Some understand these days as six consecutive 24-hour periods, a view known as young-earth creationism. Others read the same text and conclude that the word “day” (the Hebrew word yôm) represents longer periods of God’s creative activity. This approach is often called old-earth creationism.

Both perspectives begin with Scripture and seek to honor its authority. The difference lies in how each interprets the language and structure of the creation account, not in their commitment to God or his Word.

For Christians who wonder how scientific evidence for an ancient universe fits with a faithful reading of Genesis, old-earth creationism represents a historical understanding of God’s two revelations. It holds that God is both the Author of Scripture and the Creator of the natural world. Therefore, the two won’t ultimately contradict each other. God’s “two books”—the Bible and the created world—work together to reveal the same Creator.

Old-earth creationists recognize that while God’s two books are wholly reliable, human interpretations of both are not. Theology is our attempt to interpret Scripture; science is our attempt to interpret the natural world. No one has complete knowledge of either, and our assumptions can lead us astray. So when our theology and our science seem to conflict, old-earth creationists see that tension not as a reason to dismiss one or the other, but as a call from God to study both more carefully.

In the following sections, we’ll explore what old-earth creationists believe, how they interpret the creation days in Genesis, how their view compares to other creation perspectives, and why this discussion matters for Christians who want to take both the Bible and the evidence of nature seriously.

What Is Old-Earth Creationism?

Old-earth creationism is the view that God created the universe, Earth, and all life over long periods of time—billions rather than thousands of years.

Where it differs from young-earth creationism (YEC) is in timing. The old-earth creation view asserts that the “days” of Genesis are not 24 hours each, but rather long spans of God’s creative activity.

From an old-earth creationism perspective, scientific evidence for an ancient universe and Earth—including radiometric dating, geological records, expansion of the universe, and the light from distant stars and galaxies—is consistent with God’s creative work and with Scripture.

Current scientific measurements place the age of the universe at roughly 13.8 billion years and the age of the Earth at about 4.6 billion years.

This idea that the six creation days may not be six 24-hour periods has deep historical roots. Early Jewish and Christian thinkers, including Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, and Augustine, allowed for creation time periods other than 144 hours. This means the idea of long creation days is not a modern compromise with science. It predates modern science by more than a thousand years

What Do Old-Earth Creationists Believe?

Old-earth creationists like those at Reasons to Believe see the universe as ancient—billions of years old—yet shaped and designed by a personal, purposeful God. Their core convictions include that God reveals himself through both Scripture and the natural world (dual revelation); that the “days” of Genesis represent long, consecutive time periods (the day-age view); that God directly created new forms of life at key moments in Earth’s history; and that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals from whom all humanity descends. We explore these more fully below.

Is Old-Earth Creationism Biblical?

How can we assess if old-earth creationism is biblical? For many, this is less a question of “Could God create in six days?” but “What does Genesis mean by ‘day’?”

This matters because our answer shapes whether Christians see science as a threat to their faith or as a witness to the same God who inspired Scripture.

The Hebrew word translated as day, yôm, has four literal definitions: part of the daylight hours, all the daylight hours, a 24-hour calendar day, or a long, finite time period. Old-earth creationists hold that the context of Genesis 1 supports the fourth meaning. (For a deeper look at what the Bible says about Earth’s age, see this blog post.)

Core Tenets of Old-Earth Creationism

If Scripture and creation truly speak in harmony, what does that look like in practice? Old-earth creationists ground their view in several core convictions:

Dual Revelation

Old-earth creationists hold to the historic Christian teaching, often called dual revelation, that God reveals himself through both Scripture and the natural world. Because both come from a God for whom it is impossible to lie (Hebrews 6:18), they work together in harmony. This is not a modern idea—the Belgic Confession (1561) describes creation as “a beautiful book” through which God makes himself known, alongside his written Word (drawn from Psalm 19:1–9 and Romans 1:20). Reasons to Believe (RTB), founded in 1986 by astrophysicist Hugh Ross, has been a leading voice for this view, showing how science and Scripture function as two independent witnesses that corroborate one another where they overlap.

A Universe Both Ancient and Faithful

Multiple independent lines of evidence, from astronomy to geology to nuclear physics, converge on the same picture: an ancient cosmos, roughly 13.8 billion years old, on an Earth about 4.6 billion years old. The prophet Jeremiah reminds us why we can trust these measurements: God made the laws that govern heaven and earth fixed and unchanging (Jeremiah 33:25). The constancy of natural laws over billions of years reflects the faithfulness of the God who set them in place.

Day-Age View

Why do we interpret the Genesis 1 creation days as consecutive long time periods?

One of the literal definitions for yôm (day) is a long, finite time period. The Hebrew words for evening (‘ereb) and morning (boqer) can likewise mean ending and beginning. The first six creation days all conclude with an “evening was, morning was” phrase—but the seventh day has no such marker. This implies God’s seventh day has not yet ended, a reading confirmed by both Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4:1–11, which state that we are still in God’s seventh day.

If the seventh day has lasted thousands of years at minimum, it is not a 24-hour day. The scientific evidence confirms this pattern. The fossil record documents the appearance of new species throughout Earth’s pre-human history, but no new species have appeared since humans arrived on the scene. This is exactly what we’d expect if God ceased his creation work on the seventh day, as Genesis 2 describes.

Genesis 1:27 says God created humans, male and female, during the sixth day. Genesis 2 details what happened within that day: God created Adam, placed him in Eden, had him tend the garden, observe all the animals, and name each one. Only after all this did God create Eve. When Adam first saw her, the word he spoke—happa’am—means “at long last.” Both the number of events and Adam’s own response suggest the sixth day, like the seventh, was far longer than 24 hours.

Some assert that the fourth of the ten commandments implies 24-hour creation days. However, the Bible addresses Sabbath periods of different durations.

Direct Creation

Old-earth creationists accept that species adapt within their kind—what scientists call microevolution. But they hold that natural processes alone cannot explain the sudden appearance of new, complex life-forms in the fossil record or the unique capacities of human beings. These transitions in the fossil record reflect moments of direct divine action, with God introducing new forms of life at different points in Earth’s history, consistent with the pattern presented in Genesis 1.

This view rejects macroevolution—the idea that all life descends from a single common ancestor through undirected processes. Instead, the complexity of living organisms, the fine-tuning of their systems, and the gaps in the fossil record point to a God who actively and purposefully created life throughout Earth’s long history.

Historical Adam and Eve

Old-earth creationists affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals specially created by God, from whom all human beings are descended. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and given life when God breathed into him; Eve was created directly by God from Adam’s side.

This sets humanity apart from all other creatures and establishes humans as bearers of God’s image. Because Adam and Eve are historical, the doctrines that depend on them—the fall, original sin, and Christ’s redemption of a fallen humanity—stand on historical ground, not metaphor.

The Flood That Swept Humanity

According to the old-earth creationism view, the Genesis flood destroyed all humans outside the ark and their domesticated animals—but not the entire planet. It was worldwide in the sense that the whole world of ungodly people was wiped out (2 Peter 2:5). Noah and his family were the only survivors.

Regions not occupied by humans were not flooded. The Hebrew supports this reading. The word used throughout the flood account, eretz, often translated “earth,” can also mean “land” or “region.” The second most common word, ‘adama, refers to land inhabited or tilled by humans—which makes sense, since only land inhabited by humans can be damaged by human sin. In Genesis 8, haraba is used for the flooded land, a Hebrew word that never refers to the entirety of Earth’s land surface. The purpose of the flood was to rid the world of human wickedness and prevent humanity’s self-destruction. This reading affirms the authority of Scripture and the historicity of the flood while remaining consistent with evidence from geology, genetics, and archaeology.

Death Before the Fall

How could death exist before the rebellion in Eden? Paul tells us, “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (Romans 5:12). Of all Earth’s creatures, only humans sin. By saying death came to all people, rather than all life, Paul implies that microbial, plant, and animal death occurred before Adam and Eve.

Scripture reinforces this picture. Job describes a world where lions hunt and feed by God’s design (Job 38:39), and the psalmist says lions “seek their food from God” (Psalm 104:21). Animal death is not a punishment for human sin but part of the ecosystem God established. The scientific evidence agrees. The fossil record shows that animal death and extinction occurred long before modern humans appeared. The enormous abundance of biodeposits—coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, gypsum—testifies to ages of life and death before humans were created.

A common concern is that death before the fall undermines the gospel. But this view preserves the doctrines that matter most: the uniqueness of humanity as God’s image-bearers, the reality of Adam’s fall, and the necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. Human death—spiritual separation from God—entered through Adam’s sin. That is the death Christ came to conquer.

Animal death before the fall does not undermine that promise. In this view, human spiritual death and separation from God are the direct results of Adam’s sin, while nonhuman death reflects the normal functioning of the natural world God made.

How Does Old-Earth Creationism Compare to Other Creation Views?

Other Creation Perspectives

The table below compares four widely discussed creation views. Two points of detail worth noting: Evolutionary creationism is sometimes called theistic evolution, but there is a distinction. Unlike some theistic evolutionists, evolutionary creationists hold that God directly intervened in miraculous ways to shape the universe, solar system, and Earth so it could support a great abundance and diversity of life.

Where evolutionary creationism parts company with old-earth creationism is on the question of life’s development: evolutionary creationism accepts macroevolution and common descent, while old-earth creationism holds that God directly created new forms of life at key points in history.

Intelligent design (ID) is not a creation model based on a particular reading of Genesis but an apologetic framework. It argues that features of the natural world—such as biological complexity and the fine-tuning of the universe—are best explained by an intelligent cause. Because ID does not specify the age of the earth or identify the Designer in biblical terms, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or even nontheists may affirm it. Many old-earth creationists draw on ID arguments as scientific support for the claim that life shows marks of purposeful design.

Popular Creation Views

What Unites Us in the Creation Conversation

Christians hold different views on creation, but old-earth creationism offers something distinctive: a reading of Genesis that takes the Hebrew text seriously and seeks alignment with what God has revealed through the natural world. It affirms that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and that “through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3)—while also embracing the full weight of the evidence he left for us to find.

Thoughtful Christians reach different conclusions on these questions, and the conversation is worth having. But if the same God who authored Scripture also made the heavens and the earth, we should expect his two works to tell a consistent story. Old-earth creationism says they do.

The post Old-Earth Creationism: Is It Biblical? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Today’s science shows us that virgin birth can’t happen naturally. But archaeology keeps proving that the historical details about Jesus’s birth are accurate.

Early Christian writings also show that belief in the virgin birth was there from the very start, not something people made up later.

Could this really have happened? How do we think about something so miraculous when we know what we do about how babies are made?

Let’s look at the evidence and see how science, history, and faith come together—showing us just how incredible Jesus’s conception really was.

The Virgin Birth Scientific Explanation

Are Virgin Births Possible?

“Virgin births” do happen in some animals. It’s called parthenogenesis—a fancy word for when female animals reproduce without mating. In this process, babies develop from unfertilized eggs without any contribution from males. Basically, the mother creates genetic copies of herself.

This happens naturally in some lizards, snakes, fish, and sharks. But here’s the important part: Parthenogenesis doesn’t happen in humans. Our biology is more complex. Human babies need genetic material from both a mother and father to develop properly.

The Conception of Jesus

Jesus was clearly male, which means he had both X and Y chromosomes, not two X chromosomes like females have. This genetic fact points to something far more extraordinary than natural parthenogenesis.

Jesus’s birth involved supernatural conception. The Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary, who was overshadowed by the power of the Most High according to Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20–21. Because of this, we need to set aside everything we know about normal human reproduction. Jesus’s conception was supernatural.

Some people wonder if Jesus might have been haploid—meaning he had only half the normal chromosomes from Mary. But Jesus must have had the complete set of human chromosomes if he was truly and fully human like the Bible teaches.

This raises interesting questions about where Jesus’s genetic material came from. Did it all come from the Holy Spirit? Or did half come from Mary?

The descriptions in Luke 1 and Matthew 1 suggest that all of Jesus’s genetic material was directly created by the Holy Spirit. Think about it this way: Jesus’s conception was like the creation of the first Adam, who was made from dust according to Genesis 2:7. Adam’s genetic material was uniquely created by God.

The family trees of Jesus in Matthew and Luke support this view. Matthew’s list focuses on Joseph’s family line, showing that Jesus’s ancestry includes King David and goes back to Abraham. But Joseph didn’t contribute any genes to Jesus. Luke’s list focuses on Mary and traces Jesus’s family back to Adam. In the same way, it makes sense that Mary didn’t contribute genetic material to Jesus either. These family trees show legal relationships, not necessarily genetic ones.

There’s another concern with Mary contributing genetic material. Throughout human history, mutations have built up in our genes. These changes don’t necessarily come from sin, but they do show nature’s disorder that resulted from humanity’s broken relationship with creation. Given Mary’s ancestry, she likely had some Neanderthal genetic contributions in her genome. It’s troubling to think that Jesus would have had parts of his genome that came from human-Neanderthal interbreeding.

What the Bible Says About the Virgin Birth

As we discuss the virgin birth, we must be careful not to deny either Jesus’s humanity or his divinity. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was born without sin—unlike everyone else who was “conceived in sin” according to Psalm 51:5. Yet his biological makeup was fully human in every way. He developed normally in the womb, was born through natural birth, and grew up like every other human child.

Jesus’s conception and birth emphasize that Christians understand Jesus to have been a real, historical person. He wasn’t a mythical figure existing only in religious stories, but a flesh-and-blood historical person who lived in first-century Palestine.

How Jesus Was Born

Primary Gospel Accounts—Matthew & Luke

Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20–21 describe how Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The account in Luke 1 represents Mary’s firsthand story, likely told to Luke either by Mary herself or by people who heard it directly from her. Luke, being a doctor, would have understood how medically impossible what he was recording really was.

Matthew’s account provides an indirect description of Jesus’s miraculous conception, told by an angel to Joseph in a dream. This would have been a story Joseph shared with Matthew or with people in the early church who became sources for Matthew’s Gospel.

These separate accounts complement each other remarkably well. Mary receives the announcement while awake during the angel Gabriel’s visit, while Joseph gets confirmation in a dream. Both accounts emphasize the Holy Spirit’s role, yet they include different details and perspectives. This suggests the Gospel writers didn’t simply copy from each other.

Old Testament Prophecy—Isaiah 7

The first hint of the virgin birth appears in Genesis 3:15, often called the proto-Gospel. It says the “seed of a woman” would crush the serpent’s head. This unusual phrase—”seed of a woman” rather than “seed of a man”—suggests supernatural conception.

Isaiah 7:14 more directly foretells the birth of a son to a young woman who was a virgin. This son would be called Immanuel, meaning “God with us.” This prophetically describes both the incarnation and Jesus’s human and divine natures.

Some critics argue that the Hebrew word translated as virgin—almah—simply means a young woman of marriageable age. They point out that the specific Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. However, this criticism overlooks several important facts. In ancient Hebrew culture, a young woman of marriageable age would typically be a virgin. The word almah specifically refers to a young woman before her first child’s birth.

More importantly, when Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint) around 250 BC, they translated almah as parthenos, which specifically means virgin. These translators, working centuries before Jesus’s birth, understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to virgin conception.

Other New Testament Confirmations

John 1:14, Galatians 4:4, and Philippians 2:6–8 provide indirect confirmations of the virgin birth through their teachings about the incarnation.

• John 1:14 teaches that “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” This passage emphasizes Jesus’s human and divine nature as a real historical figure living among people. While it doesn’t directly state the virgin birth, it’s completely consistent with virgin conception and supports the supernatural nature of Christ’s incarnation.
• Galatians 4:4 states that “God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” This passage strongly confirms the incarnation, with the virgin birth implied in the phrase “born of a woman”—emphasizing Mary while notably leaving out any mention of a human father.
• Philippians 2:6–8 describes Jesus’s incarnation as an act of divine humility. It says that though he was God, he didn’t cling to his divine privileges but “emptied himself” by becoming human. The idea that Jesus was conceived, developed as a baby in the womb, was born, and experienced childhood highlights his remarkable step down from divine glory to human limitations.

Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus

Unlike Jesus’s resurrection, which had multiple eyewitnesses who could testify to seeing the risen Christ, the virgin birth was by its nature a private event known initially only to Mary and Joseph.

We can’t provide direct historical or scientific evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But we can show that accepting the virgin birth, though miraculous and against everything we know about biology, remains entirely reasonable when we consider the broader historical context and evidence.

Biblical Accounts of Jesus’s Birth

Old Testament Prophecy

Despite controversy surrounding the meaning of Isaiah 7:14, it does appear to predict the virgin birth of one called “God with us.” The likelihood that this prophecy would be fulfilled through Jesus’s birth seems remarkably remote. Consider that Mary and Joseph had independent experiences and likely didn’t understand the prophetic significance of Isaiah 7:14. This represents an extraordinary coincidence that demands explanation.

Archaeological evidence continues to validate the historical context surrounding Jesus’s birth. The Roman census mentioned in Luke 2 finds support in Caesar Augustus’s own writings.

Documents from Egypt confirm that non-Roman citizens were required to register, and that registration required returning to ancestral towns—exactly as Luke describes Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem.

Consistent Testimonies in Matthew and Luke

Both Gospel accounts were written within the first century AD and include different details. This strongly suggests they didn’t copy from each other but drew from independent sources. The agreement between Joseph’s and Mary’s accounts proves remarkable when we consider the social dynamics involved.

Joseph was initially prepared to divorce Mary privately rather than subject her to public disgrace. His complete change of mind—staying with Mary and publicly acknowledging Jesus as his son—required strong conviction. He must have been deeply impacted by his encounter with an angel. Such a dramatic change of heart suggests Joseph became genuinely convinced that Mary’s pregnancy was supernatural.

Genealogies

Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’s family line through Joseph, despite Joseph making no genetic contribution to Jesus. This apparent contradiction actually provides historical evidence for the virgin birth. If the early church had made up the virgin birth story, they surely would have avoided the complication of tracing Jesus’s lineage through his nonbiological father.

Yet both family trees serve crucial purposes. They show that both Mary and Joseph descended from King David’s line, as Messianic prophecies required. The odds of a couple, both claiming supernatural conception and both having Davidic ancestry, seem incredibly low—unless their testimony was accurate.

Historical & Cultural Context

Jewish Expectations

First-century Jews didn’t expect a virgin-born Messiah. This makes it highly unlikely that early Christians made up this story to meet existing expectations. Jewish Messianic expectations centered on a human descendant of David who would restore Israel’s political independence and rebuild the temple. They expected the Messiah to be an extraordinary human, not a supernaturally conceived God-man.

Jews didn’t interpret Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy about virgin birth. They understood it as a sign given to King Ahaz about immediate historical circumstances. Only after Jesus’s birth did Christian interpreters recognize its Messianic significance.

Embarrassment Criterion

In the ancient world, children born to unmarried women were considered illegitimate and brought tremendous shame to families. Joseph would have been viewed as the father of a child born from premarital relations. His decision to stand by Mary and publicly acknowledge Jesus as his son, despite inevitable social stigma, makes little sense unless Jesus truly was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The “scandal” of the virgin birth actually reveals God’s glory by showing his power to act outside human norms and expectations. If the early church had invented Jesus’s origin story, they certainly would have created something less socially problematic.

Early Christians’ Belief in Jesus’s Birth

The early church fathers consistently confirmed the virgin birth, emphasizing the miraculous nature of Jesus’s conception. This wasn’t a doctrine that developed gradually over centuries, but an immediate belief held from Christianity’s earliest days.

Church leaders who explicitly affirmed the virgin birth include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, and Aristides of Athens. These leaders came from different geographical regions and time periods within the first two centuries after Christ, yet they unanimously testified to belief in virgin conception.

The virgin birth appears in the Apostles’ Creed, which reflects the early church’s fundamental beliefs. Archaeological evidence, including ancient documents from the third century, records second-century writings about the virgin birth, showing how quickly and widely this belief spread.

The Essential Role of Faith

While substantial historical, archaeological, and contextual evidence supports our Christian faith, we must honestly acknowledge that there’s no direct scientific evidence supporting the virgin birth. In fact, there’s no historical or scientific evidence for any human virgin giving birth through natural processes.

The virgin birth of Christ is prophesied in Old Testament Scripture and declared in New Testament accounts. Luke may have interviewed Mary directly and recorded her firsthand testimony. It’s also possible that Mary’s story was widely known in the early church, initially shared with people who knew her personally and could verify her character and honesty.

Ultimately, the virgin birth remains a theological conviction that Christians embrace through faith. This doctrine significantly impacts our understanding of the incarnation and Christ’s dual nature as truly human and truly God. Without virgin conception, we can’t explain how Jesus could be fully human yet without sin, or how the eternal Son of God could take on human nature.

Unlike Christ’s resurrection, which involved multiple witnesses who could testify to seeing the risen Lord, the virgin birth stands as one of Christianity’s great mysteries. It highlights the supernatural foundation underlying our faith and demonstrates God’s power to accomplish the impossible.

The post Virgin Birth: A Scientific View of What the Bible Says appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

When we talk about God’s attributes or God’s character, we’re exploring the qualities that describe who he is and how he acts. These attributes reveal the very essence of God—what he’s like and what makes him unique.

What Are “Attributes,” and Why Do They Matter?

Simply put, an attribute is a quality or trait that belongs to someone or something.

For example, when we say someone is kind, their kindness is an attribute that reflects their character. Similarly, God’s attributes are the qualities that reveal his character, helping us to understand not just what God does, but who he is.

But why does this matter for you and me? Because knowing the one true God doesn’t just give us a better theology—it can transform how we think and live as we aspire to be more like Christ and to “be holy as he is holy.”

If God is merciful, how should we respond? If he’s always present, how does that change our view on daily struggles? We’ll tackle questions like these throughout the post.

Questions You May Have About God’s Attributes

Some of us probably approach this topic with curiosity, others with doubt. Here are several questions we’ll address as we unpack God’s character together:

• What are the attributes of God, and how are they described in the Bible?
• Which of God’s attributes are evident in the natural world, and what does science say about them?
• How do we respond to God’s attributes in our own lives?

Now, these attributes aren’t just abstract ideas; they’re meaningful, practical truths. They help us understand, trust, and connect with a Creator who is far greater than we can possibly imagine.

Seeing God’s Attributes in Nature

One of the most fascinating things about God’s attributes is how many of them are revealed through our examination of the realms of nature. Paul writes in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” Think about the intricate design of a single snowflake, the mystery, yet necessity for life, of lightning, or the number, sizes, and diverse structures of galaxies and stars. Each of these reflects attributes like God’s creativity, power, and infinity. Creation itself points to God and who he is.

Science greatly adds to this understanding. Consider the fine-tuning of the universe—how many cosmic features must be exquisitely fine-tuned for physical life to possibly exist. This precision affirms God’s wisdom and power. Or look at DNA, a code so complex yet so perfectly and optimally designed that it showcases God’s intelligence and intentionality.

While nature gives us indications of God’s character, it’s only a starting point. That’s why we also turn to the Bible, where God’s attributes are made fully known through his words and actions.

Understanding God’s characteristics can lead to rich, life-changing discoveries as well as inspire and motivate us. From his mercy to his majesty, each attribute calls us to worship, reflect on his goodness, and grow closer to him.

Join us as we uncover what the Bible says about God’s character, how creation reveals these truths, and how we can respond in wonder, faith, and action.

The Character of God

What Is God’s Character?

When we think about God’s character, we’re looking at the very core of who he is. It’s his unique combination of qualities that makes him unlike anyone or anything else. While humans show glimpses of kindness, strength, or wisdom, God’s characteristics are perfect, unlimited, and unchanging.

This is what defines God’s nature: He doesn’t just act loving; He is love. He doesn’t just display power; he is all-powerful.

Unlike us, God isn’t shaped by external influences or circumstances. His nature is consistent and holy. When the Bible says God is holy, it means he is completely set apart—pure, righteous, and untainted by sin. This holiness isn’t just one attribute among many, it’s woven into everything he is and does, from justice to mercy.

What Does “Attribute” Mean in the Bible?

In the Bible, an attribute is a quality or feature that describes someone and helps us understand their character.

The same is true of God. His attributes tell us about his nature: what he’s like, how he interacts with the world, and what sets him apart as God.

Biblically, attributes like mercy, justice, and omniscience (being all-knowing) aren’t just distant descriptions. They’re revealed through God’s actions and interactions with humanity. Scripture is full of these examples. When God provided for Israel during their wilderness wandering, we see his faithfulness. When he sent Jesus to redeem us, his love and mercy were evident.

The Bible also reminds us that God is both infinite and personal. While our human minds are unable to fully grasp all of his attributes, we’re given enough revelation to marvel at and to know him in a personal way.

Our God is not a God who refuses to be known. God’s attributes aren’t mere theological ideas. They’re windows into the Creator’s heart, showing us who he’s been for eternity and who he will always be.

What Are the Attributes of God?

For the sake of brevity, we’ll limit our exploration to 23 divine attributes. These will be sufficient to help us appreciate that God has revealed himself to us and wants us to know him. Yet, our knowledge is necessarily limited because we’re creatures and he’s the Creator.

1. Holy

When we describe God as holy, we’re saying he’s completely set apart from anything imperfect or sinful. He’s incapable of wrongdoing. Holiness is central to God, meaning his nature is pure, moral, and unblemished—in a word, perfect.

The Bible emphasizes this in verses like Isaiah 6:3, where the angels cry out, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty.” A three-time repeat of “holy” drives home just how unique and majestic he is.

God’s holiness also affects us personally. It reminds us that even while we fall short of God’s righteous standards, God can call us into his presence because of his grace issued through Jesus Christ. His holiness can seem intimidating, but it’s also an invitation, one borne of a desire deep in our hearts to be made whole and free of wrongdoing ourselves—relying on his mercy.

2. Complete/Self-Sufficient

God is entirely self-sufficient. He doesn’t need anything outside himself to exist or thrive. This may be hard for us to grasp because, as humans, we rely on food, water, shelter, and connection to survive. But God’s self-sufficiency means he is soundly complete and “un-needing” within himself. The apostle Paul in Acts 17:25 reminds us of this truth, saying, “And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” This attribute highlights God’s independence and directly ties into his ability to be the source of all life, love, and truth (1 John 2–4) and “every good thing.”

For us, it’s comforting to know we depend on a God who doesn’t depend on anyone or need anything.

3. Never Changing/Immutable

Unlike the world around us, which is constantly shifting, God never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). This attribute is what makes him trustworthy.

His promises don’t fade.

His love doesn’t waver.

His character remains consistent.

Because he is unchanging, there’s no limit to his perfection. For example, God’s mercy is as constant now as it was when he led Israel out of Egypt. Understanding this attribute helps us anchor our faith in a God who will always remain faithful.

4. Infinite

God is infinite, meaning he has no boundaries or limits. This applies to every attribute—his power, knowledge, and existence. We see evidence of this in creation. The size of the universe itself may as well be endless to us and serves as a clear reflection of God’s infinite nature. And just as Psalm 147:5 says, “His understanding has no limit.”

God’s infinity should leave us awestruck, reminding us of how small we are by comparison, yet he loves us personally and intimately. This paradox is part of what makes God’s character unique and that makes him divine.

5. Eternal

Unlike everything else in existence, God has no beginning or end. He’s eternal. The Psalmist declares, “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” This statement points to a deep truth about God’s nature: He exists outside of time, never constrained by its passing. He is the creator of time, as the space-time theorems prove.

This attribute reassures us that God’s plans are always perfect, spanning beyond what we can see or imagine. His eternal nature also guarantees that his promises will last forever. It’s a foundation we can build upon.

6. Righteous

To say God is righteous means he always does what is just, fair, and morally perfect. His righteousness isn’t just about doing what’s “right”—it’s the very standard by which humans measure right and wrong and have for thousands of years, whether they believe so or not. God’s righteousness assures us that he’ll always judge rightly. Even when life seems unfair, we know his justice prevails. The universe proclaims God’s righteousness (Psalm 97:6). The features of the universe reveal that it’s been exquisitely designed to make it possible for humans to be redeemed from their sin and evil.

God’s righteousness also includes mercy.

Through Jesus Christ, God provided a way for us to be made right with him, showing that justice and mercy work hand in hand in righteousness.

7. All-Powerful (Omnipotent)

God’s omnipotence means he holds all power. There’s nothing he cannot accomplish. Genesis opens with this profound truth as we see God speaking the universe into existence. From the galaxies to the complex foundation of life known as DNA, all creation stands as evidence of his boundless power.

Because God is all-powerful, nothing is too difficult for him (Jeremiah 32:17). This attribute reassures us that he is in control, no matter how overwhelming life may feel. When we face challenges, we can turn to the One whose power knows no limits.

8. All-Knowing (Omniscient)

God’s omniscience means he knows everything—past, present, and future. Psalm 139 beautifully portrays this knowledge, saying, “You perceive my thoughts from afar . . . Before a word is on my tongue, you, Lord, know it completely.” God’s understanding isn’t just broad; it’s deeply personal.

This is both humbling and comforting. While we can hide nothing from him, God’s knowledge also means he fully understands us and our needs. Nothing catches him by surprise. His wisdom guides his plans, and his knowledge ensures those plans always work for our good (Romans 8:28).

Because God is all-powerful and all-knowing, he knows far better than we do what is best for us. Thus, it only makes rational sense to put him in complete charge of our lives.

9. Transcendent

God is transcendent, meaning he exists entirely beyond and above all creation. He is not confined to the limits of time, space, or matter as we are. Thus, God has powers we strain to calculate (see Beyond the Cosmos). Isaiah 55:8–9 highlights this transcendence: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways . . . as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.” These words show us that God’s full character is majestic and wholly unlike anything we can fully comprehend.

His transcendence forms a cornerstone of authentic worship. It reminds us that while God is intimately involved in our lives, he’s also far greater than anything we are capable of imagining—we are literally incapable (1 Corinthians 2:9). He’s not just “the big guy upstairs,” he’s the sovereign Creator who rules over all.

10. Always Everywhere (Omnipresent)

When we say God is omnipresent, we mean he is present everywhere at the same time. In Jeremiah 23:24 God declares, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” Psalm 139 says it this way: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” No matter where we are—whether on the highest mountain or the deepest reaches of the universe—God is always with us.

This attribute means that no person is ever truly alone and we can turn to God at any moment, knowing he’s already there. His omnipresence is a constant source of comfort, especially in times of fear or uncertainty. It’s incredible to think that the Creator of the universe is as close to you as your next breath.

11. Sole Creator of All That’s Created

God is the sole Creator of everything that exists, from the smallest atom to the most distant galaxy (Isaiah 44:24, 45:18–20). Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Everything we see—and even things we can’t see—came into being because of his creative power and design.

God’s attribute as Creator shows us his authority and intentionality. Nothing in existence is random or accidental. When you look at the intricate details of creation, like the veins of a leaf or sunlight’s glimmer across water currents, you catch a glimpse of God’s attributes: his creativity, wisdom, and power. This knowledge should fill us with awe and gratitude for the beauty and elegance of his handiwork.

12. Just

God is just, and this means he is perfectly fair and righteous. He always acts with integrity. He is holy and incapable of thinking or acting otherwise, ensuring that good is rewarded and evil is held accountable. Deuteronomy 32:4 states, “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just.”

This attribute reassures us that God’s character is utterly trustworthy. Even when life feels unfair, God’s justice will prevail. His patience may delay judgment, giving people time to turn to him, repent, and receive his merciful grace, but his perfect justice assures us every wrong will ultimately be made right.

13. Good

God’s goodness is one of his defining characteristics. To say God is good is to say that he is morally perfect and the ultimate source of everything good in our lives. Psalm 34:8 invites us to experience his goodness firsthand: “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

This goodness isn’t abstract, it’s personal. Every act of kindness, provision, or protection you’ve experienced flows from his good nature, reminding us that even in challenging times, God’s plans for us are for our ultimate benefit.

14. Faithful

God is faithful, meaning he always keeps his promises and never fails to do what he’s said he will do. Lamentations 3:22–23 confirms that “His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.”

This attribute is a reminder of God’s reliability. When people break their promises or our lives undergo earth-shattering experiences, God remains faithful. His faithfulness gives us confidence to trust him in all things, knowing he will never “leave you or forsake you.”

15. Merciful

God’s mercy is his loving forgiveness, full of grace, that’s extended to us when we don’t deserve it. We are told in Ephesians 2:4–5, “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.” Mercy is a central part of God’s character, showing his care for humanity despite our flaws.

His mercy allows us to approach him with humble confidence and gratitude. It’s a constant reminder that no matter how much we fall short, God’s mercy reaches further, offering redemption and new life through belief in Christ and repentance.

16. Compassionate/Gracious

To say God is compassionate and gracious is to say he deeply cares for us and extends favor we don’t deserve. This is showcased in Psalm 103: “The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.” His compassion means he sees our pain and responds with kindness. His grace means he gives us blessings we haven’t earned.

God’s grace is the greatest, yet most mysterious, blessing God has bestowed upon humans. Even angels long to understand the wonders and depth of God’s grace (1 Peter 1:10–12).

This attribute should fill us with hope and inspire us to likewise be compassionate and gracious toward others and reminds us that God’s heart is full of tenderness and generosity.

17. True/Truthful

God is true and truthful. He is the ultimate source of all truth. He does not lie, deceive, or change his mind. Numbers 23:19 tells us, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” Hebrews 6:18 states that “it is impossible for God to lie.” Everything he says and does is grounded in absolute, unchanging truth.

His attribute of truth is a foundation for our trust in him. Because God is truthful, we can believe his promises and rely on his Word. He guides us in truth and calls us to walk in it as well. When the world feels uncertain or we become unsure of what’s real, God’s truth remains a lighthouse of hope and clarity.

18. Love/Loving

God doesn’t just show love—he is love. This is one of the most well-known attributes of God. In 1 John 4:8, we’re told, “God is love.” God’s love is sacrificial, unconditional, and everlasting—seen most vividly in the life and death of Jesus Christ. John 3:16 declares, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son . . .” and 1 Corinthians 13 defines love for us.

This love reaches each of us personally and sets a model for us to aspire toward. God’s love is not based on our performance or merit but on his very nature and it challenges us to reflect his love in our lives toward others.

19. Superpersonal

To describe God as superpersonal means he is infinitely personal yet completely beyond human comprehension. He isn’t an abstract force or impersonal entity. Instead, God relates to us as a Father, a Savior, and a Friend who comforts and guides. At the same time, his nature is beyond anything we can fully grasp.

This duality is seen in passages like Isaiah 40, which describes him as both the Creator of the universe and the Shepherd who gently tends his flock. God’s superpersonal nature assures us that he knows and cares for us deeply.

20. Continuously, Infinitely, Perfectly Moral

God’s morality is both perfect and infinite, wrapped in his righteousness. He is the standard of what is right and good. Psalm 145:17 tells us “The Lord is righteous in all his ways and faithful in all he does.” Unlike human morality, which can falter, God’s is constant and unfailing.

This attribute assures us that God’s decisions, actions, and commands are always just and good. It invites us to align our own lives with his moral standards, knowing that living according to his ways leads to fulfillment and peace.

21. Beautiful

To say God is beautiful is to recognize the awe-inspiring harmony of his character. His beauty isn’t just physical—it’s the radiance of his holiness, love, and perfection. David writes in Psalm 27:4, “One thing I ask from the Lord . . . to gaze on the beauty of the Lord.”

Creation reflects God’s beauty in countless ways, from the pleasantry of flowers to the glorious colors of a sunset. But his greatest beauty is found in his perfect character.

22. Infinitely Wise

God is infinitely wise and knows what’s best in all capacities and circumstances. He sees the end from the beginning and drafts his plans with perfect insight. Romans 11:33 declares, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”

This attribute brings us peace, especially when life feels confusing or overwhelming. We can trust that God’s wisdom is available in his Word, the Bible. And for those who ask, his wisdom helps guide every moment of our lives.

23. Invisible

Though God is active and present everywhere, he is invisible, as emphasized in verses like John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son . . . has made him known,” or 1 Timothy 6:16: “[God] who no one has seen or can see.” God’s invisibility doesn’t make him distant—it highlights his spiritual, set-apart nature that encourages us to pursue him by faith rather than sight. God’s invisibility means he can do things for us that he otherwise wouldn’t if he were always physically visible to us. Jesus made this point when he said to his followers, “It is for your good that I am going away” (John 16:7).

We see the effects of God’s presence in the world—through his works in creation and his intervention in our lives. This invisibility calls us to trust him more deeply and focus our hearts and thoughts on eternal, unseen realities.

An Incomplete List of God’s Attributes

When we talk about God’s attributes, it’s important to recognize that our understanding will always be limited and incomplete. God is infinite, and his nature, wisdom, and power stretch far beyond anything our human minds can grasp.

This incomplete understanding also stands as proof of his existence. A finite mind cannot fully comprehend an infinite being. The vastness of God’s omni-attributes—his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence—reveals a Creator whose power and presence are undeniable. Each attribute points to a depth and perfection that transcends human understanding, inviting us to know that there is more to him than we can see or imagine. This sense of mystery is not a flaw in our understanding—it’s a testament to who God is. If we could measure, categorize, or completely explain him, would he truly be divine? His incomprehensibility is part of what makes him God and should leave us in awe and humility.

Rather than frustrating us, this mystery calls us into a deeper relationship with him. It allows us to approach God with trust and wonder, knowing that while we’ll never fully understand him on this side of heaven, we can still know him in profoundly personal ways. And one day, as 1 Corinthians 13:12 promises, we’ll see him “face to face” and understand more fully.

For now, every step of discovery is an opportunity to marvel at his greatness. Our incomplete understanding doesn’t diminish his glory—it magnifies it. It keeps us seeking, worshiping, and growing, knowing there’s always more of God’s incredible character to uncover.

What Attributes of God Are Revealed Through Creation?

The world around us isn’t just beautiful—it testifies to the attributes of God. Creation whispers (and at times, shouts) about who God is, allowing us to catch glimpses of his character. From the grandeur of galaxies to the intricate design of every living, functioning cell, the natural world reflects his attributes of power, wisdom, creativity, and loving care.

Look up at the night sky, and you can’t help but marvel at the sheer power and mystery that spoke the stars into existence. Abraham could see over 10,000 stars and the grandeur of the Milky Way and the Omega Cluster. Today, we have images from the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes that allow us to see galaxies billions of light-years away and stars in their formation phase just after the beginning of creation. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” This immense power, stretching across billions of light-years, points to a Creator who is omnipotent, boundless in strength and capability.

Scholars, like those mentioned in The Creator and the Cosmos, have noted that the fine-tuning of the universe reflects not only supernatural power but also intelligent design—qualities foundational to God’s character.

Every ecosystem, every natural process, every mathematical constant, and each scientific law reveals God’s unfathomable wisdom. The book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job offers insights into this wisdom, with chapters 7 and 14 describing the wonders of life and the complexity of creation, letting us consider the deep thought and purpose behind it all. 

Isn’t it amazing that our planet operates in such delicate balance, from the tilt of the earth, distance from the Sun, to the rhythm of the tides, to the size, strength, and enduring stability of Earth’s magnetosphere? This intricate design couldn’t happen by chance—it speaks of a God who knows and orders all things perfectly.

Creativity Beyond Compare

Creation is brimming with God’s artistry. No two sunsets are the same. Every snowflake is unique. Mountain ranges are individually majestic. Birds, flowers, and even microscopic organisms display endless variations of beauty and astonishing ingenuity. This creativity reflects the nature of God, who designed a diverse and vibrant world (Psalm 104) not out of necessity, but out of delight.

Resources like Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job highlight the depth of God’s attributes seen in creation. Similarly, The Creator and the Cosmos highlights scientific and theological connections, looking further into just how the heavens bear witness to God.

For a deeper dive into specific aspects of God revealed in creation, consider exploring our blogs at Reasons to Believe. Our articles unpack theological and scientific insights, showing how science can support the existence of God.

When we observe the world with wonder, it’s impossible to miss the fingerprints of our Creator. Creation isn’t just beautiful—it’s a window into the heart and character of the One who made it.

Our Response to the Attributes of God

Our understanding of God’s attributes should shape how we live and relate to him. Recognizing his greatness, power, love, and wisdom humbles us and fills us with awe, calling us to worship and trust him fully. He alone satisfies our deepest longings for redemption, meaning, destiny, purpose, and hope.

These truths inspire us to reflect his attributes—showing love, mercy, and justice in how we treat others. Knowing that God never changes strengthens our faith and provides a secure foundation, no matter what we face. His holiness reminds us to live with reverence and obedience, aligning our desires with his will.

Ultimately, every glimpse into God’s attributes deepens our relationship with him, drawing us closer to a loving Creator who invites us to know him personally. The choice is yours, and the joy of walking with him is eternal. The invitation to know him is open. How will you respond?

The post Attributes of God appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But does science affirm that life begins at conception? Or is this a matter of personal belief? How do we connect scientific views with what the Bible says about when a new life starts?

Let’s explore these questions with an open mind, seeking to understand when life begins and what it means for people in our world today. We’ll examine scientific definitions, biological facts, and biblical insights into the time when a new human being begins and what these views mean for both faith and science.

When Does Life Begin According to Science?

Science confirms that human life begins at conception—the moment when sperm and egg fuse to form a zygote. From that instant, a genetically unique human being comes into existence, complete with distinct DNA.

This process, called fertilization, is widely recognized as the starting point of human life. In fact, 96% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization, making it the prevailing scientific perspective.

This shared view among scientists is echoed by many OB/GYN physicians who advocate for recognizing the zygote as a new human life from conception. They affirm that the fertilized human egg has all the necessary genetic parts that define a new individual human life. Let’s track that journey from fertilization to birth.

Human Development Journey

From the point of conception, the zygote goes through the development journey to become a fully formed human. Here are some of the major milestones:

Watch the following video to see the journey every human takes from fertilization to birth:

When Does Life Begin Medically?

Dual Patient Approach

The medical field considers both science and ethical responsibility when addressing the question of when life begins. Many medical professionals recognize the pregnant mother and her unborn baby as two distinct patients, highlighting the view of the unborn as a unique individual. This is known as the dual patient approach.

If a concern arises, medical staff are ethically required to consider the health and life of both human beings, both collectively and independently. This dual patient approach by the medical field supports the understanding that all human life begins at conception and each life is important.

What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?

According to the Bible, the question of when life begins is answered by considering teachings and principles found in Scripture. Psalm 139:13–16 artfully suggests that life begins in the womb, likely at conception. There, God is intimately involved in creating a person. The Bible affirms that he:

and

This Psalm not only stresses the sanctity of life from its earliest stages but also demonstrates remarkable scientific accuracy that matches well with what science tells us about human development.

Scientific and Scriptural Insights

Further support for the biblical viewpoint stems from studies about the placenta showing the extraordinary design and function needed to support new life. This research showcases what many see as the work of a Creator to protect and nourish an early, distinct life. Consequently, the placenta’s design argues against the idea that a fetus is “just a parasite.”

Instead, it shows the important relationship needed for growth and health. Plus, new findings in neuroscience reveal changes in a woman’s brain during pregnancy, spotlighting the profound biological and emotional changes that happen while caring for new life.

Some people use Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam, to say life begins with the first breath. But this idea doesn’t align with the full scriptural context.

Instead consider the similarity between Adam’s creation and yours when you were in the womb—God intricately created both up to the point of their first breath. In Luke 1, we read phrases like “the baby leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb,” and “the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” These expressions make it clear that what’s in the womb is a human life and there’s no indication that life doesn’t begin until that first breath is drawn.

Addressing Common Objections

When addressing common arguments against the pro-life view, such as why spontaneous abortions occur and the idea that Christians are only pro-birth and not pro-life, it’s important to think about these concerns carefully.

Understanding these sensitive topics will help us to have compassionate and informed conversations, based on both faith and facts.

Especially when we want to make a biblical case against abortion.

This approach honors the Bible’s view of when life begins and invites a deeper appreciation for the amazing scientific process that happens from conception to birth.

When Does “Personhood” Begin?

The debate over when “personhood” begins is a pivotal, often heated topic in discussions about human life. Many pro-choice supporters acknowledge that a human embryo or fetus is a human being, but they argue it is not the same as a human person.

This issue brings up two essential questions: What exactly defines a “person”? and Who decides the criteria for personhood? These questions show how unclear and arbitrary it can be to separate being a person from just being a human.

The Christian View of Personhood

From a Christian point of view, personhood starts at conception. At this point, a human being is, by definition, endowed with the image of God. This concept is known as the imago Dei. It affirms that every human, from the moment their history is set in motion, is a person because they bear this divine image which gives them inherent dignity and worth.

Challenges with Sentience and Self-Awareness

Critics often argue that attributes such as sentience (the ability to experience feelings and sensations) or self-awareness (consciousness) should define personhood. But these ideas often cause more problems.

• The capacity to feel or perceive is difficult to measure and varies widely among individuals.

• Likewise, self-awareness is a trait that develops over time and is not present at birth.

The lack of measurable standards for sentience or self-awareness leads to the question: Why should these characteristics serve as the benchmarks for personhood?

Such traits are not only arbitrary but can leave out individuals who are in certain developmental stages, such as infants or those with cognitive impairments.

Developmental Milestones and Personhood

Developmental milestones like a heartbeat, brain activity, or the ability to live outside the womb are sometimes used as markers of personhood. However, these are just stages of growth and don’t fully encase what it means to be a person. From a Christian viewpoint, personhood is linked to identity as image bearers of God, not on mere capacity for bodily function.

The Importance of Language in Human Value Discussions

The importance of using clear, precise language when talking about human value can’t be overstated. How we define “human” and “person” shapes our ethical and moral views about life and how we protect it. In the biblical worldview, every life is sacred from conception—a position that supports arguments against abortion by highlighting the value inherent to all human beings.

We encourage everyone to think about the language they use when discussing early human life. Important meanings and moral responsibilities arise from words and definitions.

Takeaway

The question of when human life begins according to science and the Bible is often deeply debated but should be likewise deeply researched and considered. Our minds should be open to facts and our hearts willing to reflect on something more than just ourselves and on what it means to be human.

People from all worldviews and backgrounds have thought about when a new human being begins. The majority agree that life starts at conception—not at 8 weeks or 24 weeks, and not at birth, but when the new human DNA is created.

There’s great support for the belief that life begins at fertilization, which in turn has important ethical and moral implications. It makes us think about the value of life from the very start and the need to care for and protect it, even before that life takes its first breath.

When we consider the evidence for when human life begins, we step into a profound truth—life is not an accident, it’s a purposeful gift. Science and Scripture together affirm that every human being is wonderfully made, intentionally created, and endowed with purpose from the very beginning.

The post When Does Human Life Begin? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

In an interview, the film’s producer Jason Pamer explained what motivated the film and the interest in NDEs among both people of faith and skeptics. We also discussed the personal views of some of the medical specialists who evaluated NDEs.

I see three positive features in this movie. First, the people with NDEs were allowed to describe the events for themselves and how it has impacted them personally. This feature adds a fresh personal appeal to the film. Having had a life-threatening illness myself in 2003, I can tell you that a brush with death gets your attention. It can change your life (though my illness did not include an NDE).

Second, the film includes interviews with longtime NDE researchers and authors like Raymond Moody, Kenneth Ring, and Michael Sabom. It also mentions the scholarly research performed by the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS). Founded in 1981, the association publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of Near-Death Studies (JNDS).

Third, the doctors and scientists interviewed in the film reflect, to some degree, a spectrum of views about the truthful nature of these extraordinary experiences. However, I must note that the film tends to focus on and promote the authenticity of this phenomenon.

The film is lighter than one would expect of a documentary on the analysis of its subject matter. Also, some of the people interviewed about their experiences seem less than credible. But the film is also a movie intended to provoke people to consider the possible existential and religious nature of NDEs. Overall, I appreciated the movie and hope it gets people to think about their death and mortality. 

Let’s now briefly explore the NDE phenomenon. 

What Is an NDE?
Physician Raymond Moody coined the term “near-death experience” (NDE) in his best-selling book Life After Life (1975). Since this book’s publication, many researchers have investigated the conditions, content, and aftereffects of NDEs.

Near-death experiences (NDE) are a rare occurrence. They can happen when someone undergoes clinical death, is resuscitated, and later reports events or circumstances that took place while they were clinically dead. These reports can include the perception of floating above the body, the ability to relate information (such as doctors’ names and descriptions of medical equipment) that would be impossible for the person to know otherwise, and visions of dead loved ones or religious figures. People more likely to have an NDE include patients on the operating table, those with severe illness or injury, and victims of extreme trauma (such as car accidents). An article posted on the IANDS webpage (What Is a Near-Death Experience?) explains that people can have positive and negative NDEs:

“NDErs have reported two types of experiences. Most NDErs have reported pleasurable NDEs. These experiences involve mostly feelings of love, joy, peace, and/or bliss. A small number of NDErs have reported distressing NDEs. These experiences involve mostly feelings of terror, horror, anger, isolation, and/or guilt. Both types of NDErs usually report that the experience was hyper-real—even more real than earthly life. NDEs range from relatively simple, with few and/or less emotionally intense features, to relatively complex, with many and/or more emotionally intense features.”

Some years ago, I taught a college course entitled Perspectives on Death and Dying. Part of the course addressed NDEs and what people said they experienced. Here’s a list of characteristics commonly reported with NDEs (few people experience all of these phenomena).¹

1. Encountering clinical (reversible) death as opposed to biological (irreversible) death usually by accident or illness. Some researchers call this the dying process (absence of consciousness, pulse, breathing)

2. Hearing the announcement of one’s death

3. Experiencing a dreamlike reality state

4. Experiencing a heightened sensory perception (seeing, hearing)

5. Having clarity of rational thought

6. Having an out-of-body experience (OBE)

7. Floating free and viewing one’s dead body

8. Feeling a sense of calm, peace, and serenity

9. Moving away from the body into a dark tunnel (called the transitional stage)

10. Perceiving a brilliant light

11. Seeing a light that beckons you to come forward

12. Experiencing a panoramic life review (flashbacks of life)

13. Entering the light while experiencing unspeakable love, joy, and brilliance                    

14. Being greeted by loved ones (family, Jesus, Moses, etc.)

15. Being told it’s not one’s time to die

16. Returning to the body

People who have positive NDEs often speak of a greater appreciation for life, a change in priorities (typically more relational and less materialistic), and little or no fear of death. Sometimes they have a religious conversion or increased spiritual conviction and devotion. People who have negative NDEs describe experiencing emptiness and aloneness in an eternal void. They sometimes mention torment by frightening and evil creatures and other human souls in great distress. In some cases people describe being judged by a higher power.²

The NDE of a Famous Atheist
Religious people are not the only ones to report having NDEs. For example, Sir Alfred Jules Ayer (1910–1989), a world-renowned philosopher and atheist, had an NDE in 1988. In a newspaper article entitled “What I Saw When I Was Dead,” Ayer described being in a British hospital suffering from pneumonia. He choked while eating salmon and his heart stopped beating for four minutes. Upon resuscitation, he described being “confronted by a red light, exceedingly bright, and also very painful even when I turned away from it. I was aware that this light was responsible for the government of the universe.” Ayer said that this experience could have been delusional, but he later concluded that if the experience was true, then it may provide “rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness.” Yet he still questioned the existence of life after death and the existence of God.³

How Common Are NDEs?
IANDS observes, “Near-death experiences are uncommon but not rare.” People from antiquity to the present have reported this phenomenon. In recent decades, millions of people have claimed NDEs. The IANDS website provides access to polls and research into the frequency and legitimacy of NDE claims.

Interpretation of NDEs
Generally speaking, there are three explanations of NDEs. Here is an outline I used when I taught my class:⁴

A. Neuropsychological Theories

1. Dysfunction of the brain or central nervous system

    a. Cerebral anoxia (oxygen deprivation in the brain)

    b. Endorphin release (endorphins can kill pain and cause a psychological sense of well-being)  

    c. Temporal lobe paroxysm (seizure-like discharges in the brain)

    d. Drugs (side effects)

B. Psychological Theories        

1. Psychological defense mechanism (shock, depersonalization)

2. Motivated fantasy (fantasy motivated by our desperate desire to survive death)

3. Archetypes (mythological archetypes associated with humanity’s collective unconscious mind)

C. Metaphysical Theories

1. Soul travel (transitional journey of the soul or spirit to another realm of reality, like heaven)

2. Psychic vision (glimpse into another realm of reality)

Some of the phenomena may be explained purely from a physiological and/or psychological perspective. However, some of the phenomena defy naturalistic explanations. The cases that provide independently corroborated data are the most difficult to account for via naturalism. These are the cases where the dying person views people, events, and circumstances with amazing accuracy even though the person is comatose at the time. For example, there are cases where information is provided by the patient though he or she had no EKG (after the heart stops), or no EEG (after the brain stops), and some patients even saw people they didn’t know had died.⁵

A Biblical and Christian Worldview Assessment
There are four general responses that Christians offer for understanding NDEs.

Bogus and Uncritical Accounts 
The NDE phenomenon is extraordinary and attention-getting by nature. Therefore, some reports may be invented and motivated by a desire for wealth and notoriety. It’s also the case that a person may engage in an uncritical form of confirmation bias where they seek only the kinds of experiences that are in line with their particular worldview perspective. In evaluating this phenomenon, Christians and non-Christians need to be exactingly honest, careful, and fair-minded in their analysis.

Demonic Counterfeit Phenomena 
Could demonic spirits orchestrate NDEs? This explanation should neither be accepted nor rejected quickly. Critical spiritual discernment is needed. Scripture reveals that dark forces (Satan) can masquerade as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14­–15). Moreover, those same forces can use counterfeit signs and wonders as a means of deception (2 Thessalonians 2:9–10).

Again this view is often too easily accepted (by conservative Christians) or rejected (by secular skeptics).

Eastern Mystical, New Age, Occult Interpretations
It’s possible that the phenomena may be real, but the interpretation and worldview analysis is faulty. Some major NDE authors tend to interpret the data from a pluralistic, New Age, and even occult perspective. Four of the major NDE researchers and authors—Raymond Moody, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, Kenneth Ring, and Melvin Morse—seem to interpret NDEs to greater or lesser degrees from an Eastern mystical or New Age viewpoint. New Age beliefs generally involve religious pluralism (all religions are equally valid), all is one (monism), all is God (pantheism), humanity is divine, a need to change human consciousness (enlightenment), and spiritism (communication with spirits).⁶

Authentic Afterlife Experiences
Some NDEs that seem veridical (truthful) don’t fit any of the other interpretations mentioned so far. Some NDEs seem consistent with the general biblical message. Human beings are a union of body and soul. At death, one’s soul is separated from the body and goes to be in the presence of Christ in the intermediate state⁷ (2 Corinthians 5:6­–8; Philippians 1:21, 23–24). Also, some NDEs bear good fruit in leading people to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.   

It should be noted that Christians affirm the truth of eternal life on the basis of Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection⁸ as revealed in Scripture. NDEs could be cited as possible support for belief in life after death but these subjective experiences don’t carry the same authority as God’s written Word.So, are NDEs evidence for life after death? Given that some NDEs involve corroborated data, that this data defies a purely naturalistic explanation, and that some of the data is consistent with Christianity, my answer is a cautious yes.

Resources

• For two Christian philosophers’ assessment of immortality, see Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality.
• For a careful examination of NDEs by a Christian physician, see Michael B. Sabom, Light and Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences.
• For a Christian philosopher’s examination of NDEs in a New Age context, see Douglas R. Groothuis, Deceived by the Light.
• For an examination of the negative side of NDEs by a Christian physician, see Maurice S. Rawlings, To Hell and Back.
• For a Christian discussion of the relationship of body and soul in light of eternity, see John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate.
• For a discussion of sin, death, and resurrection, see Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World.
• For a discussion of heaven and hell in light of Christian eschatology, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times.
• For a traditional discussion of heaven and hell, see Alan W. Gomes, 40 Questions about Heaven and Hell.

Endnotes

1. See Lynne Ann DeSpelder and Albert Lee Strickland, The Last Dance: Encountering Death and Dying, 4th ed. (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing, 1996), 574­–587; Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998); Michael B. Sabom, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (New York, NY: Corgi Books, 1982); Michael B. Sabom, Light and Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998); Kenneth Ring, Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death Experience (New York, NY: Coward Mc Cann, 1980).
2. “What Is a Near-Death Experience?,” International Association for Near-Death Studies, last updated December 8, 2022, accessed November 2, 2023, iands.org/ndes/about-ndes/what-is-an-nde.html.
3. See “Even Atheists Have Out Of Body Experiences . . . (A. J. Ayer’s essay),” recitation of A. J. Ayers, “What I Saw When I Was Dead,” Sunday Telegraph, August 1988, namesameasu, September 26, 2014, video, 19:37, youtube.com/watch?v=euFuZk8BRSQ, and “Atheist Philosopher A. J. Ayer’s Near Death Experience,” Wisdomphile, video, 00:58, May 28, 2022, youtube.com/watch?v=oiVkneXAWWQ.
4. DeSpelder and Strickland, Last Dance, 579.
5. Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, 155­–172.
6. See Douglas R. Groothuis, Deceived by the Light (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995).
7. For a Christian discussion of the relationship of body and soul in light of eternity, see John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).
8. For twenty evidences for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), 115–133.

The post <i>After Death</i>: A New Film about NDEs appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Problems with Polytheism
Polytheism posits the existence of multiple deities, each distinct from the others. In one sense, animism may be considered the earliest form of polytheism. This diverse array of ancient cultural beliefs (still held by some people today) attributes soul, spirit, and sentience to animals, plants, rocks, and other elements of the natural realm. Each entity is thought to possess at least some unique characteristic, power, and/or responsibility, but none explains the existence of the whole realm of nature, nor does any possess an identifiable capacity for agency. 

Later, more fully organized and articulated belief systems, from Hinduism and paganism to the Greek and Roman pantheon, among others, posited distinct ways in which various gods interact with humans and the rest of nature. Each of the multiplicity of gods is said to exhibit a distinct mind, purpose, and agenda with respect to the world and people. Polytheism, thus, predicts that science may reveal evidence of design in nature; however, any apparent designs will lack evidence of a unified, coordinated, and/or integrated effort. Distinct agendas inevitably will produce some compromises, suboptimizations, and oversights in the designs.

A few millennia ago, even as recently as a few centuries ago, scientific advance was insufficient in most fields to determine with much certainty whether incongruities, compromises, oversights, suboptimizations, and/or a lack of coordination did or did not characterize the record of nature. Such is no longer the case. While the scientific record does reveal examples of design trade-offs, even the trade-offs appear optimized to achieve multiple purposes simultaneously. 

Rather than reflecting the agency of multiple independent minds with distinct purposes and goals, everywhere scientists survey nature’s realm, they see evidence of design that indicates planning, development, and implementation by a single Being with an integrated set of purposes.

If the natural realm owes its existence and operation to multiple distinct gods, science will lead to inevitable clashes. Findings would be inconsistent and incongruous. Science disciplines would collide. Researchers would find it nearly impossible to reconcile scientific data and interpretations. Given the hierarchical nature of polytheism with the gods possessing different levels of authority that sometimes overlap and conflict, moral and ethical chaos would also be inevitable.   

Problems with Strict Monotheism
Strict monotheism—religions and belief systems with one and only one God manifested in a single Person, such as Judaism and Islam—would seem to account readily for the harmony and consistency of designs and processes in the realm of nature, including the appearance of optimized templates in living creatures. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often listed together as prime examples of monotheistic religions, but these three “Abrahamic” religious traditions identify the one God and define the term monotheism in distinctly different ways. 

Many Jewish scholars distinguish their version of monotheism from the Christian version by calling theirs “ethical monotheism.” These scholars emphasize the moral and ethical aspects of belief in a single God whose law applies to all of humanity and whose priority is that humans behave decently toward one another. Some Jews, like many Muslims, believe God demands adherence to a specific and narrow set of outward practices, including diet, dress, and grooming. However, Judaism does not demand the conversion of non-Jews as a condition of God’s mercy in judgment, whereas Islam considers non-Muslims as subject to condemnation by Allah, the Islamic name for God.

The most glaring problem with both forms of strict monotheism is the lack of any satisfying answer to the origin of love. If God is a solitary Being, then before creating anything or anyone, this God has no concept of love. This God has no one to express love to or to receive love from. Herein lies a dilemma: how can a Being who has no basis for conceiving of or experiencing love create beings who can and do manifest love? In strict monotheism, love does not exist until the one God creates other beings and endows them with a capacity that he lacks. In strict monotheism, God is compelled to create in order to know and experience what love is.

Islam declares that Allah (God) is greater than everyone/everything and has no need of anything. The dilemma of love’s origin contradicts this declaration. Those Jewish and Islamic apologists who are aware of the dilemma respond by appealing to God’s transcendence (beyond the physics and dimensions of the universe and, therefore, beyond human experience). They claim that God expressed and experienced love in his transcendent state in a manner totally different from the love that humans express and experience. However, this claim still fails to address the origin of the love that humans express and experience.

Problems with Atheism
In the words of the popular twentieth-century astronomer Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”² Atheists claim that all the designs scientists and others detect in nature are “apparent” designs, only. They assert that these so-called designs represent accidents of nature, with no intended purposes or goals behind them. They assert the nonexistence of mind, person(s), or intelligence behind nature’s realm, including the origin and design of space-time, matter, and energy.

The problem with their assertions is that they fail to address why things in the natural realm are as they are. They fail to explain why anything exists at all. They face the challenge that strictly naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe, life, and humanity are becoming more problematic, not less, with advancing scientific research.  

Atheism fails to provide any rational explanation for the exponentially increasing evidence of fine-tuning at all size and time scales within the universe that makes possible not only the existence of humans and our global high-technology civilization but also that of bacteria and molecules. That fine-tuning includes the universe’s mass, age, geometry, expansion rate, rate of decay, laws of physics, and space-time dimensions.³    

How the Trinity Comports with Science
The doctrine of a triune God, which is both unique and central to Christianity, encounters none of the intractable problems associated with animism, polytheism, strict monotheism, and atheism. A God who exists as one Being in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with identical and indissoluble character attributes, intents, goals, and purposes perfectly matches and explains what the scientific investigation of the natural realm reveals: ubiquitous coherence, consistency, congruity, harmony, efficiency, coordination, and optimization. It explains why the natural realm provides increasing evidence of having been designed and created by a single Being with a single set of purposes. 

The Trinity explains the origin of love. Before the Trinity creates anything, God is experiencing and expressing love. As a triune Being, God is complete and totally fulfilled before creating anything or anyone. Such a God has no need to create.

The perfect love experienced and expressed by the triune God explains the symmetry, elegance, and beauty evident throughout the natural realm—as well as in the mathematics that describe the operation of the natural realm. The triune God provides a complete and consistent explanation for morality, accountability, justice, and mercy. 

Christianity’s triune God explains why design is so ubiquitous, optimal, complex, and integrated throughout nature. It explains why scientists observe these characteristics on all size scales from the largest down to the smallest subatomic, even subparticle, level.

Why a Triunity?
Christian theologians and others have long pondered why God is not a duality or quaternity, rather than a Trinity. One conclusion to this mystery is that God, as a Trinity, best explains the perfection of his love.

Research psychologists have demonstrated that where love is expressed always and only between two persons, its perfection cannot be observed because it remains untested. A third person in a relationship becomes challenging in human (less-than-perfectly-loving) relationships where “triangulation,” or two v. one, presents a temptation. Nevertheless, as many couples have experienced, the birth of children not only adds but also multiplies love, rather than diminishing it.

In some sects of Christianity, an angel or a saint is elevated to the status of Godhead, which makes God a quaternity. As Christian scholars have observed, however, people within these sects struggle in attempts to worship each of the four “persons” equally, given that they possess unequal qualities. Worshippers tend to experience confusion over the roles, or division of labor, among the persons comprising the Godhead.

In the first chapter of his first epistle, the apostle John declares that God is light, and this light has been made visible to the heart of every human being. John goes on to explain in the chapters that follow the three primary components of this light: life, love, and truth. He points out that all three persons of the Godhead shower life, love, and truth upon God’s creation, upon human beings, in particular. In doing so, God the Son takes the primary role in bestowing life, God the Father takes the primary role in showing love, and God the Holy Spirit takes the primary role in communicating truth. This elaboration on what God’s “light” means explains how humans best receive God’s light and eliminates confusion about a divine “hierarchy.” 

The Trinity Demonstrates Divine Inspiration
The Trinity transcends the ability of humans to fully describe, accurately picture, or completely comprehend. As demonstrated in my book, Beyond the Cosmos, the Trinity transcends the limits of the physical laws and space-time dimensions of the cosmos.⁴ Since humans are confined to the dimensions and physical laws, our capacity to visualize is limited by them. 

Something I observed in studying the (non-Christian) major religions of the world during my late teens is that each presented God in a manner that can be visualized by humans. This observation led me to consider that these religions might be merely human constructions rather than divine revelations. When the space-time theorems established that the universe’s space-time dimensions came into existence at the origin of the universe,⁵ I realized that God, the Creator, must possess powers and attributes that transcend these cosmic space-time dimensions. A revelation from this God could and would describe real phenomena that go beyond the ability of humans to visualize.

I saw the Bible standing alone in this respect. The Bible revealed God in a manner that is impossible for humans to conceive through their own reason and imagination. The Bible alone bears the signature of a Being whose message comes to us from beyond the cosmos.

The triune God repeatedly and consistently revealed in both the Old and New Testaments is clearly and uniquely distinct from the gods of all other religious writings and teachings. Nothing like a triune Creator, Redeemer, and Empowerer can be found within the foundational books on which the world’s religions, other than Christianity, stake their claims. 

While Jews and Muslims describe the Old Testament as the true and trustworthy Word of God, they deny a doctrine made especially clear in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Isaiah. In conversation with both Jews and Muslims, I’ve found that most are either unaware of or have given little attention to the many OT passages showing that God is triune, one essence manifested in three persons.

Given that Isaiah is highly esteemed by both Jews and Muslims, I believe it was more than a mere “stroke of luck” that the only complete book of the Old Testament found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was Isaiah. Three years ago, I assembled a list of verses from Isaiah that express God’s simultaneous singularity and triunity. (See my post, “Does the Book of Isaiah Teach the Trinity?) I encourage readers of this blog to share this scientific perspective on the Trinity not only with fellow Christians but also with Jews, Muslims, participants in cults, and all who struggle to believe that God can be one and three. God’s triune nature makes possible our redemption from sin and an eternal loving relationship with the Creator.       

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018); Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022); Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016); Hugh Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008).
2. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985), 1. Sagan previously made this declaration in his Public Broadcasting Service television documentary series, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which has been seen by over 500 million people and worldwide ranks as the most widely watched series in the history of American public television. 
3. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos; Ross, Designed to the Core; Ross, Improbable Planet; Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. 
4. Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2017), 81–99.

Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 100–129.

The post How the Trinity Makes Sense of Science appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The combination of powerful computers and self-correcting/self-teaching algorithms has yielded AI systems that can now compete with and even substantially outperform human experts. One example is IBM’s Deep Blue system, which defeated world chess champion Gary Kasparov under tournament conditions in 1997. With access to data from its previous matches with Kasparov, Deep Blue could abandon weak strategies and avoid past mistakes whereas Kasparov, like any human, could not.

Go, perhaps the world’s oldest board game, is orders of magnitude more complex than chess. Not until 2016 was an AI system, AlphaGO, also known as Google DeepMind, able to defeat world Go champion, Lee Sedol, winning four out of the five games played. AlphaGO won by analyzing the entire online library on Go, including all tournament games between human Go masters, every book on Go, and every game AlphaGO had played against itself or against human Go masters.

If it seems computers have advanced rapidly, they have, and for good reasons.

Moore’s Law
Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated computer circuit roughly doubles every two years. Moore’s Law explains why computing power has risen exponentially while the price of computers has dropped exponentially. 

Back in the early 1960s, during my early teens, I wrote and ran computer programs on an IBM 7090 computer (see figure 1). It was the first transistorized computer. It contained 50,000 transistors and cost over $3 million (over $30 million in today’s dollars). Apple laptop computers today contain 67 trillion transistors and sell for about $1,000. Supercomputers built since 2016 include over 12 quadrillion transistors.

Figure 1: IBM 7090 Computer: The First Fully Transistorized Computer
Credit: NASA

Moore’s Law made AI possible. It made possible the development of computer hardware and software algorithms that can perform certain tasks and calculations with speed and accuracy that far surpasses what any individual human can achieve.  

AI Achievements
The amazing successes of AI systems can be attributed solely to associative learning. Associative learning is a data mining and “learning” technique that seeks out important relationships among variables or features in a data set. Examples are AI algorithms that count the frequency of complimentary occurrences or associations across a large collection of items or actions. Retailers use such algorithms to determine which products are best placed together in a store or online catalog to maximize sales. 

Other examples include computer programs that learn from their mistakes. Google Translate does this. Four years ago, a physicist in Ukraine began asking me questions on my Facebook page. I used Google Translate to convert his Ukrainian language questions into English. Similarly, he used Google Translate to convert my English language answers into Ukrainian. The first several exchanges were quite frustrating for both of us. However, we observed that Google Translate’s capabilities steadily improved as we continued. It acquired more data and corrected its mistakes. Today, it’s as if we are both speaking the same language.

Deep AI identifies previously unobserved correlations in databases. By applying a measure of “interesting-ness,” they generate an association rule for new searches. To be effective, deep AI systems need to be fed large, diverse databases. When deep AI appears to be making a new discovery or generating a new database, the “new discovery” or “new database” is actually derived from analysis of existing databases. Deep AI explores uncharted or previously unanalyzed databases. 

AI’s  Limitations
AI is 100% dependent on the databases loaded into its systems. It can merge or otherwise “massage” these databases to create what may appear to be a new database, but it can’t actually generate new data, or a new database. 

People have dreamed about creating autonomous AI systems. However, AI is entirely dependent on humans to feed it data or to provide the hardware—such as digital cameras—that feed it data.

AI becomes competent only after humans provide it with relevant data within a constrained range. AI can sort through unevaluated data to find relevant data but only at great cost. Some of the more remarkable achievements of AI have required more than 10 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Such energy use equals the total annual energy consumption of over 1,000 typical U.S. households. For the sake of comparison, the human brain can analyze a substantial body of data using only 20 watts of energy.

AI can churn out fluent overviews and reviews on almost any topic, and yet it falters miserably on mathematical queries that require reasoning. For example, the celebrated AI darling of today, ChatGPT, scored just 26% on its attempt to pass a simple freshman high school math exam. 

A more powerful AI system, Minerva, did better. Minerva scored 50% on simple high school math problems. However, Minerva is three times ChatGPT’s size. Furthermore, it was fed a curated diet of data. Minerva received millions of mathematics papers/articles and sorted through millions of math books and web articles to estimate the most likely correct answers. Minerva’s success depended on human help—prefacing math questions with relevant sample questions and correct solutions that included all the reasoning steps. 

Minerva only appears to reason as it uses templates encountered previously. Its score of 50% required a month of training. Minerva, like all other AI systems, displayed no actual reasoning power.

While extremely large AI systems, like Minerva, are getting better at answering questions within the scope of their training data, they still lack the ability to answer entirely new questions. AI cannot make sense of something it has not seen before.

AI-Human Collaboration
Clearly, AI systems can do certain tasks that humans cannot, and they can do things at much greater speed and with fewer errors than humans can. On the other hand, humans can do certain things that AI systems cannot, and we can do certain things much faster, more reliably, and with much less energy consumption than AI. Therefore, it makes sense for humans to collaborate with AI. 

To determine the best and most efficient ways for humans and AI to collaborate, a team of nine computer scientists at the Lam Research Corporation in Fremont, California, conducted a set of experiments on semiconductor process development.¹

The Lam research team had computer design engineers compete with AI in a virtual test to develop an efficient process for manufacturing computer chips. The test’s goal was to minimize the cost of producing a computer chip with specific target characteristics. The Lam team first had nine humans compete with one another: three senior engineers, three junior engineers, and three other engineers having no relevant experience. As expected, the most experienced and most capable of the three senior engineers won the competition. 

The Lam team then created several AI computer chip design players (AI algorithms that simulated human players). These AI players all used Bayesian optimization analysis on huge databases of computer chip designs. In only 13 out of 300 attempts did the AI players do better than the winning senior engineer—and then only slightly better. The Lam team concluded that the AI players’ lack of expert knowledge caused them to waste time and resources on exploring huge databases of possible processes that had no chance of success.

The team’s conclusion prompted them to try a “human-first, AI-system-second” strategy. In this approach, a human expert constrained data searches before handing over the task to the AI system. Lam’s team achieved the best and least costly result by optimizing the timing of the transfer from the human expert to the AI system.

Human-ChatGPT Collaboration 
After reading the paper published by the Lam Research Corporation, I did my own experiment in human-AI collaboration. My goal was to take technical content and rewrite it at a junior-high reading level without sacrificing scientific accuracy. The typical strategy brings together a science scholar with an editor or journalist who has demonstrated talent for writing science material for young readers. Several publications, including a few resources produced by RTB scholars and editors have shown at least some degree of success in this collaboration.

Last week, I decided to recruit a new collaborator, ChatGPT. I took my 4,000-word article on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, deleted the endnote citations, and found that the 3,200-word article scored a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of grade 17. I fed ChatGPT this 3,200-word article and instructed it to rewrite the article for an eighth-grade student. 

The result was unusable. AI did achieve the reading level goal, but nearly all the science in the article was mangled. To correct all the scientific errors would have taken me more time than rewriting the entire article myself. Nevertheless, the ChatGPT version showed me what a grade 8 reading level looks like.

So, I returned to the original 3,200-word article and worked on shortening the sentences, replacing technical vocabulary with simpler vocabulary, and injecting some idioms, illustrations, and humor. In less than two hours, I had brought the article down to a grade 12 reading level. However, the word count had bumped up to nearly 3,600 words.

Next, I fed this 3,600-word article to ChatGPT, again instructing it to make it readable at a grade 8 level. The result was an improvement over the initial attempt, but many scientific errors persisted. What I noted, though, was that most of the errors seemed to arise from ChatGPT going off on irrelevant tangents. So this next time around, I fed ChatGPT the 3,600-word article in bite-sized chunks. The smallest chunk was a single paragraph. The largest chunk was four paragraphs long. I chose the chunk size based on relevance to a specific subtopic. 

At this point, I was pleased with the outcome. Only a few scientific errors remained, and they were much less problematic. It became a relatively straightforward and efficient task for me to correct the errors without sacrificing readability. 

While ChatGPT rated the final readability level as grade 8, the Flesch-Kincaid rating came in at grade 9.5. Obviously, differences exist between the ChatGPT and Flesch-Kincaid algorithms for scoring readability. ChatGPT focuses more on vocabulary level and how sentences sound when read aloud. Flesch-Kincaid prioritizes paragraph length, sentence length, and average number of letters per word.

I took my experiment one step farther by feeding the grade 8 level article I had corrected to ChatGPT with the instruction to rewrite it for a grade 7 student. The new version came out with only a few and easy-to-fix scientific errors. The final result was a readable 4,400-word article containing nearly all the content of the original 3,200-word paper.

Through one day’s experimentation, I was able to develop a significantly beneficial strategy for ongoing collaboration with ChatGPT. The next time I want to transform one of my technically-written pieces into something that can be understood at an eighth-grade reading level, I can do so in a way that makes efficient use of both my time and the ChatGPT expertise. My experimental result aligns closely with the conclusions of the Lam Research Corporation’s team on how to optimize human-AI time and resources.    

AI and the Case for Human Exceptionalism
The Lam Research Corporation studies and my personal experiment with AI have something to say about human exceptionalism and the dual (body-mind) nature of human beings—two core biblical doctrines. AI can perform calculations and analyze vast, diverse databases at blinding speed. However, AI cannot reason. It has no mind. It is not conscious, much less spiritual. 

Like a parrot, AI can be trained to communicate in a way that, in many respects, mimics human communication. But this resemblance is entirely dependent on human input and training. Even then, what AI produces mimics only some of the features of human communication.

I have nearly 50 books in my office written by scientists and philosophers who have tackled the problem of explaining human consciousness in material terms. The books written by nontheists all insist that there must be some naturalistic explanation for human consciousness. However, to date, researchers have found not the slightest clue or hint as to what the explanation could be. AI seems to drive home the point rather effectively that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain human consciousness. As the Bible declared thousands of years ago when God created humans in his image (Genesis 1:26–27), that image is spiritual, not physical.   

Endnote
1. Keren J. Kanarik et al., “Human-Machine Collaboration for Improving Semiconductor Process Development,” Nature 616 (March 8, 2023): 707–711, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05773-7.

The post A Model for AI-Human Collaboration appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Ever since the well-publicized Scopes Trial in 1925, evangelical Christians have engaged in vigorous, often heated debates over the age of the universe and Earth. On one side are Christians who are convinced that there is overwhelming, consistent, accurate scientific evidence that the universe is 13.79 billion years old and that Earth is 4.5662 billion years old. On the other side are Christians who are convinced that a literal interpretation of the Bible constrains both the age of the universe and Earth to be less than 10,000 years.

The four most significant factors persuading many Christians that the universe and Earth must be younger than 10,000 years old are:

1. concern that conceding a 4.5662-billion-year age for Earth will enable naturalistic evolutionary processes alone to explain the origin and history of all life;

2. certainty that the only possible literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is that in which the creation days are six consecutive 24-hour periods;

3. belief that there was no animal or human death until after Adam had sinned in the Garden of Eden; and

4. belief that an atheistic bias explains the scientific community’s united-front conclusion that Earth and the universe are billions of years old.

Dual Revelation
Both young-earth and old-earth creationist Christians uphold the biblical doctrine of dual revelation but they apply the doctrine in different ways. I’ve written a full-length book on dual revelation that will be released later this year.¹ In that book I define dual revelation as the doctrine that God has revealed himself and his personal attributes through two wholly reliable and trustworthy expressions: the book of Scripture (the Bible) and the book of nature. I know of no young-earth creationist scholar or leader who would disagree with this definition. The disagreement is over the application of a corollary doctrine—sola Scriptura.

The doctrine of sola Scriptura, codified during the Protestant Reformation, states that the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all the subjects it addresses. The framers of this doctrine understood that for God’s revelation to be clearly authoritative, direct (verbal, propositional) rather than indirect communication is required.

Young-earth creationists interpret sola Scriptura as implying that the Bible is the only completely trustworthy, reliable, inerrant revelation from God. They acknowledge that the book of nature can be a reliable, trustworthy, inerrant revelation but only if it is interpreted through the lens of Scripture. Theologian John Whitcomb and physicist Donald DeYoung wrote that scientists “must grope in darkness apart from God’s special revelation in Scripture.”² Henry Morris II, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, argued that no tool of science can ever yield any reliable information on Earth’s age. He asserted, “The compelling Biblical …direct testimony from the Creator is the only way to know the age of the earth” (italics in original).³

There is a widespread distrust of science and of scientists in the young-earth creationist community. It has been my experience that attempting to persuade young-earth creationists to adopt an old-earth perspective on creation based on overwhelming and consistent scientific evidence that establishes Earth and the universe are billions of years old is a fruitless endeavor. However, while young-earth creationists give little credence to scientific evidence, they have high regard for the trustworthiness of the Bible. They put their faith and trust in the complete reliability of a literally interpreted Bible. Therefore, biblical arguments for the age of the universe and Earth based on literal interpretations of the Bible’s creation texts carry weight and will be considered.

What Does the Bible Say about the Universe’s and Earth’s Age?
1. Unchanging physical laws: According to the Bible, the laws of physics are unchanging. In Jeremiah 33, God, speaking through the prophet, contrasts human wavering with his own immutability by referring to the “laws governing the heavens and Earth” (verse 25). Just as they remain “fixed,” as in constant and unchanging, so does God. Likewise, Ecclesiastes speaks of the monotonous operation of the natural laws, in particular the thermodynamic laws. Paul writes in Romans 8:19–23 that the entire universe is subject to the law of decay, also known as the law of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics, a law that will remain in effect until God’s redemptive purposes for humanity in this physical realm have been fulfilled.

Everything from human digestion to the shining of the Sun, Moon, and stars is extremely sensitive to even the tiniest change in the laws of physics. Young-earth creationism faces an insurmountable challenge for the simple reason that young-earth models critically depend on radically altered laws of physics—laws altered not by a factor of 5 or 10 times, but by a factor of millions to billions at the fall of Adam and/or the flood of Noah. Young-earth creationists need such appeals to explain all the past geological and astrophysical activity that has occurred within a time frame of only 10,000 years or less. However, the Bible and the book of nature⁴ explicitly affirm that the laws of physics have remained unchanged throughout the universe’s history.

To their credit, some young-earth creationists, especially those with science and engineering backgrounds, have acknowledged this problem. The authors of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth have written that if the laws and constants of physics have not changed in any significant way over the universe’s and Earth’s past, then both the universe and Earth must be billions of years old.⁵ They concede, “Either accelerated radioactive decay accounts for the large daughter isotope residues in a short period of time, or a large amount of decay occurred at conventional rates and the earth is old.”⁶ For this reason, they appeal to vastly accelerated nuclear decay. For example, they assert, “All these products of nuclear decay were indeed produced by nuclear decay! But the amounts of those products we observe are much greater than thousands of years could produce—at today’s rates.”⁷ They add, “A change in the decay constant of the order of 10⁹ may be required, if the accelerated decay is restricted to the one year period of the Genesis Flood. …A one year episode of accelerated decay at the time of the Flood may not be enough. Other episodes during Creation week or during the Fall may also be necessary.”⁸ Again, the dilemma for these concessions is that both the Bible and the book of nature explicitly affirm that there have been no changes in the laws of physics.

2. Animal death before Adam: The New Testament sheds decisive light on what resulted from Adam’s sin. In Romans 5:12, Paul writes, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (emphasis added). An exhaustive search of Scripture further clarifies that only humans are capable of sin. Only humans make moral and spiritual choices. The death Adam experienced is carefully qualified in the text as being visited on people—with no reference to Earth’s plants or animals (Romans 5:12, 18–19).

According to 1 Corinthians 15:21, the death that “came through a man” came to humans, not to humans and animals. 1 Corinthians 15:22–23 explains, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” According to Genesis 1, God gave Earth’s plants and animals to humans. The only creatures who belong to Christ through acceptance of his redeeming love are the ones made expressly for eternal relationship with him: humans. Only spiritual beings are “made alive” in Christ. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are the only passages in the Bible that explicitly address the death brought by Adam’s sin. Neither provides a compelling reason to suggest that physical death of plants and animals could not have occurred prior to Adam’s sin—or that the physical death of plants and animals necessarily impugns God’s character.

3. Duration of Genesis 1 creation days: In Genesis 1:1–2:4, the Hebrew word yôm, translated “day,” is used with three distinct definitions. Yôm refers to all of the daylight hours in Genesis 1:3–5, to a calendar day of 24 hours in Genesis 1:14, and to the entire time span of God’s creative activity in Genesis 2:4.

Each of the first six creation days is accompanied by the statement “and there was evening, and there was morning” and an ordinal number. This pattern leads to anticipation of an “evening-morning” tag to go along with the seventh day, but it does not appear there. Its omission must be intentional, and it certainly piques the curiosity of a first-time reader. Those familiar with the entire Bible would recognize the seventh day, the day of “rest” or cessation, from references to it in other passages of Scripture, such as Psalm 95:10-11 and Hebrews 4:1-11. In these texts, God’s rest from his “work” of creation still continues, and we’re invited to enter into his rest from working and obey God’s good news. In fact, Hebrews mentions that “today,” the time to repent and turn to the Lord, continues to this day.

Many young-earth creationists assert that Exodus 20:11‘s statement about obeying the Sabbath implies that the creation days in Genesis 1 must be calendar days. However, this claim is based on the assumption that a “Sabbath” can only and will always mean 24 hours. However, Leviticus 25:2–5 declares a year-long Sabbath for agricultural land. In each case, the Sabbath rest for humans and agricultural land serves biological needs and limitations—things not applicable to God.

Hosea 6:1–3 and Zechariah 14:7 show that even a numbered day can refer to a time span longer than 24 hours. Perhaps the clearest indication of this point comes from biblical elaboration in Genesis 2 on the events of the sixth creation day. That was a very full day of activity for Adam—so full it is highly unlikely Adam could have accomplished it all in a single 24-hour day.

Genesis 1 says that God created humans, male and female, on creation day six. According to the details provided in Genesis 2, God created Adam outside the garden and then placed him in the garden, where he introduced Adam to its beauty. Adam observed the trees of Eden growing. God had Adam tend the garden and “watch over it.” Then God noted that Adam was alone and that it was “not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Next, God brought Adam various species of birds and mammals to observe and name. Finally, God put Adam into a sound sleep and created Eve (from a tissue biopsy taken from Adam’s side). During this sequence of events, Adam had time to observe the difference between the world outside of Eden and the world within. He had time to learn the wonderful yet limited satisfaction that comes from gardening. He also had time and opportunity to learn about animal life and how soulish creatures (nephesh, in Hebrew) related to one another as well as to him. Finally, he had time to realize his own aloneness, his lack of a “like” partner.

According to the text, the exclamation that came from Adam’s lips when he first saw Eve was, in Hebrew, “happa‘am.” This expression is translated in Genesis 30:20 as “now at last” and in Genesis 46:30 as “now finally.” The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament translates this term in Genesis 2:23 as “at last.”⁹ The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon translates it in the same passage as “now at length.”¹⁰

Theologian C. John Collins has explained that the wording and structure of Genesis 1:1–3 allow for a significant gap in time between the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1) and the development of the conditions on Earth described in Genesis 1:2.¹¹ Another time period of unspecified duration is possible between the state of Earth in Genesis 1:2 and the appearance of light on Earth’s surface, described in Genesis 1:3.¹² On this basis, Genesis 1:1–3 would permit, if taken as history, the passage of some billions of years between the creation of the universe and the creation events thereafter. Therefore, Christians who interpret the Genesis 1 creation days as a 144-hour time span could still accept the scientifically established ages of the universe and Earth. They need not reject the astronomical evidence for an ancient universe, nor do they need to accuse astronomers of deceit.

4. Scientists’ atheistic bias: There are more than 12,000 professional research astronomers in the world and about ten times as many professional research geologists. Trying to get this many scientists to unite together to foster a conspiracy about the age of the universe and Earth that they all know is not true defies credulity. To attribute such a conspiracy to a united atheistic bias overlooks the fact that a large percentage of research astronomers and geologists are Bible-believing Christians. The vast majority of these Bible-believing research astronomers and geologists, who publicly identify as born-again Christians, adhere to an old-earth interpretation of Scripture and the book of nature.

The claim that professional research astronomers and geologists have conspired to deceive the public about the ages of the universe and Earth also overlooks the fact that these scientific communities are tolerant of aberrant hypotheses that challenge mainstream scientific theories and thinking. Such tolerance is evident in their peer-reviewed scientific journals. Some of these journals specialize in publishing aberrant hypotheses to challenge scientists adhering to mainstream theories to strengthen and widen the evidence for their theories.

Considering Multiple Creation Texts
The Bible is unique among the books undergirding the world’s major religions in the number and extent of its creation passages. There are over two dozen chapter-length and near-chapter-length creation texts in the Bible. They appear in over 10 of the 66 books that comprise the Old and New Testaments.

The dispute among Christians over creation’s timing results not from interpreting the Bible as truthful, but from failing to integrate all the truth it reveals. Each biblical creation passage must be understood in a way that is both literal and consistent, both internally and externally.

This brief summary presents some of the more significant biblical refutations that the universe and Earth are less than 10,000 years old. For readers desiring to pursue greater depth on what the entire Bible teaches about the age of the universe and Earth, I have written a full-length book, A Matter of Days, 2nd edition.¹³

Christians can be confident that God created a world he intends for us to discover. I would add that he wants us to learn everything we can about the natural realm. Part of that learning involves a constructive integration of all relevant creation texts with the record of nature to gain insight into his timing and purposes for the creation.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2023).
2. John C. Whitcomb and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon: Its Creation, Form, and Significance (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1978), 69.
3. Henry M. Morris, “Morris Debates for Young Earth at Wheaton,” Acts and Facts 15, no. 8 (1986): 5.
4. I explain and document the scientific evidence for unchanging laws of physics in Hugh Ross, “New Evidence Further Affirms Biblical Prediction of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 9, 2021; and in Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, 2nd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 100–104, 164–166.
5. Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, vol. 1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research; St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society, 2000): 42–44, 306–307, 312–313, 316–318, 334–337, 374, vol. 2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research; St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society, 2005): 736–738.
6. Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 2:738.
7. Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 1:337.
8. Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 1:307.
9. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 730.
10. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1906 repr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 822.
11. C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 51; Rodney Whitefield, Reading Genesis One: Comparing Biblical Hebrew with English Translation (San Jose, CA: R. Whitefield Publisher, 2011), 10–11.
12. Collins, Genesis 1–4, 10–11.
13. Ross, A Matter of Days.

The post Does the Bible Affirm Young-Earth Creationism? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Let’s look briefly at a heresy that deeply challenged historic Christianity. It’s sobering to note that though church theologians and apologists effectively responded to that heresy, it never died and remains evident today.

Beginnings of Ancient Gnosticism
“Gnostic-like” ideas were evident even in apostolic times. In his first epistle, the apostle John warned his readers about a Christological teaching called Docetism (from the Greek: doceo “to seem”). Docetism taught that Jesus only seemed to have a body, but when he walked along the shore of Galilee he left no footprints, for he was a phantom. In the ancient world it was inconceivable to many that God would appear in flesh. Many people viewed matter, which includes the human body, as lowly and even evil.

John was aware of the heresy of Docetism and responded accordingly:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time (1 John 4:1–3).

So an early part of what would become a collection of Gnostic beliefs or tendencies was the idea that matter is evil and spirit is good.

Distinctive Gnostic Beliefs
Gnosticism was never a systematically defined religion with a single set of official beliefs that all Gnostics had to affirm.² In fact, there is debate about whether these Gnostic tendencies emerged initially from interacting with Christianity or whether this movement was a reaction to Judaism or paganism.³ Gnosticism consisted of a loose connection of mash-up ideas that came from the ancient philosophical and religious world. Thus, we might think of the beliefs described below as an amalgam of Gnostic trends or impulses rather than exact beliefs.

Secret Knowledge and Community: Gnosticism was especially prominent during the late second and third century AD and takes its name from the Greek word gnosis or gnostikos, which for the ancient Gnostics meant a secret or esoteric intuitive knowledge. This knowledge was believed to be hidden from most people. So the Gnostics viewed themselves as the spiritual or enlightened elites who received Christ’s true message through reflection and self-denial. This “discovery” of gnosis had uncovered the truth of salvation via intuition rather than through the normal Christian practice of preaching the gospel of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. 

Cosmos: Gnostics embraced a dualism that considered matter—including both the physical cosmos and human bodies—to be less real and even evil. Spirit, in contrast, was considered to be good. Thus, the material world was to be shunned and ultimately escaped, which defines salvation in a Gnostic context. Gnostics even reasoned that the bad and capricious God had created the material cosmos.

God: There are a number of major and minor deities within Gnosticism. First, the true and supreme God (the Monad: the Father) is a purely spiritual being who is completely transcendent and has no connection to the evil creation. Second, there is an inferior, unenlightened, and evil creator of the world called the Demiurge, who is sometimes referred to as Jehovah.

Human Beings: Gnostics as the spiritual elites reflect “sparks of spirit” of the same substance as the supreme God. Yet these spirits—through the fall of humanity—have somehow become trapped in physical bodies, which subjected them to sin and disorientation and from which they long for release.

Salvation: Salvation is attained through gaining spiritual secret knowledge and the spiritual essence by which the immortal soul is released from the dungeon of a material body and rejoins the true spiritual God the Father.

Christ: The Christ was a heavenly messenger sent from the Father to enlighten only the spiritual ones. As a purely spiritual being, he did not possess a body and thus did not suffer crucifixion nor experience bodily resurrection.

Gospels: There were many Gnostic gospels (Gospels of Judas, Philip, Mary, Thomas, etc.) that revealed spiritual truth and were seen as superior to the four canonical Christian Gospels. The discovery of the Gnostic writings of the Nag Hammadi library⁴ in Egypt in 1945, which contained forty new Gnostic documents from the late fourth century, led to a revival of Gnosticism within both scholarly and popular circles in the modern world.

An Orthodox Christian Response
Having gained a brief understanding of the bare convictions of ancient Gnosticism, let’s consider a brief historic Christian response to this challenging alternative belief system.⁵ Some of these points were made by the second-century church father Irenaeus, who studied various Gnostic teachers and offered a biblical and theological critique in his work Against Heresies.⁶

A Public Universal Community: Historic Christianity isn’t made up of spiritual elites with secret knowledge. Rather, the public Christian message is open to all people who are sinners by nature and need God’s gracious gift of salvation. The church is a public community of people living throughout the world (it’s catholic, meaning universal or whole).

Cosmos: God created the universe good and there is no moral duality between matter and spirit. Human bodies, though affected by sin, are nevertheless real and good and the essence of a person is found in the unity of body and soul.

God: There is only one true God. The Triune God is one in essence but three in personhood. God has revealed himself in the created order, the human conscience, in the history of Israel, and in the historic material-physical incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Human Beings: Humanity is uniquely made in the image of God and possesses inherent dignity and moral worth. Yet, human beings are fallen and they need redemption.

Salvation: Salvation is found by believing that Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection saves a person from their sins.

Christ: Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior, the God-man, who suffered for the sins of humanity and was raised in immortal, incorruptible flesh. His resurrection assures believers of their own resurrection to eternal life.

Gospels: The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written by apostles or close associates of apostles. But orthodox Christianity rejected the Gnostic gospels for four basic reasons:⁷

(1) They couldn’t be connected to the apostles.

(2) They didn’t emerge from the apostolic era.

(3) They contradicted apostolic doctrine (denying creation and the Incarnation).

(4) They didn’t gain church acceptance (because of reasons 1–3).

Gnosticism Today
Gnostic-like ideas can be found in today’s religions and culture.⁸ In this sense, Gnosticism is a heresy that seemingly will never die. Maybe its enduring appeal is that it offers a dualistic explanation for good and evil.

Takeaway
Gnosticism is a heresy that, if adopted, would change the very nature of Christianity. If matter is evil then such doctrines as creation, incarnation, atonement, and resurrection would be nullified.

Reflections: Your Turn 
An extremely popular movie series reflects Gnostic-like ideas. Anything come to mind?

Resources

• For a general introduction to Gnosticism, see Gnosticism.

• For a Christian summation of Gnosticism, see Theopedia’s article on Gnosticism.

• For a Christian evaluation of ancient Gnosticism and its leaders, see Justin S. Holcolmb, Know the Heretics.

Endnotes

1. See Ryan Reeves’s YouTube video, “Gnosticism and the Early Church.”

2. My article is influenced by D. Jeffrey Bingham’s online article, “Gnosticism Unmasked,” Christianity Today (2007), accessed February 3, 2023.

3. See Justin S. Holcolmb, Know the Heretics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 33.

4. See the Nag Hammadi library.

5. Bingham, “Gnosticism Unmasked.”

6. See an introduction to Irenaeus, which includes a brief summary of his response to Gnosticism, in Kenneth Richard Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction (Covina, CA: RTB Press), chapter 1. Against Heresies is available online.

7. See Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis’s critique of the Gnostic Gospels in “The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic?“, Christian Research Journal online, updated September 23, 2022.

8. For both popular and scholarly presentations and defenses of Gnostic ideas, see Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), and Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage, 1989). For religions connected to Gnosticism, see List of Gnostic sects.

The post Heresies Never Die: Gnosticism appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

In this article I focus on one application where AI can be used for either good or evil—drug discovery. I will discuss the groundbreaking success of DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which got the AI drug discovery ball rolling, the potential dark side of AI for drug discovery, and how we might address the ethical dilemma presented to us by AI drug discovery technologies.

Developing a drug that is safe and effective currently takes 11–16 years and it costs 1–2 billion dollars,¹ but AI promises to drastically reduce both the time and cost of making lifesaving drugs. One reason AI holds such promise in drug discovery is that it can help automate the process of enumerating the 10⁶⁰(that staggering number is a 1 followed by 60 zeros) small molecule compounds that exist, only a tiny fraction of which have been explored to understand their medicinal properties. Such astounding processing ability comes with a caveat.

In a recent article published in Nature,² researchers found that AI models used to avoid toxic chemical compounds when creating drugs can, with minimal changes, also be used to produce toxic compounds. In other words, AI models intended to make drugs safe could, in theory, be used to create chemical weapons.

How AlphaFold Changed Drug Discovery
Accurate prediction of protein structures is crucial for understanding how proteins function, which in turn can help scientists design new drugs, understand the underlying causes of diseases, and develop treatments for a wide range of conditions. In 1994, scientists interested in protein folding formed CASP (Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction), a competition to predict the structure of unreleased proteins. AlphaFold is a machine learning system developed by DeepMind that is designed to predict the three-dimensional structure of proteins. AlphaFold shocked the world in 2018 and 2020 by significantly outperforming any other known method of identifying protein structure in the CASP competition.³

AlphaFold’s ability to accurately predict protein structures is particularly important for drug discovery because many drugs are designed to target specific proteins in the body. By accurately predicting the structure of these proteins, scientists can more easily design drugs that will bind to and inhibit the function of the target protein, which can be an effective way to treat a variety of diseases. In addition, AlphaFold’s ability to accurately predict the structure of proteins that are difficult to study experimentally can help scientists to better understand the underlying causes of diseases and identify new therapeutic targets.

The head of data science at The Institute of Cancer Research, Professor Bissan Al-Lazikani, who was part of the team that won CASP in 2000, said “If we can effectively harness DeepMind’s technology, we will gain a much better understanding of all the proteins and mutations that cause cancers. It will help us to accurately design and discover better, safer drugs that could successfully treat or cure countless people.”⁴

The Dark Side of AI for Drug Discovery
Cell biologist Fabio Urbina worked for Collaborations Pharmaceuticals, a company that focuses on treating rare infectious diseases and using AI for drug discovery and toxicology assessment. When he received an invitation from The Spiez Laboratory (the Swiss institute for protection against nuclear, biological, and chemical threats and dangers) to speak at their 2021 “convergence” conference on how AI technologies for drug discovery could be abused, the idea of misusing these technologies had never occurred to him. But as Dr. Urbina thought more about it, he quickly realized that these technologies could easily be modified to harm rather than help.

Urbina’s company had an AI-based molecule generator called MegaSyn that normally penalized toxicity and awarded bioactivity. But by awarding toxicity instead of penalizing it, Urbina was able to use MegaSyn to generate 40,000 potentially deadly molecules, some of which were known chemical warfare agents. In Urbina’s words,

“Our toxicity models were originally created for use in avoiding toxicity, enabling us to better virtually screen molecules (for pharmaceutical and consumer product applications) before ultimately confirming their toxicity through in vitro testing. The inverse, however, has always been true: the better we can predict toxicity, the better we can steer our generative model to design new molecules in a region of chemical space populated by predominantly lethal molecules.”⁵

Preventing the Abuse of AI
Urbina suggests several safety measures to prevent the abuse of drug discovery AI technologies and he points specifically to the Hague Ethical Guidelines⁶ and safety measures put in place by AI chatbot technologies such as GPT (see this article for an explanation and examination of the ethical implications of AI-powered chatbots such as Google’s LaMBDA). His suggestions include the following:

1. Restrict access to the software code and data used to create these algorithms by providing limited API access to technologies like MegaSyn. By limiting who can use these technologies and restricting access to the data/knowledge necessary to create them in the first place, we can limit misuse.
2. Monitor usage of these technologies to detect efforts to abuse them.
3. Set up a government hotline to report the potential abuse of these technologies to harm humans.
4. Implement quality ethical training for students at universities who are learning to harness these technologies.

Viking Longships, AI, and the Human Heart
Which is more frightening—a Scandinavian longship or an AI drug discovery model? It depends. If the longship is transporting a raging Viking horde bent on destroying a peaceful village, that is quite scary. On the other hand, if the AI drug discovery model is used to create a deadly neurotoxin, that’s also terrifying. Yet either technology could also be used for much less nefarious purposes, such as transporting goods down the coast to trade or creating lifesaving cancer treatment drugs. Whether a technology is used for good or evil is ultimately up to the humans wielding it.

Artificial intelligence, like the Internet or smart phones, will significantly alter the way that humans work, learn, and interact. Widespread adoption will bring unintended consequences and the need to think ethically and creatively about how to integrate and adapt AI in everyday life to prevent injustice and harm to humans. And there may be specific uses for AI that would be better left untouched because of the inevitability of misuse.

But the root of the problem is not artificial intelligence—it’s the human heart. It’s humans who misuse technology to harm, extort, and profit from other humans. As Christians, we are called to be salt to the world by loving both God and our fellow humans, so let us lead the way by creating technology that honors the people who use it and supporting technologies that benefit society as a whole. Let us use AI for good and protect the powerless from those who would abuse or extort them through technology.

Endnotes  

1. Ekaterina Pesheva, “Can AI Transform the Way We Discover New Drugs?” Harvard Medical School, November 17, 2022, https://hms.harvard.edu/news/can-ai-transform-way-we-discover-new-drugs.
2. Fabio Urbina et al., “Dual Use of Artificial-Intelligence-Powered Drug Discovery,” Nature Machine Intelligence 4 ( March 7, 2022): 189–91, doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00465-9.
3. See the figure in Andrea Downing Peck, “Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold Wins CASP14 Competition, Helps Solve Mystery of Protein Folding in a Discovery That Might Be Used in New Medical Laboratory Tests,” DARK Daily, December 18, 2020; see also John Jumper et al., “Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold,” Nature 596 (August 26, 2021): 583–89, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.
4. Paul Workman, “Reflecting on DeepMind’s AlphaFold Artificial Intelligence Success—What’s the Real Significance for Protein Folding Research and Drug Discovery?” The Institute of Cancer Research, August 13, 2021, https://bit.ly/3hGIinf.
5. F. Urbina et al., “Dual Use of Artificial-Intelligence.”
6. The Hague Ethical Guidelines, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, accessed January 27, 2023, https://www.opcw.org/hague-ethical-guidelines.

The post AI Promises to Help Make Lifesaving Drugs, but This Superpower Has a Dark Side appeared first on Reasons to Believe.