On
June 18, 2012, well-known and much-read atheistic blogger Leah Libresco
put out a blog post titled: “This Is My Last Post for the Patheos
Atheist Portal” (Merica, 2012). In the post, Libresco explained that she
was no longer writing for the atheist portal because she is no longer
an atheist. During the months prior to the post, her mental struggles
and rational investigations led her to the conclusion that God exists
(Libresco, 2012).
What was the primary factor that forced Libresco to this theistic
conclusion? She explained that morality was the key. Throughout her time
as an atheist, she struggled to come to grips with how humans can
adhere to a morality that seems objective if there is no God. As she
searched for answers among atheistic thinkers and writers, she admitted
that their answers were inadequate.
In an interview with a CNN news reporter, Libresco noted that her
conversion from atheism to theism was “kinda the same thing with any
scientific theory, almost,
that it had more explanatory power to explain something I was really sure of.
I’m really sure that morality is objective, human independent;
something we uncover like archaeologists not something we build like
architects” (Merica, 2012, emp. added).
Libresco’s intellectual honesty regarding morality is refreshing to
see. [NOTE: A.P. does not endorse Libresco’s affiliation with
Catholicism. See Pinedo, 2008.] Her conversion highlights an important
aspect of the process of searching for truth: explanatory value. With an
ever-increasing number of skeptics, unbelievers, atheists, and
agnostics in the United States and around the globe, it is important for
Christians to look for ways to teach them about God, and then Jesus
Christ. One effective way to do that is to show that the concept of God
maintains much more powerful explanatory value than atheism for the
realities that we see around us. Thus, when approaching a reality upon
which both theists and atheists agree, the question would be: “Which
idea, theism or atheism, explains this particular phenomenon the best?”
To frame it in a more positive way, “If there really is a God, what
would we expect the world to look like?” Leah Libresco recognized the
reality of objective morality and concluded that if atheism were true,
there would be no objective morality; but if there is a God, then
objective morality is exactly what we would expect to find.
That principle can be extended to a host of realities that are present
in our world. The one that this article addresses is the fact that
mankind has an inherent predisposition to recognize a supernatural,
intelligent Creator. This article establishes the fact that this reality
is generally recognized by both atheists and theists. It will then
address which of these two ideas, atheism or theism, most adequately
accounts for this fact. The purpose of such an endeavor is to reach the
unbelieving community with powerful evidence that has the ability to
bring them to a belief in God, and one step closer to a saving faith in
Jesus Christ.
Humanity’s “Intuitive Theism”
It might surprise the reader that both atheists and theists
overwhelmingly admit that humans are predisposed to believe in an
intelligent creator of some sort. Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s
leading atheistic thinker, lecturer, and writer, asked the question:
“Why, if it is false, does every culture in the world have religion?
True or false, religion is ubiquitous, so where does it come from?”
(2006, p. 159). His assertion that religion is false is inaccurate, but
his statement highlights the fact—the reality—that religion is universal
to mankind, and has been in every human culture ever studied. He went
on to say, a few pages later: “Though the details differ across the
world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming,
wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual,
counter-productive fantasies of religion” (p. 166). So deeply religious
are humans, Dawkins refers to their desire to recognize some type of
creator as a “lust for gods” (p. 169). The late atheistic writer
Christopher Hitchens wrote: “Sigmund Freud was quite correct to describe
the religious impulse, in
The Future of an Illusion, as
essentially ineradicable until or unless the human species can conquer
its fear of death and its tendency to wish-thinking. Neither contingency
seems very probable” (2007, p. 247).
Renowned atheist Sam Harris was forced to admit the truth that the
concept of God is an inherent human predisposition. He wrote:
“Similarly, several experiments suggest that children are predisposed to
assume design and intention behind natural events—leaving many
psychologists and anthropologists to believe that children, left
entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God”
(2010, p. 151).
The research to which Sam Harris refers is extensive. Paul Bloom and
Deena Skolnick Weisberg have written an article, titled “Childhood
Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” which was published in
Science magazine
in May of 2007. They suggest that children tend to attribute purpose
and design to virtually everything, a tendency the authors call
“promiscuous teleology” ([316]:996). Bloom and Weisberg noted: “[W]hen
asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously
tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations” (p. 996).
In an article titled “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’?” Deborah
Keleman documented research which led her to conclude that “the proposal
that children might be intuitive theists becomes increasingly viable,”
and “together, these research findings tentatively suggest that
children’s explanatory approach may be accurately characterized as
intuitive theism” (2004, 15:299). In an extensive 49-page article in
Cognitive Psychology,
Margaret Evans wondered aloud: “Why is the human mind (at least the
Western protestant mind) so susceptible to creationism and so
comparatively resistant to naturalistic explanations for the origins of
species?” (2001, 42:252).
In light of the current research, Bloom admitted: “There is by now a
large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born
creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that
it was created by an intelligent being” (Bloom, 2009, p. 3). He opined:
“Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was right to complain, then,
that it seems ‘as if the human brain were specifically designed to
misunderstand Darwinism’” (p. 3). Some atheists, like David Mills,
writing for a more popular audience, assert that we “should recognize
that all children are born atheists. There is no child born with a
religious belief” (2006, p. 29). But that assertion misses the point
that humans are born with the predisposition to theistic conclusions.
Overwhelmingly, the atheistic community recognizes the reality that
humans are born with a “lust for gods,” a “promiscuous teleology,” and a
penchant toward “intuitive theism.”
Theists likewise concur that humans have an inherent predisposition to
conclude an intelligent Creator exists. Theistic apologist Paul Copan
describes mankind’s tendency toward creation as a “religious impulse”
that is “deeply imbedded” in the universal human thought process (2011,
p. 30). We could supply scores of similar statements from creationists
that would underscore the obvious conclusion that, by and large, the
creationist community agrees with the atheistic community that there is a
universal, built-in, in-born, intuitive human tendency to believe in an
intelligent creator. The question then arises, which understanding of
origins, atheism or theism, best explains why humanity exhibits
“intuitive theism”? One key to arriving at the answer to this question
is to understand the problems this reality poses for atheistic,
naturalistic explanations of the Universe.
Theism and Religion are “Costly” Concepts
According to naturalistic, atheistic assumptions for the origin of the
Universe and the evolutionary assumption for the origin of mankind,
everything that exists must have a naturalistic cause. By that, it is
understood that atheistic evolutionists must present a reason to explain
why humans are “intuitive theists” that corresponds with their
atheistic beliefs that the material Universe is all there is. The
problem that the atheistic community runs into in this regard is that
the ideas of religion and theism run counter to what one would expect to
find if atheism and naturalistic evolution were true. According to
evolution [by this we mean atheistic, naturalistic evolution in which no
intelligent designer played any part], natural selection eliminates
physical structures and mental states that are costly in terms of their
survival value. For instance, if there developed in a certain sub-group
of humans the intuitive idea that rabid Kodiak bears made good pets,
that group would soon be killed by such bears, and whatever aspect of
the brain that housed the belief would be eliminated from the human
population as a whole.
To illustrate further, if a certain group of humans tended to spend
lots of effort on religious ceremonies that had nothing to do with their
physical survival, and another group did not “waste” their resources on
anything but their physical survival, natural selection would suggest
that those “religious” people who “wasted” their resources would
eventually lose out in the race for physical survival. And the
“non-religious” group would be selected by nature to become more
prevalent and replace the “wasteful” religious group. Yet, we see just
the opposite.
Richard Dawkins acknowledged this problem facing atheistic ideas. He
stated: “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian
selection habitually targets and eliminates waste” (2006, p. 163).
Atheistic philosopher Daniel Dennett stated: “Whatever else religion is
as a human phenomenon, it is a hugely costly endeavor, and evolutionary
biology shows that nothing so costly just happens” (2006, p. 69). What
do these atheistic writers mean when they say that religion is
“wasteful” and “so costly”? Dennett expounded on the idea when he said
that when people look at humanity all over the world
what they see today is a population of over six billion people, almost
all of whom devote a significant fraction of their time and energy to
some sort of religious activity: rituals such as daily prayer (both
public and private) or frequent attendance at ceremonies, but also
costly sacrifices—not working on certain days no matter what looming
crisis needs prompt attention…and abiding by a host of strenuously
observed prohibitions and requirements (p. 75).
Dawkins expanded his ideas of “wasteful” as well, when he said:
Religion can endanger the life of the pious individual, as well as the
lives of others. Thousands of people have been tortured for their
loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a
scarcely distinguishable alternative faith…. Devout people have died
for their gods and killed for them; whipped blood from their backs,
sworn themselves to a lifetime of celibacy or to lonely silence, all in
the service of religion. What is it all for? What is the benefit? (pp.
164-165).
In their discussions and writings, atheists have sometimes suggested
that religion possibly has such overwhelming health benefits that it is
“worth” the expense. They note such things as the results of some
research to suggest that prayer can lower stress levels or blood
pressure. Or they comment on the emotional benefits of fitting into a
community, which religious rituals would foster and encourage. Virtually
across the board, however, they have rejected the idea that religion is
actually beneficial for the physical survival of mankind. They contend
that such minor advantages as lower stress levels or lower blood
pressure certainly cannot justify the massive expenditure of resources
on religion. [NOTE: It is easy to see why they have rejected those
explanations. If religion actually provides benefits that would be
greater than any negative consequences, then it would be better for
humanity to hang on to religious ideas regardless of their factuality or
validity. Since most modern atheists are calling for the eradication of
religion, they are forced to downplay its benefits and look for another
answer that could compel people to want to eliminate religion. While we
certainly are not suggesting the idea that religion is beneficial and
that is why it “evolved,” it is plain to see why the current atheistic
community has forsaken it.]
Sam Harris contended, “And even if tribes have occasionally been the
vehicles of natural selection, and religion proved adaptive, it would
remain an open question whether religion increases human fitness today”
(p. 151). The current atheistic consensus is that religion does not
bestow upon humanity enough physical benefit to “increase human
fitness.” How, then, do atheists respond to the two facts that (1)
humans are intuitively theistic and (2) such religious theism is
extremely costly and does not bestow physical survival fitness on our
species?
The Current Atheistic Answer: Religion is a Virus or By-Product
What naturalistic explanation can be given to account for the
ubiquitous and extremely costly nature of religion? In their attempt to
show that theism is unnecessary and ultimately harmful, the atheistic
community has concocted the idea that theistic ideas are analogous to
mind-viruses that infect a person, not for the benefit of the person,
but for the benefit of the mind-virus. In other words, theism is a
mind-virus that has been passed from host human to host human for its
own survival, and not for the benefit of the human organisms it
inhabits. Dawkins explained: “The fact that religion is ubiquitous
probably means that it has worked to the benefit of something, but it
may not be us or our genes. It may be to the benefit of only the
religious ideas themselves, to the extent that they behave in a
some-what gene-like way, as replicators” (p. 165).
Dawkins has expounded upon this idea and used the term “memes” to
describe ideas that he asserts behave in ways similar to genes. He
contends that theism is a “meme” that acts as a mental virus, infecting
people and forcing them to replicate the meme by teaching others about
it and expending vast resources on it. Along these lines, Dan Dennett
has suggested that “the common cold is universal to all human peoples in
much the same way as religion is, yet we would not want to suggest that
colds benefit us” (p. 165). Dennett, using the meme idea, asserted:
“The meme theory accounts for this. According to this theory, the
ultimate beneficiaries of religious adaptations are the memes
themselves…” (p. 186).
Atheist Darrell Ray wrote an entire book,
The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, based on this idea. He opened by saying:
It was not until Richard Dawkins’ idea of “viruses of the mind” that
we gained a ready-made way to examine religion as closely as we look at
the epidemiology of the flu virus. This book will show how religions of
all kinds fit in the natural world, how they function in our minds and
culture and how similar they are to the germs, parasites and viruses
that inhabit our bodies (2009, p. 13).
To build his case for the “religion-as-a-virus” idea, he mentioned
numerous things that he perceives as validating evidence of his
assertion. He wrote: “Once a person has converted to a religion, it is
difficult to have a rational conversation about the irrational aspects
of his religion. It is as though something invaded the person and took
over a part of his personality” (p. 20). He went on to discuss the
situation in which a friend lost his father to cancer. Before the loss,
the friend was “non-religious.” But after the father’s death, the friend
“got a severe case of religion that changed his personality
dramatically.” Ray says “there was no way to have a conversation with
him on any subject without religion creeping in” (p. 19). He further
asserted that “stress can activate the chicken pox virus in adults,
leading to the condition known as shingles. Similarly, stress tends to
reactivate the god virus in many people” (p. 25).
Other alleged symptoms of the “god virus” include the idea that
“religion always functions to ensure its own survival,” just as a virus
does (Ray, p. 36). To undergird this assertion, Ray said: “Go into any
Christian bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular
world, living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends
and relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and
expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about” (p.
176). Ray has taken Dawkins’ meme/mental virus idea to its logical
conclusion.
The Simplest Response to the God Virus Idea
One very simple idea clearly manifests the flaws in the God virus
concept. If thoughts or ideas were self-sustaining, self-replicating
“memes” that were simply out for their own survival, that would mean
that the idea of atheism would fall under the same condemnation as a
“selfish meme” ensuring its own survival to the potential detriment of
its host. By what criteria could anyone discern between “real” ideas and
those dastardly memes infecting the brain. If someone did propose a set
of criteria, who is to say that such criteria are not, themselves, a
menacing meme that is infecting the mind of the person trying to weed
out memes? And how would we know that the concept of a meme is not
merely a meme in and of itself infecting the minds of atheists who
present the idea? The reader can see how quickly such a discussion would
digress into intellectual chaos. Furthermore, how could people be held
responsible for anything they think or do? “My memes made me do it!”
would become the mantra for all kinds of malicious crimes. And while
atheists have attempted to provide answers to such problems, if memes
really do exist as individual entities, who is to say that such
“answers” are more than memes?
In fact, when analyzing the writings of those who present the
“meme/virus” idea, the reader can quickly ascertain the flaw in their
reasoning. For instance, Ray said that when the religious virus took
over his friend after his father’s death, the friend mentioned religion
in virtually every conversation. But the same could be said for any
number of individuals who have become outspoken atheists, who insist on
inserting their unbelief in virtually every conversation they have.
Ray stated: “In viral terms, it means that people are so deeply
infected that they are immune to influence and generally ignore any
evidence that contradicts their beliefs” (p. 39). Yet it can be shown
that the available scientific evidence contradicts major tenets of
atheistic evolution, a fact that is generally ignored by the atheistic
community (see
Miller, 2012;
Miller,
2013). In addition, we mentioned that Ray said: “Go into any Christian
bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular world,
living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends and
relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and
expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about.” What,
pray tell, are the books, tracts, DVDs, and pamphlets about atheism
designed to do? Are they not written for the very purpose of protecting
and expanding the “territory” of atheism?
Listen to the atheists themselves as they describe their “religious”
efforts. Prolific atheistic writer and debater, Dan Barker, likened his
teaching about atheism to “evangelism” and he stated: “Representing the
Freedom From Religion Foundation, I get to engage in similar atheist
‘missionizing’ all across the American continent….” At one point he
said, “Atheist ‘evangelism’ doesn’t just happen in front of an audience”
(2008, p. 325).
Notice the irony of the fact that the first chapter of Dawkins’ book
The God Delusion is titled “A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.” In that chapter, he quotes Carl Sagan’s writings from a book titled
A Pale Blue Dot.
Sagan wrote: “A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of
the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth
reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”
Dawkins then stated: “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of
transcendent wonder that religion has monopolized in past centuries. My
own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often
described as a deeply religious man” (p. 12).
Additionally, Ray rails on
“religion” as a destructive meme/virus, and yet throughout his book, he
capitalizes the terms atheist and atheism consistently. One example is
when he states: “In fact, the only thing you can get some Atheists to
agree upon is that there is no god” (pp. 51-52). Is it not the
“religious” concept “that there is no god” that could easily be put
forth as the meme that has infected so many minds to the detriment of
the host human and in spite of a vast amount of evidence to the
contrary? Such is the double-edged sword of the meme/virus concept. If
it cuts at all (which it does not), then it cuts both ways.
The Existence of God Provides the Logical Answer
Up to this point we have established that both atheists and theists
admit that humans are “intuitive theists.” That is, the belief in an
intelligent Creator comes naturally to humans. This idea poses a serious
problem for the atheist because the concepts of God and/or religion are
extremely costly to the human species. Thus, in an attempt to explain
why theism is so prevalent, they liken it to a mental virus that is out
for its own survival and not for the benefit of the “host organism.”
This explanation, and others like it, fail since arguments used to
dismiss the validity of theism and religion would be equally effective
to demote
all concepts—including atheism—to
“by-products” and “memes.” Thus, we are forced to conclude, as Paul
Copan did: “Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a
useful fiction, or worse, a harmful delusion, fall short of telling us
why the religious impulse is so deeply imbedded. If God exists, however,
we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist”
(p. 30).
In other words, if there really is a God, Who is an intelligent,
supernatural Creator Who loves mankind and desires that mankind should
know the truth, what would we expect to see? We would expect to find
humans “pre-programmed” for a belief in God. Of course, we would not
expect all humans to come to the proper conclusion that God exists,
since a loving God would equip humans with the capacity to choose what
to believe and how they choose to behave. We would, however, expect God
to have so designed humans that to dismiss the concepts of creation or
theism would be unnatural and would require some type of reverse
programming. That an intelligent Designer exists is the answer which
maintains the most powerful explanatory value.
In fact, further reading into the atheistic literature makes known the
fact that atheism is “unnatural” in the sense that it is not how the
human mind is designed to perceive the world. Let us refer back to the
Bloom and Weisberg article titled “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance
to Science.” It is important to understand their definition of the term
“science.” Their research was done in order to show why many Americans
reject atheistic evolution. Thus, the term “science” is equated with
“atheistic evolution” in their writing. Understanding this to be the
case, notice that they said: “The main reason why people resist certain
scientific [read that atheistic evolutionary—KB] findings, then, is that
many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive” (2007, 316:996).
Keleman concurred when she wrote: “The implication is that children’s
science failures may, in part, result from inherent conflicts between
intuitive ideas and the basic tenets of contemporary scientific
[atheistic evolutionary—KB] thought” (2004, 15:299). In Dawkins’
discussion of the situation, he includes the fact that Bloom says that
humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.” Dawkins then
comments that “natural selection ‘makes no intuitive sense.’” Thus, he
concludes that children are “native teleologists, and many never grow
out of it” (pp. 180-181).
Notice the admission by these atheistic writers. They are forced
by the evidence to admit that humans are naturally inclined to believe in an intelligent Designer. They are further forced
by the evidence to conclude that the various tenets of atheistic evolution are counterintuitive and unnatural. Yet,
in spite of the evidence,
they cling to the idea that somehow this situation can be reconciled
with the belief that God does not exist. Notice that a presumption of
atheism could never have predicted the situation that humans would be
“intuitive theists.” Nor do the purported atheistic answers to the
problem provide adequate explanatory value.
The simple and most powerfully supported conclusion is that God exists, and that is why humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.”
The Next Step
Once God’s existence is established using humanity’s “intuitive
theism,” the next step would be to see how God expects His creatures to
use this preprogrammed disposition. If we can establish that the Bible
is God’s Word (and we can, see Butt, 2007), then we can go to it to
determine the proper human response. First, we can see that God expects
everyone to use this predisposition to accurately assess the evidence He
has provided to come to the conclusion that He exists. Romans 1:19-21
bears this out:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them,
for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor
were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened (emp. added).
Notice that the biblical text makes it clear that these men “suppress the truth” even though “what may be known of God is
manifest in them.”
Furthermore, unbelievers will be “without excuse” because they are
equipped with the evidence, and the inherent predisposition and ability
to arrive at the proper conclusion.
In his sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians, the apostle Paul explained
that the Creator “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell
on all the face of the Earth…so that they should seek the Lord, in the
hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far
from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). Paul’s statement corresponds
perfectly with the idea that God has so designed humans that they
naturally “grope” for Him. This would also fit perfectly with the fact
that “many psychologists and anthropologists [are led] to believe that
children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some
conception of God” (Harris, p. 151). Humans are “groping” for God.
Notice, then, the divine program for salvation. First, a person gropes
for a Creator. That person is able to find the Creator Who designed
humans and instilled within them the ability to know Him. Their
knowledge of this Creator should lead them to the conclusion that humans
are His offspring and not the product of a naturalistic, chance process
(Acts 17:29). This truth was sufficiently verified by the life and
death of Jesus Christ, Who will ultimately judge all mankind based on
the plenteous evidence God has supplied and their inherent ability to
assess that evidence correctly (Acts 17:31).
References
Barker, Dan (2008),
Godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Bloom, Paul (2009), “In Science We Trust: Beliefs About the Natural
World that are Present in Infancy Influence People’s Response to
Evolutionary Theory,”
Natural History Magazine, 118[4]:16-19.
Bloom, Paul and Deena Skoinick Weisberg (2007), “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,”
Science, 316 [5827]: 996-997.
Butt, Kyle (2007),
Behold the Word of God: Exploring the Evidence of the Inspiration of the Bible (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Copan, Paul (2011),
Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dawkins, Richard (2006),
The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Dennet, Daniel (2006),
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking).
Evans, Margaret (2001), “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the
Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution,”
Cognitive Psychology, 42:252.
Harris, Sam (2010),
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007),
God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).
Kelemen, Deborah (2004), “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature,”
Psychological Science, 15[5]:295-301.
Libresco, Leah (2012), “This is My Last Post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html.
Merica, Dan (2012), “Atheist Becomes Catholic,”
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],”
Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018.
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2786.
Mills, David (2006),
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Pinedo, Moises (2008),
What the Bible Says About the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Ray, Darrel (2009),
The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture (Bonner Springs, KS: IPC Press).
