Hebrew indentured servitude was fundamentally different from the chattel slavery practiced in modern history. In many biblical cases, becoming a “slave” was more like entering a work contract to pay off debt—though we certainly can’t sanitize all biblical references this way.

Beyond physical bondage, Scripture repeatedly uses slavery as a metaphor for spiritual conditions. We’re all either “slaves to sin” or “slaves to righteousness” in Paul’s language (Romans 6:16–20). Jesus himself came to set captives free—not just from physical chains, but from the spiritual bondage that affects us all.

We know this raises questions. Does God really tolerate ownership of human beings? Why didn’t Jesus explicitly condemn slavery? How should Christians respond to these difficult texts? In this article, we’ll tackle these questions head-on, examining what the Bible actually says about slavery and what it means for us today.

Does God Endorse Slavery?

In the Old Testament a good argument can be made that the eighth commandment (“Do not steal”) encompasses the action of stealing another human being and forcing them into slavery. Biblical commentators, both Jewish and Christian, have argued that the commandment against stealing has always been understood to mean that we are not allowed to steal another human being. That is what we call “kidnapping.” On this reasonable interpretation of the eighth commandment, the Bible could never be used to justify the most common form of slavery, which is the kidnapping of human beings and selling them into slavery.

When examining the New Testament on slavery, we’re confronted with what seems like an awkward silence from Christ and the apostles regarding the slave society where they lived. Far from explicitly condemning slavery, Paul and Peter actually instructed slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5–8; Colossians 3:22–25; 1 Timothy 6:1; 1 Peter 2:18–21). Paul even suggested that a runaway slave, Onesimus, voluntarily return to his master, Philemon (Philemon 10–16).

Nowhere did the apostles directly tell Christians to free their slaves, though Paul did exhort masters to treat their slaves with kindness and consideration (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). At first glance, it appears the institution of slavery itself wasn’t condemned—only its abuses.

Does the Bible Support Slavery?

The apostles’ approach is best understood through the lens of first-century Roman society, where slavery functioned very differently than the horrific slavery of more recent centuries.

By the time of the New Testament, sweeping humanitarian reforms had already been introduced into the Roman world. These changes had led to significantly improved treatment of slaves compared to earlier eras. While this doesn’t make slavery right, it helps explain why the apostles focused on transforming the individual and their relationships rather than overthrowing social systems.

People became slaves in the Greco-Roman world through various means. Most were either inherited or purchased. The latter were usually prisoners of war or individuals illegally captured and sold by pirates to slave traders. Some slave traders engaged in breeding and selling slaves, though this was less common than in earlier centuries. In early Rome, indebtedness could lead to a form of bondage known as nexum, but this was abolished by law in the fourth century BC (326 or 313 BC, depending on the source).

The conditions that slaves faced in the first-century Roman Empire were remarkably different from slavery associated with Islam’s expansion, American history, and the modern world. Many Roman slaves were highly educated and served as doctors, teachers, accountants, and household managers. Some eventually purchased their freedom and became Roman citizens with full rights.

This historical context doesn’t justify slavery, but it helps explain why the biblical writers approached it as they did. Rather than advocating violent revolution, the apostles planted seeds of equality and dignity that would eventually undermine the entire institution. Christianity’s radical message that there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28) established principles that would eventually lead to abolition.

The Bible on Slavery

Slaves in the Bible

When we examine slaves in the Bible, we see a complex picture spanning thousands of years of history. Several key biblical figures experienced slavery firsthand. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, yet rose to become second-in-command in Egypt. Moses led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in the defining liberation story of the Old Testament. Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, experienced the harsh realities of being owned by another human. And in the New Testament, Onesimus, a runaway slave, became the subject of Paul’s letter to Philemon.

These stories don’t glorify slavery but rather show God working through and often despite imperfect human institutions to accomplish his purposes. The overarching biblical narrative actually points toward liberation and freedom, not bondage.

Slavery in the Bible

Slavery in the Bible must be understood within the broader meta-narrative of Scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, we see God consistently working to free people from various forms of bondage. The Exodus story—God liberating his people from slavery in Egypt—becomes the central paradigm for understanding God’s heart. Later, the prophets repeatedly speak of God’s concern for the oppressed and exploited.

The Bible often uses slavery as a metaphor for humanity’s condition apart from God. We’re described as ‘slaves to sin’ (Romans 6:16–20) and in need of liberation—and Scripture uses the language of purchase to describe what God has done about it. In Revelation 5:9, the redeemed sing to Christ: ‘You were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.’ Jesus himself declared that he came ‘to proclaim freedom for the prisoners’ and ‘to set the oppressed free’ (Luke 4:18). Paul frequently refers to himself as a ‘slave’ or ‘bondservant’ of Christ, deliberately choosing this language to illustrate complete devotion to his Master.

This spiritual language around slavery reveals something profound: while God accommodated disordered and sinful human institutions in Scripture, he was simultaneously subverting them through his greater redemptive plan. The trajectory of Scripture moves consistently toward the freedom and dignity of all people.

Slavery in the Old Testament

Slavery in the Old Testament reflects both the cultural realities of ancient Near Eastern societies and God’s temporary accommodations to fallen human systems. The Mosaic law didn’t create slavery but regulated an already existing institution in ways that were actually progressive for that historical context.

Unlike surrounding nations, Israel’s laws provided significant protections for slaves. Hebrew slaves could only serve for six years before being released in the seventh year (Exodus 21:2). They were to be sent away with generous provisions (Deuteronomy 15:12–15). Permanent slavery was only permitted by mutual consent (Exodus 21:5–6).

The law also protected slaves from physical abuse. If a master injured a slave—even causing the loss of a tooth—the slave was to be freed (Exodus 21:26–27). Killing a slave carried serious consequences (Exodus 21:20–21), and kidnapping people to sell them as slaves was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

Foreign slaves in Israel had fewer protections than Hebrew slaves, reflecting the tribal nature of ancient societies. They could be held permanently and passed to children as inherited property (Leviticus 25:44–46). Yet even they were guaranteed rights unknown in other ancient cultures. They received weekly rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10), could participate in religious festivals, and could become part of the community through circumcision.

While these regulations fell short of outright abolition, they represented significant humanitarian advances over other ancient law codes. The biblical law’s provisions pointed toward the dignity of all humans as being created in God’s image, even when cultural practices failed to reflect this truth fully.

The tension is clear: God regulated an institution he ultimately intended to abolish. We see this pattern elsewhere in Scripture, where God works within fallen human systems while planting the seeds for their eventual transformation. Just as divorce was permitted “because of hardness of heart” while not representing God’s ideal (Matthew 19:8), slavery was regulated but not endorsed as part of God’s perfect design.

What Does Jesus Say About Slavery?

Many people wonder, “What does Jesus say about slavery?” At first glance, Jesus’s apparent silence on slavery might seem troubling. He never explicitly condemned the institution in the Gospels. However, looking deeper reveals how Jesus laid the groundwork for slavery’s eventual abolition.

Jesus’s mission transcended specific political and social reforms. He came not as the political revolutionary many expected, but as the Messiah who would “save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). His focus was establishing God’s kingdom—a reality that would transform society from the inside out rather than through external political revolution.

Yet Jesus’s teaching thoroughly undermined the foundations of slavery. His commandments to love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37–40) established an ethical framework incompatible with human bondage. His teaching that all people have equal worth before God and his constant elevation of the marginalized directly challenged systems like slavery.

When Jesus proclaimed his mission as bringing “good news to the poor” and “freedom for the prisoners” (Luke 4:18–19), he was announcing a new kingdom reality that would ultimately topple systems of oppression. While he may not have presented a specific policy against slavery, he demonstrated a way of love fundamentally at odds with treating humans as property.

Jesus also honored people that society considered expendable. He touched lepers, spoke with Samaritan women, and criticized those who burdened others with oppressive rules. In his kingdom, “the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16). These radical reversals of status anticipated a world where hierarchies based on power and privilege would be overturned.

Jesus may have recognized that the resources for abolishing slavery were already present in Hebrew Scripture. The Genesis declaration that all humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), the Exodus narrative of God liberating slaves, and the prophetic tradition of speaking against exploitation provided theological foundations for opposing slavery. Jesus built upon these foundations rather than starting from scratch.

By emphasizing human dignity, equality before God, and selfless love, Jesus planted seeds that would eventually bloom into the abolition of slavery. His revolution began not with political overthrow but with transformed hearts—a slower but ultimately more thorough approach to changing human institutions.

Slavery in the New Testament

Slavery in the New Testament presents one of Scripture’s most challenging interpretive issues. The apostles instructed slaves to obey their masters and didn’t explicitly call for slavery’s abolition. How do we understand this in light of the gospel’s message of liberty?

First, we must understand the socioeconomic realities of the time. From New Testament statistics, historians conclude that the average free person often lived no better than slaves. In times of economic hardship, slaves—not free people—were guaranteed basic necessities for themselves and their families. This doesn’t justify slavery but helps explain why immediate emancipation wasn’t always the focus. That said, the new institution of Jesus’s church begins the next chapter in manifesting God’s kingdom here on earth where there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28).

The New Testament writers took a different approach to social transformation. Rather than advocating revolution that might have led to violent suppression of the early church (even more than the persecution the church actually experienced), they planted theological and moral principles that would eventually undermine slavery’s foundations.

Paul’s letter to Philemon illustrates this approach. When returning the runaway slave Onesimus to his master, Paul urged Philemon to receive him “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (Philemon 1:16). Without directly challenging Philemon’s legal right to own Onesimus, Paul subverted the entire master-slave relationship by emphasizing their equality in Christ.

Similarly, in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3–4, Paul addressed both slaves and masters. While instructing slaves to serve well, he commanded masters to treat slaves justly, “you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1). This revolutionary concept of accountability to God for how one treated slaves had no parallel in Roman society.

The early church modeled this new relationship. Slaves served as church leaders alongside free people. In Christ, there was “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28)—a radical declaration of spiritual equality that would eventually transform social structures. Early Christian communities pooled resources to purchase slaves’ freedom when possible.

Perhaps most significantly, the New Testament reframes humanity’s fundamental identity. All people—regardless of social status—bear God’s image equally. All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. All are offered salvation through Christ alone. This theological foundation eventually made human bondage untenable among consistent Christians.

Rather than demanding immediate social upheaval that might have destroyed the emerging church, the New Testament writers planted seeds of dignity, equality, and love that would eventually grow to demolish slavery’s foundations. This patient but persistent approach proved effective over centuries as Christian principles gradually transformed people’s understanding of human rights.

The Promise of Life Free From Slavery

Throughout Scripture, we see God progressively moving humanity toward greater freedom and a recognition of its dignity. The ultimate fulfillment of this trajectory comes through salvation in Jesus and the future, fully revealed kingdom of God.

When Jesus announced his ministry by reading from Isaiah’s scroll, he proclaimed “freedom for the prisoners” and “to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18). This wasn’t just metaphorical language. Jesus came to liberate humanity from all forms of bondage—spiritual, emotional, and physical.

The apostle Paul describes our spiritual condition apart from Christ as slavery to sin (Romans 6:6). We’re unable to free ourselves from destructive patterns and the power of death. But through Christ’s sacrifice, “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness” (Romans 6:18). This spiritual liberation is the foundation for all other forms of freedom.

This doesn’t mean Christians merely spiritualize oppression while ignoring physical suffering. Rather, the gospel transforms how we view both spiritual and physical realities. The same Jesus who forgives sins also healed bodies. The same gospel that promises eternal life also creates communities where human dignity flourishes.

The early church demonstrated this transformed reality. Though living in a slave society, Christians created communities where status distinctions were minimized. Slaves could serve as church elders. Masters and slaves shared communion as equals. Christians pooled resources to purchase freedom for enslaved brothers and sisters when possible.

The full realization of freedom awaits Christ’s return. In Revelation’s vision of the new heaven and earth, all tears are wiped away, and all forms of oppression cease. This coming reality shapes how Christians live now—as people called to embody kingdom values even while living in imperfect societies.

FAQ – Quick Answers

Why Did God Allow Slavery?

This question touches on the broader issue of why God permits any evil. Just as God allows humans the freedom to commit various sins, he permitted the development of slavery while clearly indicating it wasn’t his ideal design for human relationships.

If God allows sin, he likely must allow degrees of sin. Chattel slavery represents an especially heinous violation of human dignity, but God may have morally justifiable reasons for temporarily permitting such evils.

Rather than immediately abolishing deeply entrenched social institutions, God often works gradually through people in history. He regulated slavery in ways that improved conditions while planting theological principles that would eventually lead to abolition. God’s revelation is progressive (i.e., The Hebrew or Old Testament and New Testament)—unfolding over time as humanity develops the capacity to receive it and act on it.

The biblical trajectory clearly moves toward freedom and human dignity. From the Exodus narrative of liberation to Jesus’s announcement of freedom for captives to Paul’s declaration that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free,” Scripture points toward a world without illicit bondage and replaced with a new “bondage” to Christ as “slaves to righteousness” (Romans 6:18, 22).

God’s permission of temporary evil doesn’t imply his approval. He works within human history to gradually transform hearts and societies, bringing them into alignment with his perfect will.

Bible Verses About Slavery

Bible verses about slavery appear throughout Scripture, reflecting both ancient cultural practices and God’s progressive revelation. Here are key passages:

The Old Testament legislation regarding slavery is recorded primarily in Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, and Deuteronomy 15. These passages regulated an existing institution rather than creating it. They provided significant protections for slaves that were unprecedented in the ancient world.

In Exodus 21:2–11, Hebrew slaves were to be released after six years of service. If they entered slavery married, their spouse went free with them. Masters who provided wives to their slaves could retain the wife and children, though the slave could choose to remain permanently with his family.

Leviticus 25:39–55 distinguishes between Hebrew servants and foreign slaves. Fellow Israelites were to be treated as hired workers rather than slaves and released in the “Year of Jubilee.” Foreign slaves could be acquired from surrounding nations and held permanently.

Deuteronomy 15:12–18 adds that Hebrew servants were to be released after six years with generous provisions. This prevented them from falling back immediately into debt slavery.

Other significant passages include Exodus 21:20–21 and 26–27, which provided consequences for masters who injured their slaves. Exodus 21:16 made kidnapping people for slavery a capital offense.

In the New Testament, passages like Ephesians 6:5–9, Colossians 3:22–4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, and 1 Peter 2:18–21 instruct slaves to serve well and masters to treat slaves justly. Philemon 10–21 shows Paul appealing to a slave owner to receive his runaway slave as a brother in Christ.

Galatians 3:28 declares that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free,” establishing spiritual equality that would eventually transform social structures. 1 Corinthians 7:21–23 advises slaves to gain their freedom if possible while reminding all believers they were “bought at a price” by Christ.

Bible Verses About Slaves

When examining Bible verses about slaves, we see a nuanced picture that reflects both ancient cultural practices and God’s concern for human dignity. Biblical regulations regarding slaves were actually progressive for their time, though they fell short of the full abolition that would eventually emerge from Christian principles.

Slavery was widespread in the ancient Near East during Old Testament times. In Israel, however, what English Bibles often translate as ‘slavery’ looked very different from what that word brings to mind. As philosopher Paul Copan explains, Hebrew servanthood was closer to indentured service—a temporary, typically voluntary arrangement entered into because of poverty or debt, not by force. Servants were embedded within the household of the master and his family, and the law required their release every seventh year with debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35–43). Forced enslavement of fellow Israelites was punishable by death. In Copan’s words, ‘Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.’

The Old Testament contains numerous references to slaves throughout its narratives and laws. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all owned slaves, reflecting common practice in their era. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, eventually rising to prominence in Egypt. The Exodus narrative centers on God liberating the Israelites from slavery in Egypt—becoming the paradigmatic story of divine liberation.

Beyond narratives, biblical law regulated slavery while providing protections unknown in contemporary societies. Hebrew slaves served limited terms, received provisions upon release, and had legal protections against abuse. Even foreign slaves received weekly rest on the Sabbath and could join the religious community through circumcision.

In the New Testament, Jesus used slavery as a metaphor in many parables but never directly condemned the institution. Instead, he established principles of love and human dignity that would eventually undermine slavery’s foundations. Paul’s letters addressed both slaves and masters, calling for transformed relationships while working within existing social structures.

Early Christians lived in a Roman Empire where approximately one-third of the population were slaves. The church created communities where slaves and free people worshipped together as equals—a radical concept in that society.

These Bible verses about slaves reflect God’s accommodation to human sinfulness in specific historical contexts while simultaneously planting seeds that would eventually grow into full recognition of human equality and dignity. The Bible’s approach was not immediate revolution but gradual transformation through changed hearts and minds.

The post The Bible and Slavery appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

It’s a question humanity’s asked for centuries and it continues to cause debates today. We live in a world that often embraces the phrase, “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” This mindset suggests morality is wholly flexible, based on personal experiences or cultural differences. But is this really the case?

Moral absolutes are universal, unchanging truths about what is right and what is wrong. They aren’t dependent on personal preferences, shifting trends, or societal traditions. Instead, they claim that some things are always right—or always wrong—no matter the time, place, or context. This belief system, often called moral absolutism (or objective morality), is distinguished from the idea that morality is subjective or relative to a person’s beliefs, opinions, desires, or emotions.

Understanding whether morality is absolute or open to interpretation isn’t just a philosophical exercise—it’s something that impacts how we make decisions, view justice, and build relationships. Are moral absolutes essential anchors for living a meaningful life, or are they outdated ideas in a constantly evolving world?

That’s the question we’ll explore. Stay with us as we unpack why absolute morality matters and the role it plays in shaping a better, more just world.

What Is Moral Absolutism?

Moral absolutism is the idea that some moral truths are universal, unchanging, and apply to everyone—no matter the time, culture, or personal opinion. These truths aren’t made up by people or societies. Instead, they’re seen as discovered realities, rooted in something greater than humanity itself, like God’s nature and goodwill. Moral absolutes include prohibitions against actions like murder, theft, abuse, and adultery.

This doesn’t mean everyone is held to the same standard in every situation, but rather a moral principle applies when the relevant context exists. For example, “parents should feed their children” is absolute, but is binding only when someone becomes a parent.

True Freedom Through Universal Moral Principles

Moral absolutism is not about being harsh, controlling, or intolerant. It’s about anchoring justice, dignity, and truth in something solid that doesn’t shift with culture or opinion. Critics may see absolutes as restrictive, but in reality, they reflect God’s care for our well-being.

Just like traffic laws are designed not to limit our freedom but to keep us and others safe, God’s moral standards are there to guide us toward what is genuinely good and life-giving.

Far from taking away freedom, these absolutes actually point us to real freedom. The freedom to pursue what is good, beautiful, and true. Moral freedom is the power and skill to do what a person ought to do.

When we ignore this kind of morality, we aren’t gaining freedom, but falling into patterns that ultimately harm ourselves and others, even enslave us to addiction. By following what is right, we discover real purpose, direction, and peace grounded on God’s unchanging character rather than ever-changing human opinion or taste.

What Is Moral Relativism?

Moral relativism is the belief that morality is subjective and changes with culture, circumstance, or individual preference. What’s right for one person might not be right for another, and no one has the authority to say otherwise. It’s often summed up as “your truth versus my truth.” While this outlook may appear tolerant, it quickly falls apart when faced with real injustices.

If morality is only about perspective, then there’s no firm ground to say that actions like genocide, human trafficking, or child abuse are truly wrong—only that some people or cultures disapprove or condemn it. Without moral objective values and duties, we lose the ability to call anything genuinely evil, wrong, or unjust, which is why objective moral standards are essential for real justice and human dignity.

Absolutism vs. Relativism

Morality Is Absolute

As Christians, we believe that absolute moral values and duties are not human inventions but divine truths grounded in and revealed by God.

Where Did Morality Come From?

Have you ever noticed how everyone, regardless of background or belief, has a sense of fairness or justice? Certain actions are always seen as wrong. This isn’t random but points to something deeper—that we are moral beings made by a moral Creator.

According to Genesis 1:27, we are made in the image of God. This means our sense of right and wrong is embedded in us as a reflection of God’s moral character. As the apostle Paul observes in Romans 2:15, “The requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

How do we explain moral conscience, moral consciousness and awareness if it isn’t grounded in a Creator? Without God, morality would shift with people’s opinions and circumstances. But because we are made by a just and merciful God, we can have confidence that he can restore our moral compass to work as he intended.

What Are Universal Moral Principles in the Bible?

The Bible teaches that moral absolutes come from God’s unchanging character, not ethereal abstract principles. Scriptures like Exodus 20 (the Ten Commandments) and Micah 6:8 provide timeless standards for life and flourishing alongside justice and dignity.

Jesus affirmed this when he said he didn’t come to abolish the moral law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17–19). Jesus grew our understanding of God’s standards and the value of grace. Even more, God empowers us to live morally upright lives through the Holy Spirit, so we’re not trying to follow these standards only by our own moral strength.

Unlike cultural norms that change, biblical morality is anchored in God, who is unchanging. Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Similarly, Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 press that God does not change. Because he is constant, so are his moral standards.

God’s commands express his goodness and love—guiding us away from harm and toward true freedom, peace, and a life of purpose aligned with his perfect design for us.

Can Science or Culture Define Morality?

Science is a powerful tool for understanding the created, natural world. It helps us see how things work, including human behavior. For example, science can explain how the brain reacts when someone lies or why people act certain ways when in groups.

But while science can describe what is, it can’t tell us what we ought to do. Science describes, but does not prescribe morality. Knowing how something happens doesn’t answer whether it’s morally right or wrong. Questions of morality go beyond data and experiments. They rest on deeper philosophical and theological truths about right and wrong that science alone can’t determine.

Morality Beyond Culture

Culture shapes our customs, traditions, and social norms. Different societies may express morality in unique ways. Yet, when we look closer, we find that certain moral principles, like murder or exploiting the innocent, are universal across cultures and generations.

These constants point to the reality of moral absolutes. C. S. Lewis made a helpful distinction between moral laws (the changing rules of societies) and the Moral law (the deeper sense of right and wrong that’s true for everyone). Our moral conscience reflects our commitment to moral laws yet our moral consciousness reveals our deep awareness of the Moral law.

Why Absolute Morality Matters

How do we determine what’s truly right or wrong? Without absolute morality, the foundation for justice, human dignity, and accountability begins to crumble. If morality becomes purely subjective (and relative) it changes with personal opinions and cultural trends, leaving all of us and our society on shaky, shifting ground.

The Foundation for Flourishing

Moral absolutes are the bedrock for laws, functional communities, and human flourishing. They give the framework for defining what is just and unjust to preserve the dignity of every person. Without universal moral truths, societies risk descending into chaos, where power and popularity decide what’s acceptable, rather than fairness and truth.

Imagine a world without objective morality. Would doing what’s right depend solely on majority approval or personal choice? History shows that civilizations thrive when they’re built on shared understandings of justice, accountability, and moral responsibility. The biblical book of Judges depicts the harsh reality of a society that chooses to forget, ignore, and rebel against God’s good values and duties.

A Compass in a Shifting World

We live in a rapidly changing world where opinions and cultural norms evolve at lightning speed. This can leave people feeling morally confused, lost, or unsure. Moral absolutes offer us a personal compass—a reliable waypoint that doesn’t move with the trend—to ground us in unchanging truths so we can live confidently knowing that true right and wrong are not easily dismissed.

More Than Morals: A Relationship with God

Morality is important, but Christianity offers something much greater than a set of rules. It offers a relationship with the God who is both just and merciful. This isn’t about following laws for the sake of morality itself. It’s about knowing the Creator and living in harmony with him, others, and ourselves.

Jesus Upholds Truth and Extends Grace

Jesus personifies moral truth. He upholds the highest standards while also providing grace for those who fall short—which is every single one of us. Grace is receiving what we don’t deserve, like forgiveness and love. Mercy, on the other hand, is not getting what we deserve, like judgment and its consequences. Through Jesus, we experience both.

This grace and mercy transform how we live. Instead of toiling to keep moral laws on our own and failing to follow them, we’re empowered by God’s Spirit to align with his goodness. The Holy Spirit equips us with wisdom, strength, and compassion, enabling us to do what is good and to encourage others to do the same.

Real Hope Lies in Redemption

True hope isn’t found in merely knowing right from wrong. It’s found in knowing who made us and redeems us. God’s redemptive love through Jesus Christ reminds us we’re not alone in our struggles. He offers the power to grow, change, and become the person he created us to be.

When we have a relationship with God, we find purpose bigger than ourselves. God calls us to show his goodness, share his truth, and help bring others into a life built on his love and redemption. Christianity is more than just morality—it’s about finding meaning, hope, and a future with our good, just, and loving Maker.

The post Moral Absolutes: Are They Outdated or Essential? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For example, the same action may be morally acceptable in one society but morally wrong in another. Different cultures around the world have different moral values, and ethical relativism says that each culture’s moral code is right for that culture. Moral relativism says both views can be “right” at the same time.

You might also hear people talk about ethical relativism. This is closely related to moral relativism—both refer to the idea that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and cultures. While “ethical relativism” is generally used in academic settings, the term is interchangeable with “moral relativism.”

Why This Matters to You

This way of thinking frequently shows up in daily conversations, the media, movies and TV shows, books, and all over the internet. You’ve probably heard phrases like “live your truth” or “that might be wrong for you, but it’s right for me.” These popular sayings, or phrases like these, reflect a moral relativism worldview that’s becoming more and more common in our culture.

But here’s the thing—as Christians, we believe something very different, the opposite in fact. We believe in moral absolutes that come from God’s unchanging character that are exclusively rooted in him.

What Is Moral Relativism?

Let’s break down moral relativism in the simplest terms possible.

Moral Relativism in Simple Terms

Moral relativism means there are no universal rules for what’s morally right or wrong. Instead, what’s considered right or wrong is relative—it changes depending on cultural beliefs, social context, or (in some versions) personal preferences. According to moral relativism, no single moral code applies to all people everywhere.

Something that’s considered wrong by one group of people might be perfectly fine in another. Moral relativism says both views can be correct at the same time as there’s no single standard that everyone must follow.

For example, in some cultures, physical subjugation of a man’s wife is considered normal and acceptable. In others, it is domestic violence, punishable by law. Ethical relativism would say both approaches are equally valid because each culture decides what works for them.

This way of thinking puts individuals or societies in the driver’s seat when it comes to determining right and wrong.

The Opposite View: Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism takes a completely different approach. It says there are universal rules about what’s morally right and wrong that never change, no matter where you live or what people around you believe—they are objective, meaning they do not depend on human opinion.

As Christians, we hold to absolute moral beliefs. We believe God’s truth about right and wrong applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

Take the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3–17. God didn’t ask for our opinions about whether murder or theft is wrong. He didn’t say, “Well, maybe with some people these things are okay.” He gave clear, unchanging standards that apply universally.

Why This Difference Matters

Moral relativism says, “People or cultures decide what’s morally right for themselves.”

Moral absolutism says, “God has already decided what’s morally right for everyone.”

The difference isn’t just a philosophical debate. It affects how we make decisions, treat other people, and understand our relationship with God. When we believe in moral absolutism, we have a solid foundation for making tough choices and standing up for what’s truly right.

Human opinions can change and vary with the wind. But God’s character, and his standards, remain the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Moral Relativism as a Worldview

Moral relativism isn’t just an ideology. It shows up in everyday conversations and decisions more than you might think. Let’s look at some examples of moral relativism and see how they play out in real life through some common expressions that people often use to justify their choices. You’ve probably heard the following phrases before—maybe you’ve even used them yourself.

“Live Your Truth”

This popular phrase sounds empowering and authentic. But when you dig deeper, it’s pure moral relativism in action.

Here’s what it looks like. A person decides to pursue an extramarital affair because they believe authenticity means following their internal feelings. Or someone chooses to transition genders, arguing that being true to themselves matters more than external consequences or biblical standards.

The problem? “Living your truth” makes your internal feelings the ultimate guide for right and wrong—it makes you the final authority on morality.

But what happens when your truth conflicts with someone else’s truth? Or when your truth leads to real harm? Who really is the final authority?

“That Might Be Wrong for You, But It’s Right for Me”

This is also moral relativism at its center. It sounds tolerant and respectful, but it actually removes any real standard for right and wrong.

Imagine a student cheating on a test and saying, “You might think it’s wrong, but I didn’t really need that class and I had to pass.” Or someone lies to avoid consequences, claiming, “As long as no one gets hurt, it’s not really wrong.”

Instead of measuring actions against a fixed moral standard, decisions are based on feelings, convenience, or social approval. With this example, personal preference becomes the measuring stick for morality.

“As Long as It Makes You Happy”

Happiness has become one of the greatest goals in our culture. And while there’s nothing wrong with being happy, making it your moral compass can lead to serious problems.

For example, an unmarried couple cohabitates because “it feels right” and “we’re happy together”—treating personal feelings as more important than God’s design for sex and marriage. Or an employee pads the expense report at work to fund a personal luxury vacation–justifying theft by saying the company is rich and the vacation is a “deserved treat.”

This approach treats temporary feelings as more important than God’s design for human flourishing or standards for true worth, joy, or fulfillment. Unlike fleeting feelings, God’s morals are the path to genuine happiness, human dignity, and the fullness of life he intends for us.

“Don’t Judge Me”

This phrase often comes up when someone feels challenged about their behavior. It’s usually not about avoiding judgment, but about avoiding accountability.

When a Christian friend lovingly challenges harmful behavior, the response is often, “You’re not supposed to judge.” The person interprets accountability, discernment, or prudent moral consideration as hate or legalism, rather than caring concern for others and the truth.

Moral relativism often uses this phrase to shut down any moral conversation before it can begin.

“Only God Can Judge Me”

This one’s tricky because it sounds spiritual. But often, people who use this phrase aren’t actually submitting to God’s authority; they’re using it to avoid accountability from others.

For example, a college student finds herself accidentally pregnant and chooses abortion because having a baby would interfere with her career plans and personal happiness. When she encounters a prolife advocate at a campus booth, she argues that her decision is “between her and God.” The other person has no right to judge her choices.

It’s a way of saying, “I don’t want to hear what you think is right or wrong.” The phrase becomes a shield against moral correction rather than a humble acknowledgment of God’s authority.

“As Long as It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone”

This approach to morality sounds reasonable on the surface. If no one gets hurt, what’s the problem?

Someone might view porn, lying, or gossip as morally okay because they don’t see any immediate harm. But that overlooks the deeper spiritual and relational damage sin always causes. God’s moral standards exist to protect us from that damage.

It also assumes we can always see the full consequences of our actions—which we can’t.

The Pattern Behind the Phrases

Notice the common thread? Each of these statements puts the individual in charge of determining moral right and wrong. They reject the idea that there might be a higher standard that applies to everyone, let alone to themselves.

Moral relativism sounds freeing, but it actually leaves people without a firm foundation for making tough moral decisions. When everything is relative, nothing is truly right or wrong—and that creates moral chaos rather than moral freedom.

Cultural Moral Relativism vs. Individual Moral Relativism

While these two ideas sound similar, they differ in who makes the final decision about moral right and wrong.

Individual vs. Cultural Authority

Individual moral relativism (also called moral subjectivism) appoints each person as judge. You get to decide what’s right and wrong for yourself based on your feelings, experiences, or circumstances.

Cultural moral relativism hands the authority over to entire societies or cultures. Whatever a group of people deems acceptable becomes morally right for that group—even if other cultures disagree.

How Cultural Moral Relativism Shows Up

You’ve probably heard these kinds of statements before:

• “In their culture, it’s okay, so we shouldn’t judge.”
• “We can’t force other cultures to accept our values.”
• “If that society allows multiple wives, then it’s right for them.”

Cultural relativism sounds respectful. It seems to honor different ways of life around the world. But the problem is that it makes entire cultures the endpoint on morality, removing any higher standard on true right or wrong—which, historically, has been used as a stepping stone toward moral atrocities.

The Key Difference

Individual moral relativism says: “I decide what’s right for me.”

Cultural moral relativism says: “We decide what’s right for us.”

Both approaches reject the same fundamental truth—that there are universal moral standards that apply to everyone, everywhere.

Why Both Fall Short

Whether it’s an individual or an entire culture making moral decisions, both views have the same flaw. They deny that objective moral truth exists.

This ideology stands in sharp contrast to the biblical worldview. Scripture teaches that God’s truth applies to all people, in all places, at all times. His moral standards don’t change based on personal preferences or cultural acceptance.

Arguments Against Moral Relativism

Moral relativism might sound open-minded, but when we examine it closely, it creates serious problems. Let’s look at three major issues that show why, in the end, this worldview fails to provide a solid foundation for human flourishing.

Truth Needs a Fixed Standard

If morality is just a matter of opinion, then it’s impossible to say anything is truly right or wrong. Perhaps take some time to think about the potentially dangerous implications of this.

• Under moral relativism, one person might say physical abuse is terrible, while another could argue it’s acceptable. Both views would be equally valid because there’s no objective standard to determine which is correct.
• If truth were relative, then someone arguing that rape or murder is wrong couldn’t claim it’s actually wrong for everyone. Why? Because there’s no higher standard to judge it by.

This creates an impossible situation. We all know deep down that some things are genuinely wrong, regardless of what people think about them.

Christianity offers a better answer. Real moral truth flows from God’s unchanging character, not just human opinion. When we say something is wrong, we’re measuring it against God’s perfect standard—not the shifting opinions of people or cultures.

Ethical Relativism Removes Accountability and Undermines the Gospel

Ethical relativism has another serious flaw. It removes true accountability.

Without a higher standard beyond culture or personal preference, ethical relativism removes accountability to God. If good and evil are determined by societies or individuals rather than divine truth, then sin becomes a matter of cultural acceptance or personal preference instead of a real offense that separates us from God

But the Bible teaches something very different. Romans 3:23 tells us that everyone is accountable to God for their actions. Sin isn’t based on human beliefs—it’s a real problem that affects our relationship with our Creator.

This is how ethical relativism undermines the entire gospel message. If there’s no absolute standard of right and wrong, then there’s no need for forgiveness or salvation through Christ.

Think about it:

• Why would Jesus need to die for the forgiveness of our sins if sin is just personal opinion? 
• Why would we need a Savior if there’s nothing we actually need to be saved from?

Ethical relativism doesn’t just weaken the gospel—it erases its very reason for existing. If there’s no objective right or wrong, then there’s no sin. And if there’s no sin, there’s no need for forgiveness, no need for a Savior, no need for the cross. The death and resurrection of Jesus only make sense in a world where morals are absolute, grounded in God’s character and revealed by him.

It Opens the Door to Injustice

History shows us the dangerous consequences of ethical relativism on a larger scale.

Ethical relativism creates a logical problem. It eliminates any basis for calling another culture’s practices wrong. Take the Holocaust as an example. If each society determines its own moral standards, then we have no standing to declare that Nazi Germany’s genocide was objectively evil. We might personally dislike it, but we couldn’t say it violated any universal moral principle because under ethical relativism, no such principles exist.

The same logical trap applies to every historical injustice—slavery, ethnic cleansing, oppression of women, and many other evils. Ethical relativism doesn’t simply fail to prevent such atrocities. It takes away our ability to identify them as atrocities in the first place. We’re left saying, “I don’t like what you’re doing,” but we can’t say, “What you’re doing is morally wrong.”

Christians have a different starting point. God’s moral character sets unchanging standards that apply to all people in all times and places. God’s moral truths stand above every culture, including our own. Only on this basis can we consistently oppose injustice.

Christianity Protects Human Dignity

Christianity teaches that there are moral truths because God is the authority who determines them. Following God’s moral standards protects human dignity from the injustice that moral relativism creates. When we recognize that all people are made in God’s image, we have a secure ground for defending human rights and confronting wrongdoing.

Moral relativism may sound appealing because it promises freedom from judgment. But in reality, it erodes any basis for justice and leaves us without the hope of redemption and ultimate restoration that the gospel promises.

The Ultimate Source of Morality

The Bible teaches that morality flows from who God is holy, just, loving, and unchanging. As Psalm 119:68 says, “You are good, and what you do is good.” James 1:17 reminds us that God “does not change like shifting shadows.”

This makes all the difference. Unlike human standards that shift with culture and time, God’s character provides a changeless standard for determining right and wrong.

When we call something “good,” we’re ultimately measuring it against God’s own perfect nature. Jesus—God in human form—embodied that perfection. He didn’t merely teach what goodness is, he lived it flawlessly.

Jesus Reveals True Righteousness

Jesus shows us what God’s moral standard looks like in real life. His teachings in Matthew 5–7 give us clear guidance that goes beyond cultural trends or personal preferences.

Jesus modeled the highest moral standard which is loving God and loving others. He showed mercy to those who were hurting. He stood for truth even when it was unpopular. And he confronted sin with both grace and clarity.

In his encounter with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:11, Jesus showed mercy— “Neither do I condemn you”—and at the same time gave moral direction: “Go now and leave your life of sin”. This wasn’t moral relativism saying, “Do whatever feels right.” It was perfect love expressing both forgiveness and truth.

Scripture Provides a Clear and Timeless Moral Framework

The Bible gives us reliable guidance for how to live, regardless of what’s popular in our culture. As 2 Timothy 3:16–17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Scripture isn’t just human wisdom or cultural preference. It’s divine guidance that helps us know what’s truly right and wrong as life changes around us.

Psalm 19:7–11 tells us that God’s instructions are perfect, trustworthy, and bring joy to those who follow them. Rather than relying on moral relativism or cultural opinions, Christians look to the Bible because God himself reveals what leads to true human flourishing.

A Foundation You Can Build On

Ethical relativism might sound freeing, but it creates impossible contradictions. If your truth says stealing is acceptable and mine says it’s wrong, ethical relativism offers no way to resolve the conflict—both are equally valid. When you face real moral dilemmas, “live your truth” is no foundation for making difficult choices.​

But when morality flows from God’s eternal character, you have an objective standard that resolves moral conflicts. God’s nature sets clear boundaries between right and wrong—boundaries that don’t bend with feelings or culture. His wisdom gives real answers to moral dilemmas.

Choose Carefully

Moral relativism promises freedom but delivers confusion. It leaves us adrift when we need to make wise, confident decisions about right and wrong.

But God offers something better: objective truth flowing from his eternal character. You don’t have to face your hardest moral decisions alone or rely on thin feelings.

Choose Carefully—Because Truth Has a Name

Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Moral relativism may sound liberating, but it misses the truth. So choose carefully—not just what you believe, but who you trust. Ground your convictions in the one who never changes. Let his Word form your decisions, your values, and your life.

The post Moral Relativism & “Live Your Truth” Worldview appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For Christians, the ethics of artificial intelligence is more than a technical debate—it’s a moral conversation that touches on how we reflect God’s character and navigate this rapidly changing world.

Let’s explore the ethics of AI from a biblical perspective, considering how we can engage with this technology responsibly and faithfully.

The Age of AI and Ethics

Artificial intelligence is reshaping how we work, live, and connect, from the algorithms that recommend what show to watch next on your favorite streaming platform to systems that help doctors diagnose diseases.

But just what is AI?

At its core, AI is the ability of machines to simulate thought processes—to think like a human. These systems analyze data, recognize patterns, and make decisions in ways that once seemed impossible for a machine.

Impressive, yes. But AI is also profoundly influential.

It raises questions not just about what it can do but also what it should do. And that’s where the conversation shifts from technology to morality.

What Is Ethics?

Ethics might seem like a big, philosophical word, but at its heart, it’s simply the study of moral right and wrong.

Ethics gives us a framework for deciding how to live, work, and interact with one another. It asks questions like: What’s the right thing to do in a given situation? How do we balance our needs with the needs of others?

Ethics isn’t just about avoiding harm; it’s about pursuing good.

Ethics take on an even more profound significance when applied to something as transformative as AI. 

Expanding beyond personal decisions, ideas abound about how these powerful systems influence societies, communities, and individuals.

What Are Christian Ethics?

Christian ethics aren’t just a list of dos and don’ts scribbled in the margins of our lives; they reflect God’s unchanging character and his design for how we’re meant to live.

Grounded in Scripture, Christian ethics remind us that every decision, no matter how small, is an opportunity to demonstrate our faith and show the world who God is.

When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, he wasn’t merely giving a moral checklist; he was inviting us into a life that reflects the heart of God.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:7–8). These aren’t just aspirations—they’re blueprints for how we’re called to live, transforming our ethics into a living testimony of God’s grace. Christian ethics call us to pursue righteousness, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to shine his light in a dark world. We are to develop godly virtues with the help and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we cannot be fully moral on our own power. We were designed to partner with God to live moral and upright lives.

Christian ethics urge us to move beyond the superficial and step into a kingdom perspective. They remind us that every breakthrough, every advancement, and every opportunity is a chance to echo the words of Jesus: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

Whether we’re innovating, creating, or leading, our mission is clear: to let God’s love and truth shape how we engage with the world, leaving it brighter and better for his glory.

What Is AI Ethics?

AI ethics is the application of moral principles to the creation and use of AI systems. It’s a conversation about ensuring fairness, accountability, and transparency in these systems’ operations.

AI ethics ask essential questions, such as how we prevent bias in AI systems. How do we protect privacy in a world where machines collect more and more data? Who is responsible when AI makes a mistake?

These aren’t just technical issues but moral dilemmas that demand thoughtful, principled investigation and answers.

For Christians, AI ethics represent an opportunity to lead. By grounding our approach in God’s truth, we can ensure that this powerful technology is used not to harm but to help—not to divide but to draw us closer to his purpose for humanity.

The Ethics of AI Conversation

AI holds immense potential to transform our lives, yet its rapid evolution presents profound ethical dilemmas that call for thoughtful, faith-centered reflection.

These issues intersect with Christian values, calling us to steward this powerful tool in ways that honor God and serve humanity. How we address these challenges is not just a question of technological innovation—it’s a matter of moral integrity.

Ethical Issues of Artificial Intelligence

Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” making decisions without explanation. This lack of transparency and accountability can foster mistrust and create fertile ground for misuse.

Scripture calls us to “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7), emphasizing integrity and accountability. Transparency in AI is a moral obligation that builds trust and ensures responsible stewardship.

Bias in AI Systems

Despite their promise of objectivity, AI systems often inherit the unjustified biases embedded in the data on which they are trained.

For instance, an AI-powered hiring tool might inadvertently favor specific demographics, perpetuating inequality instead of eliminating it.

As Christians, we are called “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Justice is not optional—it’s a command. Fixing unjustified bias in AI requires humility and accountability, ensuring that technology reflects fairness and equity rather than deepening societal challenges.

Privacy & Surveillance Driven by AI Technology

Privacy and surveillance present another significant complication.

AI relies heavily on vast amounts of data to function effectively, but this dependence raises concerns about how that data is collected, stored, and used. Tools designed to protect can easily be misused as instruments of control, infringing on personal freedoms and dignity.

Christian ethics reminds us that every individual is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and their relevant and proper privacy must be respected as an extension of their inherent worth. Safeguarding privacy isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a moral obligation to protect the sacredness of human life in a world increasingly driven by data.

Ethical Concerns of AI and the Human Cost

The promise of artificial intelligence is dazzling—efficiency, automation, streamlined processes, and endless possibilities for growth. Make no mistake, industries are being transformed before our very eyes.

Yet, the glow of progress has a shadow. Every breakthrough carries a cost—displaced workers, disrupted livelihoods, and the subtle erosion of human dignity.

As followers of Christ, we’re called to look beyond the data and see the people impacted by these changes. Jesus’s teaching to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) compels us to respond with compassion and advocacy.

Faithful stewardship means balancing innovation with care, ensuring that progress does not come at the expense of human worth. Technology must serve humanity, preserving dignity rather than sacrificing it for efficiency.

With AI’s rise comes great potential but also great risk.

Few concerns are more sobering than the weaponization of AI, where autonomous systems make life-and-death decisions without proper moral guidance. Such uses stray far from God’s vision of peace. Jesus declared, “They must not slander anyone, but be peaceable, gentle, showing complete courtesy to all people.” (Titus 3:2). Technology should reflect the Creator’s heart, protecting life rather than threatening it.

AI’s ability to influence behavior also raises additional ethical concerns. Algorithms shape our thoughts and choices, often prioritizing profit over truth. Christian ethics calls us to think about “whatever is true, whatever is noble, and whatever is admirable” (Philippians 4:8), reminding us to design systems that uplift and inform, not deceive or manipulate.

AI also risks undermining the relationships that define us.

From robots offering companionship to automated interactions replacing human touch, technology sometimes edges out the personal connections God designed us to share. The Bible urges us to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24).

As Christians, we must guide AI to deepen connections, not replace them. We must work to ensure that love, empathy, and the gift of presence remain at the heart of our communities.

AI Ethical Dilemma Examples

Artificial intelligence doesn’t exist in a vacuum of theoretical possibilities—it’s woven into the very fabric of our daily lives, often in ways we scarcely realize. These dilemmas are not abstract; they touch on real issues that affect real people.

Consider the hiring algorithm designed to streamline recruitment. Its efficiency is appealing, but what happens if it unintentionally excludes certain demographics, perpetuating systemic AI bias?

Or was the surveillance system created to enhance safety? What happens when it oversteps its bounds, infringing on personal freedoms and turning protection into control?

Autonomous weapons powered by AI make life-and-death decisions without human oversight. Who bears responsibility for their actions? And then, there are algorithms designed to manipulate user behavior, exploiting vulnerabilities for profit rather than serving the common good.

Each scenario highlights the urgent need for a Christ-centered approach to technology.

As stewards of God’s creation, we’re called to approach AI cautiously, ensuring it aligns with his principles of justice, compassion, and integrity.

These are not just challenges for engineers and policymakers; they are moral questions that demand the involvement of people of faith willing to engage with humility and courage.

Can AI Be Ethical?

The question, Can AI be ethical? is about more than technology—it’s about the people who design, implement, and steward it.

AI is neither good nor evil; it’s a tool shaped by the values and intentions of those who create it.

Its potential for harm is undeniable, but so is its potential to serve as an instrument of hope and healing. The answer lies in how we choose to use it.

Christian ethics remind us that our ultimate accountability is to God.

When we approach AI with humility, wisdom, and a heart aligned with his values, we can ensure it reflects his love and light.

This means prioritizing justice over convenience. Transparency over secrecy. Human dignity over profit. It means asking what AI can do and what it should do and designing it to serve others with integrity and compassion.

Christian Ethics in the Age of AI

AI offers us a remarkable opportunity to reflect God’s character in our innovation. By holding ourselves to his standard, we can create technology that uplifts human nature rather than exploits, unites rather than divides, and serves rather than dominates. The ethics of AI conversation invites us to think deeply and act responsibly, aligning our actions with God’s eternal truth. Christians should use AI while being mindful and strategic to develop virtues in one’s character.

As Christians, we’re called to be a light in the world, even in spaces dominated by algorithms and code. We can approach the development and use of artificial intelligence as a spiritual calling, ensuring it glorifies God and serves humanity with justice, mercy, and love.

Advocating for Biblically Ethical AI

Practical steps start with advocating for biblically informed fairness in AI, ensuring everyone has equal access to its benefits, and promoting transparency in its use. Above all, Christians should see AI as a tool to uplift humanity, not diminish it.

The Bible reminds us that every person is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). This truth must shape how we approach AI’s ethical challenges. If AI devalues human work, disrupts relationships, or leads to practices that strip away dignity, we cannot stay silent.

As followers of Christ, we are called to push back—prioritizing human worth and God’s design over the lure of technological convenience.

3 Guiding Truths for Navigating AI Ethics

As we step into the uncharted waters of artificial intelligence and its many ethical dilemmas, it’s easy to feel adrift. The questions are big, and the challenges are complex.

But as Christians, we have a steady anchor—the eternal truths of Scripture. These truths remind us that while technology may seem daunting, our faith doesn’t rest on human ingenuity or innovation. It rests firmly on the unchanging character of God.

When the path is unclear, we can look to his Word for guidance, knowing his wisdom, sovereignty, and love are constant. AI may be new, but the principles that guide us are as timeless as the God we serve.

Let’s explore three truths that steady our hearts and light our way as we navigate the AI ethical crossroads.

1. God’s Sovereignty Over All Creation (Colossians 1:16–17)

AI may feel overwhelming, but let us not forget that it is part of the creation over which God reigns supreme.

Nothing, not even the most advanced algorithm, escapes his control. He is the Creator of all things—visible and invisible—and he holds everything together in his sovereign hands.

When the ethical questions surrounding AI seem too large to handle, we can rest in the knowledge that God’s sovereignty has not been shaken. Every innovation, every decision, and every moment is under his watchful eye.

His plan is good, his wisdom is infinite, and his authority remains unchallenged.

2. Human Worth is Rooted in God (Psalm 139:13–14)

In a world increasingly measured by efficiency, productivity, and comparison, it’s easy to feel small next to machines that seem to outperform us.

But Scripture reminds us that our worth isn’t tied to what we can do—it’s rooted in who we are: creations of a loving God. He has prepared us for an opportunity to be his ambassadors and perform good works—even with AI. “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

We are fearfully and wonderfully made, woven together with care and purpose by the Creator of the universe. AI may calculate faster, analyze better, and execute tasks precisely, but it will never hold the worth of a soul redeemed by Christ.

Our value is not something a machine can replicate or replace. It is infinite, eternal, and grounded in the truth that we’re made in the image of God.

3. God’s Wisdom Guides Our Decisions (Proverbs 3:5–6)

The ethical concerns of AI often feel like navigating a maze with no clear end in sight. But as Christians, we’re not left to figure it out alone. God’s wisdom is available to us, and his guidance is unfailing.

When we trust him and submit our decisions to his will, he promises to make our paths straight—even through the tangle of ethics in AI.

Leaning on God’s wisdom means approaching these challenges prayerfully, seeking his counsel through Scripture, and listening for his voice in our decisions. It means trusting he’ll illuminate the way, even when the road is unclear.

Approaching Artificial Intelligence with Faith and Wisdom

Biblical truths remind us that God’s sovereignty, the inherent worth he has placed on humanity, and his unfailing wisdom are constants in a world of rapid change.

So, we can face the ethical concerns of AI with confidence—not in our abilities, but in his promises. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His hand guides us, his heart cares for us, and his truth anchors us in every storm.

The age of AI is here. The question is, how will we, as Christians, rise to meet it?

Will we lean into God’s wisdom, using this technology for his glory? Or will we let the world’s standards dictate its use? The choice is ours, and it’s a choice that matters.

As we engage with these questions, we can trust in the God who sees, knows, and holds all things together.

The post Ethics of Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

It’s the expression of a fierce and faithful love that will not let evil write the final word.
It’s the steady hand of a just Judge who sees every wound, every wrong, and declares, “No. This will not stand.”

His wrath is not the opposite of love—it’s love in its most unyielding form.
A holy fire that burns away injustice.
A relentless pursuit to restore what has been broken.
A promise that the world’s pain will not go unanswered.

But often, that’s not what we feel when we hear “the wrath of God.”

For many, it might be unease. Maybe even fear?
It conjures images of a distant, angry God—arms crossed, eyes blazing, thunder in his voice.
Punishment. Judgment. A holy anger too fierce to face.

But what if that’s not the right picture?
What if we’ve misunderstood God’s wrath?

It’s not an outburst. Not blind fury.

So today, let’s look again—more closely, more honestly. Because when we truly understand God’s wrath, we don’t find a God set against us.

We find a God who moved heaven and earth to rescue us. A God whose love was strong enough to carry our sin—and tender enough to welcome us home.

Wrath of God Meaning: Justice Rooted in Love

We’ve all experienced human wrath. It’s a force we know all too well—and often wish we didn’t.

But when the Bible speaks of God’s wrath, it invites us into a different conversation—a deeper one—one in which God’s anger isn’t tangled in pride or selfishness but rooted in something pure.

What Does Wrath Mean in the Bible?

The Bible vividly contrasts human wrath with God’s wrath.

When human wrath surfaces in Scripture, it is impulsive, messy, and deeply flawed. It burns hot and fast, rooted in pride, fear, or a wounded ego.

Cain’s rage led to murder (Genesis 4:5–8). Jonah’s anger burned when mercy was shown to Nineveh, and caused him to question God’s compassion (Jonah 4:1–3).

In a moment of frustration, even Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it as God commanded, and forfeited his entry into the Promised Land (Numbers 20:7–12).

Human wrath, left unchecked, spirals into destruction.

It’s why wrath is counted among the seven deadly sins—not just because of what it does to others, but because of what it does to us. It corrodes the soul. It deadens compassion. It numbs our capacity to listen, to forgive, to love.

Divine wrath, on the other hand, is altogether different.

God’s Wrath Defined

God’s wrath is never rash. Never rooted in insecurity.

It’s always righteous—an extension of his holiness, justice, and love. It’s not emotional volatility, but a steady, measured opposition to sin, evil, and all that destroys his good creation.

Where human anger often seeks vengeance, God’s wrath seeks restoration.

It’s not the lashing out of an offended deity, but the grief of a loving Father who cannot and will not let darkness win.

Wrath of God vs. Wrath of Man

Human wrath springs from our brokenness, and it always leads somewhere dark.

Fueled by ego or pain, it lashes out before it listens, and in its wake, it leaves damage we can’t undo.

By contrast, God’s wrath is never reckless. It is always purposeful, measured, and rooted in justice and love.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people . . . ” (Romans 1:18). Not because he is cruel, but because he is holy—and committed to setting all things right.

When we witness violence, oppression, or cruelty, it’s not the wrath of God breaking loose, but the consequence of human sin.

As James puts it, “But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:14–15).

The brokenness we see in the world is not born from divine impulse but from our rebellion.

Even when we ache for justice, even when we burn with righteous anger at the world’s wrongs—Scripture gently reminds us: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19).

Because the truth is, we can’t settle the score.

We may long to fix what’s been broken, to make wrong things right—but our wrath isn’t capable of redemption. It can’t heal wounds. It can’t bring justice. It can’t atone for sin.

Only holy wrath—pure, measured, and perfectly just—has that power.

The Wrath of God in the Bible

When the Bible speaks of God’s wrath, it doesn’t illuminate the depths of his rage—it revels in the light of his goodness.

The Bible shows us that his wrath is not about destruction but restoration; it’s not about punishment for its own sake but about setting right what sin has done wrong.

What Does the Bible Say About the Wrath of God?

The Bible demonstrates that God’s wrath isn’t a flared temper.

As Nahum declares, “The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished” (Nahum 1:3).

The Bible paints a clear picture: “There is no one holy like the Lord” (1 Samuel 2:2). “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:13).

God is completely set apart from sin—utterly pure and incapable of coexisting with corruption. And so, his wrath is a steady opposition to all that distorts, destroys, and separates us from him.

Yet, God’s heart is not to destroy, but to redeem.

He loves us too deeply to leave us in our sin, so he made a way for justice to be fulfilled and mercy to be poured out.

That way is Jesus.

At the cross, Jesus bore the full weight of divine wrath—not as a victim, but as a willing Savior. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

God was never interested in punishment for punishment’s sake.

From the beginning, he was unfolding a rescue plan. When sin entered through Adam, humanity became subject to death and wrath (Romans 5:12, 18).

But God didn’t leave us to our mess.

He whispered the promise of redemption, a plan that would one day bring a Messiah from the line of Abraham (Genesis 12:1, 3).

Jesus came, not only to take the wrath we deserved, but to open the way back to life.

“For God so loved the world . . . ” (John 3:16). He stepped down, humbled himself, and stood in our place (Philippians 2:6–8).

Those who trust in him are not just spared from wrath—they are brought into everlasting life.

Life that will one day flourish in a world remade: “a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). A place where God will dwell with his people, and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:3–4).

This is God’s heart, unchanging from beginning to end.

What About God’s Wrath in the Old Testament?

God’s wrath isn’t a New Testament idea—it’s woven throughout all Scripture. And in the Old Testament, it’s never rash or cruel, but always righteous and purposeful.

Consider the flood. “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become . . . ” (Genesis 6:5). Evil had spread so deeply that without intervention, humanity would have destroyed itself. The flood wasn’t just punishment—it was protection. By sparing Noah, God preserved a path for redemption.

We see this again in Egypt. Pharaoh’s heart grew harder with every warning, yet God gave him repeated chances to let his people go (Exodus 7–12). His patience was real—but so was his justice.

Though strict, even the laws given to Israel revealed God’s care. They upheld justice, protected the vulnerable, and set his people apart in a corrupt world.

The Old Testament doesn’t show a different God. It shows the same holy, merciful, and just God we see in Jesus, who is “slow to anger, abounding in love” (Psalm 103:8), judges with purpose, and has always been concerned with redemption.

God’s Wrath in the New Testament

Some imagine God’s wrath disappears with Jesus’s arrival, but the New Testament tells a different story.

God’s character hasn’t changed. His justice is just as real, and his holiness is just as fierce.

What shifts is the spotlight: In the Old Testament, we often see God’s justice front and center; in the New Testament, his grace takes the stage—but it never stands alone.

We still see moments of divine judgment. Ananias and Sapphira fall dead after lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1–11). Herod Agrippa is struck down for accepting worship meant for God (Acts 12:21–23). Elymas the sorcerer is blinded for opposing the gospel, and the result is faith, not fear (Acts 13:8–12).

God’s justice didn’t disappear—it found its fullest expression at the cross. As Scripture reminds us, “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6), and “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father . . . who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).

What has changed is our vantage point. The New Testament is drenched in the language of rescue and redemption: “We were by nature deserving of wrath . . . but because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ” (Ephesians 2:3–5).

God’s wrath is not erased—it’s answered. Grace isn’t a replacement for justice—it’s the path through.

Wrath leads us to grace. Grace leads us home.

3 Truths About The Wrath of God

God’s wrath can be hard to understand, but we can turn to three timeless truths that reveal the heart behind God’s justice.

The Christian Response to the Wrath of God

When we begin to really understand the truth of God’s wrath, it doesn’t drive us away—it draws us in.

It reminds us that his justice is not against us but for us.

His holiness is not cold but fiercely loving, and his wrath is not the end of the story but the doorway to grace.

If we let it, this understanding may stir us in different ways.

It creates a longing to share the gospel with urgency, to point the weary, the wounded, and the wandering toward the cross, where both the fullness of God’s righteous judgment and his compassionate mercy were perfectly expressed at the same time.

It deepens our worship.

We can be in awe of a God so holy that he cannot overlook evil and so loving that he chose to bear its cost himself. His wrath helps us see the severity of sin, but his grace reveals the depth of his love.

It strengthens our endurance.

When the path is heavy and darkness seems to press in, we remember—evil will not write the final chapter. “Let us not become weary in doing good . . . ” (Galatians 6:9). “Blessed is the one who perseveres . . . ” (James 1:12). We keep walking, not in fear, but in faith.

Because at its core, God’s wrath reveals his love:

A love that defends what is good.
A love that made a way for mercy to triumph.
A love that restores what was lost and breathes life into what was dead.

If you’d like to explore God’s justice, mercy, and holiness in greater depth and learn more about how they shape a life of faith, we invite you to explore our other resources and keep walking toward the heart of the One who redeems.

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

—The scholar department team at RTB

When I was five years old, Postman Pat was my favorite TV show. So, when I misbehaved my punishment included missing the show. I suffered, as only a five-year-old can, knowing that my siblings were watching while I was banished to my room. 

Punishment involves suffering, be it big or small. Humans intuitively recognize that it is wrong to inflict suffering on someone, thus it follows that it is wrong to punish someone. So, why would an all-loving, all-good God make someone suffer by punishing them? Why would God send some people to suffer in hell as punishment?

Responsibility and Punishment
To address these questions, we will consider free will and how society rewards or punishes choices people make. In human society, we generally accept that it is morally justified to punish criminal behavior. When society punishes someone for committing a crime, it holds that person responsible for a free choice made. Likewise, when society praises someone for making a commendable choice, it holds that person responsible for praiseworthy behavior.

In matters of reward and punishment, free choice is a key factor. Let’s consider a hypothetical person (Bob). First, imagine that Bob rushes to save a child from an oncoming car. Bob would deserve praise for his action. Had Bob happened to trip and push the child to safety by accident, we would not praise Bob, though perhaps credit him with good luck. In the first scenario Bob was responsible for saving the child, but in the second scenario he happened to trip and fall and that accident resulted in the child being saved.

Next, imagine that Bob shoves an elder aside, resulting in an injury. We would rightly blame Bob and hold him respsonsible for the harm he caused. On the other hand, if Bob had stumbled on uneven pavement or was himself pushed from behind, then we would not blame him for the elder’s injury since he was not responsible­—the situation was beyond Bob’s control or free will.

When society punishes a criminal, they are blaming that person appropriately for freely choosing to commit the crime. None of this is to say that there are not cases in the criminal justice system where we find that someone who committed a criminal act should not be held responsible because they suffer from a cognitive limitation. In these cases, we hold that the individual was not responsible for the act as they did not fully understand their actions.

Are We Humans or Animals?
Nevertheless, respecting free choice treats people as individuals who are rational and capable of exercising moral judgment. Yet some, like philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell, have argued that we should not punish criminals, but treat their criminal actions as symptoms of a disease.¹ These groups often advocate for what they believe are more “compassionate” treatments. But a world that absolves criminals of responsibility for those crimes would be highly problematic. Christian writer and intellectual C. S. Lewis wrote:

To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason . . . and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we “ought to have known better,” is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.²

I agree with Lewis. If we don’t punish people for wrong actions they chose to do, then we are really treating them like animals. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions. If my dog relieves himself on the carpet, I work to train my dog not to do that in the future. However, if a person commits a crime, we do not merely train them not to do it again. They cannot be trained, like an animal, not to do certain things; rather they must freely choose not to do those things in the future. We cannot override their free will through training. And most people have a deep sense that it is inappropriate to treat a person in the same way we would treat an animal.

Philosopher Herbert Morris pointed out further problems with no-punishment treatments. He argued that a world that treats criminals as suffering from a disease would permit preventive detention before any offense is committed, if someone is believed to have dangerous tendencies. He wrote:

In the punishment system, because we are dealing with deprivations, it is understandable that we should forbear from imposing them until we are quite sure of guilt. In the therapy system, dealing as it does with benefits, there is less reason for forbearance from treatment at an early stage.³  

It would also not allow offenders to pay back their debt to society. If you did not earn a punishment, then how can you earn back the respect of society? Morris wrote:

Infliction of the prescribed punishment carries the implication . . . that one has “paid one’s debt” to society, for the punishment is the taking from the person of something commonly recognized as valuable . . . What is clear is that the conceptions of “paying a debt” or “having a debt forgiven” or pardoning have no place in a system of therapy.⁴

Respect and Mercy
Punishment respects our free choices and respects us as persons capable of making moral decisions. If God holds us responsible for our moral actions, then he treats us like rational people who are responsible for our choices. In punishing those who do wrong God is not being unfair or mean, but is treating us with respect. This is the same way the criminal justice system, when properly applied, respects offenders as persons by punishing them rather than treating their offenses as something they had no control over.

The good news is that God extends mercy—even though we deserve divine punishment due to our free choices to do moral wrongs. This is not to say that God takes our moral wrongs lightly and dismisses them easily. Rather, Jesus took the punishment that we deserved by suffering and dying in our place. His righteousness (moral goodness) is imputed to us if we choose to follow and obey him. Moreover, as Morris and Lewis pointed out, mercy only makes sense if someone deserves to be punished and punishment is not carried out. Lewis wrote: “If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a humboil or a club foot?^”5 Therefore, in order to be merciful, God must hold us responsible, and mercy is clearly an exercise of a loving God.⁶ 

Endnotes

1. Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1919), 125.
2. C. S. Lewis, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2014), 287–301.
3. Herbert Morris, “Persons and Punishment,” The Monist 52, no. 4 (October 1, 1968): 475–501, https://doi.org/10.5840/monist196852436.
4. Morris, “Persons and Punishment,” 484.
5. Lewis, “Punishment,” 294.
6. This is not to say that those to whom God extends mercy will not suffer in life, as suffering can develop character (Romans 5:5). Rather, believers in Christ will not suffer the eternal punishment they deserve for sin.

The post Article Highlight: Why Would a Loving God Punish Us? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Making sure that you “don’t overdrive your headlights” is also a great life principle. 

As much as possible, all of us want to make sure that we can anticipate what’s ahead in the future to avoid an unexpected catastrophe. Often, the only way we can see and anticipate what awaits us is to slow down and take the time to carefully think through our current circumstances and work through possible outcomes. This exercise helps prepare us for what will come. 

Danger Ahead
Unfortunately, when it comes to emerging biotechnologies, scientific and technological advances are taking place so rapidly that bioethicists and social institutions have little opportunity to understand and evaluate their safety and ethical and social implications before the next set of breakthroughs take place. Each set of advances carries its own unique ethical and social challenges. Because the ethical and social implications of earlier advances haven’t been fully engaged, we run the risk of speeding into unethical territory.

It sure seems to me that we are dangerously close to “overdriving our headlights” when it comes to the creation of synthetic embryos. Recent headlines announced that a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences produced the first-ever synthetic monkey embryos in a lab without using sperm and egg cells.¹ For many people, this advance was seen as a key stepping stone toward the creation of synthetic human embryos. In fact, within a few weeks of this advance, a collaborative team from Cambridge University and Caltech announced the creation of the first human synthetic embryos at the June 2023 Meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in Boston.² This team made preprints describing their work available before publication. And within days, three separate teams from the US, China, and Israel also published preprints describing similar independent achievements.

The creation of synthetic embryos—whether animal or human—raises all sorts of ethical questions about the moral status of these cell cultures. These questions are extremely challenging to address for bioethicists and laypeople alike. The answers aren’t obvious—regardless of worldview considerations. 

• How should Christians respond, generally, to advances in biotechnology?
• How should Christians respond, specifically, to the creation of synthetic embryos?

I’ll address these two questions later, but first I need to answer several basic questions about synthetic embryos: 

• What are synthetic embryos?
• What have biotechnologists accomplished to date?  
• Why do scientists want to create synthetic embryos?

And to properly address these questions, it is helpful to understand a bit about embryonic development. (Those readers who have this understanding, please feel free to skip ahead to What Are Synthetic Embryos?)

An Overview of Embryo Growth and Development
Embryological development begins the moment the egg cell (oocyte) becomes fertilized by a sperm cell, yielding a zygote. In turn, the zygote undergoes several rounds of cell division (referred to as cleavage) to produce a berry-like structure, called a morula. All of this happens by the third or fourth day of pregnancy.

Figure 1: Embryogenesis
Credit: Shutterstock

Over the next couple of days, the morula undergoes changes that characterize the process of embryogenesis. (See figure 1.) In addition to undergoing growth and division, cells in the morula begin to migrate relative to one another to form a structure with a hollow sphere called a blastula. Within the sphere lies a clump of cells called the inner cell mass. (See figure 2.)

Figure 2: Inner Cell Mass
Credit: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_cell_mass#/media/File:Diagram_of_Blastocyst_stage.png

In the next stage of embryogenesis, the inner cell mass transforms into a stack of three cellular layers (called germ layers) through cell growth, division, and migration. At this stage, the embryo is referred to as the gastrula. 

The specific cell layers of the gastrula are called the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. Each of these cell layers is fated to develop into different organ systems in the body. The ectoderm forms the nervous system and the epidermis of the skin. The mesoderm forms muscles, the skeletal system, blood and blood vessels, and the dermis of the skin. The endoderm forms the linings of the digestive and respiratory systems and organs that comprise the digestive system, such as the liver and pancreas.

After gastrulation, the next stage involves organ formation. Called organogenesis, this phase begins in each of the individual cell layers and involves the careful orchestration of several processes, including cell growth, cell division, cell-to-cell communication, cell migration, differentiation of cells into specialized types, secretion of extracellular materials, and even cell death (which is necessary to sculpt the tissues and organs).

What Are Synthetic Embryos?
Synthetic embryos are highly differentiated cell cultures grown in the lab. They’re designed to be facsimiles of embryos. Instead of being formed starting with sperm and egg cells, as is the case for in vitro fertilization, synthetic embryos are cultured directly from stem cells, thereby eliminating the need for gametes. Life scientists and biotechnologists sometimes refer to synthetic embryos as blastoids or as stem-cell-based embryo models.

Generally, the stem cell type used to form synthetic embryos is derived from the blastomeres of the inner cell mass of early-stage embryos formed from in vitro fertilization. These cells are often referred to as embryonic stem cells. In principle, induced pluripotent stem cells—formed from adult fibroblast cells—could also be used to grow synthetic embryos. Alternatively, a mixture of cells taken from the inner cell mass, the trophoblast (the cell layer that becomes the placenta), and the yolk sac appear to be necessary to form synthetic mouse embryos that can progress to form rudimentary organs. (See figure 3.)

Figure 3: The Production of Synthetic Embryos
Credit: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectogenesis#/media/File:Post-gastrulation_synthetic_embryos_generated_ex_utero_from_mouse_naive_ESCs.jpg

What Have Biotechnologists Accomplished to Date?
Biotechnologists have been trying to create synthetic embryos from stem cells for about two decades. One of the most significant advances toward this goal came in 2022 when independent teams—who were both competitors and collaborators—from the University of Cambridge and the Weizmann Institute of Science, respectively, created synthetic mouse embryos in laboratory cultures that developed beyond gastrulation to the stage that rudimentary organs developed, including the brain and heart.³

Of the 10,000 embryos these teams created, 50 progressed to the 8-day stage before they died. This accomplishment is significant because mice gestation is about 20 days. In other words, these synthetic embryos successfully completed one-third of the “pregnancy.” As researchers perfect the cell culture techniques used to grow synthetic embryos, the number of embryos that successfully progress to the 8-day stage (and beyond) is expected to rise.

This work was followed up less than a year later by an advance reported by a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. These investigators created synthetic monkey embryos starting with embryonic stem cells. Part of the motivation for this work was to produce model synthetic embryos that more closely resembled humans (both monkeys and humans are primates) than do mice blastoids.⁴

The team demonstrated that the synthetic monkey embryos could develop into structures that closely resembled natural monkey embryos (produced by in vitro fertilization using sperm and egg cells) all the way through gastrulation. They also showed that blastomeres isolated from the synthetic embryos behaved in the same way in cell cultures as blastomeres isolated from natural monkey embryos. Finally, they showed that the gene expression profiles of the synthetic monkey embryos matched natural embryos.

They then implanted the synthetic embryos into the womb of a surrogate monkey and observed that the synthetic embryos implanted in the uterine wall, forming a gestational sac. After 20 days, the gestational sac was absorbed by the surrogate and disappeared altogether.

Between the summer of 2020 and the end of 2021, three independent research teams demonstrated that they could create blastula-like structures from either human embryonic stem cells or human-induced pluripotent stem cells.⁵ A more recent advance by four independent teams from the US, the UK, Israel, and China extends this earlier work. These four research teams have developed more robust methods for generating synthetic embryos, allowing the synthetic human embryos to consistently persist for 14 days, well into the post-implantation stage (6 days).⁶

These achievements are harbingers of things to come. The research teams generating synthetic human embryos are comprised of some of the best scientists and biotechnologists in the world. Based on what we have witnessed in the past few years, I don’t think it will be long before these teams continue to achieve new milestones with synthetic embryos, extending their viability in culture and creating facsimiles of natural embryos that are more and more like the real thing.

Why Do Scientists Want to Create Synthetic Embryos?
Broadly speaking, the scientific motivations behind the creation of both animal and human synthetic embryos are noble and well-intentioned. 

The biological events that take place during the earliest stages of human embryonic growth and development are largely unknown. Jacob Hanna, one of the scientists working in this field, says that “this period is truly a black box.”⁷ These events can’t be studied in utero, or in vitro. It is very difficult to observe embryos in utero at this early stage of embryo growth when they first implant in the uterine wall. Human embryos created by in vitro fertilization in the lab can’t be studied beyond two weeks. Beyond this point, human embryos will die. The techniques to keep them alive haven’t been fully developed. One reason for this lack of know-how has to do with regulations that are in place in many countries. Governmental restrictions prevent human embryos from being grown beyond 14 days, at which point the embryos must be destroyed, frozen, or implanted. 

There are also ethical concerns about experimenting with human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. Many scientists and biomedical researchers experience ethical disquiet about creating human embryos for the sole purpose of scientifically investigating them. Compounding this problem, creating embryos through in vitro fertilization requires a source of eggs, which must come from female donors. This necessity raises concerns about the exploitation of women, particularly those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Many scientists and biomedical researchers don’t regard synthetic embryos as bona fide embryos. So, in their minds, they can sidestep government restrictions and ethical qualms by studying synthetic embryos instead of natural embryos. 

Researchers hope that these investigations will: 

• Provide them with laboratory models that allow them to study the early stages of embryonic development, opening what is currently a black box. 
• Give them the opportunity to explore the effects of genetic mutations on embryonic development. The stem cells used to grow synthetic embryos can be genetically altered before they’re used to generate synthetic embryos.
• Help them study the effects of drugs and other chemical agents on embryonic development, helping researchers to identify teratogens (reproductive toxins). 

They think that this collective insight will help biomedical researchers and practitioners prevent pregnancy loss and develop therapies to help couples struggling with infertility. 

Scientists and biotechnologists also hope that synthetic embryos can be used to grow organs for transplants. A dream of biotechnologists and biomedical researchers is to use embryonic and adult stem cells to grow organs. To say the least, this will be a complex undertaking. The processes of blastulation, gastrulation, and organogenesis are poorly understood. Without this understanding, growing organs in vitro remains a challenge. Organ growth from stem cells requires manipulating the growth media and adding the right nutrients and growth factors at the right time. It also requires the use of culture techniques to coax the organs into the right three-dimensional architecture. At this juncture, biotechnologists have had little success growing organs from stem cells, despite their valiant efforts over the last couple of decades. 

For this reason, researchers hope to gain the crucial understanding they need by studying embryogenesis and organogenesis in synthetic embryos. Some scientists think that synthetic embryos could even be used to grow organs directly, obviating the need to develop separate sets of cell culture techniques for each type of organ. Some bioecologists think that organs produced by synthetic embryos would be of better quality than ones grown directly through cell culture techniques because they would develop and grow in a more “natural” setting.

Of course, natural embryos produced by in vitro fertilization could be used to provide organs for transplants. Yet, apart from the obvious ethical unease, this proposal has technical limitations. This approach isn’t readily scalable for large-scale organ production. Each natural embryo produced by in vitro fertilization would require a human egg cell that must come from a human donor. It’s hard to imagine human donors being able to supply the eggs needed for large-scale organ production. Also, each natural embryo would be genetically distinct, leading to variability in the organs destined for use in transplant procedures.  

Because synthetic embryos are generated from cultures of embryonic stem cells—which are “immortal” cell lines, meaning that they are capable of self-renewal, indefinitely—their production is scalable. The quality and characteristics of the resulting embryos would be reproducible because all the synthetic embryos come from the same genetically identical stem cells. The ability to reproduce genetically identical synthetic embryos also adds to their usefulness as a scientific model.

Ethical Concerns
Synthetic embryos can potentially be used for good and the scientists and biotechnologists exploring their generation operate with principled motives. Yet, the creation of embryos for research and clinical purposes is fraught with troubling ethical misgivings—at least for human synthetic embryos. 

Embryos’ Limited Usefulness
Apart from outright animal cruelty, the creation and study of animal embryos is generally regarded as unproblematic, regardless of one’s worldview. While recognizing their limitations for generating understanding about human embryonic growth and development (because they are animal models), mouse and macaque synthetic embryos, for example, will advance our knowledge and may be useful in identifying the genetic basis of embryonic development and the effect of mutations and chemicals on embryo biology. But, because they aren’t human embryos, their utility for gaining insight into human embryonic development has its limitations.  

At first glance, the creation of human synthetic embryos seems to solve the problem. They are human cell cultures and, consequently, more relevant than animal models. And they aren’t true embryos, just facsimiles of them.  

But herein lies a problem. Because they are facsimiles of human embryos, some investigators have questioned their relevance for understanding the growth and development of natural human embryos. The question is whether any insight developed by studying synthetic human embryos applies only to the synthetic embryo models or has broader relevancy to natural human embryos. 

To remedy this problem, biotechnologists and biomedical researchers are already trying to narrow the gap between the synthetic embryos they generate and natural ones. This work is necessary to make human and animal synthetic embryos truly useful as lab models and indispensable if human synthetic embryos will ever be used to grow organs for transplants. 

Moral Status of Embryos
But as synthetic and natural human embryos become indistinguishable, this resemblance raises questions about the moral status of synthetic embryos. If no substantial difference exists between synthetic and natural embryos, shouldn’t the same ethical and moral considerations apply to them equally? Because of this inevitable similarity, a growing number of bioethicists are arguing that synthetic human embryos should be regarded as true human embryos, even if they are still crude facsimiles of natural ones.

Using Embryos for Reproduction
What about the use of synthetic embryos for reproductive purposes? Right now, the scientists and biotechnologists working with synthetic embryos say that they have no intention of using them for reproductive therapies. In fact, the International Society for Stem Cell Research has issued statements calling for regulations that prohibit implanting human synthetic embryos into the womb of a surrogate. (It should be noted that this scientific society has no power to enforce these recommendations.) 

Today, it’s easy to abide by this restriction because synthetic embryos remain a crude facsimile of natural ones. But what happens when synthetic embryos become indistinguishable from natural embryos? The temptation will be unavoidable. Researchers will want to implant these embryos into the wombs of surrogates to assess their similarity to natural embryos and to learn about the early stages of implantation and embryo growth and development in a natural environment. As discussed earlier, Chinese scientists have done these very experiments on macaques for these very reasons. It’s easy to see how these types of experiments, though they violate the proposed guidelines, would be justified for the sake of accruing scientific knowledge. But once the techniques are worked out to perform these experiments, it’s just a few small steps away from using human synthetic embryos for reproductive purposes. 

Destruction of Human Embryos
I have one final ethical concern. To create synthetic human embryos, embryonic stem cells are required. And, ultimately, the source of embryonic stem cells is human embryos generated through in vitro fertilization. In other words, the creation of synthetic human embryos requires, first, the creation of natural embryos that must be destroyed to isolate embryonic stem cells. These cells, in turn, are used to create the embryonic stem cell cultures that comprise the source of stem cells for the generation of synthetic embryos. While the number of natural human embryos created by in vitro fertilization to establish the embryonic stem cell lines is limited, human embryos still must be created and destroyed to create human synthetic embryos. 

This necessity is deeply troubling for people who hold a pro-life position. One encouraging advance is the use of induced pluripotent stem cells to create human synthetic embryos, which may obviate the need for embryonic stem cells to generate these human embryo models.

So, are we overdriving our headlights? The moral status of human synthetic embryos is unclear. Nobody can confidently say what they are and what they are not. But what is clear is that we’ve put ourselves in an ethical quagmire and we may not have a way to free ourselves. As important as the creation of human synthetic embryos may be scientifically and biomedically, any reasonable person has to wonder if wisdom dictates that this work be suspended until we have time to fully work through its ethical and social implications. We also need the courage to stop this line of investigation if this is, indeed, where the ethical deliberations take us.

As physicist and writer Alan Lightman has cautioned,

I have no opposition at all to technology. I think technology is a wonderful thing that has to be used thoughtfully, and we can’t just assume that every bit of new technology improves the quality of life; it’s really in how the technology is used. What I am very disturbed about is this trend of everything happening faster and faster and faster and there being more and more general noise in the world, and less and less time for quiet reflection on who we are, and where we’re going.

Theological Mandate: Proceed with Caution
For Christians, our concern about synthetic embryos extends beyond ethical considerations. We have theological ones, as well. And these theological considerations lead to the question: Is there any biblical or theological justification for creating synthetic embryos?  

I think so, but it’s a bit complex and nuanced. 

The passage of Scripture most germane to this question is the account of humanity’s creation in Genesis 1. This text teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. With this special status comes certain responsibilities, including:

• Subduing the world and bringing it under our control
• Ruling over the world by exercising dominion over the creation
• Serving as caretakers of the planet 

God granted dominion over creation to humans. We are to use it and the abundance of its resources so that we can flourish as human beings. Yet human flourishing should not come at the cost of a wanton disregard for the world in which we live. God charges us to exercise care for the planet and the life that inhabits it. These mandates provide the motivation for science and technology. Fulfilling each of these responsibilities requires that humanity understands the world and uses that insight to develop technologies that allow humanity to thrive, while ensuring the planet’s health and protecting Earth’s ecosystems.

Because we have dominion over creation, we are free to engage in biotechnology and synthetic biology. This freedom includes the creation of synthetic animal embryos, with an eye toward using them to foster an understanding of embryonic development that can be used to benefit humanity.  

But the extent of our dominion is limited. It doesn’t extend to humans. Dominion over those creatures who bear his image belongs exclusively to God. 

If we take the limitation of our dominion seriously, we should proceed cautiously with the creation of synthetic human embryos. Those made with human embryonic stem cells shouldn’t be created at all. Those made with induced pluripotent stem cells should be generated in such a way that they remain distinct from natural human embryos—if they are to be made at all.

As Mr. Cunningham taught us all those years ago: Slow down. Take your time. Make sure you know where you’re going. Make sure you can see what’s ahead of you.

Resources

Should We Play God?

• A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 1 by Fazale Rana (article)
• A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 2 by Fazale Rana (article)

Stem Cell Biology

• A New Direction for Stem Cell Research by Fazale Rana (article)
• Bringing Stem Cell Research into Focus by Fazale Rana (article)
• Embryonic-Like Stem Cells from Adult Cells by Fazale Rana (article)
• Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Interview with Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. For example, see Jessica Hamzelou, “Synthetic Embryos Have Been Implanted into Monkey Wombs,” MIT Technology Review (April 6, 2023).
2. Hannah Devlin, “Synthetic Human Embryos Created in Groundbreaking Advance,” The Guardian (June 14, 2023).
3. Alejandro Aguilera-Castrejon et al., “Ex Utero Mouse Embryogenesis from Pre-Gastrulation to Late Organogenesis,” Nature 593 (May 6, 2021): 119–124, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03416-3; Shadi Tarazi et al., “Post-Gastrulation Synthetic Embryos Generated Ex Utero from Mouse Naïve ESCs, Cell 185, no. 18 (September 1, 2022): 3290–3306, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.07.028.
4. Jie Li et al., “Cynomolgus Monkey Embryo Model Captures Gastrulation and Early Pregnancy,” Cell Stem Cell 30, no. 4 (April 6, 2023): 362–377, doi:10.1016/j.stem.2023.03.009.
5. Xiaodong Liu et al., “Modelling Human Blastocysts by Reprogramming Fibroblasts into iBlastoids,” Nature 591 (March 25, 2021): 627–632, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03372-y; Leqian Yu et al., “Blastocyst-Like Structures Generated from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells,” Nature 591 (March 25, 2021): 620–626; doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03356-y; Harunobu Kagawa et al., “Human Blastoids Model Blastocyst Development and Implantation,” Nature601 (January 27, 2022): 600–605, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04267-8. 
6. Bailey A. T. Weatherbee et al., “Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Model of the Post-Implantation Human Embryo,”Nature (June 27, 2023), doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06368-y; Monique Pedroza et al., “Self-Patterning of Human Stem Cells into Post-Implantation Lineages,” Nature (June 27, 2023), doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06354-4; Bernardo Oldak et al., “Transgene-Free Ex Utero Derivation of a Human Post-Implantation Embryo Model Solely from Genetically Unmodified Naïve PSCs,” BioRxiv (June 15, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.14.544922; Zongyong Ai et al., “Directing Peri-Implantation Development Using Cultured Human Embryos and Embryo-Like Assembloids,” BioRxiv (June 26,2023) doi:10.1101/2023.06.15.545180.
7. Will Sullivan, “Researchers Create Model Human Embryos Using Stem Cells,” Smithsonian Magazine (July 3, 2023).

The post A Christian Perspective on Synthetic Embryos appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Turducken, a blended word combining turkey, duck, and chicken, consists of a deboned chicken stuffed into a deboned duck that, in turn, is stuffed into a deboned turkey. The cavity of the chicken and the gaps between the birds is filled with a bread crumb and sausage mixture. Alternatively, some cooks add pork or veal roast to the chicken cavity instead of traditional stuffing.

Turducken epitomizes our love affair with meat and demonstrates that there is no distance a true meat lover won’t traverse to satisfy his or her cravings. More and more people around the world are becoming meat lovers. But this love affair may not last long because many experts believe that the world’s meat producers won’t have the wherewithal to satisfy the ever-increasing demand.

Global Growth of the Demand for Meat
The yearning for meat (and other animal products such as milk and eggs) has grown worldwide. In 1960, 71 million tons of meat was produced (and consumed), globally. By 2022, that number had swelled to 340 million tons. Some projections put global meat production between 460 million and 570 million tons by 2050.¹

The increased demand for meat is due to two main factors: (1) a growing worldwide human population, and (2) increased affluence in the developing world. As people acquire more wealth, their diets include more meat. At this current pace, there’s a growing concern that farmers won’t have the production capacity to satisfy the worldwide demand.

Environmental Impact of Meat Production
Another problem concerns the now widely held belief that the growing demand for meat will inevitably cause increasing harm to the environment. 

By some estimates, animal agriculture generates about 18% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Waste from animal agriculture also leaches into water supplies, particularly when a lot of animals are raised in a concentrated space. This waste runoff creates dead zones in the affected water supplies. 

Animal agriculture also requires extensive land use. The increased demand for meat has become one of the drivers of deforestation. According to some estimates, about 1 acre of forest land is cleared every second. And much of it is used for animal agriculture. About 91% of the deforested land of the Amazon rainforest is now used to raise livestock for meat production. 

Land use for meat production is inefficient. The amount of land it takes to produce a gram of edible beef protein is about 20 times greater than what it takes to produce a gram of edible proteins from beans and lentils.

In the US, 67% of the crops produced on farmland goes to feed animals raised for meat production. Only 27% of crop production provides calories directly consumed by human beings. In addition, half of the water used in the US is for animal agriculture.

In short, animal agriculture puts a strain on limited natural resources and causes environmental damage. This strain and damage will only get worse as more and more people consume meat.

Meat Production and Animal Cruelty
There’s also an ethical dimension to the increased global demand for meat. To sustain the current demand, around 70 billion land animals and trillions of marine animals are slaughtered each year. The most efficient way to grow this number of animals is through factory farming, which many people find to be cruel and inhumane. 

Lab Meat as an Alternative
In the face of the limited resources available to increase meat production, concerns for the environment, and concerns about animal welfare, some biotechnologists are exploring another option: the production of meat in the laboratory from stem cells. 

Advocates claim that lab meat would be friendlier to the environment than factory farming and would bring an end to the cruelty of factory farming. And it could help supply the world’s growing desire to consume more meat with a healthier, more versatile product than meat produced from animal agriculture.

Thanks to advances in synthetic biology and tissue engineering, researchers can now “grow” meat in the laboratory from a few stem cells recovered from tissue biopsies taken from animals. This lab-grown tissue is called lab meat, cultured meat, or synthetic meat. But most advocates prefer the less unpleasant label, clean meat.²

Technologists working in this field hope that they can refine laboratory protocols to be efficient enough that lab meat can be produced at large scales and low enough cost that it could be sold in grocery stores and other food markets. If this objective can be achieved, then this emerging biotechnology may become one of the most economically advantageous technologies, impacting the agriculture, grocery, and food service industries. 

Growing Meat in the Lab³
A source of stem cells is required to grow meat in the lab. Because stem cells can be cultured into “immortal” cell lines, once established, the cell line can serve as an ongoing source of cells for meat production. Estimates communicated in popular media outlets routinely claim that one biopsy could generate tons of meat products. More measured estimates indicate that with current technology, lab meat production will dramatically reduce the number of animals required for meat production, but not to the extent popularly claimed. A recent study focusing on beef indicated that wide-scale lab meat production could reduce the number of cattle needed to produce beef globally by a factor of four hundred.⁴ By optimizing the biopsy process and improving the efficiency of stem and progenitor cell recovery from the biopsies, researchers hope the advances could lead to an even greater reduction in animals used for meat production. 

Investigators have tried several different types of stem cells to culture meat, and the most promising have been muscle stem cells (called myosatellite cells). These cells are humanely isolated by taking a muscle biopsy from an anesthetized animal, causing the creature minimal discomfort. Once the tissue biopsy has been secured, the structure of the tissue is disrupted by an enzymatic treatment. The tissue disruption frees the cells from other tissue components, making it easier to isolate and recover them. 

Figure 1: The Growth of Meat in the Lab
Credit: Shutterstock

Biotechnologists have a good understanding of the growth and development process that turns myosatellite cells into muscle fibers. Myosatellite cells have the capability of dividing and proliferating in cell culture. Under the right culture conditions, these cells can be encouraged to transform into myogenic progenitor cells (or myoblasts). In turn, the myoblasts can be coaxed further to differentiate into myocytes. Afterward, these cells fuse together to form a fibrous-like “supercell” that possesses multiple nuclei. This fused cellular structure, called a myotube, can mature into a myofiber that interacts with other myofibers to form a muscle fiber. (See figure 2.) 

Figure 2: The Growth of Muscle Fibers from Myosatellite Cells
Credit: Shutterstock

With myosatellite cells in hand, researchers first culture them in two-dimensional cell cultures using fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the cell culture medium. (One area of active research involves finding a suitable replacement for the controversial use of FBS.) Researchers use precise culture conditions to induce the myosatellite cells to develop into myoblasts, which includes the addition of the right growth factors (a collection of proteins that regulate specific stages of cell growth and differentiation). Next, the myoblasts are transferred into bioreactors designed to grow three-dimensional cell cultures that will eventually form the lab meat.

During this stage, scaffolding is introduced to provide the three-dimensional framework for the lab meat. Scaffolding refers to edible material that supports the organization of meat cells into the desired shape. The design of the scaffolding is key. It must possess the just-right porosity. The pores allow for cellular waste products to diffuse away and allow nutrients and growth factors to reach the growing cells. If the porosity isn’t right, necrotic (dead zones of cells) will develop in the cell culture interior. The scaffolding must have the just-right biochemical properties as well. The cells must adhere to the scaffolding through chemical interactions between the scaffolding material and the cell surface. The scaffolding also needs to be capable of retaining water. It also must have the just-right rigidity to ensure that the three-dimensional shape of the cell culture is maintained. And, of course, the scaffolding must not detract from the flavor and texture of the lab meat.

Several different materials have been studied for scaffolding use, including cellulose, chitin, and collagen, which is the component that forms connective tissue that is naturally associated with living muscle. 

As the myoblasts fuse to form myotubes in the bioreactors and then grow into myofibers, researchers must electrically and mechanically stimulate the myofibers. This stimulation helps promote cell proliferation and differentiation and the maturation of the myofibers.

During this stage, researchers also add other components (vitamins, minerals, colorants) to the cell culture, including adipocytes (fat-producing cells). The addition of adipocytes is particularly important because fat plays an important role in the flavor and texture of meat. Other added materials improve the aesthetics of the lab meat. 

Once the growth of the cell culture is completed, researchers process the cell culture to mimic meat products (ground meat or sausages). The entire process takes between 2 to 8 weeks,  depending on the type of meat being grown.

Commercial Viability
Even though the technology is in place, one of the big hurdles that has stood in the way of bringing lab meat to market is the cost. In 2013, the first burger made from lab meat—the creation of Mark Post of Maastricht University—was served at a press conference in London. The cost of that burger was estimated at over $300,000. But in the last decade, the cost of producing lab meat has plummeted. As of spring 2022, Post and his company, Mosa Meats, had reduced the cost to less than $10 per burger.⁵

Today, there are nearly 100 biotech companies around the world working to bring lab meat products to market. According to the Mackenzie Report, some estimates place the value of the global market for cultured meat at $25 billion by 2030, which, according to cost projections, will be the time when the cost of lab meat reaches parity with conventional meat.

A critical step in achieving this economic milestone came in the early summer of 2023, when food technology companies GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods received approval from the USDA to sell the first-ever lab meat poultry product made from animal cells.⁶

Health Benefits
Nutritional Value
Apart from the environmental benefits and the humane treatment of animals, some experts claim that lab meat would be healthier overall to consume than conventional meat. Lab meat would contain most of the nutrients of conventional meat products (proteins and fats). And those nutrients that are missing can be added to augment the nutritional value of lab meat. In addition, genetic engineering techniques could be used to modify the myosatellite cells or the adipocytes so that they produce a greater proportion of healthier fats (unsaturated fats and omega-3 fatty acids). Also, other nutrients that don’t naturally occur in meat could be added as well.

Fewer Antibiotics
Because animals are confined in small spaces during factory farming, farmers and ranchers must give the creatures antibiotics to curtail the spread of bacterial infections, thereby preventing animal suffering and sustaining meat production at high levels. These antibiotics make their way into the meat products. They also leach into the environment and contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. It may be possible to produce lab meat without antibiotics, though some experts think that antimicrobials might be needed to prevent lab meat from being contaminated by bacteria and fungi during lab meat production. 

Reduction in Food-Borne Illnesses
Lab meat should also dramatically reduce food-borne illness. When conventional meat is produced, it is exposed to intestinal contents and animal waste during animal slaughter and the early stages of meat processing. This exposure contaminates the meat with pathogens that can cause food poisoning in consumers.

Despite the potential health benefits, one concern that has been raised by critics is the use of hormones and growth factors to culture the lab meat. It is unknown if these added compounds will have negative short- and long-term effects on human health if lab meat is consumed on a regular basis. Today, the European Union prohibits the use of hormones to promote growth in animals raised for conventional meat production.⁷

Lab Meat and the Culinary Arts
Lab meat has also piqued the interest of chefs. Many are willing to serve lab meat in their restaurants for a variety of reasons, including food safety and environmental friendliness. But they’re also interested in lab meat because of the ability to control the flavor and texture of the product by changing culture conditions.⁸

Lab meat also holds the prospect of making exotic meats widely available. Because lab meat doesn’t require the destruction of an animal, biopsies of animals that are nondomesticated or on the verge of extinction can be used to culture meat. It’s also possible to produce meat by combining cells from different animal sources to produce a high-tech version of turducken. 

Critics have pointed out that lab meat will likely disappoint, at least in the near term, by failing to provide chefs and consumers with the diversity of meats that comes from different animal breeds and the different cuts of meat currently available for conventional meat products. For now, lab meat will be sold and consumed primarily as a ground product.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The Environmental Impact
Most of the publicity surrounding lab meat has been positive. Yet, a number of scientists and technologists have questioned if lab meat will deliver the benefits its advocates tout. A critical review article published in 2020 by two French scientists presents a balanced assessment of the benefits and costs of lab meat production. Their analysis shows that the claimed environmental benefits that come from producing lab meat compared to conventional meat offerings have been overstated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For example, these scientists cite a study published in 2019 that demonstrates switching to lab meat and reducing conventional beef production will, indeed, reduce methane emissions by replacing them with carbon dioxide release.⁹ In the short term, this change will reduce global warming because methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, methane is much more short-lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, meaning that in the long term lab meat production will raise, not lower, global temperatures.

Work by investigators from the University of California, Davis, draws a similar conclusion.¹⁰ Lab meat manufacture requires production facilities and an ongoing supply of raw materials (growth media, additives, and scaffolding). These raw materials must be manufactured, packaged, and transported to the production facility. The production of lab meat and its raw materials will require water and power. And it will generate waste.

Assuming current technology, the UC Davis team determined the carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of meat produced as lab meat and as conventional meat using animal agricultural practices. By determining the energy usage for each step of the process, they discovered that lab meat production generated 4 to 25 times more carbon dioxide than the production of conventional beef. 

The UC Davis team determined that one of the chief culprits contributing to the environmental stress caused by lab meat production is the growth medium used to culture the cells and induce them to form myofibrils. This growth medium contains sugars, growth factors, salts, amino acids, and vitamins. Each of these components must be produced. The sugars come from crops. The growth factors must be extracted and purified from biological sources in a laboratory setting. All the components must be a high-purity pharmaceutical grade (approved by the FDA). This process requires expensive and energy-intensive purification steps. 

Culturing animal cells is tricky business. These cell cultures are fastidious, making the purity grade of these materials essential. It’s the only way to ensure that no microorganisms and toxins find their way into the growth medium from the raw materials. If cell cultures become contaminated with microorganisms, the contaminating cells will outgrow the animal cells and overrun the cell culture with unwanted microbes. There’s no way to bypass the need for pharmaceutical-grade raw materials to culture cells for lab meat production.

Land Usage
The French scientists agree that the land required for animal agriculture far exceeds that needed for lab meat production. But they point out that livestock production provides beneficial environmental services. The manure generated from livestock provides organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus that maintains soil fertility. Also, much of the land used to raise cattle isn’t useful for any other purpose. So, while some of the land used for animal agriculture comes at a real environmental cost (for example, the conversion of Amazon rainforest to land used to raise cattle), much of it is nonarable grassland that is ideally suited for livestock production.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The Economic Impact
Without question, lab meat production has the potential to be an economically beneficial technology. It will create a variety of new jobs. But these new jobs will come at a cost. The French scientists suggest that the switch away from conventional agriculture to lab meat production will likely devastate rural communities that rely mostly on agriculture as the primary source of income. 

They also point out that animal agriculture may not diminish as much as people might hope. Even if laboratory operations become the primary means of meat production, livestock will still be needed to produce eggs, milk, wool, fiber, and leather.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The FBS Problem
One of the primary justifications for lab meat production is the desire to mitigate animal cruelty through the reduction of factory farming and animal slaughter. Unfortunately, the use of FBS as the medium to culture myosatellite cells into muscle fibers all but eliminates any gains in animal welfare from lab meat production.

FBS is ideal as a cell culture medium because it contains vitamins, hormones, and growth factors needed to convert stem cells into differentiated cells. But FBS comes from the blood of cow fetuses. To harvest this blood, not only is the cow fetus destroyed but often the mother is slaughtered as well. 

Currently, 800,000 liters of FBS are produced each year and that amount requires the destruction of 2 million cow fetuses. Of course, if wide-scale production of lab meat ensues, much more FBS would be required.

FBS is also expensive. A half-liter costs about $700 dollars. The need for FBS is one of the reasons lab meat costs so much to produce. For context, hundreds of liters of FBS are needed to generate just over 2 pounds of lab meat, which is enough to make 20 fast food hamburgers.

Other problems plague FBS usage for lab meat production, including batch-to-batch variations and the risk of microbial contamination.

The good news is that numerous biotech companies have found ways to reduce the amount of FBS required to produce lab meat or eliminate it altogether.¹¹ This advance will undoubtedly contribute to the commercial viability of lab meat and truly make it a cruelty-free product.

Tentative Steps Forward?
As things stand now, the dish with lab meat is still in the oven. Nobody knows if it will be a half-baked biotechnology or not. It is unclear if consumers will accept lab meat as an alternative to conventional meat. And it is even less clear if lab meat will have the positive impact on the environment many of its advocates claim. Lab meat does hold the potential to be an economically rewarding technology. It will create jobs and open new economic opportunities. However, it will also change the face of animal agriculture, which may well harm some rural communities.

Even when it comes to animal cruelty, it’s not clear that lab meat will lead to the outcome everyone hopes—even if the FBS problem is solved. Meat is only one of the products produced by animal agriculture. Efficient egg and milk production, too, lends itself to factory farming. And other animal products like leather require animal sacrifice.

Still, it is a biotechnology well worth exploring. If it can realize—even in part—some of its promises, it will improve animal welfare and help us better care for the environment.

A Christian Perspective on Lab Meat
One final point of concern for Christians is, What should our response be to biotechnologies such as lab meat? 

• Are we overstepping our God-given bounds when we develop biotechnologies such as lab meat?
• Are we operating outside God’s design?
• Are we playing God?

The biblical passages most relevant to these questions are the human creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2. This section of Scripture teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. With this special status comes certain responsibilities, including:

• Subduing the world and bringing it under our control
• Ruling over the world by exercising dominion over the creation
• Serving as caretakers of the planet 

God has granted his creation to us. This responsibility entails that we use God’s creation and its abundant resources so that human beings can flourish. Yet human flourishing should not include a wanton disregard for the world in which we live. We are to exercise care for the planet and the life that inhabits it. 

These mandates provide the motivation for science and technology. Fulfilling each of these responsibilities requires that humanity understands the world. That insight, in turn, should be used to develop technologies that allow humanity to thrive while ensuring the planet’s health and protecting Earth’s ecosystems.

Because we have dominion over creation, we are free to engage in biotechnology and synthetic biology, including projects such as the creation of lab meat. Creating and using lab meat to satisfy the growing worldwide demand for meat is not outside of God’s will or design. Advances such as these are exactly the very thing God expects of us as rulers over his creation. When we create lab meat, we are exercising the authority over creation that he granted us. 

We also have an obligation as Christians to vigorously explore the potential of lab meat production to mitigate harm to the environment and to improve animal welfare. We also have an obligation to ensure that those who might be economically harmed by this technology are not marginalized, but protected. 

Assuming that we can overcome all obstacles, then lab-grown meat may be an ethically viable alternative to animal agriculture. I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to serve lab meat at my Thanksgiving table one day in the near future. And I can’t help but wonder what John Madden would think of a turducken dish made from meat cultured in the lab. 

Resources

Should We Play God?

“A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)

“A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

“God’s Providence, Man’s Dominion, and Synthetic Biology” by Fazale Rana (article)

Lab Meat

Stars, Cells, and God: Lab Meat and Photosynthetic Zones by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (video)

Endnotes

1. Martin Armstrong, “The Growing Global Hunger for Meat,” Statista (July 3, 2023).  
2. Alison George, “Lab-Grown Meat,” New Scientist, accessed August 24, 2023.
3. Isam T. Kadim et al., “Cultured Meat from Muscle Cells: A Review of Challenges and Prospects,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14, no. 2 (2015): 222–233, doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9; Tom Ben-Arye and Shulamit Levenberg, “Tissue Engineering for Clean Meat Production,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3 (2019): 46, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00046.
4. Lea Melzener et al., “Cultured Beef: From Small Biopsy to Substantial Quantity,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101, no. 1 (January 15, 2021): 7–14, doi:10.1002/jsfa.10663.
5. Tom Brennan et al., “Cultivated Meat: Out of the Lab, into the Frying Pan,” The Mackenzie Report (June 2021); Lana Bandoim, “Making Meat Affordable: Progress Since the $330,000 Lab-Grown Burger,” Forbes (March 8, 2022). 
6. Allison Aubrey, “‘No Kill’ Meat, Grown from Animal Cells, Is Now Approved for Sale in the U.S.,” NPR (June 21, 2023). 
7. Sghaier Chriki and Jean-François Hocquette, “The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review,” Frontiers in Nutrition 7 (February 7, 2020): 7, doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00007.
8. Grace Galler, “What Do US Chefs Think of Cultured Meat?,” New Food (October 28, 2022).  
9. John Lynch and Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3 (February 19, 2019): 5, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005.
10. Derrick Risner et al., “Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat: A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment,” bioRxiv(April 21, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.04.21.537778.
11. For example, see Tobias Messmer et al., “A Serum-Free Media Formulation for Cultured Meat Production Supports Bovine Satellite Cell Differentiation in the Absence of Serum Starvation,” Nature Food 3 (January 2022): 74–85, doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00419-1.

The post Should We Eat Lab-Grown Meat? A Christian Perspective appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Visibility of the Heavens in Ancient Times
Artificial nighttime lighting (ANL) likely dates back to Adam and Eve. The archaeological record testifies that Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) always had control over fire. Therefore, nighttime camp and hearth fires would have been common. The earliest written records mention the widespread use of candles and oil lamps.

These early forms of ANL were intermittent, rarely intended to provide illumination for more than a few hours, and illumination levels were low, typically below that of a 40-watt incandescent bulb. The illuminated areas were small, too, usually only about 10 square meters. For people of the Roman Empire and earlier, a short walk or a few hours wait would be sufficient to escape any ANL interference with views of the nighttime sky. 

When God told Abraham to “look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them,”¹ the night sky on a moonless night was so dark that any human adult with good eyes could see ~15,000 stars. Abraham saw the Milky Way and dozens of nebulae, an awe-inspiring sight. His contemporaries’ ability to determine the great distances to the Moon and the Sun and their inability to measure distances to the stars spoke to them of the vastness of the starry realm.

With the invention of the telescope in 1608, humans could see, for the first time, hundreds of thousands of stars. By the late 1600s, millions of stars had become visible.    

Decreasing Visibility of the Heavens
The industrial revolution of the 1800s and especially the technological revolution that followed the end of World War II had a blinding effect. With gas lighting replacing oil lamps in the 1800s, city streets remained illuminated all night long. By the end of the 1800s, incandescent electric bulbs replaced gas lighting. In the 1900s, incandescent bulbs gave way to mercury vapor lamps, which subsequently gave way to low-pressure sodium lamps. Now, LED lighting is replacing mercury and sodium lamps.

Each technological advance in ANL has made nighttime lighting much brighter, more pervasive, and much less expensive. Thus, since 1900, ANL has been increasing exponentially, and the rise in ANL has been especially steep since 2000.

Sadly, the twenty-first-century rise of ANL has brought with it serious health challenges and ecological consequences.² At the same time, it has drastically reduced the visibility of the heavens for the majority of the world’s population.

For the first time in human history, most people live in large metropolitan areas. In such places, ANL is so intense that when they look up at the night sky people see fewer than 50 stars! I’ve been in some Asian cities where, on a “clear” night, not even the brighter planets were visible, let alone any stars. In some of these same cities, the combination of light and air pollution makes seeing the Moon impossible, unless it is at least 15 degrees above the horizon. So, for hundreds of millions of people, the heavens declare nothing about the glory and righteousness of God. For them, the magnificent heavenly objects remain totally invisible.  

Decreasing Effectiveness of Telescopes
Abraham’s generation did not need telescopes. Our generation does. The availability of telescopes helps compensate for what we cannot see with our unaided eyes. With a good pair of binoculars, we can travel to the countryside to see all that Abraham could see. We can visit the NASA and ESO websites and marvel at images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Very Large Telescope array, and now the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

However, civilization and technology are now threatening the capability of telescopes to see the heavens clearly. How? Satellites now number in the tens of thousands. Within a decade, proposed satellite constellations could raise the number of satellites orbiting Earth as high as a hundred thousand, even a quarter of a million or more.

Satellites orbiting Earth reflect sunlight. They create streaks of light across images of the night sky (see figure 1). Especially in the case of long-exposure telescopic images, dozens of satellite streaks brighter than the natural objects astronomers are attempting to observe and measure severely degrade the quality of the research results (see figure 2).

Not only ground-based telescope images are being marred by satellite streaks. Satellites leave bright streaks across images taken by the HST, as well. In 2021, 5.9% of HST images exposed for just 11 minutes were streaked by satellites.³ Deep HST images take hours. The percentage of images marred by satellite streaks rises proportionally with exposure time. You can imagine researchers’ frustration.

Figure 1: Light Streak from an Artificial Satellite above the Very Large Telescope
Credit: ESO

Figure 2: Astronomical Image Marred by Satellite Trails
Credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory  

As seriously as optical wavelength telescopes are impacted by ANL and Earth-orbiting satellites, radio telescopes are impacted to a far greater degree. Radio interference from ground-based and satellite transmissions is both strong and pervasive, and it’s only growing stronger and more pervasive. I’ve written recently⁴ about how radio interference seriously limits long-wavelength radio astronomy, and I must add that it also seriously limits short-wavelength radio astronomy.

The research on which I based my doctoral thesis is no longer feasible. For the detection sensitivity required, I used broadband receivers at five different centimeter wavelengths. Today, these bandwidths are saturated by radio interference. Radio astronomy at these wavelengths is now confined to a few narrow “protected” bandwidths.   

ANL Increase by Satellites
In 2020, a team of astronomers calculated the degree of illumination from Earth-orbiting satellites at the zenith (directly above any point on Earth’s surface) at midnight. The skyglow amounted to 20 microcandelas per square meter.⁵ (1 candela expresses the light emitted by a candle of specific size and composition.) This level of illumination already degrades astronomers’ observations. 

The megaconstellation satellite systems proposed for launch during the next 15 years will increase midnight zenith illumination by more than ten times. It may even become noticeable to people living in rural areas.    

Dark Sky Refuges
The International Astronomical Union has appealed to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to protect the night sky’s darkness for the sake of future advances in astronomy. While astronomers cannot stop the launch of satellite constellations, the best they can hope for is that corporations manufacturing satellites will make them less reflective. 

Radio astronomers feel especially hopeless. The proposed satellite arrays will be transmitting powerful signals across most of the radio spectrum. 

The one remaining “radio quiet” location in the solar system is the far side of the Moon during the lunar night. However, even this site is under threat. In the next decade or so, the Moon will become the target of hundreds of orbiters and landers. These orbiters and landers could spoil radio astronomy’s last remaining refuge.⁶

At a conference called Astronomy from the Moon: The Next Decades, held at the Royal Society of London, astronomers raised the alarm. They called on governments to establish international treaties that would protect the Moon’s far side. In particular, they called for the shelving of plans to install a lunar satellite navigation system. They asked that strict rules be applied to any satellite or lander operating on the Moon’s far side. 

More than 250 lunar missions are scheduled for launch during the next decade. The time window to draft appropriate treaties and acquire necessary signatures is small and rapidly shrinking.

Meanwhile, optical and infrared astronomy research is also being squeezed out. The remaining refuge for these types of observations is the Lagrange 2 point (L2) along Earth’s orbit. This point is about a million miles away from Earth, where the JWST has been operating for the past year. The European Space Agency’s Euclid Space Telescope is on its way to join the JWST in L2.

To place telescopes at the L2 site is not inexpensive. The JWST, for example, cost $10 billion. Furthermore, the L2 site is subject to meteorite and micrometeorite impacts, and L2 is too far away for repair or upgrade missions.   

What’s at Stake?
Increasing ANL threatens more serious consequences than interference with the astronomy research I’m passionate about. It will bring more serious health and ecological consequences than those we’re already experiencing. For one example, the Bible speaks of a time when people’s love will “grow cold.”⁷ It’s easy to see how ANL may be partly to blame. 

ANL reduces both the duration and quality of sleep.⁸ A recent study shows that sleep loss exacerbates depression and reduces expression of altruism.⁹ Altruism would likely be further reduced and depression further increased as people lose the ability to see the beauty and wonder of God as expressed in the heavens. Much more than astronomical research is at stake.

What Can Be Done?
Technological advances have made ANL, the Internet, and global positioning systems remarkably accessible. The low cost of these amenities tempts humans everywhere to expand their usage. However, the time has come to address significant questions: 

1. Can we limit ANL to places where it’s essential for safety? 
2. Can we move ANL wavelengths toward the red end of the spectrum, where its effects are less harmful?
3. Can we develop new technology so that we can get by with many fewer satellites?
4. Can we make satellites less reflective, less “noisy,” and place them in lower orbits? 
5. Can we design satellites to de-orbit once they cease useful operation? 
6. Can we develop and implement a system for the retrieval and safe disposal of obsolete satellites and space litter? 

I believe we can do all these things and more, as well, to help restore access to the revelation of God’s glory and righteousness in the heavens. Personally, I love to show people the gorgeous images being released by space telescopes and explain what they tell us about our Creator.

Although I may seem to be bashing technology, I greatly value one particular smartphone app. When the phone is aimed up at the night sky, it identifies astronomical objects that can be detected there. A good pair of binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 or 10 x 50) can be linked to the smartphone for enhanced viewing of the planets, moons, stars, and nebulae. 

The sense of wonder that comes from observing and pondering the heavens nearly always leads to in-depth conversation about the One who brought them—and us—into existence.    

Endnotes

1. Genesis 15:5.
2. Hugh Ross, “Is Artificial Nighttime Lighting Too Much of a Good Thing?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (October 17, 2022).
3. Sandor Kruk et al., “The Impact of Satellite Trails on Hubble Space Telescope Observations,” Nature Astronomy 7 (March 2, 2023): 262–268, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01903-3.
4. Hugh Ross, “LuSEE: Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (July 24, 2023).
5. M. Kocifaj et al., “The Proliferation of Space Objects Is a Rapidly Increasing Source of Artificial Night Sky Brightness,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 504, no. 1 (June 2021): L40–L44, doi:10.1093/mnras/slab030.
6. Davide Castelvecchi, “Are Telescopes on the Moon Doomed before They’ve Even Been Built?” Nature 615 (March 16, 2023): 383–384, doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00635-8.
7. Matthew 24:12.
8. Maja Grubisic et al., “Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and Melatonin in Vertebrates,” Sustainability 11, no. 22 (September 14, 2019): id. 6400, doi:10.3390/su11226400.
9. Eti Ben Simon et al., “Sleep Loss Leads to the Withdrawal of Human Helping Across Individuals, Groups, and Large-Scale Societies,” PLOS Biology 20, no. 8 (August 23, 2022): id. e3001733, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001733.

The post Saving Astronomy—and More appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

In my recent book, Jesus Is God and Savior, I explain and critique what naturalists affirm about important existential questions. In this post, I will briefly discuss six things naturalists affirm and show how the evidence and reasoning contradict these views.

Figure 1: Complex aquatic creatures of the Cambrian period appeared without signs of evolution from previous animals. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Naturalist Affirmation 1: God does not exist.
In Does God Exist? philosopher William Lane Craig presents several arguments for God’s existence.

Craig casts the teleological argument in terms of the fine-tuning that is observed in the universe. What is the source of the fine-tuning? Is it necessity, chance, or design? Craig concludes that the fine-tuning is not due to necessity since the physical constants of the universe could be other than they are.³ Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has shown that the probability that the constants of the universe could be set as they are on a random basis is virtually zero. Ross writes, “Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10³⁷ or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have overcome gravitational forces so that galaxies, stars, and planets would never have formed.”⁴ Yet the probability of finding a life-supporting planet in the entire universe is even more remote. Ross has compiled a list of 676 parameters that must be fine-tuned to permit life on a planet. He estimates that the probability of finding a life-permitting planet, apart from divine intervention, is one in 10⁵⁵⁶.⁵

Thus, necessity and chance are ruled out and design emerges as the only reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. The Designer (God) must be immensely powerful and knowledgeable. If God exists, it cannot be the case that only the universe exists.

Naturalist Affirmation 2: Life arose by naturalistic means.
In a now-famous letter from February of 1871, Charles Darwin wrote to Thomas Hooker and suggested that the production of a living organism might have taken place “in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity” present.⁶ Darwin’s letter to Hooker fanned the flames of the chemical evolution movement, asserting that the origin of the first living cell was the result of random and chemical processes. Without the first living cell, evolution by natural selection (ENS) could not commence. But did the first living cell arise by chemical evolution? According to Nobel laureate Jack Szostak and Harvard-affiliated researcher Alonso Ricardo, “It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”⁷

Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of Signature in the Cell, estimates the probability of a minimally complex cell arising by random chance and chemical evolution is one in 10^41,000.⁸ Thus, Meyer concludes, “The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell—or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins—by chance is unimaginably small.”⁹

Naturalist Affirmation 3: The present diversity of life is the result of evolution by natural selection.
If the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, the present observed diversity of life should be preceded by almost countless transitional forms as mutations gradually accumulated to form new species. Perhaps the most conspicuous failure of ENS is the rapid speciation during the Cambrian era recorded in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. The Cambrian explosion of life began about 540 million years ago and, by one estimate, lasted only 410,000 years.¹⁰ During this period, most of the 30 animal phyla present today appeared in a period too short to allow for the gradual ENS envisioned by Darwin. Cambrian-era creatures contained trillions of cells. In contrast, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted that the creatures of the Precambrian period found just below Cambrian shale layers were mere bacteria and blue-green algal cells devoid of nuclei and mitochondria.¹¹ In recognition of the Cambrian fossil problem, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins opines, “the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation.”¹² Dawkins rejects that alternative without providing rationale for his rejection.¹³

Naturalist Affirmation 4: The mind is a product of the brain which ceases to exist upon death.
Naturalists often argue that the mind is a product of the brain and the physiological processes in the central nervous system. Thus, they would affirm that when the body dies, the mind dies, and no afterlife is possible. However, evidential near-death experiences (NDEs) show that the mind continues to function even after clinical death (pulse and breathing have stopped) or brain death (flat-line EEG). In contrast to heavenly NDEs (in which the person claims they saw heaven), evidential NDEs take place on Earth, as those who are resuscitated from clinical and brain death provide verifiable and correct information regarding the events occurring during their incapacitated state.¹⁴ According to the radiation oncologist and recognized NDE researcher Jeffrey Long, “Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die.”¹⁵

In their book, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, professors Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland give numerous examples and reference large studies of corroborated evidential NDEs occurring in individuals who were comatose, clinically dead, or had flatline EEGs. Yet, upon resuscitation, these individuals are often able to provide details of their treatment, events in the hospital outside of the treatment setting, and sometimes events occurring in their homes or elsewhere. Evidential NDEs demonstrate that the mind can function apart from the body, showing that the mind is distinct from the body.¹⁶

Naturalist Affirmation 5: Humans are the ultimate source of morality.
Christian thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and William Lane Craig have defended the moral argument for the existence of God, stating that humans are imbued with a universal moral code or objective moral values that transcend time and location. Societies in recorded history have prohibited stealing, the murder of innocents, rape, bearing false witness, and other injustices. If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. In the Darwinian framework, survival of the fittest is incompatible with the altruism and longing for justice found in all human beings. But in a theist framework, altruism and a desire for justice make perfect sense. If there are universal moral laws, there must be a universal moral Lawgiver (God) who is the source of morality. Some have argued that the universal moral code is a result of ENS. Yet, if that were the case, there would be morals, but not objective morals. That is to say, under different evolutionary pressures, a culture might have evolved where the murder of innocents, rape, and injustice were viewed positively, which is hard to conceive.¹⁷ 

Naturalist Affirmation 6: Jesus was a mere mortal.
Finally, contrary to naturalists’ skepticism, the best explanation for the historical events which occurred in the first century is that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona defend the resurrection on the basis of four minimal facts. Their argument does not presume the truth of the Bible since it only uses facts accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars—conservative, liberal, skeptical, and agnostic. The facts are as follows:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus’s disciples believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them.
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly converted.
4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.

A fifth fact would be affirmed by about 75% of the same group of scholars: The tomb of Jesus was empty on Sunday morning.¹⁸ In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas and Licona consider all naturalistic explanations for the minimal facts and they show, one by one, why they all fail. Thus, they conclude that the best explanation for the minimal facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. Since a dead man could not raise himself, the minimal facts point to a transcendent God who controls natural processes and Jesus as his divine agent who entered space-time.

Naturalism Is a Failed Worldview
This brief presentation of evidence and reasoning contradicts six naturalists’ affirmations while affirming the Christian theist worldview. How many strikes must naturalism be afforded before it is ruled out as a viable worldview? Insight into the lengths that atheists and naturalists will go to preserve the possibility of a purely material world is found in Thomas Nagel’s candid revelation.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.¹⁹ 

The retreat from the Christian theist worldview has been hasty and ill-founded in light of the evidence. As Paul writes in Romans 1:18, men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. One day, all the unrighteousness and desires of humans will be swept aside as Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11–16), returns on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:29–31). Thus, the urgency to the share the gospel of Jesus Christ has never been greater.

Endnotes

1. Steven Schafersman, “Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science,” Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise, accessed August 14, 2022, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Naturalism%20by%20Schafersman%201997.html.
2. Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4.
3. William Lane Craig, Does God Exist? (Pine Mountain, GA: Impact 360, 2014), 496-704, Kindle.
4. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 170.
5. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 216–218.
6. Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 7471,” accessed March 4, 2023, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml.
7. A. Ricardo and J. W. Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, September 1, 2009,  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0909-54.
8. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper One, 2009), 213.
9. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 213.
10. Ulf Linnemann et al., “New High-Resolution Age Data from the Ediacaran-Cambrian Boundary Indicate Rapid, Ecologically Driven Onset of the Cambrian Explosion,” Terra Nova 31, no. 1 (February 2019): 49–58, doi:10.1111/ter.12368.
11. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: Norton, 1980), 139.
12. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1996), 230.
13. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 230.
14. Daniel Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior: How Prophecy, Science, and History Affirm the Truth of Christianity (Watertown, CT: Multimedia Apologetics, 2022), 193.
15. Jeffrey Long, “Near-death Experience. Evidence for Their Reality,” Missouri Medicine 111, no. 5 (September–October 2014): 372–380, doi:.
16. Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 155–172; Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 193–200.
17. Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 31–34.
18. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 48–76.
19. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130.

The post Is Scientific Naturalism Dead? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.