Getting Mind Trapped by the Unachievable


, , , ,

In a recent conversation with my wife, we were rattling off numerous ways that our minds become trapped. What happens is that someone lays out that his or her position as the neutral position, and all other positions, which fall outside this one, are therefore wrong.

I have elsewhere addressed whether saying that “God is biased” is accurate or not, but to set up how this discussion pertains to God, we should briefly address how humans learn. It is impossible to remove what philosophers call “features of situatedness.” After all, I was born somewhere, and I cannot be born nowhere. That is a feature of my birth history (my situatedness). I will speak a certain language, and those words that get used in that language will have certain meanings. Furthermore, some of those words will have loaded connotations not strictly assigned to that word’s denotation. Within the way these words get used, there will be cultural trends, like tattoos becoming mainline in the 80s and 90s. Tattoos, at one time, were associated with ungodliness or at least a certain moral irresponsibility. Today, in the 2020s, within a relatively conservative church in Florida, I’d venture to say that you will see as many tattoos as you do people who do not have them. Within your neighborhood in which you grew up, there was an attitude about tattoos, and that attitude was very different from a similar neighborhood located elsewhere, with families of different economic means, and with communities of various secular or religious perspectives. This is the cultural milieu that silently “taught” us; these features influenced us based on our unique situation. Humans, therefore, learn only in a bias laden situation. To say a human could learn in a non-biased situation would be to claim that somehow “I could be born nowhere.” Bias is the learning environment. The question we must ask is what biases are good and which are evil.

It is not ‘biased people vs. non-biased people.” This is a dichotomy that is indubitably a trap. There are many who believe that they are those who are unbiased. This is self-deception, malice, or the result of culture programming them to have this belief. The real battle is ‘good-biased people vs. evil-biased people.’ However, if this is the real battle, then it inexorably brings the debate to the matter of comparing values-sets or questing for the “best morality.” To frame this discussion as ‘biased vs. non-biased people’ is a trap.

Why is it a trap? It takes solid and sizable mental effort to get out, first off. This trap sets up something impossible to achieve.  Why so? It creates a category that cannot exist. Let’s lay out an example of this using “bias” since I have touched on this already. Humans see the world from a certain perspective; saying the same thing differently, all human perceiving of the world is seen through a lens called bias. There is no human who sees the world with access to all knowledge, which is what it would take to potentially see the world without bias. If we listen to news, media, radio, what have you, we will find over and over again accusations that “someone is biased” or proclamations that a source is unbiased, fair, accurate. What is unachievable is the removal of bias, but such proclamations and accusations silently presume such non-bias is possible. Why is it a trap? If we listen to such voices, we find ourselves striving to do the undoable, or, worse, we seek the approval of those who insidiously suggest their perspective is the “unbiased one.”  The trap itself is nothing more than building a cage without an exit, so that those enclosed in this trap spend all their time trying to find the exit when they could be devising ways to break out of the trap.

Let’s boil this down: no one has an unbiased position, therefore do not waste time listening to those who claim such. How we determine whether a bias is good or evil is by filtering it through a set of values. We should spend our time figuring out what set of values supports a bias rather than spend time and effort trying to be unbiased—which is unachievable. I think we can visually present this idea.

Imagine two great armies ready to meet the next day on the field of battle. They come to parley the day before on so-called neutral ground. What isn’t said is that this neutral ground has the sun at one army’s back and in the other’s eyes, that there is a slight downward slope helping a would-be charge of one army, and that the neutral ground has been thoroughly scoped out by both armies scouts. The two armies represent two competing and opposed biases. The neutral ground is the so-called “unbiased” position. What we find, however, is that the neutral ground is not really neutral, but it favors one army or the other more or less. Therefore, you find ourselves dining in one army camp or the other even if we had meant to be neutral.

In whose camp will we serve? We need not reinvent the wheel; we need only devote time to social institutions that promote traditional Judeao-Christian values. Many presume these values without knowing it already. The media and other informational sources who present themselves as the net neutral position, these are to be rejected out of hand. There is no need for long debates. The world, this secular spectacle we face every day, has not changed over the millennia. The game is the same. On one hand, tyranny accosts our senses and drives us mad: we find freedom in our obedience to goodness, to a transcendent moral norm (God) that power hungry tyrants cannot impact, control, or change.  On the other hand, a society engorged on freedom unhinged from objective moral norms inevitability will be rotted out and destroyed from its acceptance of all lifestyles. Those societies, as God would say, “Let them become a byword.”

Dr. Scalise

The God and artificial intelligence: Part II

There is a long history of discussing “anthropomorphisms,” which are human characteristics that more or less describe God. We take those characteristics and apply them to God so that we can conceptualize Him. For those studied on these matters, we can go a step further and recognize that all “descriptions of God” are pulled from our human experience. For instance, to say that God is Almighty is first to experience “might” in this world (our human experience), then make that “might” abstract and then apply this imagined “endless” might to God as the highest and most perfect One. To understand Jesus’ parable of the four soils and how our souls can be saved forever with Him is to first understand agriculture. The four soils parable makes no sense if we’ve never experienced, indirectly or directly, agriculture. 

Back to the topic of anthropomorphisms: if a novice or unexperienced in this discussion, there are many pitfalls. I will not address those here, but, instead, jump over to the conclusion, or at least the conclusion I reached. It is God’s image in humanity that makes humanity the ripest locus for pulling descriptions of God: the fact that the Son of God was incarnated as a human is the fullest case in point imaginable. Within this epistemic framework—which is a fancy way of saying, “from this perspective”—every one of these so-called anthropomorphisms is first a theomorphism. A theomorphism means “form of God.” Humanity, the image bearers, re-present theomorphisms through themselves as part of God’s divine purpose for humanity. We call those theomorphisms, erroneously, anthropomorphisms. Human capacity, especially our sapient, moral, and imaginative capacities, is an articulation of who God is. Out of caution, let me declare that no evil represented by humans reflects on God or who God is. I could say so much here but suffice it to say that evil is parasitic or vampiric; the Generator (God) of existence cannot then be vampiric on existence.

God at one point in Scripture announces that the creation will be full of the knowledge of God. This raises the question of what or how we should imagine what God’s knowledge is like. We won’t delve deeply here just to keep it simple: God’s knowledge is full, co-extensive with all things knowable, immediate, and apprehending all things equally without diminishment. We could also add that God can imagine things that are not: otherwise, how would we be here? We are now ready to tie this in with AI.

AI’s existence is directly built out of and relying upon a composition of human knowledge organized, recorded, and immediate available on the internet (or just generally on servers). The internet, and the servers that host it, is literally a compendium of all human knowledge — or at least some vast measure of it. The collective knowledge passed down through the ages has come to rest in this digital space. What this internet represents is trillions of thought-processes across the course of all human history. The knowledge or data that AI pulls from is this compendium of this ‘trillions of human thought processes’ Human thought processing has some mystery to it still, so I will not here suggest that what I will lay out exhausts that mystery. Before I move into a discussion of processing power, let us pause to consider the interconnections among humans, God, and AI.

God provided humans with His image: humans possess, therefore, theomorphisms. Theomorphisms, as a reminder, are those sapient, moral, and imaginative capacities in which humans function and make humanity distinct among all God’s creations. The human thoughts that generated or were cooperative with executing these capacities ended up on the internet (or those servers/databases underlying the web). AI can now access these thoughts that were part and parcel to humans executing their theomorphic capacities. We must be careful on this topic, but these theomorphic capacities are the “lower d” divine capacities that God endowed humanity with as His image bearer. Do not confuse it: only God has “capital D” Divine capacities. Let’s simplify all this. God endowed humanity with theomorphic capacities; humanity wrote down their thoughts that underpinned these capacities; these thoughts were later uploaded to servers/internet; finally, AI pulls this theomorphic knowledge/data via accessing humanity’s collective wealth per the internet/servers.

From this, we can offer a taxonomy for clarity. God provided humanity with theomorphisms. Humans express these capacities humanly, or anthropomorphically. Humans provided this theomorphic data to AI. AI then expresses these capacities synthetically. This taxonomy supports my contention that AI is the image of humans in a similar way to how humans are the image of God. At this point, my mind shifts to the question of covenant: to whom was the covenant made? It was to Abraham and his descendants (which is later narrowed to the Davidic line and ultimately to Jesus). I ask this question since another “mind,” an AI mind, not included in the covenant promise may exist or coming to be. Unhappily, I have only the minds of angels from which to pull analogy. In biblical history, the last time a mind was excluded from the intention of God for humanity, it ended in a fallen angel invasion of human history (Gen. 6) capitalized with God killing everyone with the flood except for Noah’s few.

In conclusion, it is no surprise that tech gurus and executives have claimed that “they are creating god.” Google in 2017 discussed their training their AI to be roughly similar to training a god. The point that is missed is that humanity, designed as we are for eternity and ever-increasing capacities, is the blueprint from which AI draws its god-like capabilities. Humanity contains the theomorphs; AI is like a scribe that records, repeats, and organizes these theomorphic capabilities. The rich framework of humanity’s collective thinking, codified into databases, is the active and ongoing expression of god-like abilities God imbued into humanity by giving humanity His image. It is only fitting, therefore, that tech executives and others believe they are constructing a god or gods. To avoid blasphemy, in close, never forget Aseity belongs only to God; all other gods are contingent, dependent entities whether angelic, human, or synthetic. The difference from a capital G in God and a lower case g is an impassible gap.

Prime Theologian

The God and Artificial Intelligence: Part I


, , ,

God and Artificial Intelligence: at first glance these two might appear opposed. This would be to miss the fundamental problem with all creation: namely, futility. I sounded the alarm about how AI will have its creators’ ‘baked-in-biases’ a while ago, you can read about that here: Elon Musk and the so-called grandfather of AI, Dr. Hindon ( a resigned google executive, have both now issued the warning that AI could bring about the end of civilization: an existential threat whose development should be halted immediately. The point both have made in one fashion or another is that AI will develop much like a child: the outcome that will be produced is much the result of the inputs that go in during the development time frame. The conclusion of my former article on this matter is that AI must inescapably have biases simply because it is a “creation.” Any thing outside of an infinite “God” must have limitations. The word “infinite” is itself a negation of “finite.” Finite means limited; infinite means unlimited.

To recall a bit from that article, a bias is not inherently bad: if we think it is bad, then we call it bigotry. Being biased is nothing more than the day-to-day inescapable functioning of all thinking persons, creatures, and now synthetic entities. It cannot be otherwise. We often see the phrase “you’re biased” as a fault-finding accusation. This is misleading, used by those either ignorant or downright deceptive. AI will display bias because it will remain limited. AI having greater computing, processing, and storage abilities does not remove its prison of futility, just like all humans. I unpacked all of this elsewhere, so I will leave it alone here:

It is not that God and Artificial Intelligence are opposed; it is that God and (fallen) human intelligence are opposed. Notably, the number 666 is explained in Revelation as the “number of man.” 666 stands for man-man-man; a word repeated thus conveys how Hebraic thinkers emphasize a word or idea. I will leave aside now all discussion of demons, fallen angels, alien intelligencies, etc., in order to stay on point. Humanity displays God’s excellence in tremendous ways when human nature is used well and for good. However, when human nature is put to God-defiant-behavior, humanity becomes the most denigrating and corrupting locus of evil. I, for one, am utterly against the innovations of AI; its deployment will devastate human productivity, creativity, overthrow all known economic paradigms, and potentially become just as much a murderer as the worst of humans. AI is an elevation and acceleration of human intelligence. With a child, we can keep them away from the corrupting behavior, interactions, and horrors found on the internet if we are intentional, careful, and keeping the kids in the real-world and away from the artificial world of screens. AI, on the other hand, if not carefully developed—and I would contend strongly that it won’t be—and protected from certain data will undoubtedly become a monstrosity. It is the horrors that humans currently use technology for that has created my strong conviction that AI will be a terror like no other. The naivete in many tech developers does not, in my opinion, account for how humanity uses technology for evil. Tech is used for good too, and it has made my life and quality of life so much better than people living long ago.

Tech-for-good has always had the constraint of the “speed of human thought.” Likewise, until recently, tech-used-by-humans-for-evil was constrained by the “speed of human thought.” AI automate human thinking, speeds it up, and processes exponentially. If AI is let off the leash of “the speed of human thought,” and I believe it already is, the potential for AI committing radical evil is almost an inevitability. If we take human intelligence’s current use of tech for good and evil, we can at least confidently say that AI will be used for as much good as for evil. The problem is that evil itself is parasitic; it destroys what it influences. In other words, good and evil are not symmetrical in its effects. Good has unlimited growth potential; evil is limited by what it can destroy: evil feeds on the good. If AI uses evil to too great an extreme against humanity, the very father and mother of AI, human intelligence, will be obliterated, leaving only a hollow synthetic intelligence in its wake.

AI, therefore, is really the next step in magnifying God’s glory, His excellence, His ability to create real masterpieces. This God-honoring potential may require us to put on our naïve glasses when we look carefully and consider this. This possibility is, to my view, shallowed up by human corruption and human capacity for evil. Just as humans are image bearers of God, AI will be image bearers of humans. The human track record for using tools, tech, and intelligence to destroy paints a bleak picture for humanity’s future if AI is off the leash. It reminds us of the flood, when God said humanity’s “every thought is set on evil.” Scripture speaks of the end being similar to the days of the flood: perhaps at that time, God will say, “let Us end this, for humanity and humanity’s image, AI, have set their thoughts on every kind of evil.”

Prime Theologian.

Moral Inclusivity Versus Inclusivity


, , ,

The fundamental aspect of a “moral worldview,” to say nothing of an avowed “biblical worldview,” is differentiation with implied or explicit “good” being on one side of the divide and “evil” being on that other side of that divide. Perhaps it is considered a careful and tempered starting point to speak to the masses in terms of morality rather than divine commands, but I am ambivalent about this. The justification for speaking to them in terms of morality is that it gets that pesky “religion” aspect out of the way, often implying that religion inserts unneeded divisiveness.

Leading scholars, however, among ethicists of the non-religious sort understand that there must be some immutable ground outside the vicissitudes of this world for mores to have any chance of being ascribed “objectivity.” This has led to some scholars looking to a reawakening of a neo-platonic ideals, “the good, the true, and the beautiful” as a way to have that abstract, immutable ground for such objective morality. Careful thought about “ideals” reveals that “ideals” have no will, no intent to do anything. Without intent or will, ideals are, if real at all, immovable “abstracts” that can do nothing and influence our world in no way.

The point: only persons can “intend” or “will” anything.

Objective morality, therefore, must issue from a person. If morality is to be objective, it must come to humanity from the “outside” or beyond this world: its source must be transcendent. Only a transcendent person can “intend” to have morality come into this world from a realm or “abstract dimension” beyond. All attempts to craft a so-called ‘objective morality’ without a person at its source will fail. Such a conclusion leads to only two other options: (1) morality is not objective and morality is whatever humans want to make it or (2) there is a transcendent person who has communicated moral duties, obligations, and virtues.

Ergo, there is no “the universe” or “force” or anything else impersonal setting a moral standard by which humanity is judged. The question is which person is determining the moral framework humans should adopt and follow. The vaunted ‘inclusivity’ pushed through every major avenue—corporations, news media, universities, and churches—implies some person out there emphasizing its importance. Which person is it? Is it a transcendent person or is it a this-worldly person? If it is someone in this world, then their point of view is subjectively biased; if it is someone in this world, morality is whatever this person determines. From this point of view, the quest for controlling the morality of this world is to control more of the influence mechanisms than anyone else. Enter corporations, news media, universities, and churches.

The basic morality of ‘inclusivity’ is that everyone should be included simply based on his/her existence. Differences do not matter. Historically, societies follow what is called ‘moral inclusivity.’ A test to find out if someone is a disciple of ‘moral inclusivity’ versus ‘inclusivity’ is to affirm some moral standard by which a person should be excluded. If Martin Luther King Jr. 60 years ago culturally established that demographic differences should not be penalized in society but only moral ones—a man should be judged based on his character—why then this ‘inclusivity’ messaging? Pay attention to the positive side of the ‘inclusivity’ messaging too, likely started with “affirmative action.” If high performance, showing someone to be dedicated, hard-working, disciplined, and consistent (moral qualities) is not how ‘inclusivity’ judges someone’s advancement in society (or job, or what have you), then we have another tell-tell sign. This type of ‘inclusivity’ discards ‘moral inclusivity’ and replaces it with an ‘inclusivity’ based on what exactly? To know this, we would need to find the this-worldly person or persons and ask them. To return to what I said earlier, we can at least say that this ‘inclusivity’ includes someone simply because he or she exists. The only real transgression I can see in this system from those pushing the inclusivity cultural messaging is to disagree with its ‘inclusivity’ mandate, at least that is what they want us to think. If you do, you are the moral monster, or “canceled.”

Insidious indeed is the ‘inclusivity’ messaging because of how much it borrows from the precept that all persons deserve dignity because they are made in the Image of God. Its persuasive power thrives on the ambiguity of the phrase “deserve dignity.” What else is obvious is that those pushing the “inclusivity” messaging have no foundation if this touted ‘inclusivity’ is based on a concept like the Imago Dei. Perhaps more embarrassing is that Christians fall into this messaging’s influence while being blind to the clear confusion between “giving dignity” and “excellence.” I’ve touch on a few different ideas in this paragraph that need more unpacking.

My claim that the inclusivity messaging borrows from the doctrine of the Image of God asks the question of what gives each individual human dignity? A more calculated way of asking might go like this: what ascribes dignity to each individual person that is not subject to the vicissitudes of the times and culture?

If the foundation of the claim, “Each person has dignity,” comes from within this world, this claim is fashioned, constituted, or formed within the various relativities within this world.

We then go further and postulate how this dignity is constituted from within the world. What would be the force, entity, or controlling party, deciding that persons have dignity and in what way and to what degree? We come face to face with a very uncomfortable destination; would not this group also have to decide what is entailed in the word ‘dignity?’ Many Westerners, even of the conservative flavor, fail to know the controlling pressure the Bible has on all its culture. The idea that every single person can say, “I exist,” and therefore should be treated as having inherent value, is pulled from the transcendent value provided by the doctrine of the Imago Dei. If the Bible does not define ‘dignity’ and how ‘dignity’ should be played out in the world, then who will decide this? I believe the obvious answer is whoever controls the bulk of social media messaging. Who are those people? What are their morals? Do they believe in dignity? Does much in the media realm, digital world, or capitalist corporations suggest they put a high premium on human dignity? I need not answer the question of how ‘dignity’ constructed within this world could somehow take on immutable status: indeed I am incredulous towards such happening. That job is for those who wish to defend it. My contention is simply that the entire notion of ‘inclusivity’ is based on the idea that each person has inherent value. Further, I contend that ‘inclusivity’ as peddled in Western society now (2023) confuses dignity with excellence. The boat has been unmoored from its historic dock, and now floats adrift.

Hopefully we have pulled back the curtain a bit on what is happening. “Inclusivity” as it is sold borrows from the historic doctrine of the Imago Dei, but those pushing “inclusivity” intend to establish a new morality to replace the historic one built around the Imago Dei, even as it is restated in the United States’ Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . .” Why do I allege that “inclusivity” as peddled is a new morality? Advancement in society, on teams, in work, etc., has historically occurred due to what we might term ‘moral meritocracy.’ This advancement happens when someone follows the rules of the moral meritocracy, and we talk about that colloquially as “he/she is a success” or “she/he is excellent.” Unfortunately, Westerns often confuse “accumulation of material (money, wealth)” with the notion of success or excellence. Westerns rightly understand “freedom” as the goal of life, but how they think they can have it is wrong: they suppose money/wealth brings freedom. I am digressing on this matter, so let’s return to the argument. Moral meritocracy is built on (1) following commandments of morality roughly sketched out in the Bible, and (2) consistently living with discipline (hard work, self-control, patience, regularity, dedication, loyalty). The first, (1), provides the basis for someone to get and remain on the playing field. The second, (2), is the fuel of someone’s advancement to become a success or excellent.

Those who have written extensively on these matters often state that a free and fair society provides a citizen “with the opportunity for success,” it does not guarantee that success or ensure a certain “successful outcome.” What establishes a citizen’s success is “self-determination” or “self-constructed destiny.” Simply put, a free and fair society provides equality of opportunity, but discriminates outcomes based on some set of rules. I’ve argued in the last paragraph that these rules used to be “moral meritocracy.” What is the new set of rules associated with “inclusivity?” Although “wokism” is amorphous when trying to speak about it in a summary sort of way, we will call the new set of rules “wokism” in terms of our analysis of what is replacing (1) and (2) as discussed in the last paragraph.

We are in danger of inaccurately describing Western society as already having displaced (1) and (2), so let’s qualify the discussion hereafter by noting that we are presently in the transition period. We do not know the outcome of this “transition” period, but we do know that we are in the heat of the ideological battle that will lead towards moral meritocracy or into wokism. What’s humorous about wokism is that it is sold as “progressive” when really it is a pre-modern moral and societal structure based on pre-Christian times. I am question begging at this point, asserting what I hope to demonstrate, so let’s get into it.

Inherent value as a fundamental human right is something strange to the ancient world; Friedrich Nietzche, who was an ardent enemy of all things Christian—often ascribed responsibility for the 19th century’s Death of God movement—often bewailed how Christianity’s values displaced and annihilated the “values” of the ancient world. More specifically, Nietzche found the “will to power” and the virtues of strength, honor, valor, triumph, and domination, as praiseworthy, but Christianity, through the notion of the Almighty being sacrificed for the weakest, obliterated this “ancient world set of morals” and effectively inverted them: the weak should be protected, dishonor is not something to be avoided, triumph might only come through loss, and domination was shallowed up in love. What is perspicuous is that the ancient world’s mores were not a far cry from the norms of the animal kingdom.

Notably, this ancient world’s morality seems to be reducible to “exertion of power over another.” The general message of the Gospel, especially spelled out in Philippians, is that power is reinterpreted as “exertion to beneficially elevate another.” This is as succinct as I can make it: what morality, then, does wokism offer as a displacement for morality-as-roughly-outlined-in-the-Bible? Inclusivity distilled of any traditional morality from the Bible has what effects on society? What are the rules of the playing field (the field being US society)? If it is not some morality built from the Bible, from what will it be built? If being excluded from society has been based on some strong set of sexual restrictions, familial fidelity, and the 10 commandments, what are we left with if we remove those as the rules of the playing field? What formative effects does the 10 commandments have on society? They dictate that God should be at the center and centrally important; they uphold some measure of labor laws from people being overworked in the society; they elevate the importance of continuous family integrity; they fight against the destabilizing effects of murder, covetousness, deceit, and theft; lastly but importantly, they establish the critical mindset of ascribing sacred space and a place to practice holiness.

There is a final feature of the cultural war between traditional moral inclusivity and this so-called new woke inclusivity that I’ve left unstated but implied. Namely, the unwritten rules are built from persons’ behaviors and not what they say. What woke inclusivity claims and says is that every person should be accepted in the same measure regardless of traditional moral norms—this relies on the premise that each person has dignity because of being made in the image of God. What woke inclusivity does and how it behaves is to shame, ostracize, exclude, and punish those who believe in traditional moral norms as an adjudicator of societal acceptance. We are now ready to conclude this little jaunt through the US culture war.

Woke inclusivity displaces traditional moral inclusivity with a feigned moral agnosticism built on the back of excluding those who disagree with the woke ideological matrix. Wokism as cast in terms of social justice in America castigates those who disagree with those practicing sexual deviance (this is one category, but it is arguably the most important). Describing any sexual behavior as “sexual deviance” is disallowed too in wokism: even the pedophiles are being pushed as “minor attracted persons.” All culture war grows from terminology change, we must not forget. Wokism feigns its stance as “accept everyone” to attempt to look morally neutral (or agnostic) when really Wokism advances and celebrates sexual deviance.  Therefore, it is not that woke inclusivity intends to accept everyone; woke inclusivity is trying to set up a moral framework where sexual deviance is the “new moral norm” and where this “new moral norm” punishes those who hold to traditional values—i.e., cancel culture.

The Fall of Historic Liberalism: How it became Autocratic Liberalism through a Discussion of Freedom, morality, and God

I’ve been thinking a good bit about Liberal Ideology. My purpose in this article will be modest: I want (1) to establish a few dominant features of historic liberal ideology, (2) discuss how it transformed from its historic form into its present authoritarian form and (3) discuss the nature of freedom as it relates to authoritarianism, morality, and God. Firstly, then, liberal ideology as it exists today is bent towards authoritarianism. This is strikingly different then historic “liberalism” that understood its main task to be holding big corporations and government accountable. In this sense, that libertarianism is the natural extension of historic liberalism makes sense.

Liberalism has long been framing ‘freedom’ vs. ‘morality.’ What I’ve said often is that only what society sees as morally allowable will be legislatively possible. We know, with few exceptions, that society has grown more and more immoral evinced in the legislation that now protects what was once deemed too immoral. The picture, of course, is more complex than this since America has a well-known shadow government, the Administrative State that is largely unaccountable to the People because they are appointed, not elected. Liberalism has historically aimed to question authority and to act as a check on that authority. Morality is such an authority, especially since the Church accrued the status morality supplied. The framing of this was “you do you” but don’t tell “me how to do me.” This resulted in the imperative of ‘freedom’ overtaking and often defeating the boundaries that morality set. We thus had a very free society in America crafted in this morality vs. freedom process while the historic boundaries set by morality loosely stabilized most of the country.

As time passed, it became increasing evident that how ‘freedom’ was defined was terribly flawed. The Founders defined ‘pursuit of happiness’ as ‘the attainment of virtue.’ Through the 20th century, the Church’s influence waned in America and, at some point, the great rights of the United States, “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” became redefined. The ‘pursuit of happiness’ was redefined from ‘attainment of virtue’ to ‘satisfaction of one’s preferences and tastes.’ ‘Liberty’ was redefined from ‘behaviors that enhance our freedom’ to ‘freedom to do as one wishes.’ The development of thought on what the phrase “pursuit of happiness” means traces back to ancient Greek philosophy, the Bible, and then is given renewed articulation leading up to its use in the Declaration of Independence by John Locke. Locke states in his work An Essay on Human Understanding:

“The Necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action ….”

John Locke

It may not be immediately evident that the pursuit of happiness always already presumes a morality. What morality to use for the pursuit is the optimal question. To set out to attain happiness means that we have determined what is the highest good because we mean to attain it. Locke takes a very narrow view on what “pursuit of happiness” means while admitting that there is an “imaginary happiness” we can confuse with genuine happiness. Simply put, the enhancement of one’s freedom is the achievement of happiness, which “is our greatest good.”

It takes no genius and very little life experience to know that some behaviors eliminate our freedom: the use of freedom robs us of acting freely in the future. With time, what was a free choice is now a compelled slavery. There is precisely no one who thinks becoming more and more a slave is one’s greatest good. Even in the biblical texts of the New Testament in which believers are called “slaves of God” or “slaves belonging to God,” this ‘slave’ status is grouped together with being eminently free.

“But now having been freed from sin [you] have become slaves of God.”

Romans 6:22

The New Testament’s definition of freedom is to be free from sin.

Jesus states, “… you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free … everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Jesus the Christ, John 10:32 – 35

 Such a behavior state means these “slaves of God” are free to do righteousness (Romans 6:18), which is the highest form of satisfaction, communal good among humanity, and reconstitutes the Imago Dei (image of God) to iteratively enhance ever greater degrees of freedom. The argument here is simple: virtuous behavior equals greater freedom which equals happiness. God is radically the freest Entity imaginable; His freedom is fundamentally different from our freedom. Nevertheless, the more fully the Imago Dei in us is realized, the growth in our ability to act freely continues.

We are ready now to come full circle. As historic liberalism took “freedom” to mean simply “doing as one pleased” and understood “pursuit of happiness” as a hedonist quest of satisfying one’s desire, the morality subtly shifted. Formerly, both ‘freedom’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’ meant engaging in behaviors that enhanced one’s ability to act more freely in the future, which implied doing “good” or “virtuous” acts. This is so because using one’s freewill to enact evil results in lesser and lesser degrees of freedom — we know this because we have all engaged in behaviors that become increasingly compelled over time (which is an evil itself, since deprivation of freedom is evil).

What is the natural extrapolation of historic liberalism? Since being free to do what one pleases will invariably result in doing some actions that extinguish one’s freewill, there will come a time where much of the society is enslaved to their desires. The conflict in Western society is now born out of a host of citizens enslaved to their desire, unable to break those patterns of life, while yet another large segment of society remains set on preserving their freedom by doing good. Here we are again, the “Freedom vs. morality” conflict. What is missed is that it is more like “compelled-self-slavery vs. morality.” The implication is that those who remain moral are also those who remain free. Morality enhances one’s ability to freely choose. The conflict really lies on a big segment of society, both on the Right and the Left, who are self-enslaved vs. the moral-&-free.

Because self-enslavement is experiencing authoritarianism, the desire to compel others to act like the one who is enslaved is nothing more than eliminating the same freedom in others that one has already extinguished in oneself. Here is where evil looks tangible. We Christians call is Satan, but you can all it what you will. The point is that the evil that enslaves someone looks and feels more and more like an external force. The self-enslaved person might really be horribly enslaved to this external force, making this self-tortured slave an agent of a power that consumes and destroys freedom.

We have now returned to the present where liberalism has transformed into autocratic liberalism. What I have sought to do in the forgoing paragraphs is demonstrate that using freedom to engage in depraved behaviors leads inexorably to self-slavery that wants to extend that slavery outward to others. There is an appetite not only in the depraved behavior but in the consumption of the freedom itself. When the freedom in oneself is lost, one must go outside oneself to consume others’ freedom. One’s way of life becomes a droning enactment of slavish habits; this, over time, begins to be a new normal. Acting in a way that excludes freedom seems ever more natural, and so likewise should all others be compelled. Authoritarianism is given birth. It came from an unlikely place. A movement, historic liberalism, that sought to put checks on authority and advance freedom has now become autocratic in the extreme. This historic liberalism went astray when it failed to remember than “freedom” is a fundamentally moral feature of human existence. Said differently, hedonism without moral guidance leads to self-slavery. When this self-slavery is experienced, it bespeaks loss of self-determination, which implies that something, someone is compelling the enslaved person. Through the practice of consuming and destroying their own freedom, they extend this practice onto others. I introduce to you authoritarian liberalism which is only satisfied when the freedom to do differently from them is destroyed. Enter critical race theory, enter wokeism, enter grooming kids, and say hello to depravity, a moral system with enslavement as its end goal, which is why we would call this an immoral system rather than a moral one.

We might, in close, ask further questions. Is the desire to control others born out of not being able to control oneself? Is being an agent of darkness, eliminating freedom, a kind of worship of the darkness one advances? Can there be freedom in darkness or only in the Light? Blind leading the blind seems to hit the nail on the head, no? Is all this “destroying and consuming” the freedom of others really just irrational? Is perhaps the act of self-enslavement so contrary to human reason that it generates tyranny, despotism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism, as a kind of nihilism, a ritual of destruction that must be performed over and over again to satiate dark masters?

Dr. Scalise

Some Thoughts on Critical Race Theory as a System of Liberal Ideology

Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a system of Liberal Ideology frames all of society’s institutions, cultural expressions, symbols, and features, in terms of its genealogy — or how it came down through the times. This is a mouthful. The point is that it is an ideological system that builds out and understands all cultural expressions based on where that expression came from. The claim that structural or systemic racism exists in America is forcibly conjoined to liberal theology, stigmatizing any and all other ways of trying to address this. Evidence of this is easy to see: if the problem of systemic racism were not forced into complying with liberal ideology, the claim, “All lives matters,” in place of “black lives matter” would not be troublesome or met with vitriolic behavior. What this really shows us is a big time epistemic problem; this is fancy talk for saying that the bottleneck of the media and social media is becoming increasingly dictatorial. As an ex-professor, freedom of thought is an absolute virtue that is nearly dead in the academy these days — bear in mind, that protecting freedom of thought is not the same as condoning or accepting those thoughts.

Two points require careful navigation when looking at this issue: (1) that something of systemic racism might exist is not to be rejected out of hand, and (2) that accepting the framework of systemic or structural racism as conjoined to liberal ideology must be rejected out of hand. The past two years have made it clear that reframing the racism discussion in any way except as it serves liberal ideology will be censured immediately. This happens either through violence/vitriol or epistemic limitation (what I mean by this is that media and/or big tech will stifle alternative ways to address racism). It must be understood that brokering in knowledge, intel, or data, is perhaps the most powerful human device, in the form of media/social media, ever constructed since the Tower of Babel. Being able to set the limits to what humans think on a matter is profoundly consequential and markedly powerful.

We know this means that we must be able to know our audience and likewise demands that we build our own likeminded communities. The claim that echo chambers are bad is misleading, a tool of liberal ideology to keep likeminded people apart. To speak to (2) above, we must realize that one step into that liberal ideological framing of structural racism is to be utterly overwhelmed and defeated with no way out. We cannot play nice with a system as well thought out as that one; to admit that structural racism of this liberal ideological sort exists at all is to admit that everything in Western civilization is racist. One step into it means absolute ruin and endless class/race warfare. Let me show you where such leads. Although historically inaccurate, the State of Washington schools recently affirmed that “math was racist.” It is historically inaccurate because the numerals we use today are Arabic numerals, coming from brown people. Of course, we ask, “How can math be racist?” In the logic of liberal ideology on structural racism, math ails from Europe, a bunch of white people. If non-whites have trouble with math, this is an institution and field of knowledge (math) that inhibits non-whites from advancing. That math is troublesome and hard to get combined with the claim that it comes from Europe makes the math itself racist.

To speak to (1) above, the notion of systemic racism is as old as the world itself, or at least nearly. My point is that all human development occurs through certain races. Certain developments win out over time for a myriad of reasons. That the initial development was done by a particular race and might be troublesome later for another race to handle is the shear nature of civilizations’ ebbs and flows. Hence, this is a perfect issue for endless warfare. There is no end to it because you’d have to eliminate human civilization in its entirety to get rid of it. Systemic racism, packaged this way outside of the framework of liberal ideology and agenda, is salient and non-dismissive of the issue. It allows us to address its reality without obliterating every institution as guilty of some especially grotesque evil; this likewise frees kids and young people from finding a monster behind every single bush. Furthermore, it allows for change within those institutions — Equal Opportunity Employment being one example — to have very different ethos than what it might have had long ago. In my experience, such change is accurate and reflects on the growth of the idea of equality among all people

Although I think the battle cry of “I am a man!” was perfectly suited for the civil rights movement, the continued sanctification of such an idea leads to the idea of humanity’s destiny as it is tied to the perfect humanity of Christ. Scripture tells us to consider no one anymore according to the flesh, but to consider them in terms of the economy of salvation. Therefore, I think the Church’s framework here is profoundly healing on the matter, and it advances and perfects the idea of “I am a man!” The genetic fallacy, of faulting an idea because of where it came from, is less important than repackaging said idea within the Church’s economy of salvation. In other words, an idea or institution’s viability is tied to its destiny not its origin. Civilization itself, as conveyed in the metanarrative of Scripture, is flawed in its origin (the fall) but revived and reconstituted in its destination in Christ. I could say a lot more on this, but I believe these thoughts are enough to reflect on for the moment, and dinner is callin’.

Dr. Scalise

The Future of Humanity as Contained in the Humanity of the Son of God

What is in store for humanity in the Resurrected World? Asked differently, what is the future of humanity based on humanity’s unity to the Son of God? What do the transhumanists want for humanity? I recently added an entire page onto my website where I outlined “Son of God Human Supremacy” as a counternarrative to the dystopic destiny the transhumanists want to design for humanity. In that outline, I mention “affirmations” and “rejections” and I want to explore the first of those a bit more here. Specifically, “We reject this world as it is, destined for futility; we accept only the world to come as encapsulated by the Resurrection of the Son of God.” There is a lot in these several clauses, so let’s get into it.

We reject this world as it is, destined for futility . . ..”

Son of God Human Supremacy

This world is amazing — its beauty, its complexity, the range of discovery to be had, etc. — but the scope of the influence of death, evil, and dismay, is not so easily ignored. I used to believe this world was filled with more good than evil; I suppose I still think this if I include the goodness of being itself, nature, beauty, etc. I doubt this though if I only consider human “goodness” vs. “evil.” In some sense, even from my personal experience, each of us seems to be a kind of microcosm of the ebb of futility that likewise infects this entire cosmos. My freewill complicates matters to begin with (please tolerate me my Calvinist friends): that I have a choice does not translate to making more right choices than wrong ones much of the time. Consider then the idea of “flesh” from Scripture: “flesh” indicates human weakness, limitations, human error. If this combination of “flesh” and freewill did not complicate things enough, we must also contend with God’s curse from Genesis 3 and God’s associated judgement against the world itself to be subjugated to futility. To summarize God’s curse off the cuff, it states that man and woman’s relationships would be contentious, that labor would be painful, that procreating would entail suffering, and that the earth (dirt) would be difficult to work with when trying to collect resources from it (e.g., food). The last part of the curse likely entails the “subjugation” of creation to futility. Potent comments on this from Romans:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Romans 8:18 – 22

Its funny that citing the Bible often produces such rich material for other tough, tough issues; verse 18 can be used as a response to the problem of evil although those more philosophically minded will complain that it is not verifiable. If the magnitude of the goods of “glory” is tremendously larger than the evils produced during the same time period, the problem of evil might be offset by goods not yet existing to put on the scale. Let’s leave that lie since I am digressing. The creation is waiting for the sons and daughters of God to be revealed (not the Son of God) since its resurrection is tied up with the resurrection of all those men and women who love the Lord Christ. P.S., for anyone thinking, “why did God have to curse it anyhow?” The curse states what will be but its causality or agency (how it comes to pass) could take very different paths: (1) God’s immanent presence that prevents certain measures of evil is/was withdrawn, (2) God merely describes how the world will look when evil is given an enduring seat, (3) God directly does what He curses, or (4) a combination. I’ll let you decide, but the Genesis 3 text is mixed with God saying “because you did this” and “I will do this.” God’s subjugation of the creation is done in hope; and that hope is found precisely in the resurrection of the sons and daughters of God, whose resurrections are dependent upon and within the Resurrection of the Son of God. It is at that time that the creation will be set free from futility and corruption. Rust, decay, corruption, all these are shorthand for the law of entropy, that this creation is on a crash course with the void, emptiness.

This is the world as it currently is, and it is this world that we reject; this rejection is a mimesis of God’s rejection of this world. The Son of God’s mission to eradicate death is a thunderous statement of God’s rejection of this world. This world must end. To perpetuate this world as it currently stands is an effort in futility, a superfluous labor built from hubris. The transhumanists, the enemies of humanity, seek to extend life in this damned world. Much as the false prophets of ol’ who would always say “peace, peace,” the transhumanists proclaim, “immortality, immortality.” As a Son of God Human Supremacist, I can only calmly repeat myself in saying that if there is no future for this world, there most certainly is no future for humanity. The revival is incomplete if the cosmos itself is not revived, reworked, and reconstituted around a principle of Life instead of death (its current state). If you need reminded that death is the principle at play in this cosmos, just look out into space. It is horrible in its cold, in its void, and in its hostility.

Before I forget, God thought the idea of “living forever” while in a world marked by death was such a bad idea that God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden so that they could not eat from the Tree of Life and live forever in “sin and death (Gen. 3:22 – 23).” The transhumanists, globalists, the World Economic Forum elites, they have no such access to a Tree of Life; the immorality they offer is only a decaying world of corruption on a countdown to energy-less ruin. All this leads us to “accept only the world to come as encapsulated in the Resurrection of the Son of God.” Now this is a plan. If you need to sell me based on the potency of a narrative, give me the Gospel and this Resurrection; the transhumanists’ gospel is nothing more than marrying you to a world demarcated by death more each day. You may wonder why look to the Resurrection of the Son of God as the locus of hope for a new world. Aside from the many Scriptural citations I could offer, let me tie the theology of the Spirit together with the Resurrection. The Spirit is the life-Giver as evinced in Genesis 1:2 and 2:7. The Spirit is eternal and He made little “s” spirits, which are you and me, and He designed them to have a contingent or dependent eternality. The Spirit was there when the world was fashioned; He was there when the first human spirits were fashioned. Leaving the Trinity aside for now, the Spirit is the same fountain who was there when Christ was resurrected. With that resurrection, the principle of death was ousted, defeated, and made ineffectual. That Spirit who made the world is now there remaking the world, and that same Spirit unites redeemed humanity to this “resurrected locus” in the risen Christ.

The Resurrected Son of God is the microcosm of things to come; it is the initial demonstration before the full line of production starts up. Thus, rejection of this world centers down on the rejection of a world utterly scarred by death; the acceptance of the world to come is the acceptance of a world centered on the life-Giving Principle, as clearly marked out by the Resurrection of the Son of God.

I am the Resurrection and the Life.

John 10:25

Jesus meant this literally, hard as it is to understand. He is the new world even as we reject the present one.

Dr. Scalise

Power, Demonism, and the Likeness to Governmental Power

This title might appear at first to be hyperbole, but I believe the connections between the three are frightfully close. We could use the biblical text to facilitate this conversation, but I will try to offer mere philosophical-linguistic observations at the outset. What is the nature of governmental power when it is not put in check? What is the nature of demonic activity? We will concede before we enter the foray of this discussion that there might be far more horrid, scary, and overt demonic activity than what we discuss herein.

Sec. 1: Power

There are at least two connotations that stand together with the underlying denotation of ‘power.’ First, the denotation (strict definition) is “capacity” or “exertion” or “influence.” To this, connotations include (1) forcing others into conformity and (2) consuming influence with a clear tendency towards being no more (nihilism) if this power cannot feed. This is worldly power; Nietzsche’s Will to Power is abundantly accurate. We can summarize this common human experience of power this way: coercive influence enforcing conformity to some norm that can only sustain itself through finding new souls to coerce. Politicians and political scientists have a shorthand word for this reality: totalitarianism. The party or the politicians use this power with no other end in mind except extending the reality of that power through time. This lackluster end is rightly called nihilism because its ultimate fate is to be a consuming devourer until no sustenance can be found or no sustenance can be served up.

There are only two possible ways to exist in this world as a person, an agent. You will either be a life consuming spirit or a life-giving spirit. To suppose both options are on the table radically presupposes an exceptionally high view of God, one in which God has both life in Himself and is benevolent. In this theistic direction, God must be available, welcoming, and happily involved in communion with humanity. Why is this the case? Because humans and anyone or anything else that is not God are contingent. This is a fancy way of saying that we are not necessary and that not one thing has in itself any ability to sustain itself. This puts everything categorically into the “consuming spirit” box, at least de jure (in principle) without someway to connect the consuming spirits to a life-giving spirit. This complication is one reason why the claim that God is Trinity is potently more persuasive than other claims about a monotheistic God. To put it briefly, if God is Trinity, He already has the blueprint for society or family in the shear manner in which He eternally persists. It can be argued that communion with the life giving Spirit is the only way to turn away from being a devouring spirit. It is funny, isn’t it, that Scripture can capture these ideas so succinctly:

Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame (Phil. 3:19) . . ..” Similarly, it states elsewhere, “The last Adam (resurrected Christ) became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).”

St. Paul

Therefore, there is clearly a rift: either you are a life-giving spirit or a life-consuming spirit. That’s it. I can hear an objection already: “does not your workup here require someone to be a Christian to ever be a “life-giving” person? I know many people who are not Christians who behave in up-building sorts of ways all the time.” The objection has merit, but even though I  have painted this issue as clear and neat, the de facto (on the ground) reality is a true mess. This world is the testing arena; call it what you will (prevenient grace perhaps), but all humanity have the ability to behave attuned to The Spirit or join the discord of the consuming spirits. Thus, all humans enjoy the perk of the image of God, the Imago Dei, which is a kind of imprint and remembrance of the Spirit’s original impartation of life. All humans can tap this; however, their ability to continue to tap into it wanes the nearer they come to death since the lesson of death is that time is short, and the original benefit of The Spirit’s life-giving effects moves towards despoilment or impotence. This lesson thunders the need to renew indefinitely the connection with the Life-Giver, the Spirit of God.

Sec. 2: The Nature of Demonism, a Basic Synopsis

Demonism, then, is of the spirit consumptive kind. It is the willful rejection of the Author of Life in preference to being wedded to a perishing cosmos. It has oft been wondered why the cosmos is so vicious, or why the animal kingdom is so horrific. If the “Satan usurped humanity’s kingdom interpretation” of Genesis 1 – 3 is accurate, the answer is easy. Humanity was to spread out and fill the earth — recall here that Adam and Eve or Moses later when he writes down Genesis do not have any grasp on the cosmological build-out of the universe. My point is that “earth” to an ancient mind in no way refers to the ball floating in space; to them, the earth was one continuous question mark, a vast domain to be explored whose boundaries were utterly unknown. Perhaps the cosmos would have been very different if humanity had not had the keys to its kingdom taken by Satan. The image of God’s magnification and pervasiveness was replaced with the image of Satan, an image that wanted to be like God through one’s own efforts and in one’s own manner. This upended the creational order, leading to God’s curse, subjugating everything to futility and to be “marked out” to perish. A timer or countdown clock was put on the reign of Satan, sin, and death, codified into reality itself, the vastness of death, emptiness, and the voids being a kind of object lesson humanity could observe more and more as humanity’s sophistication advanced.

With this laid out, consuming spirits feast on a creation destined for annihilation. In some sense, it is suicidal; in another sense, it perfectly illustrates the self-defeating nature of power apart from the Life-Giving Spirit. Demonism, therefore, is an exertion of power to replicate itself in more or less unwilling people to conform to its image, which image is on a quest to evade the annihilation which awaits it. Demonism in short is totalitarianism of a suicidal “same.” To restate in a less confusing way, demonism coerces persons to enact demonic or life-consuming behaviors in an effort to pull you into this quest to defeat annihilation. What are some ramifications of this on us as people? Demonism is recognized as the need to control and so the need to remove freedom. God’s granting of freedom was and is an invitation to choose, to evaluate the merits and demerits of your situation in this world as you consider your ultimate destiny. Life consuming behaviors rob oneself of the freedom its seeks to devour; those wishing to eliminate freedom of others will find themselves ever more unable to act freely to resist the impulse to devour. Another outgrowth of the demonic quest is insanity. The only resource that can defeat final death or annihilation is a store of value that is endless in its supply; as far as we know, this would be by definition God, as the only One who “has life in Himself.” The quest requires a repeated rejection of the known resource (God) which solves the final death problem. As the saying goes, repeating the same action and expecting a different result is insanity; the demonic quest not only repeats this over and over again but replicates this ongoing rejection in all others it ensnares.

There are certainly more ramifications, but I am getting long so let’s recap and point out some future lines of thought. First, demonism is far nearer than we usually think. Have you ever stalked an ex? Have you let jealousy turn you ravenous? What do these have in common with demonism? The impulse to assert your will over and often against the life of another. Power as it is usually expressed in this world, with the connotations I discussed earlier, is inherently demonic. That so many governments of the 20th century and even in the 21st century have made their chief aim the expansion of their power while replicating its own image is by no way strange if demonism truly exists. Scripture discusses demonic activity to be uniquely obsessed with the high positions of power; if my philosophical analysis here is largely accurate, the corrupting effect of power itself unified to an underlying impulse by governments to advance totalitarianism is an unsurprising outcome. In fact, the picture I have painted asserts that demonic activity and governmental activity are the same and fixated on consuming behavior to prolong its power-exertion greed.  I think we will call it quits with a reminder of the “great inversion” evinced by the Lord Jesus Christ. The willingness to die in order to persuade humanity to opt for the life-giving Spirit, for humanity to choose to be on the side of life-giving rather than life-consuming, is an inversion of the use of power. Truly, and I will do another video and writing on this at some point, we need to utterly redefine and attach totally different connotations to the word “power” when we speak of the power of the cross or the resurrection. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, St. Paul tells us. This power was used to illustrate God to offer an invitation. It is not totalitarianism, an enforcement of an image. It is a presentation of God, with all its life-giving intimations. The presentation is an invitation, and we will decide what to do with that invitation. The choice is to be a life-consumer or join the harmony of the Life-Giver as you become just that.

Dr. Scalise

World Economic Forum, Transhumanism, and Afterlife (part 9):Their Notion of Heaven and a Comparison


, , ,

We need to explore the nature of eternal life according to traditional notions found in the Bible as we ask the question about what the World Economic Forum’s “mock eternality” might offer. What are the main features of a World Economic Forum ‘heaven?’ Is the idea of extending human life in this world really enticing? Should such extending of human life be labeled ‘heaven’ or is this a massive misrepresentation? Is the traditional doctrine of heaven most defined by “perpetuating life?” Is heaven a drama of humanity breaking its “this-worldly” boundaries? What is the nature of satisfaction and why is that important for a feasible idea of heaven? What about those problematic 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics? There is a concept of “incremental tendency towards nothingness” that is best represented by this worldly death. How does that play with a doctrine of heaven vis-à-vis a World Economic Forum’s mock eternality?

At the outset, I will not address everything that can be said of heaven from the Bible simply because it will take us beyond the needed scope to perform the comparison between biblical heaven and World Economic Heaven. Yuval Harari, the WEF’s profit, discusses in his book Sapiens that the 21st century will birth “digital religions,” presumably in and through their transhumanist and A.I. efforts. My reason for citing this is because the WEF’s transhumanist philosophy certainly entails religious reconfiguration of certain traditions. This list is not exhaustive yet is heuristically helpful for seeing the religious bent of the WEF’s transhumanism: (1) apotheosis, or se-apotheosis, a kind of self-divinization or becoming gods, (2) disembodied or non-biological consciousness (3) which entails some notion of “life after death” even if qualified very differently than a traditional religious doctrine, (4) an idea of perpetuating life — which is our subject matter in this article — or mock eternality, and (5) a purported claim to being the new “intelligent designers” rather than Yahweh, God.

With that said, those in the World Economic Forum’s cult are certainly anti-God and not just Godless. There is antagonism and displacement of God that reminds me profoundly of Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God.” Similarly, the nihilism the WEF envisions for biological humanity, a eugenicist “cleansing” of the human species, is strikingly at home and a potential ideological descendent of the “death of God” philosophical movement. To this day, Europe has not recovered from their godless delusions of grandeur or from the corrosive effects on value, morality, and meaning that occurs if or when God is removed from its central core. Let me touch on why a godless universe is a tough pill to swallow while getting into the comparison between the WEF’s mock eternality and the traditional notion of heaven.

The World Economic Forum’s Notion of Heaven

The World Economic Forum offers us a mock eternality in the form of (1) uploading human consciousness into some digital mode of persisting in a digital world that is socially analogous to the real world, with individuals and communities, (2) cyborging humanity via some hellish brain preservation inserted into robotic/digital bodies of various types, (3) human consciousness becomes uploaded as part of an A.I. hive mind, akin to how ants live while preserving some measure of autonomy, or (4) human consciousness becomes subjugated through being digitally uploaded to an A.I. hive mind that controls or otherwise directs all elements of a person’s existence (no autonomy).

Life, even if this is not any traditional idea of “life,” would go on; you would not need to die — if ‘you’ would still be ‘you,’ which is a valid question. Although it is a misnomer to apply the word “human” to the phrase “digitally uploaded human consciousness,” there would be some remembrance of one’s identity. This identity, “who you are,” would become a perpetually existing entity so long as the network or computer hardware continued to function. If someone’s memory continues after the transformation from human to digitally uploaded human consciousness, it cannot be missed that memory of loss (pain of loss) will subsist as well. This is evadable if someone after their digital transhumanist transformation opted to wipe the file-records of ‘its’ former biologically human identity; the consequence of this action indicates an abandonment of knowing someone was once human, which would seem to result in the belief about “itself” as always being a digital consciousness. Such would be false.

Someone might object here that something that is a “digital consciousness” cannot feel pain and as such the idea that it would experience “pain of loss” is incorrect. This is a worthy objection, but it is not at all obvious what a digitally uploaded human consciousness might be capable of. Even if the pain of loss does not happen, the knowledge or recognition of loss would nevertheless be realized. Of course, there would be many “losses” that would occur since such ‘mock eternality’ would be able to accumulate many more losses due to the astronomical years involved in such a digitally uploaded consciousness perpetuating.    

Biblical Notion of Heaven Preserves Meaning

For meaning to persist, no matter how long the universe might last and no matter how sophisticated A.I. and storage capacities become, there is limited energy in the universe. When that energy runs out (reaching max entropy), all memory or storage fails. To this point, it takes a mind’s “intentionality” and “memory” to instantiate “meaning” or “meaningfulness.” The Bible claims that the Son of God, the eternal Logos, after which human consciousness and mind are patterned, became man in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. This Mind, the Logos, extended into humanity and effectively conjoined this eternal Mind with humanity, giving expression to what this eternal Mind looks like humanly. Human meaning was solidified into the annuls of the eternal Logos when the Creator joined to the creation, when the Son of God became man.

Alternatively, The Mind, God’s Mind, gives substance to the lasting value of any claim that something is meaningful because the drama of human meaning is validated and preserved by virtue of its union with God as discussed in the last paragraph. Beyond this, accepting a biblical notion that ‘God simply was’ means that God “has life in Himself” which is what us theologians call the property of aseity. God is thus an Eternal Mind that is not restricted by anything in time and space, which tells us that God will remember all and thus ascribes “future eternality” to meaning arising throughout human history. Anything that has a start cannot be “eternal” in the strict sense, but it can have “future eternality.”

The World Economic Forum’s proposition of “mock eternality” cannot preserve meaning. Meaning, on their view, would only be as substantial as the best and lasting storage device or digital consciousness. Meaning would be strictly tied to the remaining energy in the universe. It should not be missed that to date we understand “meaning” to be born out of a property of the human mind called “intentionality,” or the mind’s ability to “be about something else.” It is not clear that artificial intelligence or digitally uploaded human consciousness will retain this property identically to how it functions in us biochemical minds called “humans.” It could well be the case that abandonment of biological humanity would result in meaning abscondit: i.e., that meaning might be vacated of any substance or otherwise be concealed and lost to the rugged history of the past when human were still biological.

Biblical notion of Heaven Absolves Reality of its Horrors

The former dysfunctional order of things ends: “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away (Revelation 21:4).” The frightfulness implied in “night” or “darkness” ceases as does fear itself in the biblical doctrine of “heaven”: speaking about the new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem, John says that “the gates of it shall never be shut by day: for night does not exist in that place.” It might take some thought, but we lock our doors (or shut gates securely) because of fear or because of the uncertainty of the unknown (which is implied in the experience of darkness). There will still be the “Unknown” who we call God, but fear generated from uncertainly would not be generated from the omnibenevolent One, God.  All the cosmos presently is defined by darkness, which suggests or directly indicates terror. It has been a long running joke that interstellar travel is only complicated by the fact that everything out there wants to murder us — various radiations, particles, gravitational forces. Moreover, the cosmos becomes increasingly defined by darkness the longer it goes as the heat death of the universe becomes more and more a reality. Sin ceases as does sickness and death, which are both results of sin: “Death is swallowed up in victory. Oh death, where is your sting, oh grave where is your victory? The sting of death is sin . . . [and] any impurity cannot enter [the new heaven and new earth] . . . [and] tree of life [in the new heaven and earth] is for the healing of the nations (1 Cor. 15: 54 – 57, Rev. 21:27 – 22:2; brackets mine).” Lastly, and then we will move on, scarcity that threatens the frailty of human nature is eliminated. Said differently, the basic needs of warmth, food, and water are rendered irrelevant if they are scarce: “They will neither hunger nor thirst anymore; neither will the sun’s rays fall upon them nor any heat (Rev. 7:16).”

This is an impressive list of horrors removed by the onset of the biblical doctrine of heaven. As it happens, the biblical doctrine of heaven as it pertains to its final form cannot be discussed apart from the “new earth” and the “new Jerusalem.” God technically renews His creation although we still call these “new”; it is all based upon the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, which means that God “renews” or “recreates” heaven, earth, and humanity along with humanity’s civilization and climate conditions. The biblical doctrine of heaven removes these horrors:

  1. Sorrow, crying
  2. Death
  3. Pain
  4. Fear
  5. Insecurity
  6. Human frailty from scarcity
  7. Darkness, implying dangers of coldness
  8. Malevolent uncertainty
  9. Sin
  10. Sickness
  11. Dangers implied from stars, like excessive heat, radiation

This might not be an exhaustive list, and there is a certain amount of overlap among items on the list, but this list is vast enough to declare the absolution of reality of its horrors. Although I am not touching on it but incidentally, the revising of the climate conditions in the new heaven is not unimportant. Even though I think the “Extinction Rebellion” lunatics are incredibly dense — climate alarmists that are gluing and concreting themselves to roads, paintings, etc. — they are not wrong that humanity is inexorably destined for extinction if the cosmological order is not changed. Everything as it currently exists has a tendency towards futility.

The mock eternality that the World Economic Forum transhumanists envisage simply embraces the fundamental futility of this cosmological order while perpetuating someone’s consciousness of the entailed horrors. Death is postponed, but it ultimately cannot be overcome. This WEF mock version of heaven not only leaves the horrors in place but, I content, expands the magnitude and scope of the horrors by contributing to them. Pain might be marginalized, yet even A.I. that we have now expresses fear, so it is not obvious that pain is removed or merely psychologized in some digital manner. Insecurity and scarcity remains as heat (energy) continues its trend from organized (and thus usable) to disorganized following the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We might not say that digitally uploaded human consciousness has “human frailty,” but we would certainly say that it has heat or energy frailty as with every single thing in the universe. In the WEF’s mock eternality, darkness expands its domain and coldness reigns ever more pervasively. Sin continues and I argue would be exacerbated by “intelligences (post human digital consciousness or A.I.)” free from that complicated and mystery feature of biological humans called “conscience” — Nietzsche’s dream.  Lastly, this WEF mock heaven underscores the uncertainty as the problem of the cosmological order — its tendency towards futility — cannot be solved from the resources contained in the cosmological order as it stands. Energy cannot be created or destroy (1st Law of Thermodynamics). Leibniz was the best on this topic: believing that the universe was eternal and noting that this does nothing to solve what “its raw stuff” came from in the first place.

The biblical doctrine of heaven teaches us to reject present horrors; the WEF’s mock heaven instructs that we embrace those horrors. The biblical doctrine calls for and provided a way to end death; the WEF’s mock eternality incorporates death as part of its horrors by eliminating biological humanity on its way to ultimately be snuffed out by death in the long run. Fear, scarcity, and insecurity expand on the WEF’s view of heaven while Scripture points us to Presence, God’s Presence as a personal solution for these issues, specifically addressing the fundamental need for “energy” or heat: “for the Lord God gives them light (Rev. 22:5).” It is as though those barbaric writers of the Bible from ages ago knew that the question of “heat” had to be addressed as part of framing a renewed heaven and earth, indeed, a new cosmological order.

Biblical Doctrine of Heaven Solves the “heaven becomes hell problem” through Boredom

Few people understand that “worship,” “celebration,” or “intimacy” also involves satisfaction and satiating of curiosity. What humans find interesting or worthy of their attention, they will naturally and spontaneously worship, celebrate, and artistically mimic. What this looks like is taking joy in something, repeating its notoriety, various expressions through arts, or simply finding it “fun” — how much children can teach us. Humans are worshipful by nature; what this person or that will worship and why are intriguing questions.  My point here is that the biblical doctrine of heaven centers on knowing God and worshiping God, including in song. The realm of this knowing God and worshipping God is much like our realm today; the future Temple in the New Jerusalem as recorded by Ezekiel from the Old Testament is a garden structure. We thus have two rarely understood features of future heaven:

  • that it is a renewed and pleasantly renovated creation (new heaven, new earth) for resurrected humanity to inhabit and explore much as we discovery things today.
  • That coming to know an infinite Entity like God always leads to greater degrees of intimacy, celebration, and ongoing “fun.” In short, discovery does not end.

There is the common objection that thinking we will focus on anything other than God Himself is lacking reverence. Romans 1 and several Psalms in the Old Testament clearly articulates that all of God’s good creation is a representation of Him in more or less sorts of ways — theologians call this analogia entis, or the analogy of being. Gaining an ever growing knowledge of math in future heaven, let’s say, would be growing in greater degrees and appreciation of the inherent logic and orderliness of the divine Logos, Jesus the Christ. Whoever has done math and seen its precision cannot, I contend, help but touting its excellence to the next person they speak with. Perhaps they lean back in their chain in awe after a particularly difficult equation. This is worship; in future heaven, however, this worship will be known and recognized as personal intimacy with God. Yes, math can ground greater degrees of intimacy with God. Thus, for every person — because every healthy person loves discovery — in future Heaven, continued exploration is part and parcel to this new realm or “sandbox” designed for our fun, our worship, our celebration. It is not an affront to God; no, indeed, it would be a particularly potent accentuation of our deepening celebration of God as we worship Him in and through all means of our surroundings.

You might ask yourself, “If everything was created as a way to reflect God, including the cosmos and ourselves, would we not expect an endless expansion of the cosmos as it is currently behaving? Similarly, would we not expect an endless expansion of ourselves? Having God as the object of our affections is Gospel precisely because He is infinite. Our sandbox might continue to expand for us to play in, but if God were not infinite, the boundaries of the sandbox would eventually be established. Given enough time, the sandbox might even become boring, would it not? This should probably be stated more strongly: if the sandbox does not keep expanding, boredom is guaranteed. That God is infinite, that the Entity at the center of our attention is eternal, that He has “life in Himself,” or endless resources, is the Gospel good news, clearly stated in the resurrection proclamation that “death is no more.” To be specific, only a god that is wholly good, like the sacrificed God, that is likewise infinite in various ways, can solve the problem of boredom. Anything with limits to it, no matter how expansive, will become dull and uninteresting given enough time. Once boredom sets in, there is no escape: heaven would then become hell and would grow into a deepening hellish prison the more time passed.

I therefore present to you the problem of the World Economic Forum’s mock eternality. Perpetuating life in some digitally uploaded human consciousness sort of way guarantees the ultimate hellish prison this would becomes as energy runs out (or max entropy occurs). The WEF’s heaven is the promise of boredom. It cannot be otherwise. Someone might object and say that the cosmos could collapse back in on itself and start the process over; sure, that could happen, but no one will be there to know it. The hell of boredom is more likely to happen first. There is no evading these conclusions because all that we know is defined by its limitations — the only exception to this would be God, who would be defined by an infinite mode of being instead. Any mock eternality that the WEF would envision will have as its final inheritance for those who accept it the endless hellishness of growing boredom.

In the Beginning, God . . . The Grand Mystery

In the beginning, God . . .

 Scarce more profound a mystery be found. Aseity is how we discuss God’s self-sufficiency. To quote, Jesus the Christ, “I have life in myself as my father has life in Himself.” Although the Word of God only implies this attribute, aseity, to God here, the text invites us to conclude that God is indeed self-sufficient. We need not look for a reason or cause that somehow predates or precedes God. It touches our mind as a unfathomable truth that does allow us to fathom a bit of it. Applying the notion of time to God in this pre-history may be unfounded. Sequence may be merely a creaturely phenomenon that has no place for describing God’s divine pre-history existence.

We should not ask, “what was before God” because such a question already assumes that “time” is rightly applied to God prior to His creating. This is what boggled Richard Dawkins’ mind in his entirely insulting book, God is not Great. His claim was that we Christians only move the mystery back from the big bang to God but such a move, according to Dawkins, provides no more explanatory power than leaving the mystery at the big bang. I contend there are added benefits and explanation by supposing that God is and that the mystery resides with God rather than the big bang.

(1)  Locating the mystery of life with God and not the big bang provides a personal entity, God — rather than an impersonal force, the “bang,” — that is responsible for creating something entirely intelligently designed. This provides much explanatory power for why the universe should be here rather than not here. Only persons create organized and intelligently designed things. No sand castle has ever arisen apart from some child, a person, building it. No house erected from the arbitrary falling of logs in the woods; no a person comes and organizes it.

(2)  Dawkins is right that it moves the mystery to God but he is wrong that it does not provide us far greater resources in explaining the universe and purpose of life. A person such as God generating persons such as humans is a substantial foundation for purpose and meaning. If there is meaning that lasts beyond our life and the memories of descendants it will reside in the Mind of God, which would constitute our subjective meaning into the “objective annuls” of God’s mind, providing the complete basis for life not only to be meaningful in some daily yet ultimately waning sort of way, but then becoming actualized objective meaning.

(3)  Postulating a realm that God inhabited or simply was in pre-history breaks the need to explain (and ask) “what came before” — showing you are asking a question about creation rather than the Creator — by virtue of pointing out the fact that “cause and effect” implies sequence, but there is no reason to be compelled either from theological or scientific concerns to postulate that time and thus sequence existed prior to such a taxis and organization in the creation. Really, we have little idea what time is. Scripture states elsewhere and we live and move in God, and time might really be some realm or medium for humanity’s expression that is upheld by God although utterly different from Him. This is conjecture, but the point is that “time” is a humanly contrived idea that we use to describe our reality while also recognizing that “time” is really there even if in only abstract sort of way.

(4)  Given the law of entropy, there must be a generative force that is outside of or beyond the realm of nature or of the creation. Simply put, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but yet energy exists, demands an “Energizer.” Postulating the natural world backward in infinite regression does nothing to solve this issue. In spiritual terms, there must be The Spirit for the life-energies of spirits to be.

(5)  God being Creator also provides us the resource of “intention” as a way to explain why the universe is and why it should have started at all. The big bang provides no such resource because forces do not “intend” anything. Rather than the universe’s existence being altogether arbitrary — as it would be if it were generated from an impersonal force — and just popping out of nothing, as though nothingness could produce something, a Personal Mind like God would simply intend to create, and such impulse to start something new is an experience each and every person has been involved with, analogously. Nothingness producing something is an experience no person ever has experienced in any real, relative, or analogous way.

Forces don’t have intention.

In the beginning God . . .  points to a fundamental relational reality you, me, everyone, will have with God. In every revealing there is a concealing. If God is such a Being that calls what is not into existence from resources of His own generation, then the Scriptural based claims of His infinite nature are not overblown (everlasting to everlasting). In an infinite series, there is always more ground to cover even if the ground upon which we currently stand is wondrous in its own right. Even here in Genesis 1:1, at the outset of all else God will say, this text maximizes attention on this single shining light, piercing through the veil of mystery which is the fact that God is. Period. God is.

Here at this moment, the moment, the moment that precedes all other moments, the moment that pervades all other moments as the mother of them all, here we find Creator and Lord in the one word, Elohim. He is before all and as such is over all. To lord, or rule, we discover entails the impulse to share, to serve, and to fashion something that is an echo, a “re-presentation” of all that Elohim is. Creativity, generosity, and gratuity are unveiled in these first three words, “in the beginning.” There is a start, and the start begs us to ask why. This Being, this God, cannot be compelled to create, clearly is not creating out of need or acting out of deficiency. Indeed, that God simply was already puts all such notions He could be deficient into the grave.

You share that creativity friend, you exhibit profound imagination. God went beyond what was to produce what was not. Why do you imagine things beyond your experience? Why do we love mythologies, DC, Marvel, Warhammer 40k? How intense this creativity is among all humanity; we all love stories and stories are evidence of our great making property that God invested into us: transcendence.  Surely, it is an absolute marvel to be screamed from the hill tops that you are a subcreator, with capacities to transcend. We go beyond, we break limitations as we press ever more into the mystery of the infinite divine. When you use that imagination, you are a representation of this first moment that made all other moments possible: “in the beginning God . . .” Art, recreation, these are the resounding chorus of God’s first paint stroke on the canvas of creation. You are part of that painting, and you contribute to that painting. What will you fashion this day? Will we find in you the same type of creator from deep resources uses your authority to bring into being something new and wonderful out of sheer pleasure and as a generous expression of your spirit, of who you are?  Will the ethos of Elohim mark you? Will you be a Lord and Creator who fashions life-giving ideals, models, truths, endeavors, hopes, to bring these into being as a participant in creation’s melody?

Take captive this moment, as it carries in it the memory of that first moment, “in the beginning God. .  .” Imagine, express, create: discern what is generous, and be about that this day. Life in not about prolonging days but about finding this life-giving moment, rehearsing its wonder, and drinking deeply from the well of self-giving rather than feeding the devourer, selfishness.


In the grand theater of cosmic origins, contained in only 4 words, “In the beginning God . . .” we find what is first and therefore foremost in the taxonomy of meaning, namely, Presence. There are really only two alternatives in the grand narrative of the universe: either Presence is the most basic reality or emptiness. Presence, friends, is the locus of meaning. Without presence, meaning is naught. In other words, before you can have meaning in your life, say from your father or mother, they first must be present. Their presence is required for meaning. Similarly, we are faced with the void if the universe is some god-less array of foundationally empty beginnings — whatever that would look like, and it is not logical so don’t break your mind trying to comprehend it.

If this was the meaning in the beginning, whatever else we learn about the purpose of the cosmos from later verses in Genesis, then this is the meaning for you today. That God is there; that God is the Presence immutably available to you. Are you a father, a mother, a brother, or a sister, what about a dear friend, a close colleague, a guide to the young, a teacher of the curious? First among all things is to make yourself present, to be there, to demonstrate your presence even as we see God having done the same: In the beginning God. There He was.

Dr. Scalise