Is Naturalism A Religion?

I recently came upon this article in the Baptist Press: FIRST-PERSON: Call Darwinism what it is -- a religion.

I have been hearing this and similar arguments for many years now. Sometimes I have heard such a point made with regards to atheists as in, “atheism is a religion” and made by Christian theologians with quite high pedigrees.

Nevertheless, while such an argument may satiate our minds and provide those of us who do believe with enough mental distraction to carry on the fight to proclaim the good news, the question needs to be asked and answered: Is Darwinism a religion?

This point is often made by those within the conservative (and particularly within the fundamentalist) community with very little evidence to substantiate such a claim. Perhaps because the buttressing of such a point as essential to the movement is not either warranted or desired is the reason why such evidence is lacking. The most popular opportunities for this argument to be made is when the “creationist” movement is dealt a popular setback, such as the recent judicial decision of the Katzmiller v. Dover case. Usually the decision of the judge is to argue that “creationism” is not a science but a religion. The knee-jerk response by many fundamentalists is to then reply: “Well, Evolution/Darwinism is a religion, too! So there!” And this is a really odd reply, but it does appear to give the fundamentalist movement some form of psychological satisfaction.

The proponents of “creationism” had spent much effort and argument attempting to persuade the courts, the media and the public that “creationism” is a science just like that of evolution. When the response of the courts, the media and the public is one of refutation (“No, ‘creationism’ is a religion.”), the “creationists” then respond by saying that evolution is a religion like “creationism”. Needless to say, this final reply to the debate undermines all for which the “creationists” said they were fighting. It also invalidates into futility all future attempts at persuading the public that “creationism” is a science.

In terms of giving the fundamentalist movement some form of “psychological satisfaction”, I suspect that the “evolution is a religion” response gives some people a sense of slight vindication in that they have found the irony of the result whose absurdity negates that result. Example:

“‘Creationism’ is a science just like evolution is a science. The judge says that evolution is a science but ‘creationism’ is a religion. But what the judge failed to realize is that evolution is a religion just like ‘creationism’. Such hypocritical irony reinforces the fact that we fundamentalists were right to begin with.”

And while such “psychological satisfaction” may be self-deluding and is certainly not a psychological reflex found solely among fundamentalists (EVERY one does it, including atheists), I do think that it is important for Christians, particularly those of a more conservative persuasion, to not fall into this reflex, asserting that Evolution/Darwinism is a religion.

And interestingly enough the author of this article is somewhat in agreement.

“When establishing a defense for the action of the school board, the legal team attempted to demonstrate that, scientifically, Intelligent Design was on the same par with Darwinism. They attempted to use scientific data to substantiate their strategy. But in a hostile court given to secular training and modern jurisprudence, this is like comparing the proverbial apple with an orange. You may score some verbal points with the home crowd but you will lose the court battle.”

This, I believe, is a good point; let me attempt summarize: The “creationist” legal team erred when attempting to argue that “creationism” is scientific as evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges.

But now consider the author’s solution to what the “creationist” legal team’s strategy should have been.

“The school district’s legal team should have invested more energy exposing Darwinism as the key tenet of a religion, namely secular Naturalism. It is this religion’s worldview that is espoused every day in our nation’s public education system and the vast majority of our nation’s public science educators are the missionaries for this religion that appeals to a student’s logic. … had the Dover Area School Board’s legal team used their time to expose Naturalism as religious bias in the public education environment, the judge would have been without excuse to accommodate Intelligent Design with Darwinism. Now we are stuck with a judicial opinion that will be referenced in future cases as further justification to purge Christian thought from the educational environment.”

This, I believe, is a self-contradicting point; let me attempt summarize both points in harmony: The “creationist” legal team erred in attempting to argue that “creationism” is as scientific as of evolution which to the “hostile” court was like comparing apples to oranges, when the “creationist” legal team should have attempted to argue that evolution was a religious like that of “creationism”. Presumably, the author thinks that this strategic argument would have faired better than “‘creationism’ is scientific” argument with the “hostile” court.

Why does the author think “evolution” is religious?

1) Evolution is illogical so in order to believe in evolution one must have faith.

“However, when one actually thinks about how unbelievable Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution really is, it becomes increasingly illogical. Think about it -- you start with dust particles, then rocks, then through a spontaneous event, water emerges, then oceans, then over millions, perhaps billions of years there is the spontaneous concoction of atoms and molecules to form the basic trace elements like carbon and calcium. Then to top it all off, the world spontaneously experiences the formation of one-celled life forms with intelligence. After many millions and millions of years, the one-cell forms spontaneously produce multi-celled beings and, by a freak of nature, humankind arrives on the landscape with the capacity to build buildings and computers and.... For one to believe that people are the result of a random chance of nature takes a real leap of faith.”

My response: This is a subjective statement. Simply because one believes a view to be illogical does not necessitate that the view is indeed illogical. Some people argue that Christianity is illogical; this does not make it so.

Furthermore, simply because someone takes a something on “faith” does not automatically qualify such action as a religion. 1) We go to work each day believing that we will not die without any sort of proof. Is going to work a religion, 2) We marry someone believing such a relationship to last a lifetime even though the evidence in our culture makes such an assumption illogical. Is marriage a religion? 3) We believe that particular political parties are sound despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Are political parties religions?

Finally, when we equate “illogic” as a designator of religion and faith we do a great disservice to religion and the Christian faith in particular. In order to ‘level” the playing field (so to speak) between religion and science you are not building up religion but tearing down science. And neither approach is warranted. You’re playing defensive and are admitting by suggestion that you believe science has the upper hand in the debate. And that is the problem: you appear to believe that atheistic evolution (or at least evolution by itself) is correct because you do not carry yourself as one who believes himself to be right.

2) Since one holding to evolution is doing so by faith, and since “many people” do so, this “many people” constitutes a religion.

“Just because many people are taught this nonsense and claim to believe it does not make it so. Nevertheless, they do believe it and because people place their faith in something, you have the formation of a religion, a worldview that filters everything they think.”

My response: Again, you are cheapening both religion and faith by reducing them to such trivialities. You are lessening religion in your attempts fit a science into such a category.

Furthermore, so many obviously non-religious entities can fit into such a pre-fabricated category: political parties, businesses, political action groups, benevolent societies, men’s and women’s clubs, sport’s teams, entertainment groups, unions, and the list goes on and on.

Also, if you are arguing that naturalism and evolution (and, by logical extension, the above categorically related groups) constitutes a religion then you are suggesting that any Christian who identifies themselves with such a group is committing idolatry. Are you prepared to go down that path?

Finally, if you are going to argue that naturalism/evolution is a religion then you must be prepared to adhere to the religious freedoms our nation guarantees to such religious groups. Are you prepared to give ample time to another religion?

And this presents another problem. In their desire to be formally recognized, the “creationists” are blurring the lines between religion and science. They equate the Christian fundamentalist faith with science and equate Naturalistic evolution science with religion. Are you really saying that the only way for your view to be recognized in American culture is to destroy the definitions of your view and your opponents view?

3) Just because many people do not recognize something as “something” does not mean that something isn’t “something. Meaning, just because evolution doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a religion doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion. (This works in reverse: Just because “creationism” doesn’t fit the categories of what is generally regarded as a science doesn’t mean that it isn’t a science.)

“Just because a religion doesn’t meet on Sunday and it doesn’t have steeples, seminaries or salvation, doesn’t mean Naturalism (Darwinism) is not a valid choice by people on the landscape of world religions. To illustrate, the United States is engaged in a war. The war against terror is not against an army of a national identity. The war is being waged with Al Qaeda. No one doubts the destruction and reality of this terrorist organization. Who can forget 9/11? Al Qaeda may not look like an army at war against the people of the United States, but we cannot, we will not forget the effect of their military actions against us.”

My response: see response #2.

4) The defining characteristics of a religion are “adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda”.

“Educators, judges, politicians may not want to call Darwinism a religion, but it is. It has adherents, organizations and a philosophical agenda wrapped in scientific language. Since Darwinism is a religion, then evangelicals must continue to call on the courts to level the playing field of the public square.”

My response: see response #2.

The main problem with this argument is that he does not really designate what factors define a religion. And he can’t. If he did then he would not have an argument because naturalism/evolution does not fit these categories. What are the identifying features of a religion? Before we answer that question and see how naturalism/evolution (and science in general) fit into these categories, I think it would behoove us establish a working idea of what naturalism is. But even before this, I think we need to make clear the distinction that exists between knowledge by faith and knowledge by science.

In Christian theology “revelation” signifies divine self-disclosure in significant communication. Since this disclosure is unique and original, and its contents are unknown apart from the disclosure, it cannot be equated with human discovery. And this is an extremely important point.

Nineteenth century Christian liberalism understood that revelation was an act of the infinite God making contact with His finite creation. God by His very nature was one who could not be known accept by His self-disclosure. Man could not comprehend God or reason God. But if God is revealing Himself to man in order for man to understand Him then God would not be revealing Himself in a way that went beyond the reasoning of man. Therefore, all of the events and doctrines that were deemed to be beyond the reasoning of man were held to be false and not from the self-disclosing Creator. This included miracles and all supernaturalism, the incarnation, and the doctrine of the Trinity. This was a fatal error in 19th century liberalism and led to the idea of the imminence of God and the practical association of equating Man with God (see Hegel). It was not until the advent of neo-orthodoxy and the rediscovery of Kierkegaard’s writings that liberal Christianity began to readjust itself towards a transcendental distinction between God and Man; a distinction that was only mediated by the God-Man Jesus Christ. It was He who was/is the ultimate, unique and final revelation of God to man. And Jesus as the God-Man is God disclosing Himself and reaching down to Man and not Man reaching up to God (see Nikos Kazanzakis’s prologue to his book, The Last Temptation of Christ).

In this regard, revelation is that which man cannot know apart from the disclosing act of God. By definition, it is knowledge that man cannot reason by himself. In the Scriptures, we are given a record of God’s revelation to man of knowledge that man cannot reason on his own. And this is important to know.

Man can reason and come to conclusions about why Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city of Tyre. We can look at the recorded tablets of both sides and examine the archaeological evidence and come to generally acceptable conclusions. Nebuchadnezzar wanted access to Tyre’s seaport, the wealth of its riches, and a strategic military point in which to invade the southern reaches of Palestine. Man can arrive at this conclusion. But how can man learn that the greater reason for this attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar was in response to Tyre’s ill-treatment of Israel? How on earth can we know God’s divine plan accept by learning it from God Himself?

Man can reason how man emerged from the earth and developed into his present form. Man can examine thousands and millions of years of biological evidence and reasonable conclude that man developed out of careful biological changes over billions of years? Man can learn this for himself. But how can man discover who created him? How can man discover why he was created? How can man learn that he has worth and value and that he was created in the image of his Creator in order to relate to that Creator?

Man cannot know these things except by God revealing it to him. Science cannot reach these conclusions and has no desire to attempt such a task. More often than not, we are seeing in the Bible not a record of objective events written by man for the sake of the historical record, but, rather, subjective, religious Scriptures that are interpreting history for man by way of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are not answering scientific questions that can be learned by man himself but answering interpretive, spiritual questions of meaning and value that man cannot learn on his own.

Knowledge by faith comes by revelation of God and man being interacted with God.

In contrast, the scientific method gains knowledge by interaction with the creation and not the Creator, and can only answer questions about the physical and objective universe. It tries to give theories of the world which best fit the generally observable evidence. Furthermore, science by its very nature is based upon objective evidence and general consensus that can be presented repeatedly under defined circumstances by any individual in that general community. If a scientist has an experience that is subjective and cannot be repeatedly tested by others under certain defined circumstances then the scientist cannot study or reach publishable conclusions on such a phenomenon.

Having made this distinction between religion and science let me give a working definition of naturalism.

"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:

• Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances which do not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insist that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods.

o Methodological naturalism assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
o Ontological naturalism is the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.
• Ethical naturalism: the theory that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms.
• Humanistic naturalism: an outlook that places the emphasis upon a naturalism based upon scientific reasoning
• Natural history: a broad area of the natural sciences concerned with living things.
• Sociological naturalism: the view that the natural world and the social world are roughly identical and governed by similar principles.
• Naturalism as an artistic style.
• Naturalism as a literary, cinematic, or theatrical style.

I will focus on the broadest definition (the philosophical one) because I believe it to be the idea that the author of the article was referring.

The basic thrust of this philosophy is that all “supernatural” phenomena can be rationally explained in terms of natural causes.

I would agree with this idea in so far as it allows for the condition that the causes of some natural phenomena are currently beyond the reasoning of man. To argue that all phenomena that cannot be currently reasoned do not exist is unreasonable. It would be akin to a twenty-first century physicists agreeing that an 18th century physicists who argues that atoms do not exist because they cannot be proven to exist was correct because he was making this point in the eighteenth century.

Such a stance crosses over into areas of subjective experience which is beyond the bounds of science’s generally agreed territory. Such a stance would cause a breakdown in science. Galileo would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 17th century. Newton would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 18h century.

Einstein would be correct because he made his now erroneous point during the 20th century.

I do believe that the “miracles” recorded in Scripture happened the way in which it is recorded. I have no problem accepting the notion of a virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, feeding of 5000, walking on water and the parting of the Red Sea.

However, I do not see such “miracles” as “supernatural” in terms of breaking the laws of creation. I can well understand that the Creator knows His creation well enough to use its laws to enact events that appear to break the laws of creation and be “miraculous” to the finiteness of its creatures. What looks like a supernatural feeding five thousand could be (probably is) the cosmic equivalent of God pulling a quarter from the ear of a child. But, on the other hand, while I suspect that God does not enact events within His creation which break that creation’s previously defined rules, I certainly do not limit God to only this mode of interaction. My view of God working within the set laws of creation is based on the observation that God allows evil to persist and runs its course without an earlier, supernatural interaction. But this is simply a hunch.

So I have no problem with viewing the world in terms of naturalism in so far as it allows for the condition that the scope of possible reality is not limited to the reasoning of man. However, I do acquiesce to the standard that the scope of scientific study is within that limit of man’s reasoning. To this degree, scientific knowledge and revealed knowledge remains separate fields of discipline.

Interestingly enough, the initial rivalry between faith and science that previously existed during the 18th and 19th century as softened during the 20th century. As the natural sciences moved away from the deterministic Newtonian view of the world and entered into a far more undetermined and unpredictable view of creation, the idea that God could act in “supernatural” ways in this world and still maintain the consistency of creation became a far more credible notion. Further reasoned studies into the behavior of subatomic particles, relativity and now string theory lend further credence to the idea that the universe naturally behaves in such a manner that defies the reasoning of man. However, “religious miracles” still remained outside of science’s field of study and, therefore, remained unexamined. It is said that many fundamentalists today are fighting an argument they more or less won during the last century. Science has moved on; why can’t religion?

In this regard, I do not have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution because 1) I do not see it as contrary to the Scriptures because a) evolution is dealing with an issue separate from that which the Scriptures are concentrated and b) the differences in faith and science are such that I believe it is impossible for them to touch let alone contradict the other and because 2) the value that I place upon man is not based upon the method of his creation but by the value that God says He places upon him. With regards to this last point: a baby is not of more or less value if he or she is created by test tube or not. Similarly, Adam is not of more value than either Eve who was differently made from Adam’s rib or a contemporary person made by ordinary sexual reproduction. We as humans (let along Christians) do not discern value based upon method of creation but by the fact that the person is a human person. Evolutionary theory has not in the practical sense cheapened humanity’s sense of self value. In fact, if one looks at the history of mankind, one can see that a gradual progression in humanity’s sense of value. We certainly see this progression from the onset of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment eras. And I would argue that such a progression is due solely to the influence of Christian ethics upon the secular world. This is an ethic that evolutionary theory has done little to aggravate. Therefore, such value distinctions are made by man’s recognition of God’s revealed intent of creation and not by our own understanding of the method of that creation. This is why any future human perhaps made by cloning will not be of any lesser or greater value to either God or ourselves.

Having given a working definition of naturalism and what it involves and what its limitations are, let me offer some defining characteristics of religion.

Among those who study religions (both Christians and non-Christians) there is a general consensus among this field that there are certain defining characteristics common to religions. These characteristics may be shared with other belief systems, but taken together they make religion distinct.

1) Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Belief in the supernatural, especially gods, is one of the most obvious characteristics of religion. It’s so common, in fact, that some people mistake mere theism for religion itself; yet that is incorrect. Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic (Buddhism for example; but this is atheism is more theoretical than practical as so many third world Buddhists are theists). Despite this, supernatural beliefs are a common and fundamental aspect to most religions, while the existence of supernatural beings is almost never stipulated in non-religious belief systems.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not focus on the supernatural; its area of study is the realm of the natural and cannot be anything else.

The very fact that naturalism does not dabble in the “supernatural” is evidence enough that it cannot be a religion.

2) Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Distinguishing between the sacred and the profane is so common and so important in religions that some have argued that this distinction should be considered the defining characteristic of religion. The creation of such a distinction can help direct believers to focus on transcendental values and supernatural aspects of the world around us. Sacred times, places, and object remind us that there is more to life than what we see.

Science (and naturalism in particular) does not and cannot make any distinctions between the sacred and profane. Such distinctions are not their area of expertise. Science and naturalism are objective disciplines of study and do not make subjective distinctions. By its very nature, science cannot make that distinction. And in terms of the Christian faith, such a distinction is not even made by the subjective man but is revealed to man by God in subjective experiences. The man who believes in the supernatural is not given the authority to decide the differences between sacred and profane; certainly the man who does not believe in the supernatural is not better able to make such distinctions from his own reason. Only God can make such interpretive distinctions and man can only agree to such a distinction when he receives that distinction as revelation from God (see Acts 10 for a primary example. Here Peter makes a sacred/profane distinction between clean and unclean foods and, by extension, between Jews and Gentiles. In this incident, God informs Peter that HE is the one who makes such distinctions and not man). The very fact that God is not within science’s area of study is evidence that such a characteristic is not tenable.

3) Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

But merely noting the existence of the sacred usually isn’t sufficient. If a religion emphasizes the sacred, then it will also emphasize ritual acts involving the sacred. Special actions must occur at sacred times, in sacred places, and/or with sacred objects. These rituals serve to unite members of the current religious community not just with each other, but also with their ancestors and their descendants (The primary example of such a ritual within Christianity is the Lord-instituted Communion meal which unites the Church, past, present and future, as the body of Christ and the separated community.). Rituals can be important components of any social group, religious or not, but can we find such a ritual among naturalism which neither makes sacred distinctions nor ritualizes such distinctions? If one were to suggest the scientific method as a viable candidate for a naturalistic ritual, one would also have to tend with other group-defining methods: textual exegesis, business trade, political campaigning, judicial review, musical composition, the Socratic method and method acting.

4) Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Few religions don’t include some sort of basic moral code in their teachings. Because religions are typically social and communal in nature, it’s only to be expected that they also have directions about how people should behave and treat each other, not to mention outsiders. Justification for this particular moral code rather than any other usually comes in the form of the code’s supernatural origins, for example from gods which created both the code and humanity. For example, the Christian ethic of “love thy neighbor” comes from God and not man.

While science does have professional rules of engagement these rules are subject to change based upon the knowledge that they are not divine in nature. And such rules are found in any discipline or profession be it politics, law, business, education, research, war or medicine.

5) Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Awe, a sense of mystery, a sense of guilt, and adoration are “religious feelings” which tend to be aroused in religious believers when they come in the presence of sacred objects, in sacred places, and during the practice of sacred rituals. Usually these feelings are connected with the supernatural, for example it may be thought that the feelings are evidence of the immediate presence of divine beings. Like rituals, this attribute often occurs outside religion.

While I am sure that naturalists and scientists get great excitement from there discoveries, I do not think we should not cheapen man’s divine experience with God by equating it with man’s natural experience with his own intellect.

6) Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

Because the supernatural is so often personalized in religions, it only makes sense that believers would seek interaction and communication. Many rituals, like sacrifices, are one type of attempted interaction. Prayer is a very common form of attempted communication which might occur quietly with a single person, loudly and publicly, or in the context of a group of believers. There is no single type of prayer or single type of effort to communicate, just a common desire to reach out.

Scientists by nature do not communicate through prayer or receive knowledge by revelation.

7) A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:

It's normal for religions to present believers with a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. For example, religions can answer the question of whether the world exists for the believer or if they are bit players in someone else's drama. This picture will usually include some details of an overall purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into that as well — for example, are they supposed to serve the gods, or do the gods exist to help them along?

Naturalism does not provide a meaning or purpose to existence because such interpretations are outside the bounds of their focus and study. Scientists have no interest in such endeavors and do not pretend to offer answers to these questions. In truth, the only person who can provide such answers is God and in our lives He does so only by subjective faith and non-scientific methods.

8) A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

Religions are so commonly organized socially that religious beliefs without a social structure have acquired their own label, “spirituality.” Religious believers often join together with like-minded adherents to worship, fellowship, or even live together. Religious beliefs are typically transmitted not just by family, but by an entire community of believers. Religious believers sometimes associate with each other to the exclusion of non-adherents, and may place this community at the center of their lives.

While naturalistic scientists may have a scientific community, it really cannot be classified as a religious community bound by the preceding religious characteristics.

Now the more characteristics that a belief system has, the more religion-like it is. Most commonly recognized religions — like Christianity or Hinduism — will have all of them. A few religions and a few manifestations of common religions will have 5 or 6 of them. Belief systems and other pursuits that are described as “religious” in a metaphorical way, like for example some people’s approach to sports, will exhibit 2 or 3 of these. Thus the entire gamut of religion as an expression of culture can be covered by this approach. For all these reasons naturalism and Darwinism cannot be considered a religion.
In conclusion, I want to make a strong point about this “creationism” issue.
Yes, “creationists” are diluting both science and religion by identifying naturalism as a religion.

Yes, “creationists” are undermining their argument by asserting that “creationism” is a science and science is a religion.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a clear understanding of the Scriptures’ purpose or its nature.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of how man receives various forms of knowledge.

Yes, “creationists” do not have a proper understanding of God’s defining characteristic categories of value.

Yes, all of these points are perceived to me to be errors, but there is even a greater error that is being made by our good-intentioned brothers and sisters in the “creationist” movement and it is to you that I address this conclusion.

By arguing that “creationism” is a scientifically viable option YOU ARE DAMAGING THE FAITH. You are accepting THEIR conditions by which Truth is recognized. You are suggesting that the Faith is untenable if it does not meet the standards set by other individuals, most of which are outside of the Faith. By agreeing to those terms, you set the Faith up to take a beating by not meeting those prefabricated standards.

Here is my parabolic example:

An Atheist states, “Christian, if your faith is true than you should be able to call down fire from heaven and burn that particular bush. If you cannot do so then your faith is invalid. The Christian responds, “Atheist, my faith is true and it will be proven to be so if I call down fire from heaven to burn that particular bush (because such proof was given by Ezekiel on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18 of the Bible).” Then the Christian calls for fire to come down from heaven and burn that particular bush. But nothing happens. So the Atheist responds, “By the standards of truth that you agreed upon your faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith) is not true.” So the Christian decides to spend the rest of his life trying to convince the Atheist that despite what both the Atheist and Christian saw fire actually did indeed come down from heaven and burn that particular bush thus confirming the truth of the Christian’s faith (and the Bible which proclaims that faith).

In the outcome, the Atheist is no closer to the Kingdom, other non-believers are pushed away from a faith they perceive to be based in absurdity, and the Christian wastes both his witness and his ministry chasing after wind. The Atheist and other non-believers are damned and spend their lives chasing after wind; why should the redeemed Christian join them in mock-ministry?

Do you want to convince people to believe in the God of the Bible and the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Well, don’t force yourself into school curriculum; go out and witness to the world by proclaiming the Gospel. There is no other way.