in. Logos developed the resources for this study Bible to go deep and get insight about the passage and about the background. There is a customizable daily reading schedule. There are devotions. There is community. You can organize a group yourself, or join one, and study the Bible together because you can share notes. The leader can set the study plan, and everyone checks in when they can.

Challenge Response: Pro-Choicers, Not Pro-Lifers, Decrease Abortion

Here's my response to this week's challenge.

Here are some related videos:

Does abortion win souls to Christ?
Does Leviticus 17:11 teach that abortion is permissible?
Is the Bible okay with abortion?
Does the birth control pill cause abortions?
Should we leave the abortion debate to women?

The Early Power of the Press

William Brewster was one of the leading separatists who protested religious intolerance in England.

Brewster was instrumental in establishing a Separatist church with Richard Clyfton, and they often held their meetings in the Manor house. Brewster and the others were eventually found and forced out, and fleeing prosecution and persecution they headed to Amsterdam in 1608, and moved to Leiden, Holland in 1609. Brewster became the church's Elder, responsible for seeing that the congregation's members carried themselves properly, both helping and admonishing them when necessary.

In Leiden, Brewster working with Thomas Brewer, Edward Winslow, and others, began working a printing press and publishing religious books and pamphlets that were then illegally conveyed into England. Brewster also employed himself teaching University of Leiden students English. By 1618, the English authorities were onto him and his printing press, and had the Dutch authorities in pursuit of him. Thomas Brewer was arrested and held in the University of Leiden's prison, but Brewster managed to evade the authorities and went into hiding for a couple years.

As one of the leading church elders, Brewster traveled to the new world on the Mayflower and was instrumental in leading the community of believers committed to the freedom to practice their religious convictions.

Born Atheist?

Glenn Peoples responds
to the popular atheist claim that we’re all “born atheist”:

Now, there’s at least some
truth here. Newborns don’t have a lot by way of beliefs. They’re an ignorant
sort, you could say, so the fact that they don’t overtly believe in God, or
stars, or carrots, or causation, or planets etc., really isn’t very
interesting…. What is more interesting is to talk about the kind of beliefs
that babies – unaided by religious education – naturally form as their minds
develop. It is here that comments [claiming
we’re “born atheist”] are quickly culled from the pool of those that can
now make it to the level of scientific respectability. They are wrong –
children are not natural atheists after all….

Drawing on the findings of
developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and the cognitive science of
religion, Justin Barrett writes in this issue [of New Scientist] about the way that children naturally come to
believe in teleology and agency in the universe. On the whole, the evidence
shows that

The vast majority of humans are
“born believers”, naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations
attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them. This
attraction to religion is an evolutionary by-product of our ordinary cognitive
equipment, and while it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of
religious claims it does help us see religion in an interesting new light.

Justin L. Barrett, “Born
Believers,” New Scientist March 17-23 2012, 39.

Now what, if anything, does all of
this show? That theism is true? No. If nothing else, it simply falsifies the
rhetoric that people are naturally atheists by default until they get
indoctrination by religion. We can now close the door on that claim and
relegate it to the long list of claims that have been shown to be untrue.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure what would follow from it even if it were true, this claim that we’re natural atheists has never
seemed particularly credible to me. If we weren’t naturally inclined toward
religion, I would expect it to exist as a custom here and there, not be universally present
throughout human history, even in the most isolated cultures.

Read the rest of “Born
Atheists? Science and Natural Belief in God.”

(HT: The
Poached Egg)