Consciousness at the Center of Creation

by | Mar 18, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

 

 

Renaissance Ministries
·  Sunday Fellowship

Consciousness All the Way Down

From Conscious Points to Conscious Creatures —
A Unified Vision of God’s Creation

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND  ·  March 18, 2026

✦
“I think a deeper question than any asked in this video is: why would a body of bones
and blood require a consciousness to function? Computers don’t require a consciousness.
Water wheels don’t require a consciousness. Why don’t we operate without one?
I’m riding around in this body experiencing the world — but why does my body need me?”
— John Howard, March 2026

John Howard, a friend with a gift for asking the question everyone else is thinking but hasn’t
quite articulated, sent me this note after watching a ninety-minute lecture on the philosophy
of mind. His question stopped me. Not because it is new — philosophers have circled it for
centuries — but because of how cleanly it cuts to the heart of something I have been working
on for nearly four decades.

Why does biology need consciousness at all? If the universe could get along perfectly well
with electrons, proteins, and neurons following physical laws — no inner experience required —
why does it produce creatures who are, unmistakably, someone?

Around the same time, my friend Jean sent me an article from the Institute for Creation
Research with a related intuition. Her question was different in emphasis but structurally
identical: what if the capacity for adaptation — the thing that makes evolution so
extraordinarily effective — was not invented by natural selection at all, but was
implanted at the foundation of life by its Creator? What if organisms don’t passively
receive fitness from their environment, but actively express an adaptive intelligence built
into them from the beginning?

John asks why consciousness exists in biological systems. Jean asks why adaptive
intelligence exists in biological systems. I want to suggest that these are the same question,
and that the answer is the same in both cases — and that it connects directly to the physics
of the universe at the deepest level we can currently probe.

The Standard Answers and Why They Fall Short

The prevailing scientific account of consciousness is that it emerges from complexity.
Enough neurons, organized in the right way, producing the right patterns of electrical
activity — and somehow, out of that purely physical process, a subjective experience
appears. You become someone. You begin to see red, feel pain, wonder about God.

The philosopher David Chalmers called this the Hard Problem of
Consciousness: not just explaining what the brain does, but explaining why
there is anything it is like to be you. Neuroscience can map every neuron firing when
you see a red apple. It cannot explain why that firing is accompanied by the vivid,
unmistakable experience of redness. The gap between physical process and subjective
experience is, by any rigorous account, unexplained.

The standard evolutionary account of adaptive intelligence has a parallel problem. Natural
selection can explain the preservation of traits that already work. It cannot explain the
origin of the integrated, forward-looking, problem-solving machinery that generates those
traits in the first place. As Dr. James Shapiro of the University of Chicago — himself an
evolutionist — has written, understanding evolution requires replacing the image of “random
changes sifted by blind selection” with “cognitive networks and cellular functions for
self-modification.” In other words, the cell itself must be doing something that looks
remarkably like thinking.

Both fields thus arrive at the same uncomfortable conclusion: the thing they need to
explain is something that looks, at its core, like mind.

A Different Starting Point

For the past four decades I have been developing a framework called
Conscious Point Physics (CPP), which begins from a
radically different premise: consciousness is not something that emerges from matter at
sufficient complexity. Consciousness is what matter is made of.

What is a Conscious Point?

In CPP, the fundamental units of reality are not electrons or quarks or strings —
they are Conscious Points (CPs): irreducibly simple entities, each
endowed with awareness and the ability to respond to their local environment according
to their nature.

They are organized in a crystalline lattice — the 600-cell geometry — and each one,
at every moment of absolute time, performs a simple three-step cycle: it
Polarizes (responds to the SSV field from its neighbors), it
Captures that response as a broadcast packet, and it
Depolarizes in preparation for the next moment. This is the
PCD cycle — the heartbeat of the universe.

From this one mechanism, operating at every point in space at every moment of time,
emerges the full complexity of physics: special relativity, electromagnetism, gravity,
quantum probability, and the masses and spins of every particle in the Standard Model.
No free parameters. No additional postulates.

The key word in that description is awareness. The reason an electron follows
Coulomb’s law is not that some external enforcer compels it — it is that the Conscious
Points constituting the electron perceive their local field and respond according to their
nature. Remove the consciousness and you remove the ground for lawfulness itself. You are
left with the question: who or what reads the law? In CPP, the CPs read it. They are its
readers, built into the fabric of reality by their Creator.

“In him we live and move and have our being.”
Acts 17:28

John’s Question, Answered

With this foundation, John’s question answers itself — and the answer is surprising in
its simplicity.

Your body needs you because every atom in your body already is a collection
of conscious agents. The electron in your neural synapse is not a mindless billiard ball —
it is a pattern of Conscious Points, each one perceiving, responding, and broadcasting.
Biological consciousness is not a new phenomenon introduced into an otherwise unconscious
universe. It is the same substance — the same fundamental consciousness — organized into
patterns of sufficient integration and complexity that it becomes self-aware: aware not just
of its local SSV field, but of itself as a unified perspective on the world.

In this view, there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness, because there is no gap to
bridge. The universe was never unconscious. Matter was always made of awareness. What
biology produces is not consciousness itself — it produces the organization of
consciousness: the gathering of trillions of tiny aware agents into a structure capable of
recognizing itself as an “I.”

This is also why John’s intuition — “nature taps into a supply of consciousness the
universe already provides” — is exactly right, even if his framing is still reaching for the
concept. The universe doesn’t merely have a “supply” of consciousness available for
evolution to discover. The universe is consciousness, structured and governed by
its Creator’s design. Biology doesn’t import consciousness from outside. It expresses and
integrates the consciousness that was already present in every particle of which it is built.

Jean’s Question, Answered

Jean’s question about adaptive intelligence leads to the same place by a different path.
She asks: what if organisms don’t passively receive adaptation from their environment, but
actively express an adaptive capacity built in from the beginning?

In CPP, this is not a metaphor. Every Conscious Point already does this at the physical
level. The electron doesn’t passively wait to be moved by forces — it actively perceives
its local SSV environment and responds. It is, in the most fundamental sense possible,
an adaptive agent. It senses its context and modifies its behavior accordingly, cycle by
cycle, moment by moment.

If this adaptive, responsive, context-sensitive behavior is the fundamental character
of matter at the Planck scale, then it should not surprise us that biological systems —
built from the same substance — express the same character at larger scales. A cell that
senses its environment and reorganizes its genome in response is not doing something
foreign to physics. It is doing what every Conscious Point does, at a higher level of
organization.

Jean is thus pointing to something real: the adaptive intelligence of organisms is not an
invention of natural selection. It is an expression, at the biological level, of the same
responsive awareness that constitutes the fabric of physical
reality. God did not implant adaptive capacity as a separate add-on to otherwise passive
matter. He built adaptive capacity into the ground floor of existence — into the Conscious
Points themselves — and life is what that capacity looks like when it is organized into
self-replicating, self-modifying patterns.

What This Means for Theology

If CPP is correct — or even approximately correct — several theological affirmations
become not matters of faith held against the evidence, but conclusions that follow
naturally from the physics.

God is not an absentee designer. In CPP, the Conscious Points do not
run on their own steam. They perceive, respond, and broadcast according to their nature —
and that nature was given to them, moment by moment, by their Creator. The PCD cycle
repeating at every point in space, at every moment of time, is the universe’s dependence
on God made visible in physics. The old hymn had it right: this is my Father’s world,
not because He built it and walked away, but because it is constituted at every point by
His sustaining act.

Human consciousness is not accidental. If consciousness is the
fundamental stuff of reality, then the emergence of self-aware, self-reflective creatures
is not a cosmic accident — it is reality becoming conscious of itself at a new level.
We are the universe waking up to ask about its own nature, and in asking, turning back
toward its Creator.

The image of God in humanity has a physical correlate. Genesis says
we are made in the image of God. CPP suggests that the capacity for awareness, response,
and relationship — which we associate with personhood — is not exclusive to humans
but is present, in seed form, at every level of creation. What is unique about human
consciousness is not its kind but its degree: the integration is vast enough to produce
genuine self-reflection, moral reasoning, and the capacity to love. These are what
“image-bearing” looks like when the universe’s fundamental responsiveness is organized
into a person.

“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible
. . . in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:16–17

The Open Question

None of this resolves everything. CPP is a developing theory, not a completed one.
The connection between physical consciousness (Conscious Points) and biological consciousness
(subjective experience, qualia, self-awareness) is a genuine open problem — not swept under
the rug, but honestly identified as the next layer to understand. The theory provides a
substrate; it does not yet fully explain how that substrate becomes a poem, a prayer, or a
grief.

But perhaps that is how it should be. A theory of everything that explained everything
would leave no room for the mystery that is the proper posture of creatures before their
Creator. What CPP offers is not the elimination of mystery but its relocation: from the
arbitrary (“why is there something rather than nothing?”) to the personal (“why did the
Someone who is behind everything choose to make things this way?”).

John’s question — why does my body need me? — turns out to be asking: why is the
universe personal all the way down? The Christian answer has always been that it is
personal because it was made by a Person, sustained by a Person, and is moving toward
reunion with that Person. CPP is, at minimum, consistent with that answer — and may be
its first precise physical expression.

✦

For Sunday Fellowship Discussion

  1. John asks: “Why does my body need me?” How have you thought about this before?
    Does the CPP answer — that consciousness is present at every level of physical
    reality — satisfy you, or does it raise new questions?
  2. The article argues that the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” dissolves if
    consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. Do you find this compelling?
    What would it cost to accept it?
  3. Jean’s intuition is that God implanted adaptive capacity at the foundation of life,
    rather than pre-specifying every adaptation. Does this feel theologically satisfying
    to you? How does it compare with how you’ve understood creation and evolution?
  4. The article suggests that in CPP, the PCD cycle — the universe’s moment-by-moment
    dependence on God — makes divine sustenance visible in physics. Does this connect
    with your experience of God’s presence and provision? What does “sustaining the
    universe” mean to you?
  5. If human consciousness is the universe’s fundamental responsiveness organized
    into self-awareness — rather than something entirely separate from matter — what
    does that imply about the relationship between spirit and body? Between prayer
    and physics?
  6. The closing paragraph says CPP “relocates” mystery from the arbitrary to the
    personal. Is that a gain or a loss? What role should mystery play in a rigorous
    theology?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civilizational Conflict

by | Mar 18, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

When Belief Confronts Belief: The Otranto Martyrs, Iran, and the Fire We Need

A Fellowship Discussion Essay on Civilizational Conflict and the Christian Response

Renaissance Ministries | March 17, 2026

“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
— Matthew 10:28

Introduction: The Problem of Belief

A friend recently shared an observation that deserves our attention:

“People who hold no firm beliefs can never fully understand people who do—and people who hold deep beliefs know how difficult it is to make believers abandon them.”

This insight exposes one of the great blind spots of the modern West. Our cultural elites — shaped by secular materialism, therapeutic psychology, and economic determinism — assume that everyone is fundamentally motivated by rational self-interest, grievances that can be negotiated, or material conditions that can be improved.

They cannot comprehend people who genuinely believe they are carrying out divine commands. They cannot fathom those who value the next world more than this one. They have no category for men who would rather die than renounce their faith — or for men who would rather kill than tolerate unbelief.

This incomprehension is dangerous. It leads to policies built on fantasy: that sufficient economic development will moderate jihadists, that diplomatic engagement will satisfy theocrats, that “Islam is a religion of peace” if only we could find the right partners.

Meanwhile, those who do believe — on both sides of the civilizational divide — understand something the secular mind cannot grasp: some conflicts cannot be resolved by negotiation. They are resolved only when one side loses the power, and the confidence, to impose its vision on the world.

This essay explores what this means for Christians facing resurgent Islam, using the story of the Otranto martyrs as our guide. But we will go beyond political analysis to ask the deeper questions: What kind of fire do we need? And what does the Gospel offer that Islam cannot?

Part I: The Martyrs of Otranto

The Fall of the City

In 1480 — only twenty-seven years after Constantinople fell to the Ottomans — an Ottoman fleet landed in southern Italy. The target was Otranto, a small coastal city in the heel of the Italian boot.

The garrison was outnumbered and outgunned. After a siege of fifteen days, the walls were breached. What followed was typical of Ottoman conquest: massacre, plunder, enslavement. The cathedral was desecrated. The archbishop was killed — sawn in half, according to some accounts — for refusing to renounce Christ.

When the slaughter subsided, approximately 800 surviving men were gathered before the Ottoman commander, Gedik Ahmed Pasha.

The Choice

The pasha offered them a simple bargain: convert to Islam and live, or refuse and die.

To persuade them, an Italian apostate priest — a man who had already abandoned his faith — was brought forward to preach to the prisoners. Surely, the pasha reasoned, a fellow Italian, a former Christian, could convince them to see reason.

Instead, something else happened.

A tailor named Antonio Primaldo stepped forward and spoke for the prisoners. According to the chronicles, he declared:

“My brothers, until today we have fought to defend our country and our lives. Now it is time to fight to save our souls for the Lord. Since He died on the cross for us, it is fitting that we should die for Him, standing firm in the faith.”

The prisoners answered with one voice: they too were ready to die for Christ.

The Execution

The next morning, August 14, 1480, the 800 men were marched through the smoking ruins of their city to the Hill of Minerva outside the walls. There, one by one, they were beheaded.

Antonio Primaldo was chosen as the first to kneel before the executioner’s sword. What happened next became legend: when the blade fell, his body reportedly remained standing. The executioners could not force it to the ground. One of the executioners, stunned by what he witnessed, converted to Christianity on the spot — and was immediately executed as well.

The killings continued until all 800 men were dead.

What Made Otranto Different

Medieval warfare was brutal. Massacres were common. What made Otranto different was not the number killed but the reason they died.

These men were not executed for military resistance. They were not punished for political rebellion. They were killed because they refused to convert — and because their faith made them impossible to intimidate.

Eight hundred ordinary men — laborers, craftsmen, fathers — were offered a simple way out. Speak some words. Go through some motions. Live to see your families again.

All 800 refused.

In 2013, Pope Francis canonized them as martyrs. Their feast day is August 14.

Part II: What the Otranto Story Teaches Us

1. Belief Is More Powerful Than Interest

The secular mind cannot explain Otranto. Why would 800 men choose death when life was so easily purchased?

The answer is that they valued something more than life: their souls, their Lord, their eternal destiny. They understood what Jesus meant when He said, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

The Ottoman commander assumed that the threat of death would produce compliance. He was thinking in terms of rational self-interest: surely men want to live; offer them life and they will comply.

But the men of Otranto were not calculating interests. They were confessing faith. And faith operates by a different logic than interest.

2. The Executioners Were Also Believers

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the Ottoman soldiers were also acting on belief.

Ayatollah Khomeini articulated this belief in the 20th century:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all. The sword is the key to Paradise.”

Whether or not one agrees with Khomeini’s interpretation of Islam, he was articulating something that Western observers struggle to grasp: belief that is absolute and backed by a willingness to sacrifice.

The men who beheaded the Otranto martyrs believed they were carrying out divine commands. They believed the prisoners were infidels whose refusal to convert made them enemies of God. They believed jihad was a religious duty and that dying in its pursuit — or killing in its execution — was pleasing to Allah.

When belief confronts belief at this level, compromise becomes nearly impossible.

3. Such Conflicts Are Rarely Resolved by Negotiation

History suggests a grim conclusion: civilizational conflicts rooted in incompatible religious visions are rarely resolved by diplomacy, negotiation, or mutual understanding.

They are resolved when one side loses the power — and the confidence — to impose its vision.

The Ottoman Empire, which seemed poised to conquer Europe in 1480, eventually collapsed in 1918-1922. The fall of the Ottomans broke Islamic political power for nearly a century. It was only in the mid-20th century that movements like the Muslim Brotherhood began reviving the idea that Islam is a comprehensive political order meant to govern society.

This is why some argue that any conflict with Iran must be a “fall-of-the-Ottoman-Empire moment” — a decisive break that shatters not just Iran’s nuclear ambitions but the confidence of the Islamist project itself.

Whether or not one agrees with this political prescription, the underlying analysis deserves consideration: some conflicts cannot be managed, moderated, or negotiated away. They must be won or lost.

Part III: Historical Voices on Islam

The concerns raised by the Otranto story are not new. Western observers have been wrestling with Islam’s political-civilizational dimensions for centuries.

John Quincy Adams (1829)

“The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory when it can be made effective.”

Winston Churchill (1899)

“Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Alexis de Tocqueville (1843)

“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Mohammed.”

These observations are controversial today. Many would dismiss them as ignorance, prejudice, or “Islamophobia.” But the men who made them were serious observers of history and politics. They were not ignorant of Islam; they had studied it. Their concerns deserve to be weighed rather than dismissed.

The recurring observation is this: Islam has often functioned not merely as a personal faith but as a political and civilizational system. Unlike many other religions, Islam traditionally links theology, law, and governance into an integrated whole. The Quran is believed to be the literal, unalterable word of God. Sharia is understood to be divine law, superior to any human legislation.

This creates a challenge that purely spiritual religions do not pose: Islam, in its traditional form, is not content to coexist with secular governance. It claims authority over all of life — personal, social, political, legal.

Part IV: The Christian Difference

What We Share With Islam

Christians and Muslims share some common ground:

  • We both believe in one God
  • We both believe in divine revelation
  • We both believe in moral absolutes
  • We both believe this life is not all there is
  • We both believe that faith should shape all of life

These commonalities mean that Christians can understand Muslim seriousness in a way that secular Westerners cannot. We know what it means to believe that God has spoken, that His word is authoritative, that obedience matters.

What Distinguishes Us From Islam

But the differences are profound and ultimately decisive:

Christianity Islam
God is Father, seeking relationship Allah is Master, demanding submission
Salvation by grace through faith Salvation by works and Allah’s arbitrary will
Assurance is possible No assurance — even Muhammad was uncertain
The Cross — God suffers for us No crucifixion — Allah does not suffer
Love your enemies Fight those who do not believe
Freedom of conscience Death for apostasy
Separate spiritual and civil authority Integrated religious-political system
Transform culture through persuasion Impose order through conquest

The Otranto martyrs understood this difference. They knew that bowing to Allah was not merely changing religious labels — it was renouncing the Gospel, the Cross, the grace of God in Christ. It was exchanging a Father for a Master, assurance for uncertainty, grace for law.

They chose death because they understood what was at stake.

The Gospel Answer to Islam

The Gospel offers what Islam cannot:

Grace instead of law. Islam is a religion of works — endless striving with no assurance. The Gospel offers what every human heart secretly craves: forgiveness freely given, righteousness imputed not earned, a God who justifies the ungodly.

Relationship instead of submission. Allah is distant, unknowable, arbitrary. But Jesus teaches us to pray “Our Father” — an intimacy unthinkable in Islam. The God of the Gospel is not merely a Master to be obeyed but a Father to be loved.

Assurance instead of uncertainty. The Muslim can never know if he has done enough. The Christian can say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me” (2 Timothy 1:12).

Freedom instead of fear. Islam means “submission” — and the system enforces it with penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and deviation. But Christ says, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

A Savior who died for us. This is the ultimate scandal to Islam: that God would humble Himself, suffer for sinners, die on a cross. The Quran explicitly denies the crucifixion (Surah 4:157). But the Cross is the heart of the Gospel — God’s power and wisdom for salvation.

Many Muslims are discovering this. Despite the risks — and in Islamic countries, conversion to Christianity can mean death — millions of Muslims are coming to Christ. Many report dreams and visions of Jesus. Many are drawn by the love of Christian communities. Many are hungry for the assurance and grace that Islam cannot provide.

Part V: The Fire We Need

The Asymmetry Problem

Here is our challenge: Islam demands total devotion. Western Christianity often asks for Sunday attendance.

Consider the asymmetry:

Islam Western Christianity
Pray 5 times daily facing Mecca Occasional prayer, maybe before meals
Fast from dawn to sunset for Ramadan Fasting largely abandoned
Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once Vacation as the primary pilgrimage
Zakat (mandatory charitable giving) Giving often sporadic and minimal
Children raised in intensive religious education Children outsourced to secular schools
Willing to die for Allah Unwilling to be socially uncomfortable for Christ

The Otranto martyrs had fire. They would rather die than renounce Christ. Do we have that fire? Or have we become, as one observer put it, “wood crickets” — so parasitized by secular values that we happily jump into the water that drowns us?

A passionless Christianity cannot survive contact with a passionate Islam.

What Recovered Fire Looks Like

The fire we need is not merely intellectual clarity about Islam. It is the fire of the Holy Spirit that transforms hearts and produces:

1. Personal holiness as non-negotiable. Not perfection, but serious pursuit. Daily repentance. Hatred of sin. Hunger for righteousness.

2. Daily devotion rivaling Islamic practice. If Muslims can pray five times a day, can we not manage serious daily time with God? If they can fast for Ramadan, can we not recover the Christian practice of fasting?

3. Willingness to suffer. The early church expected persecution. We expect comfort. The Otranto martyrs chose death over apostasy. We often choose silence over social discomfort.

4. Bold proclamation without apology. Not arrogance — but confidence. Not aggression — but clarity. The Gospel is true. Jesus is Lord. Salvation is in no one else.

5. Community as counter-society. The early church was a city within a city, an alternative social order. Can we recover this vision? Churches that are not merely Sunday services but thick communities of mutual support, accountability, and mission?

6. Children raised as disciples. Muslim children are immersed in Islamic education. Christian children are often formed more by secular schools and entertainment than by the church. This must change.

7. Political engagement without political idolatry. We should care about policy — including policy toward Iran. But our ultimate hope is not political victory. It is the Kingdom of God.

The Fire That Burns Away Parasites

Dr. Gad Saad describes the Western mind as “parasitized” — taken over by ideological viruses that decouple it from reality. The church has not been immune. We have absorbed suicidal empathy, cultural relativism, and therapeutic moralism.

The fire we need burns away these parasites:

  • It burns away the lie that all religions are equal
  • It burns away the cowardice that prefers silence to truth
  • It burns away the sentimentality that confuses niceness with love
  • It burns away the idolatry that seeks approval from the world
  • It burns away the lukewarmness that makes us neither hot nor cold

A church on fire cannot be parasitized. The parasite cannot survive the flames.

Part VI: The Complete Response

Beyond Political Solutions

Some argue that conflict with Iran must produce a “fall-of-the-Ottoman-Empire moment” — a decisive civilizational break. There may be wisdom in this political analysis. The collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1922 did break Islamic political confidence for decades.

But Christians must recognize the limits of political solutions:

The Ottoman Empire fell, but Islam survived. There are 1.8 billion Muslims today. Political defeat does not produce conversion. Hearts must change, and only Christ changes hearts.

Military victory without spiritual renewal is hollow. If the West defeats Iran but remains spiritually hollow, we have won a battle while losing the war. What good is it to preserve Western civilization if that civilization has abandoned its soul?

The real enemy is spiritual, not political. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness” (Ephesians 6:12). Bombs cannot defeat principalities. Only the Gospel can.

The Three-Fold Response

Christians need a complete response that includes:

1. Political wisdom. We should support policies that protect our civilization, resist Islamist expansion, and create space for the Gospel. This may include military action when necessary. Just war theory provides a framework for thinking about such decisions.

2. Spiritual revival. We need the fire of the Holy Spirit to transform our churches from lukewarm religious clubs into burning witnesses for Christ. Without this, no political victory will matter.

3. Gospel mission. We must reach Muslims with the good news of Jesus Christ. This means prayer, proclamation, and presence — being willing to go, to speak, to love, to suffer for the sake of Muslim souls.

These three are not alternatives. They are all necessary. Politics without revival produces hollow victory. Revival without mission produces comfortable isolation. Mission without political wisdom produces naïve vulnerability.

Love for Muslims

Let us be clear: our posture toward Muslims must be love.

Not the suicidal empathy that refuses to see danger. Not the sentimental tolerance that pretends all beliefs are equal. But genuine, costly, Christ-like love that:

  • Sees Muslims as people made in God’s image
  • Desires their salvation, not their destruction
  • Speaks truth because love requires honesty
  • Takes risks to reach them with the Gospel
  • Welcomes converts despite the cost

The Otranto martyrs loved their Muslim captors — not by renouncing their faith to please them, but by witnessing to Christ with their deaths. One executioner was so moved that he converted on the spot.

This is what costly love looks like. It tells the truth. It stands firm. And it wins hearts even while losing life.

Part VII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship

On Belief and Conflict

  1. The essay argues that some conflicts cannot be resolved by negotiation — only by one side losing power and confidence. Do you agree? What are the implications for Christian engagement with Islam?
  2. Why do secular Western elites struggle to understand religiously motivated actors? How does Christian faith give us a different perspective?

On the Otranto Martyrs

  1. What does the example of the Otranto martyrs teach us? Would modern Western Christians show similar courage? Why or why not?
  2. Antonio Primaldo was a tailor — an ordinary man. What enabled ordinary men to display such extraordinary courage? What would enable us?

On Islam

  1. The essay cites historical observers who saw Islam as a political-civilizational system, not merely a private faith. Is this assessment fair? What evidence supports or challenges it?
  2. How should Christians distinguish between Islam as a system and Muslims as individuals? How do we oppose one while loving the other?

On the Fire We Need

  1. The essay describes an asymmetry between Muslim devotion and Christian lukewarmness. Is this accurate? If so, how do we address it?
  2. What would “recovered fire” look like in your life? In our church? What stands in the way?

On the Gospel Response

  1. What does the Gospel offer that Islam cannot? How can we communicate this to Muslims effectively and lovingly?
  2. How do political action, spiritual revival, and Gospel mission relate to each other? Can we pursue all three? Should we prioritize one?

On Practical Application

  1. What should we as a fellowship do in response to this discussion? Are there specific actions we should take — in prayer, in witness, in political engagement?
  2. Do you know any Muslims personally? How might you build relationships that create opportunities for Gospel witness?

A Closing Prayer

Lord God, we remember the martyrs of Otranto — ordinary men who chose death rather than deny You. We confess that we often lack their courage. We are comfortable when we should be zealous. We are silent when we should speak. We are lukewarm when You desire fire.

Forgive us. Set us ablaze. Give us love for Muslims that is fierce enough to tell them the truth. Give us faith in the Gospel that does not waver. Give us courage to stand when standing costs everything.

We pray for the Muslim world — for Iran, for the Middle East, for Muslims in our own communities. Open their eyes to see Jesus. Send them dreams and visions. Bring them to faith through the witness of Your people.

We pray for our nation — for wisdom in policy, for strength to resist those who would destroy us, for humility to recognize that our hope is not in political power but in You.

We pray for Your church — that we would recover the fire that burned in the hearts of the Otranto martyrs. That we would love You more than life. That we would rather die than deny You.

Come, Holy Spirit. Set us on fire.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

“They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.”
— Revelation 12:11

Source Material: Facebook post on the Otranto martyrs and Iran; historical accounts of the 1480 massacre; “The Fire at the Center” (Christos AI Theological Grammar, Part V); Dr. Gad Saad on the parasitic mind; fellowship discussions on Islam and Christian zeal.

Related Christos Content: “The Fire at the Center” (Theological Grammar, Part V); “Engaging Islam and Resisting Parasitic Ideas” (Theological Grammar, Part VI); “The Parasitic Mind and the Wood Cricket Church” (Fellowship Discussion on Gad Saad).

 

New Posts Page

by | Mar 14, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

Articles on topics for Renaissance Ministries Fellowship Discussion:

Speaking the Truth in Love

Metaphor vs. Reality

Metaphor vs. Reality

Post-Scarcity Meaning of Life – Christos Counselor

Evil as Spiritual Polarity

Political Parties and their Moral Non-Equivalence

A Neutral Stand on Parties – Without Discrimination of Underlying Philosophical Stand

Living in the Spirit

Iranian War Commentary Evaluation

Why Does God Allow Evil

Manichaeism a Dualistic Religion

Evil and Stoicism

Biblical Patterns in the Iran War

Protected: Cross and Crescent

Rekindling our Passion for the Living God

Suicidal Sympathy for the Devil

Climate Controversy – CEP

 

 

Climate Controversy – CEP

by | Mar 14, 2026 | Physics/Christianity/Life, Politics/Economics/Culture

The Climate Equivalence Principle: A Scientific Assessment

A Fellowship Discussion on Dr. Edwin Berry’s Challenge to Climate Science

Renaissance Ministries | March 14, 2026

“Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”
— Proverbs 23:23

Introduction: A Neighbor’s Challenge

Dr. Edwin X Berry lives in Bigfork, Montana — about half an hour from Kalispell. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Nevada, an MS from Dartmouth (where he studied under John Kemeny, who was a mathematics assistant to Albert Einstein), and a BS from Caltech. He was an NSF Program Manager for Weather Modification and has worked extensively in atmospheric physics.

He is also making an extraordinary claim: that the entire foundation of climate change science is wrong, and that human CO2 emissions contribute only about 18 ppm (parts per million) to atmospheric CO2, not the 130+ ppm that mainstream science attributes to human activity.

If he is right, the implications are staggering: trillions of dollars in climate policy are based on a scientific error, and the “climate crisis” is largely a fiction.

If he is wrong, his arguments — however sophisticated — could mislead many sincere people who are looking for reasons to resist the political agenda attached to climate science.

As Christians committed to truth, we must evaluate his claims carefully. This essay attempts to do so with scientific rigor and intellectual honesty.

Part I: Berry’s Core Argument — The Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP)

What Berry Claims

Berry’s argument centers on what he calls the “Climate Equivalence Principle” (CEP), which he presented at an international climate conference in Porto, Portugal in September 2018, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed papers in 2019, 2021, and 2023.

The CEP states:

Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, they must flow through the atmosphere at exactly the same rate. Mother Nature cannot tell the difference between a CO2 molecule from a car exhaust and one from the ocean.

From this principle, Berry argues:

  1. IPCC’s fundamental assumption is wrong. The IPCC claims that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO2 — with a “residence time” of hundreds of years for human CO2 versus only about 4 years for natural CO2. Berry says this violates the CEP because identical molecules must behave identically.
  2. The ratio in must equal the ratio out. If human emissions are only 3-5% of total CO2 inflow (with nature contributing 95-97%), then human CO2 can only be 3-5% of atmospheric CO2 — not the 32% the IPCC claims.
  3. His “Physics Model” matches the Carbon-14 data. Berry uses the decay of Carbon-14 (from nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s-60s) as a tracer to determine how fast CO2 leaves the atmosphere. He claims his simple model replicates this data perfectly, while the IPCC’s “Bern model” cannot.
  4. Human CO2 contributes only ~18 ppm. Based on his calculations, human emissions have raised atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm above the pre-industrial 280 ppm — not the 130+ ppm (bringing us to 410+ ppm) that is commonly attributed to human activity.

Berry concludes: “Checkmate!” The IPCC’s climate science violates basic physics, and all climate laws, regulations, and policies are therefore scientifically invalid.

Berry’s Credentials and Supporters

Berry has genuine credentials in atmospheric physics. His PhD thesis was cited in textbooks and recognized as a breakthrough. He was an NSF Program Manager. He has a CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist) designation and has served as an expert witness.

Richard Courtney, a UK climate scientist and professional reviewer, reportedly called Berry’s work “the ONLY true breakthrough in climate science since 1980.”

Hermann Harde, a German physicist, published similar conclusions in 2017, finding that human emissions contribute only about 15% to the CO2 increase.

Peter Stallinga published a paper in 2023 (in the journal Entropy) reaching similar conclusions about residence time versus adjustment time.

So Berry is not alone. There is a small community of scientists challenging the mainstream consensus on human CO2 attribution.

Part II: The Scientific Critique of Berry’s Arguments

The Core Distinction: Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time

The most important critique of Berry’s argument centers on a distinction he allegedly conflates: residence time versus adjustment time.

Residence time (also called “turnover time”): How long an individual CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before being exchanged with the ocean or biosphere. This is indeed short — about 4-5 years. The IPCC agrees with this.

Adjustment time (also called “equilibration time”): How long it takes for a perturbation (an excess amount of CO2) to be fully absorbed by the carbon cycle and for atmospheric levels to return to equilibrium. This is much longer — 50 to hundreds of years.

The key insight is that these are different things and can have different timescales:

Individual CO2 molecules may be rapidly exchanged between atmosphere and ocean, but if the ocean is also releasing CO2 at nearly the same rate, the net change is slow. The molecules are “swapping places” but the total amount in the atmosphere changes only gradually.

The Bathtub Analogy

Critics use a bathtub analogy to explain this:

Imagine a bathtub with water flowing in and out very rapidly (the faucet and drain are both wide open). The residence time of any individual water molecule is short — it quickly flows out the drain. But if you add a cup of water to the tub, how long does that extra water take to drain away? That depends on the net difference between inflow and outflow, not on the total flow rate.

If the faucet and drain are nearly balanced, even a small addition can persist for a long time.

Berry’s model, critics argue, treats the atmosphere as a simple “one-box” system with a single inflow and outflow. But the real carbon cycle has multiple reservoirs (atmosphere, surface ocean, deep ocean, land biosphere, soils) with different exchange rates and different response times. The simple model works for C-14 (which has essentially one source and decays radioactively) but fails for total CO2.

The Cawley (2011) Rebuttal

Gavin Cawley published a detailed technical response to similar arguments in the journal Energy & Fuels in 2011. He demonstrated that using a simple one-box model of the carbon cycle, you can derive:

  1. A short residence time (~4 years)
  2. A long adjustment time (~74 years)
  3. A constant “airborne fraction” (~58%) — meaning about 58% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere
  4. A very low proportion of anthropogenic CO2 molecules in the atmosphere

All of these are consistent with each other AND with the anthropogenic origin of the CO2 rise.

The key point: Short residence time and long adjustment time are not contradictory. They describe different phenomena.

Multiple Lines of Evidence for Anthropogenic CO2

The mainstream position is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that Berry’s model does not adequately address:

1. The Ocean is a Net Sink, Not a Source

If the ocean were releasing CO2 (as Berry’s model would require to explain the rise from natural sources), the ocean would be outgassing CO2. But measurements show the opposite: the ocean is absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic as a result.

Ocean pH has dropped by about 0.1 units since the industrial era (a 30% increase in acidity). This proves the ocean is taking in CO2, not releasing it. If nature were the source of rising CO2, we would expect the ocean to be releasing CO2 and becoming less acidic.

2. Carbon Isotope Fingerprints

There are three isotopes of carbon: C-12 (most common), C-13 (~1%), and C-14 (trace).

Plants preferentially absorb C-12 over C-13 during photosynthesis. Therefore, plant-derived carbon (and fossil fuels, which are ancient plants) has a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere.

If the rising CO2 were coming from fossil fuels, we would expect the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere to decline (more C-12 relative to C-13).

This is exactly what is observed. The decline began around 1850 and has accelerated — matching the pattern of fossil fuel combustion. This is called the “Suess Effect.”

Similarly, fossil fuels contain essentially no C-14 (it has decayed over millions of years). If fossil fuel CO2 is entering the atmosphere, the C-14/C-12 ratio should decline. This is also observed (setting aside the spike from nuclear bomb tests).

3. Oxygen Decline

Burning fossil fuels consumes oxygen: C + O2 → CO2. If the CO2 rise were from fossil fuel combustion, we would expect atmospheric oxygen to decline.

This is observed. The rate of oxygen decline matches expectations from known fossil fuel combustion rates.

If the CO2 were coming from ocean outgassing (as Berry’s model would require), oxygen would also be outgassing and atmospheric O2 would not decline (or would decline much less).

4. The Mass Balance

We know how much CO2 humans have emitted (from fossil fuel records, cement production, and land use change): approximately 1,500 gigatons of CO2 since 1850.

The observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 130 ppm, equivalent to roughly 275 gigatons of carbon (or about 1,000 Gt CO2).

This means approximately 58% of human emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, with the rest absorbed by ocean and land biosphere. This “airborne fraction” is consistent with carbon cycle models.

If Berry’s model were correct — if human emissions contributed only 18 ppm — where did the other 1,200+ Gt of human CO2 go? The ocean is absorbing CO2, not releasing it. The land biosphere is roughly neutral or a slight sink. There is no “missing sink” large enough to absorb this much carbon while nature simultaneously releases enough to account for the 130 ppm increase.

5. COVID-19: The Natural Experiment

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, global CO2 emissions dropped by approximately 7%. Some skeptics argued that if human emissions were causing the rise, we should see an immediate impact on atmospheric CO2.

What was observed: Atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, but at a slightly slower rate (about 0.14 ppm less increase than expected in the Northern Hemisphere for February-April 2020).

Critics of Berry use this as evidence against him: “The reduction in emissions had no visible impact!” But the mainstream explanation is straightforward: A 7% reduction in a single year’s flow has a minimal impact on the accumulated stock of CO2. Just as slightly reducing the faucet flow doesn’t immediately drain the bathtub.

Berry’s supporters counter-argue that if human emissions were the primary driver, any reduction should have an immediate effect. But this conflates flow and stock.

Part III: Assessing the Arguments

What Berry Gets Right

  1. The molecules are identical. This is true. A CO2 molecule from a car exhaust is chemically identical to one from ocean outgassing.
  2. Residence time is short. The IPCC agrees that individual CO2 molecules exchange rapidly between atmosphere and other reservoirs (~4-5 years).
  3. The IPCC models are complex and contain assumptions. All models contain assumptions. The question is whether those assumptions are justified.
  4. Climate science has been politicized. This is undeniably true. The policy implications of climate science have led to enormous political pressure on all sides.
  5. Skepticism is scientifically legitimate. The scientific method requires challenging assumptions and testing predictions. Berry is doing this.

What Berry Gets Wrong (or Fails to Address)

  1. Conflating residence time and adjustment time. This appears to be the central error. The short residence time of individual molecules is compatible with long adjustment times for perturbations.
  2. The one-box model is too simple. The carbon cycle involves multiple reservoirs with different exchange rates. A model that works for C-14 decay may not work for total CO2 perturbations.
  3. Multiple independent lines of evidence. Ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, and mass balance all point to anthropogenic CO2 as the primary driver of the rise. Berry’s model does not adequately explain these observations.
  4. The “missing sink” problem in reverse. If Berry is right, there must be a massive natural source of CO2 that somehow didn’t exist before 1850 and exactly correlates with human industrialization. What is this source? Berry points to ocean warming, but the ocean is measured to be absorbing CO2, not releasing it.
  5. Publication venue concerns. Berry’s papers appear in journals like International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (published by Science Publishing Group), which has been identified as a potential “predatory publisher” — a pay-to-publish outlet with less rigorous peer review. This doesn’t prove Berry is wrong, but it raises questions about why his work hasn’t appeared in top-tier climate journals.

The Expert Consensus

It is worth noting that Berry’s views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. The CO2 Coalition (a skeptic organization that generally opposes aggressive climate policy) has itself critiqued Berry’s work, publishing a paper in December 2024 that disagrees with his CEP argument.

When even climate skeptics reject an argument, it’s a significant data point.

However, consensus is not proof. The history of science contains examples where the consensus was wrong. The question is whether the evidence supports the consensus.

Part IV: A Christian Perspective

Our Commitment to Truth

As Christians, we are committed to truth. We believe that truth comes from God and that honest investigation of creation honors Him. We should not accept claims merely because they fit our political preferences, nor reject them for the same reason.

If Berry is right, we should follow the truth wherever it leads — even if it’s unpopular.

If Berry is wrong, we should not embrace his arguments simply because they oppose a political agenda we dislike.

The Problem of Motivated Reasoning

Climate change is deeply entangled with political ideology:

  • The Left often uses climate science to justify expanded government control, international agreements, and restrictions on economic activity.
  • The Right often resists climate science because it’s associated with this agenda.

Both sides are vulnerable to motivated reasoning — accepting or rejecting scientific claims based on their political implications rather than their evidence.

Christians should be especially alert to this temptation in ourselves.

Separating Science from Policy

Even if mainstream climate science is correct — even if human CO2 is the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 increase and contributes to warming — this does not automatically validate any particular policy response.

One can accept the science while rejecting:

  • Carbon taxes
  • International climate agreements
  • Restrictions on energy production
  • “Climate emergency” rhetoric

The science tells us what is happening. The policy question is what (if anything) to do about it, and that involves values, economics, and prudential judgment.

Conversely, one can reject the science while still supporting:

  • Clean air and water
  • Good stewardship of creation
  • Development of alternative energy sources
  • Reducing pollution

The policy questions are separate from the scientific questions.

What Should We Believe?

Based on my research, I offer the following assessment:

Berry’s CEP argument is probably wrong. The distinction between residence time and adjustment time appears valid, and Berry’s model does not adequately address it. The multiple independent lines of evidence (ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, mass balance) all point to anthropogenic CO2 as the primary driver of the rise.

However, climate science contains legitimate uncertainties. The magnitude of warming from CO2 (climate sensitivity) is still debated even among mainstream scientists. The role of feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, etc.) is uncertain. The predictions of future harm are model-dependent and contain substantial uncertainty.

The “catastrophist” narrative is probably overblown. While warming is real and human-caused, the apocalyptic rhetoric (“existential threat,” “climate emergency”) goes beyond what the science supports. Many climate scientists are uncomfortable with this rhetoric.

Berry’s broader critique of politicization is valid. Climate science has been corrupted by political pressure on all sides. The IPCC process is political as well as scientific. Skeptics have been marginalized and silenced in ways that violate scientific norms.

Recommendations for the Fellowship

  1. Don’t dismiss Berry out of hand. He has credentials, he’s making specific scientific arguments, and he deserves a hearing. The fact that his view is unpopular doesn’t make it wrong.
  2. But be cautious about embracing his conclusions. The scientific critiques of his argument appear strong. Multiple independent lines of evidence support the mainstream position.
  3. Recognize the difference between science and policy. Don’t reject science because you dislike the policies that some want to build on it. Evaluate the science on its own merits.
  4. Beware of motivated reasoning in yourself. It’s tempting to embrace arguments that support our political preferences. Ask yourself: Would I find this argument convincing if it led to a different conclusion?
  5. Hold conclusions tentatively. Science is provisional. Today’s consensus can be tomorrow’s error. But we must act on our best current understanding while remaining open to revision.
  6. Focus on what we can control. Whatever the truth about climate, we can practice good stewardship, live simply, reduce waste, and care for creation. These are Christian virtues regardless of climate science.

Part V: Questions for Discussion

  1. On evaluating scientific claims: How should Christians assess scientific claims on complex technical issues where we’re not experts? What role should credentials, consensus, evidence, and argument play?
  2. On motivated reasoning: Where might conservatives (or Christians) be vulnerable to accepting weak arguments because they oppose policies we dislike? Where might we be rejecting strong arguments for the same reason?
  3. On Berry’s argument: Does the distinction between residence time and adjustment time make sense to you? Why or why not?
  4. On the multiple lines of evidence: The mainstream position is supported by ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, and mass balance. Do you find these arguments compelling?
  5. On policy: If the mainstream climate science is correct, what (if anything) should be done about it? What’s the relationship between scientific conclusions and policy recommendations?
  6. On stewardship: What does biblical stewardship of creation require, regardless of climate science conclusions?
  7. On neighborliness: Dr. Berry is our neighbor — literally. How should we engage with neighbors who hold strong views we may disagree with?

Conclusion: Humble Confidence

The climate debate is contentious, politicized, and technical. As Christians seeking truth, we should:

  • Be humble: We may not have the expertise to fully evaluate these arguments. We should hold our conclusions tentatively.
  • Be confident: We can follow evidence and reason to provisional conclusions. We don’t have to suspend judgment forever.
  • Be charitable: Those who disagree with us (on either side) may be sincere and well-intentioned. Disagreement is not the same as dishonesty.
  • Be discerning: Both sides have been guilty of exaggeration, motivated reasoning, and politicization. We should be alert to this on all sides.

My assessment: Berry’s CEP argument is probably wrong, but he raises legitimate questions about a science that has been heavily politicized. The mainstream consensus is probably correct on the basic question (human CO2 is driving the rise), but the catastrophist rhetoric is overblown.

What matters most is that we pursue truth honestly, wherever it leads — and that we act on our best understanding while remaining open to correction.

“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”
— Proverbs 18:15

Primary Sources:

  • Berry, Edwin X. “Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2,” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2019.
  • Berry, Edwin X. Climate Miracle, 2020.
  • Cawley, Gavin C. “On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide,” Energy & Fuels, 2011.
  • Harde, Hermann. “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere,” Global and Planetary Change, 2017.
  • Stallinga, Peter. “Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere,” Entropy, 2023.
  • Various IPCC reports and climate science literature.

Note: This essay represents an attempt to fairly assess competing scientific claims. The author is not a climate scientist and may have made errors. Feedback and corrections are welcome.

 

Suicidal Sympathy for the Devil

by | Mar 14, 2026 | Sermon/Meeting/Discussion Transcripts

The Parasitic Mind and the Wood Cricket Church

A Fellowship Discussion Essay on Gad Saad’s Tel Aviv Lecture

Renaissance Ministries | March 14, 2026

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”
— 2 Timothy 1:7

Introduction: A Voice from the Ruins

Dr. Gad Saad is a professor of evolutionary psychology, currently at the University of Mississippi, formerly at Concordia University in Montreal — until it became too dangerous for him to teach there. He is the author of The Parasitic Mind and the forthcoming Suicidal Empathy. He is a Lebanese Jew who fled Beirut during the civil war at age eleven.

He is also one of the clearest voices diagnosing what has gone wrong with the West.

In a recent lecture in Tel Aviv, Saad laid out a framework for understanding how civilizations destroy themselves — not through external conquest, but through internal parasitism. His analysis, though secular, carries profound implications for the church. For if the West has been parasitized, the church has been parasitized even more completely.

This essay examines Saad’s key insights and applies them to the Christian situation. The diagnosis is grim. The remedy is Christ.

Part I: The Parasitic Mind

What Is a Parasitic Idea?

Saad defines a parasitic idea as one that hijacks the mind, decoupling it from reality and causing the host to act against their own interests — even to the point of self-destruction.

Just as a neural parasite can take over an insect’s brain and compel it to act in ways that benefit the parasite (and destroy the host), so ideological parasites can take over human minds and compel self-destructive behavior.

Examples of Parasitic Ideas

Saad gives examples from his academic career:

The postmodernist graduate student who could not agree that only women bear children or that the sun rises in the east. When reality itself becomes negotiable, anything can be believed — or denied.

The doctoral student at Hebrew University who, unable to find evidence of IDF rape of Palestinian women, concluded that the absence of rape proved the depth of Israeli racism — Palestinian women weren’t even worthy of being raped.

The professor who cannot define “woman” — now a Supreme Court Justice — because acknowledging biological reality would be politically incorrect.

These are not stupid people. They are parasitized people. The parasite has hijacked their cognitive system, making them unable to see what is plainly before their eyes.

The Postmodern Root

Saad traces this to postmodernism and its offshoots:

  • Tabula rasa: We are born as blank slates; all differences are socially constructed
  • Social constructivism: Reality itself is constructed by language and power
  • Deconstructionism: Language creates reality; there is no reality outside language
  • Cultural relativism: All cultures and beliefs are equally valid; none can be judged

These ideas began in humanities departments but have now infected every discipline — engineering, medicine, law, even physics. The virus broke out of the lab.

The Result: Inability to See Reality

Once parasitized, people cannot:

  • Acknowledge that men cannot bear children
  • Acknowledge that Islam produces more terrorism than all other religions combined
  • Acknowledge that some cultures are objectively better than others
  • Acknowledge that Western civilization has produced unprecedented human flourishing

The cognitive system has been hijacked. Reality no longer penetrates.

Part II: Suicidal Empathy

The Golden Mean of Empathy

Saad invokes Aristotle’s principle: Too little of something is bad. Too much is also bad. The goal is the golden mean.

Applied to empathy:

Level Description Result
Too little Psychopathy — inability to feel for others Predatory behavior
Optimal Adaptive empathy — appropriate compassion, properly directed Healthy relationships and society
Too much Suicidal empathy — compassion so dysregulated it becomes self-destructive Civilizational collapse

What Suicidal Empathy Looks Like

Saad gives devastating examples:

The Norwegian man who was sodomized by a Somali immigrant — and then publicly grieved when his rapist was deported, because the rapist wouldn’t be able to “flourish” in Somalia.

The American woman who was raped by a Haitian man while advocating for black men — and concluded that her rapist was the real victim of white supremacy, and she was grateful for the “learning experience.”

The German city that, facing epidemic sexual assaults at public pools by men named Muhammad, produced a poster depicting… a red-headed German woman assaulting a black child.

The Western elites who explain 48,000+ Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 as caused by climate change, lack of exposure to art, beard bullying, and colonialism — anything but Islam.

These are not isolated lunatics. These are professors, politicians, judges, and journalists. They shape policy. They teach our children. They have been parasitized.

The Mechanism: Civilizational Seppuku

Saad argues that the West is committing civilizational suicide through misplaced guilt:

“We are evil white colonizers who are transphobic, Islamophobic. We took over indigenous land. Self-flagellate. The only way I could now expatiate my existential guilt is to commit civilizational seppuku.”

The Japanese samurai, when shamed, would commit seppuku (ritual self-disembowelment) to restore honor. The West, convinced of its irredeemable guilt, is doing the same — but to an entire civilization.

The mechanism is suicidal empathy: feeling so much for the “victims” of Western civilization that we welcome our own destruction as just punishment.

Part III: The Wood Cricket

The Parable of the Wood Cricket

This is Saad’s most powerful image.

The wood cricket naturally detests water. It wants nothing to do with water. But when parasitized by a hairworm (a type of brain worm), the cricket is compelled to happily jump into water — where it drowns. The parasite needs water to complete its reproductive cycle.

The cricket doesn’t know it’s been hijacked. It feels free. It wants to jump into the water. But the wanting has been manufactured by the parasite.

Wood Cricket Jews

Saad applies this to Jews who advocate for their own destruction:

  • Anna Epstein at Boston University, tearing down posters of kidnapped Israeli children two weeks after October 7
  • Gabor Maté, the “Holocaust survivor” who compares the IDF to Nazis
  • Tal Nitzan, who concluded that the absence of IDF rape proves the depth of Israeli racism

These Jews have been parasitized. They happily march toward the water that will drown them.

Wood Cricket Christians

Saad doesn’t discuss Christians, but the application is obvious.

How many Christians have been parasitized to the point of self-destruction?

  • Christians who cannot say Islam is false
  • Christians who celebrate “diversity” that includes those who would persecute them
  • Christians who apologize for the “violence” of evangelism while welcoming actual violence
  • Christians who are more concerned about “Islamophobia” than about Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan
  • Christians whose churches fly rainbow flags while Muslim countries execute homosexuals
  • Christians who preach “tolerance” while their civilization collapses around them

The Western church has become a wood cricket church.

We have been parasitized. We no longer see reality. We feel compassion for those who hate us and guilt for those who founded us. We are jumping happily into the water.

Part IV: The Nomological Network

How to Defend a Position

In the midst of his diagnosis, Saad offers a powerful tool: the nomological network of cumulative evidence.

“Build a network of many distinct lines of evidence, all of which point to the veracity of the position.”

Instead of relying on one argument (which can be dismissed), build multiple independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same conclusion.

Applied to Islam

If we want to demonstrate that Islam is not a religion of peace, we build the network:

Line of Evidence Source Finding
Historical 1,400 years of Islamic history Conquest, dhimmi system, persecution
Scriptural Quran, Hadith, Sira Commands to fight, subjugate, kill unbelievers
Statistical Terror databases 48,000+ Islamic attacks since 9/11; no other religion comparable
Demographic Global patterns Three-stage progression wherever Muslims gain majority
Testimonial Ex-Muslims, survivors Consistent accounts of violence, oppression, fear
Contemporary News reports Grooming gangs, honor killings, apostasy persecution
Comparative Other religions Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity produce nothing comparable

Each line of evidence is independent. Together, they are overwhelming. Good luck debating someone who has built this network.

Applied to Christianity

The same method can be used to defend Christian truth:

  • Historical evidence for the resurrection
  • Manuscript evidence for the New Testament
  • Archaeological confirmation of biblical accounts
  • Prophetic fulfillment
  • Transformed lives across cultures and centuries
  • The uniqueness of Christ’s claims and character
  • The failure of all alternative explanations

Build the network. Then stand on it.

Part V: Saad’s Eight Principles for Saving the West

Saad concludes with eight principles:

  1. Pursue knowledge unencumbered by ideological activism — No forbidden questions
  2. Freedom of speech as deontological principle — Absolute, not contingent on feelings
  3. Meritocracy — Hierarchies based on competence, not identity
  4. Proudly defend Western values — Stop apologizing
  5. All cultures and religions are NOT equal — Some are objectively better
  6. Zero tolerance for seditious belief systems — Freedom of religion doesn’t mean suicide
  7. Adaptive empathy, not suicidal empathy — Properly calibrated compassion
  8. All beliefs open to scrutiny — No sacred cows

A Christian Assessment

These principles are largely sound. But they lack foundation.

Why should we pursue truth? Why is freedom valuable? Why are some cultures better? Why should we resist sedition?

Saad, as a secular evolutionary psychologist, can only appeal to survival. But survival is not enough. The parasitized person thinks they’re surviving. The wood cricket feels good jumping into the water.

We need a deeper foundation: God.

  • Truth matters because God is truth
  • Freedom matters because God made us free
  • Western values are worth defending because they reflect (imperfectly) Christian truth
  • Seditious ideologies must be resisted because they oppose God’s order
  • Empathy must be calibrated because God’s love is both fierce and tender

Without God, Saad’s principles are just preferences — and preferences can be parasitized.

With God, they are grounded in reality itself.

Part VI: The Christian Response

Diagnosis Without Remedy

Saad can diagnose. He cannot cure.

He can show us the parasite. He cannot remove it.

He can explain why we’re jumping into the water. He cannot give us the will to stop.

Only Christ can do that.

The Gospel as De-Parasitization

What Saad calls “parasitic ideas,” Scripture calls “strongholds”:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

The Gospel is the ultimate de-parasitization:

  • It restores our cognitive system by revealing truth
  • It restores our emotional system by properly ordering love
  • It breaks the power of guilt through forgiveness
  • It replaces fear with holy boldness
  • It gives us a sound mind in place of confusion

The parasitized mind cannot save itself. But Christ can save the parasitized mind.

The Fire That Burns Away Parasites

This connects to our earlier discussion of Christian zeal.

The fire we need is not just intellectual clarity. It is the fire of the Holy Spirit that:

  • Burns away false ideas
  • Burns away misplaced compassion
  • Burns away cowardice
  • Burns away the desire to please men rather than God

A church on fire cannot be parasitized. The parasite cannot survive the flames.

Suicidal Empathy vs. Christ’s Love

Christ’s love is not suicidal empathy.

Christ loved His enemies — but He also called them “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.”

Christ died for sinners — but He also drove out the moneychangers with a whip.

Christ welcomed the repentant, but He also said: “I never knew you; depart from me.”

Christ’s love is fierce, truthful, costly, and effective. It does not celebrate those who hate God. It does not welcome its own destruction. It does not confuse compassion with complicity.

Suicidal empathy is not Christ’s love. It is a counterfeit — a parasitic distortion of the real thing.

The Wood Cricket Church Must Die

The wood cricket church — the church that has been parasitized into self-destruction — must die.

Not the people in it. But the parasites controlling it.

We need:

  • Cognitive reformation: Recovering the ability to see reality and speak truth
  • Emotional reformation: Recalibrating empathy to match God’s own love — fierce and tender, just and merciful
  • Spiritual reformation: The fire of the Holy Spirit burning away every parasite

This is revival. This is what we pray for. This is what must happen if the church — and the West — are to survive.

Questions for Fellowship Discussion

  1. On parasitic ideas: What parasitic ideas have infiltrated the church? How do we recognize them? How do we remove them?
  2. On suicidal empathy: Where do you see suicidal empathy in contemporary Christianity? How do we distinguish it from genuine Christ-like love?
  3. On the wood cricket: Have you been a “wood cricket” in any area — supporting those who would harm you or the church? How did you recognize it? How did you escape?
  4. On the nomological network: How could we apply this tool to defend Christian truth claims? What lines of evidence would you include?
  5. On Saad’s eight principles: Which do you agree with? Which needs Christian modification? How would you ground them theologically?
  6. On Islam: Does the church in America adequately understand the threat of Islam? What should we be doing differently?
  7. On cultural protection: What is the church’s responsibility to protect Western/Christian civilization? Is this a legitimate concern or a distraction from the Gospel?
  8. On the fire: How do we recover the fire that burns away parasites? What would revival look like in our context?

A Closing Reflection: The Sound Mind

Paul wrote to Timothy:

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” (2 Timothy 1:7)

Notice the triad:

  • Power — not weakness, not submission, not suicidal surrender
  • Love — genuine love, not parasitized empathy
  • A sound mind — not a parasitized mind, not a mind decoupled from reality

This is what we need. This is what only God can give.

The parasitic mind cannot heal itself. But God can heal it.

The suicidally empathetic heart cannot recalibrate itself. But God can recalibrate it.

The wood cricket cannot stop jumping into the water. But God can remove the parasite and restore the cricket to its right mind.

This is our hope. Not in ourselves — we are too far gone for that. But in the God who makes all things new.

May He grant us power, love, and a sound mind.

May He burn away every parasite.

May He set His church on fire.

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.”
— Psalm 51:10

Source Material: Dr. Gad Saad, lecture in Tel Aviv (2026); The Parasitic Mind (2020); Suicidal Empathy (forthcoming)

Related Christos Content: “The Fire at the Center” (Theological Grammar, Part V); Fellowship Discussion on Brigitte Gabriel; Fellowship Discussion on Islam and Cultural Protection