Are We In The Last Days Before Final Judgment?

 

Following on from parts one and two about the current nation of Israel, I want to talk now about this subject in relation to end times (or more precisely, the end part of end times). At some point, Christ is coming again, not as a humble servant this time, but as a righteous King and Judge. No one knows exactly when that will be (Matthew 24:36), but it will happen, when the right Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled. And many Biblical scholars, especially on matters concerning Israel, believe that the end times will come in our lifetime (say, the next 50 years). I’ve often thought about how the world is changing so rapidly in recent times, and with exponential technological capacity and transhumanistic endeavours, I wonder whether there might be a reasonable supposition that the end times are imminent (this is a topic I explored more fully in an essay called “Will God intervene before we become gods?”)

Scripture has a lot to say about the process of God’s Final Judgement. First there’ll be some kind of Rapture event (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) when Jesus comes for His church, taking believers to be with Him. Quite what that means literally we don’t know. Then we’ll have the Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-16) when Jesus comes with His church to establish His 1,000-year reign. Again, we are not sure what that literally means, or whether the 1,000 years are literal either, but we know His return will be dramatic, and it will bring justice to the world, rewarding the faithful, and judging those who have rejected Him. The Bible declares, ‘For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God’ (1 Thessalonians 4:16). His coming will be unmistakable, and every person will stand before Him to give an account (Revelation 20:12).

If all this sounds strange to you, you have to remember first that this is exactly what we should expect from a God who made Himself known with the Word of Truth, and who has shown Himself to be reliable, loving, just and merciful every step of the way thus far. You also need to be aware that the Bible is a book full of fulfilled prophecies – most have been fulfilled, in fact – and there aren’t currently many still left to be fulfilled. Remember too that the Bible is alive and active (Hebrews 4:12) and continues to play out in the present and the future, as the final prophecies become fulfilled. It’s a dynamic set of books, where God’s plan is at the heart of every stage of the narrative, right up to the present day, and every future period.

According to scripture, several major prophecies must happen before the Second Coming, including: The tribulation period (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:21), The rise of the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Revelation 13), The battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:16), and the Gospel preached to all nations (Matthew 24:14). After the prophecies leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, there are still a few major prophecies that remain after Christ returns. We have the judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31-46). After Jesus returns, He will judge the nations based on how they treated His people during the tribulation. Then, Satan will be bound for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3), where we are told an angel will seize Satan and lock him in the abyss for 1,000 years, where he will no longer be able to deceive nations. Then we have the millennial reign of Christ (Revelation 20:4-6, Isaiah 11:1-10), where He will rule from Jerusalem in a glorified and more direct way on Earth for 1,000 years. During this time, we are told there will be peace, righteousness, and restoration - but mortal humans will still be living and having children. Furthermore, some people born during this time will still choose to reject Christ, which says a lot in itself. We can expect that Satan is released much later on for a short time and there will be final rebellion (Revelation 20:7-10). During that time, Satan will deceive the nations once more, leading a final rebellion against Christ. But God will destroy this rebellion instantly with fire from Heaven, and Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire forever. Then we’ll have the final judgment of all unbelievers throughout history (Revelation 20:11-15), and the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21:1-5, 2 Peter 3:10-13), where there will be no more death, pain, or suffering - only eternal joy and reign with God.

I grant you that if you’re not familiar with this kind of language, it sounds absurd. But once you become familiar with the genius of the Bible, and the notion that God created everything and is enabling His plan to unfold, this narrative isn’t just palatable, it is inevitable. Now, as I said, I don’t think we can comprehend to what extent some of these numbers are literal, or to what extent the drama and eventual denouement symbolises or reflects knowable things in the present day global unfolding, but it can be interesting to speculate on these things in relation to a current world that promises to be so radically different from anything we’ve ever experienced, certainly in terms of scale and magnitude. Because once you understand that the Bible is an active set of prophetic revelations, this stuff becomes interesting at a level beyond the narrative with which everyday social commentary preoccupies itself.

There are still several significant prophecies that believers and scholars believe have not yet been fulfilled, though there aren’t many unfulfilled prophecies left relative to the number of prophecies that have been fulfilled. That is why there are a growing number of the ecclesia who believe we are in the very last period of end times, and that Christ will return very soon. Of the key prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, there is the rise of a global government or institution (Daniel 7, Revelation 13), and a future world leader (often referred to as the Antichrist) who will establish a one-world government and economic system. Famously, Revelation 13:16-17 describes a "mark of the beast" that will be required for buying and selling. There will also be the rebuilding of the third temple (Ezekiel 40-48, Daniel 9:27, 2 Thessalonians 2:4), where a new Jewish temple will be built in Jerusalem before the return of Christ. The battle of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 speaks of a coalition of nations (presumably Arab) that will attack Israel, and we know that this has been a reality for Israel especially in the past 60 years. I note too that in the Psalm 83 war, it looks to be describing a future war where Israel’s neighbouring enemies (again, probably modern Arab nations, though likely Iran too) will unite against it (perhaps the nations listed - Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, Tyre, and Assyria correspond to modern-day nations like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and maybe even fundamentalist Islam in the Palestinian regions). Revelation 13 prophesies the emergence of a charismatic world leader, making a peace deal with Israel, with a false religious leader supporting him, deceiving people with signs and wonders.

Isaiah 17:1 has a famous prophecy that predicts that Damascus (Syria’s capital) will be completely destroyed and left uninhabitable – and I don’t think this has ever happened in history, even though Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. We all know what’s happening with Syria’s ongoing conflicts, and the wider Middle Eastern instability continually on a knife edge. The third horseman of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Revelation 6:5-6) describes hyperinflation and economic turmoil during the last days, and with digital currency and the spectre of a one world overarching institution, we could be vulnerable to this sooner than we think. We read of a massive falling away from the faith that will occur before the return of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:3, Matthew 24:9-12), a significant division of Israel (Joel 3:2, Zechariah 12:2-3) – and this could be fulfilled when there is a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, where a major peace agreement ironically causes conflict and division in the long run. Revelation 16:12 predicts the Euphrates River will dry up, making way for the armies of the east, and there will be an increase in natural disasters & pestilences (Luke 21:11, Matthew 24:7), where Christ warned of earthquakes, famines, and plagues in the end times – which I’ve always been unsure of, but then years ago I was unsure if we’d ever live through a global pandemic, and now we have, with more to come, surely.

I’m not denying the speculative nature of some of the specifics above – and nobody knows just exactly how all this will play out in terms of specific world events. But in all of this - amid the prophetic signs, global uncertainty, and rapid transformation of our world – we can have confidence that at the heart of the Biblical message is hope, where the culmination of God’s plan will be rooted in mercy and truth. And we don’t understand this properly until we understand that Israel is central to God's unfolding plan - past, present, and future. To understand God’s end time plan, we must understand the significance of Israel, both as a nation and as a people still chosen and cherished by Him.

 

Luxury Beliefs

 

Society is awash these days with what psychologist Rob Henderson calls "luxury beliefs” - which are beliefs that are designed to make you look good at a cost to those less fortunate. Like the purchasing of designer clothing to signal material status, luxury beliefs are intended to signal virtue and status, but at a cost to society’s poorest people.

Perhaps the most obvious case in point is climate alarmism, where well-off people call for policies that make energy more expensive for the world’s poorest people who need cheap energy the most. It’s the height of hypocrisy to see middle class commentariats lecture the public on carbon footprints while paying no regard to the ill-effects this posturing has on the lower-income people. These same elites often live in comfortable homes, use high-end electronics, rely on fossil fuels (directly or indirectly) for virtually everything they do, and outsource their energy-heavy lifestyles to poorer countries. That’s why it’s even more repugnant when rich celebrities jump on the bandwagon.

Another clear example of a luxury belief is the insistence of well-off individuals and the cultural literati that the UK should be ceaselessly welcoming and tolerant of all immigration, while labelling those who express concerns about the social tensions and pressures on services it can bring as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’. Those who virtue signal with calls of ultra-tolerance and spout ‘Everyone’s welcome!” platitudes rarely experience the direct costs of highly concentrated influxes of immigration in areas already strained on public services, housing or social tensions, which disproportionately affect residents in deprived areas. This disconnect allows the belief to function as a status signal of moral superiority, while the real challenges are left to be borne by the most vulnerable communities.

Socialist rhetoric is another luxury belief - popular among wealthy students and cultural elites who benefit from capitalism but call for its dismantling, without facing the consequences of the economic instability such systems often bring. The anti-Israel stance often seen in elite academic and media circles serves as a moral status symbol, yet disregards the lived realities of ordinary citizens affected by terrorism and conflict, especially those in Israel, who have faced decades of bloodshed and persecution from militant Islamists who wish to wipe their nation off the map. Cancel culture is another classic example - it is embraced either by those with institutional or economic protection, or those with no real skin in the game - who can afford to make mistakes and recover - while it devastates the careers and reputations of the majority of people trying to make society a better, more truthful place. 

In each case above, the luxury belief serves more as an expression of virtue-signalling and a desire to look good than a genuine attempt to improve the world. Luxury beliefs often come at little cost to the elites or comfortably off people who hold them, but invariably come at a big price for less comfortable and less well-off groups if widely adopted. As a society, I think we should become more familiar with instances of hollow status symbols dressed in virtue - and never shy away from calling them out before their cost is passed on to those who can least afford it.

God Only Commands Of Us What We Should Command Ourselves

 

God only commands us to things that are good for us and good for the world. Therefore, He instructs us to do things that would be good even if He hadn’t instructed them. It’s like how a good parent tells their child to eat their vegetables, brush their teeth, and be very careful on busy roads. The child would benefit from doing these things after being taught by their parents, but would still benefit from those things even if they had worked it our from their own experiences and hadn’t been told to do so.

If God commands us, it’s because the thing being commanded is already good for us. That’s why, when Jesus says, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God” – the corollary is that in doing what is good for us in God’s eyes, we come to see more clearly who He is, and that His commands are rooted in truth.

Modern Israel From A Biblical Perspective

 

In a recent Blog post on Israel, I lamented how it has become increasingly fashionable among a certain segment of self-styled activists – most of whom come across as politically unseasoned and woefully underinformed - to adopt a fiercely anti-Israel stance, parroting slogans with the zeal of conviction but none of the burden of understanding. From a biblical perspective, it's unsurprising to me that so many modern people have a particular zeal against Israel - I believe it is frequently a disguised rejection of God. The Bible consistently presents Israel as central to God's redemptive plan, and I think that the anti-Israel stance that has emerged with such fervour has a lot to do with resistance to God's redemptive plan in general. I will elaborate on this shortly - and just to be clear, in saying this, I am not speaking against the genuine concerns that Israel's recent conduct towards some Palestinian civilians has started to become disproportionate to the cause, because there are some valid concerns there.

No, I am talking about how the huge rise in anti-Israel rhetoric (or in some cases antisemitism couched in anti-Israel rhetoric) is driven by a deep anti-Christ complex. What is often portrayed as a principled stand for justice is, in reality, a lazy moral absolutism that flattens decades of complex history into a social media soundbite or a trip to London to embarrass themselves with reactionary placards. Much of this outrage is driven not by a sincere grasp of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but by the ideological fervour of left-wing extremism that is oblivious to nuance and reduces geopolitics to a grossly oversimplified binary them vs. us mentality. This dogmatic lens not only insults the intelligence of anyone with a balanced mind, but also does a disservice to the actual people - Israeli and Palestinian alike - whose lives are shaped by the long-standing, tragic and tangled realities of this conflict.

My usual stance is to begin any Middle East conversation by stating that no party, group (or side if you prefer) comes out of this situation unimpeached – few who have influence are without fault in the conflict, which is highly complex and goes back decades, and in some cases, even longer. And that remains the case here. And in a post from a few years ago, I humbly submitted that the following propositions are probably true, regarding the conflict:

1) The religious/ethnic/cultural/political connotations of this conflict are highly complex, and go back centuries.

2) Both sides have a long and complicated history, in which both are at fault for their sub-optimal, reactionary treatment of the other group.

3) As usual, the innocent (and majority) Israeli and Arab citizens are the biggest victims of the actions of those driving the religious/ethnic/cultural/political agendas.

4) Hamas and other Islamic terrorist/fundamentalist groups are so dreadful that they are never going to be reasoned with or be seekers of a peaceful solution.

5) Those driving the Israeli religious/ethnic/cultural/political agendas have played their part in the division by treating many Palestinian citizens badly too, especially by enforcing a system of oppression against the Palestinian people.

6) At least some of the motives for Israel's restrictions on the Palestinians ought to be considered with regard to historical Arab desire to wipe out Jews/Israel and deny Israel its right to exist.

7) All the aforementioned mutual maltreatment is not ethically justified by the above observations, but probably goes a long way towards explaining them.

8} A two-state solution is frequently suggested as the best recourse, but as well as over-simplifying the history, it comes with two fundamental issues: Firstly, neither side really wants this solution, or behaves like they could achieve such a thing; and Secondly, deeply embedded religious/ethnic/cultural/political beliefs that date back centuries make it prohibitively unlikely that they could agree on how it would be implemented, especially given the deeply, age-old held religious beliefs about whose Holy Land it is.

I’m shocked that a wicked terrorist organisation like Hamas gains so much support from coddled left wing minds – it can only be explained by wilful ignorance, disguised compassion and selective virtue-signalling. But even though I’m shocked, I’m not that surprised; the West has a crisis of critical thinking, especially in the young - it makes them adopt the vilest opinions at times. You should know if you don’t already that the Hamas Charter includes “Destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy in Palestine is essential”, and “Unrestrained jihad is necessary to achieve this.” The covenant proclaims that Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it, and jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day. Compromise over the land is forbidden. The documents promote holy war as divinely ordained, reject political solutions, and call for instilling these views in children. It’s hard to believe so many Western radicals are actually arguing for Hamas to be seen as being less horrid, selling themselves a lurid fantasy that all the torture, decapitation, rape and people being burned alive is just their peaceful way of hinting at a harmonious two state solution.

The ongoing need to protect Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in a region with a long history of hostility should be evident. And as I said, while Israel doesn’t come out of this without some justified criticism, there is absolutely no justification for this awful swathe of anti-Semitic prejudice against Jews – historically they are a tremendous people with an excellent written tradition and many great innovators. The Jewish people are an insecure group - and understandably so, after being subjected to the Holocaust, continually being threatened with the eradication of their existence, repeatedly being victims of aggression by neighbouring Middle Eastern nations (thankfully all of whom they are much more powerful than militarily), and also being on the receiving end of some extreme factions of the Palestinian people - factions that are letting down their fellow Palestinians, who are innocent civilians trying to obtain basic human rights and not be oppressed. The very minimum responsibility for forming viewpoints is to adopt a thoughtful, compassionate and a balanced view.

While many view this as a political and territorial dispute, and it is to some degree – as I said at the top, I do not think we can understand the situation properly unless we also see it from a Biblical perspective, because Israel holds a unique place in God's plan. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God chose Israel as His covenant nation (Deuteronomy 7:6-8), although this does not mean that He loves Israel more than other nations. Rather, God’s election of Israel was for the purpose of bringing His light to the world (Isaiah 49:6) and ultimately ushering in the Messiah, through whom salvation is available to all people (John 3:16, Romans 10:12-13). And let me be clear once more, this divine priority does not exempt Israel from judgment or criticism - on the contrary, the Bible foretells that Israel will face immense tribulation in the last days (Zechariah 12:2-3, Matthew 24:15-22) because of their ungodliness. At the same time, it also speaks of a future peace when Israel will turn back to God and recognise Christ as the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10, Romans 11:25-26).

The ongoing struggle over Israel is not just a geopolitical issue but a spiritual one, tied to prophecies yet to be fulfilled.  I’ve often asked myself how we square Israel being God's chosen people with some of the things they've done wrong in the past 60 years. But I know that the Bible is clear that God’s choice of Israel was not based on their righteousness or moral superiority. In Deuteronomy 7:7-8, God explicitly says that He chose Israel not because they were greater or better than other nations, but because of His love and His covenant with their ancestors. And we can be frequently aghast at how, throughout our reading of the Old Testament, Israel frequently disobeyed God, engaged in idolatry, and even oppressed their own people. Yet, with His continued grace, patience and mercy, even in spite of their huge failures, God remained faithful to His promises. That the Lord shows each of us similar grace, patience and mercy is something for which Christians, above all, ought to be continually thankful. It is, at best, unbiblical and, at worst, deeply shameful that so many Christians disregard the perspective of Israel in this conflict, especially when in doing so they actively support groups that openly seek the destruction of God’s people.

Let’s be clear about this. As followers of Christ, we are called to seek truth, uphold justice, and love our neighbours. And this requires careful discernment, especially in complex global issues where suffering exists on all sides. But standing for truth does not mean abandoning biblical convictions or aligning with those who promote hatred and violence, even if you’re doing it accidentally by being unapprised of what you’re really doing. What I read repeatedly from scripture is that no individual Christian, church, or nation can truly thrive while standing in opposition to Israel. Scripture is clear: God’s promises to Israel are irrevocable, and His covenant with them endures. To position oneself against Israel - whether through apathy, hostility, or de facto support for those who seek its destruction - is to place oneself at odds with the purposes of God. History testifies that blessing Israel brings blessing; while cursing it invites judgement.

And let me reiterate something vital to the cause, lest you accuse me of being partisan. The Bible actually shows that God holds Israel to a higher standard. In Amos 3:2, God tells Israel, "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore, I will punish you for all your sins”. This pattern plays out in history: when Israel turned away from God, they faced judgment - whether through exile (Babylonian captivity), defeat, or internal division. The same principle applies today: being chosen does not exempt Israel from being accountable for moral or political failures. And it’d be remiss to not point out that the Israel of today is a secular nation-state, not the theocratic kingdom that existed in biblical times. While modern Israel’s existence is a fulfilment of prophecy (Ezekiel 37:21-22), its government is not necessarily operating under biblical principles. Many Jews in Israel today are secular or even atheist, and the nation’s policies are not always biblical ethics, which means there is reaping in the sowing.

The sad truth is, the nation of Israel has been in a constant state of war since its founding in 1948. It has been attacked multiple times by neighbouring countries and terrorist groups (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, later Iran through proxies, and recently Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamic jihadis, including Iran again). And I must stress this point too; even though Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians has been harsh, disproportionate, and reckless at times, especially around restrictive measures, you can’t begin to understand this except through the lens of perspective that understands being surrounded by countries and tribal ideologies that want to wipe them off the map, and will use any squalid tactic to achieve this. Israel is not just fighting a local territorial dispute; it is fighting for its very survival in a region where multiple enemies openly call for its total annihilation. Understanding this reality is key to making sense of Israel’s decisions, however tough and imperfect they may seem on the surface.

You may recall, in 2005, Israel withdrew completely from Gaza, leaving it to Palestinian self-rule. The hope was that Gaza would flourish, but instead, Hamas took over in 2007, and since then, Gaza has been a launchpad for thousands of rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Every ceasefire has been broken by Hamas. The presence of Israeli military checkpoints and security measures may seem harsh, but they are there because previous terrorist attacks - including suicide bombings in Israeli cities - came from the West Bank. When Israel relaxed these security measures, terror attacks increased, quelle surprise. It’s easy to look at Israel’s recent policies toward the Palestinians - checkpoints, military operations, restrictions on movement - and see them as oppressive. However, these measures exist in no small part because past attempts at peace have been met with terrorism, not cooperation. Even when Israel makes genuine attempts at inviting peace, history shows that it has been unable make peace with entities who calls for its destruction and denies its people the right to exist. For all concerned in the Middle East, I hope and pray things improve.

In the next blog post on Israel, I will look at the situation in terms of biblical prophecies, especially end time prophecies.

The Real Obstacles to Aid in Gaza

 

Sky News and the WHO (both of whom I wish knew better) say in this article that “Gaza faces 'man-made' mass starvation due to Israeli aid blockade, where the Israeli government is creating "chaos, starvation, and death". It’s deeply regrettable how the mainstream media peddles this kind of toxic, narrow, anti-Israel reporting. So many people are getting sucked in by this squalid mainstream media attempt to disproportionately frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through an ideological lens that attempts to flatten the true complexity of the situation. We really should do better as a nation than churning out this perverse narrative that sacrifices nuance and fact for click-driven outrage.

I have friends and family based in the region who regularly share with us what’s going on there – and these are deeply kind and humanitarian Christians whose testimony is far more powerful and reliable than the media ideologues who push this kind of unbalanced reporting. No one disputes that the situation in the region is grim, desperate and tragic. But this is also a deeply complex and politically charged crisis with layers that stretch right into to the heart of the evil and corruption of Hamas, and the concomitant logistical difficulties in aid distribution. As is usually the case, the innocent victims in all this are citizens under this influence of this brutal Hamas regime.

For a more balanced view, just consider for a moment how tough and complex it is trying to administer aid in a region under the heavy influence of a brutal terrorist group like Hamas, governed by a State that knows this terrorist group wants to obliterate their very existence. The primary reasons why so many Palestinians are desperate and suffering is because of Hamas. Because of Hamas’s murderous influence in the region, there are inevitable aid restrictions and delays at border crossings; there have been grotesque destructions of infrastructure, water systems, and hospitals; and access barriers inside Gaza that make it hard for UN and NGOs to operate, even when aid gets in. In an environment where Hamas controls citizens with its despicable ideology, loots aid, uses human shields for combat, uses fuel or metal pipes to build rockets or tunnels to attack Israel, all embedding in civilian zones, it’s sadly inevitable that aid distribution will be problematic.

When Israel allows aid in, it too frequently doesn't reach the people who need it because of the Hamas-led breakdown of governance in Gaza and minimal coordination. Many aid trucks have been looted en route, and safe distribution is almost impossible in certain areas. There are limited operational NGOs – and many NGOs have had to leave or suspend operations due to airstrikes, lack of security, or destroyed facilities. The influence of Hamas in the region means aid workers lack the fuel, staff, or security guarantees to distribute the aid effectively. The problems also mean there is frequently no supply of electricity, making food storage impossible, destroyed infrastructure, minimal clean water and medical care – for some, the entire system of survival has been collapsing beneath their feet.

There is, clearly, the need to consider the confluence of overlapping difficulties in targeting and restricting Hamas and the collective punishment that Palestinians endure as a result, but imagine what it’s like trying to operate in conditions where Islamic thugs continually wish to eradicate you and your people. It’s not possible to interpret this situation in good conscience and still conclude that the Israeli government is creating "chaos, starvation, and death".

I’m afraid the devastating truth is, Hamas’ presence and tactics create conditions where mass starvation becomes almost inevitable, especially when combined with the destruction of infrastructure and the collapse of aid systems. Wicked terrorist organisations like Hamas do not make very good agents for governance, and the Palestinian people are sorry victims in this mess.

The Secret Life of the World’s Best Hotel Staff

 

Two days ago, I shared an account of how I delivered yet another gold standard pep talk of potentially life-changing inspiration.😃 Today I’d like to complement it by sharing some really interesting insight I read a few years ago in the book on management First, Break All the Rules by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. The job of a hotel room attendant never seems very glamourous or desirable – and few people envy those who are employed to change the hotel room bed sheets, replace the towels, clean the loos, and so forth. But in the book, Buckingham and Coffman offer a particularly insightful section that stuck with me - focussing on what makes the best hotel room attendants - and how it defies conventional wisdom about hiring and performance. 

The authors, gathering data from extensive studies by Gallup, a research-based consulting company, emphasise that the best performers in any role often share rare and unique talents rather than merely learned skills. This is especially true for hotel room attendants, which is a seemingly routine job that still shows huge performance variation based on the individual’s talents, traits and psychological orientation.

Gallup found that the best hotel room attendants weren’t necessarily the ones with the most experience or training. Instead, they had natural inclinations that made them thrive in the job in intriguing ways. For example, these guys really took personal pride in cleanliness and order; they had genuine empathy toward guests and their experience; and they had a strong internal standard for excellence. The research found that the very best members of staff cleaned thoroughly, not because they were told to, but because it bothered them to leave anything out of place. Their internal sense of “how things should be” drives their performance. Their job gave them a sense of purpose that one might not expect in such a role. The best attendants didn’t just see themselves as cleaners. They believed their work made a real difference to a guest’s experience, their customer satisfaction, and whether they would likely return.

I think this is a fascinating psychological interpretation, because it confirms how the best workers are able to reframe their roles to find deeper meaning that onlookers would scarcely expect. Even in low-autonomy, low pay jobs, people who believe they are contributing to something larger tend to perform better and experience greater job satisfaction. This was reflected in the fact that the most outstanding room attendants were attuned to subtle guest signals. If a guest left workout clothes out, they might leave extra towels. If they noticed children's toys, they might adjust supplies, or leave a note, or even in some cases create an imaginative toy scenario on the windowsill as a surprise for the returning family. This indicates high social intelligence and empathy. And although the job of hotel attendant might be easy in terms of fluid intelligence and task learning – being the best in those roles involved traits that are not easy to learn - they come from lateral intelligence, emotional attunement and a profound ability to adapt behaviour accordingly

I believe this is a great lesson, not just for managers looking for wisdom in optimal recruitment, but for anyone in a role that might be undervalued by society. The world needs all kinds of people doing all kinds of roles – and it’s not the prestige of the position that primarily defines the potential of the performance - it’s the depth of purpose, pride, and presence an individual brings to it. In any role, there is always room for mastery – and although it’s harder than most imagine, there are profound rewards attached to thriving in your role. When we bring heart, attention, and pride to the simplest of jobs, we don’t just elevate the work - we elevate ourselves.

Peace In The Storm

"In the dark night of the soul, bright flows the river of God."
St. John of the Cross

It’s been an intense and difficult period of suffering and challenge in my and my family’s life recently, with one issue after another, and we are drained and weary, yet still always grateful and thankful. Sometimes life can become such a wound that even silence feels too loud, and the weary heart folds in on itself. Yet we know that “in all things God works for the good of those who love Him” (Romans 8:28) – meaning that even through suffering, setbacks, or uncertainty, God is at work in the lives of believers, shaping events toward a greater good.

But God’s work of this kind also depends on the enabling of our free choices, which impose short term costs and suffering, as we make mistakes and get things wrong along the way. This raises an intriguing matter; is it impossible for Christians to act in a way that either fails to accomplish or limits God’s plan for the greater good? It would seem not. Therefore, our free choices do not enable us to thwart God’s ultimate plan for our betterment, because even though we make choices that impede our well-being in the short term, God’s genius sees to it in the overall narrative that every decision or event, good or bad in the short term, is supremely good in the long term.

I’ve been pondering where and how God might be working in this current very strange and difficult storm. When lots of challenges come crashing into life, causing pain and uncertainty in their wake - still, we have to have faith in the above narrative, as per Romans 8, and consider what God might be doing in allowing all that to happen. I suppose the first thing to bring to bear on the situation is that the first paragraph I wrote invites us to marvel at God’s ability to transform all these things into ultimate good, where His genius can weave even the darkest threads into a tapestry of redemption. I’m sure that all the consequences of the misfortunes can be woven into a deeper renewal, when there is always opportunity for bigger redemption and more of a powerful external influence on others that can bear fruit in testimony – a kind of “This befell us” …”But as a result, we learned this and that, and grew from it” testimony. I suppose that is part of what redemption is – using everything bad to grow bigger than the thing that was bad, and becoming stronger and wiser – where the wisdom gained may become a lifeline to others walking similar roads.

I’m not sure quite what God is doing in this current situation – it all feels like a bit of a mess. But experience has taught me that God uses our messes to do all sorts of things in the longer term that we are unlikely to pick up on in the midst of them; things like adjusting false ideas; rewriting the family story to increase mercy, reliance and dependence; allowing some earthly footings to shake, so that we might find a deeper, firmer foundation in some issue - those sorts of lessons – and of course, all these serve well in administering a healthy spiritual lesson in humility and trust.

I guess, to close this reflection, my prayer would be; “Lord, I don’t see how everything that’s happening right now is good, but I know You are good.”, and invite further peace, energy and discernment at each stage. 

The Unexpected Huge Potential in Humble Opportunities

A few years ago, I was giving a pep talk to a young man who was under my management for a while. He was about to start a new job on the till in the shop in Norwich’s train station, and he expressed concern that he’d find the job boring and uninspiring. My first response was to remind him that he’s still in the inception of his work life, and he should expect to have to grow with humility, and hone his skills and talents as he acquires experience in various roles. But then I helped him see just how much intrinsic potential there is, even in a job like that, where he is at the bottom rung of his career ladder. I can’t quote what I said verbatim, but it went something like this.

Even a job like working the till at a train station - which might seem mundane at first glance - holds huge potential for your personal development, and you can really make the most out of this in ways that few people ever consider in these types of role. Even a job like that, it’s a great privilege and a fantastic opportunity to develop yourself beyond what you can currently imagine. Every customer interaction is a chance to sharpen emotional intelligence, to practice empathy, and to become someone who can read people quickly and respond with thoughtfulness.

In turning up each day and being the most excellent shop assistant you can be (and that won’t be as easy as you think), you can turn routine transactions into moments of real connection, into mastering excellence in every element of the role, and into significant personal development. That ability will set you apart, not just here but for the rest of your career. Furthermore, this job gives you a live environment to train your inner standards - how punctual you are, how precise, how kind, how composed under pressure, the lot. You’re not just working a till; you’re learning to be the kind of person others want to work with, promote, and follow. If you want to excel in life, a key part of vocational development is to bring your full self to even the smallest task – and there is way more potential growth even in the so-called mundane jobs that few tap into.

To conclude the story, I think he only lasted a few weeks in that role. Some people are just deaf to inspirational wisdom. 😃

But for some in a similar position, I think it’s a prudent approach to take to a role that might seem small on the surface, but that you can turn into a powerful training ground for growth of character, discipline, and long-term success.

 

Sorry, Is This Blog in Your Way? The Quirks of Britishness

 

In honour of the French student we have staying with us – who is here to learn lots about our English language and customs – I’ve been thinking up and sharing with her some of the amusing quirks you can expect from a typical Brit. Here’s what I have so far.

Getting so annoyed with a colleague that they sign off an email with just ‘Regards’ instead of ‘Kind Regards’

Apologising any time someone is in your way – cue, "Oh, I’m sorry you walked into me!”

Queuing as a sacred national ritual, where any breach of queue etiquette is punishable by intense tutting and silent contempt.

Saying “No worries if not!”, even after a wholly reasonable request.

Issuing disclaimers – “I’m not being funny, but…”, “I don’t mean to be rude, but…, “No offense, but…” – then saying something that’s absolutely funny, definitely rude, and deeply offensive.

Pretending not to notice someone you know in the supermarket to avoid small talk. It’s better to get chilly staring at the chicken drumsticks in the frozen section for 3-4 minutes than to look up and say “hello”.

Avoiding eye contact on public transport like it's a social landmine, where the horror of meeting someone’s gaze on the bus is a gross microaggression.

Bringing up the weather as an emergency social lubricant, cue: “Bit grey today, isn’t it?”, or saying "Nice weather we’ve been having” when it’s merely not rained for a few hours.

Responding to the question “How are you?” with “Not too bad”, even if you’re having an awful time of it or if life is going swimmingly. 

The complete inability to maintain traffic flow during heavy rainfall or with the single fall of a snowflake.

Saying we’ll do things - “I might pop over!”, “We must do lunch!”, “Catch up next month!”  – when there is zero chance of our following this up.

Celebrating minor inconveniences as shared national traumas, cue “Remember the 7 minute power cut during 2007? Ah yes, we ploughed on through”

Praising someone’s tea-making skills as if they’ve just solved Goldbach’s Conjecture.

Saying “No harm done” while being internally enraged.

Having a full-blown crisis, but still asking, “Sorry, am I being a bother?”

Feel free to add your own – although if you’re British, you might feel inclined to apologise first for interjecting. 😀

Ken Ham’s Cult of Intellectual Suicide

Recently, I watched a documentary about the Order of the Solar Temple - a 1990s apocalyptic cult whose members committed mass suicide (and in some cases were murdered) in the belief they would ascend to the star Sirius. I also watched the documentary on the Jonestown Peoples Temple cult, which was even more horrific. As shocking and tragic as these cults were, what struck me most wasn't the cult’s bizarre mythology or their elaborate rituals, but how potentially smart, professional, seemingly rational people were drawn into such an obviously destructive delusion. Over the years, I’ve spent many a moment pondering how people fall so deeply for something so plainly false and destructive.

What I also observe when I see cults like Answers in Genesis (AiG) - to which I dip in and take a look from time to time – is how similar it is to the most destructive cults like the ones I just mentioned. At first glance, AiG might seem to many like just another fundamentalist Christian ministry with an odd obsession with a young earth, literal Genesis, and dinosaurs on the Ark. But dig deeper, and you’ll find an echo chamber with extreme dogmatism, pseudoscience dressed up as fact, manipulation of fear and identity, and a lot of money being made at the top. Ken Ham is raking it in while his pliable acolytes divest their credibility and do his bidding for him.

Now, I’m not suggesting that there’s going to be a mass suicide in the AiG cult (except, alas, a mass suicide of the mind, which has been happening since its inception) - but in terms of mind control and willingness to give up critical thinking and regard for the truth, Ken Ham and his AiG cult is eerily similar in its psychological structure and top-down manipulation techniques. Ken Ham is a spiritual bully masquerading as a Christian saviour – a low-rent fear-mongerer and control freak, where if you doubt one element of the cult’s agenda, you're accused of rejecting God altogether. It's a squalid form of scriptural ideological totalism – which is, alas, a hallmark of nearly all cults.

I’ve observed the posts and conversations on the AiG forum many times – and have repeatedly observed how the leaders employ several key rhetorical and psychological tactics to draw in and retain believers. First there are the false binaries - you’re either with God (meaning AiG’s interpretation of scripture) or you’re siding with “man’s word.” This foolish, overly-simplistic black-and-white logic is designed to prevent critical engagement. There’s no room for nuance, no space for integrating science with faith, and then with the first sign of dissent you’re consigned to Hell and Hamnation, where Ken and his team write you off as a lost cause.

Alongside this is a tactical trick that I guess you could call presuppositional inversion - start with the Bible, and only then look at science, where any evidence that doesn’t match their interpretation must be flawed. While the AiG cult is blind to it, this is little more than a circular reasoning trap where the conclusion is assumed at the outset, leaving the members no way to think anything else. Then we have the brand, merchandise and marketing, in the shape of AiG’s museums and literature - full of misleading models, charts, educational distortions, and elaborate explanations that are carefully constructed to look and sound scientific - but crumble under the first wave of scrutiny. It’s indoctrination only thinly disguised as inquiry, which is why I find it baffling that so many people in the cult fall for it.

The Ham-meister General frequently appeals to fear and identity - if your kids don’t believe Genesis, watch out because they’ll become atheists and abandon morality – which primes them towards a deeply emotional attachment to a worldview that seems to offer safety and moral clarity. To reinforce this, followers are subtly (or overtly) encouraged to distrust what they call secular scientists, Christian evolutionists, and even Christian denominations that interpret Genesis differently. Dissent becomes synonymous with disobedience to God, which is a form of top-down duress that is the hallmark of most cults.

Ken Ham has positioned himself as a spiritual gatekeeper while enjoying the perks of CEO-level income from peddling lies and falsehoods. Followers are encouraged to donate, buy materials, and volunteer - all while being told they are “standing for truth in a fallen world.” This is classic cult economics; build an empire on fear, identity, and certainty, and your followers will fund it for you.

Watching the Sirius cult and the Jim Jones cult documentaries, I found myself thinking that this is AiG in a nutshell, but just more extreme and tragic. It’s the same old system every time – one that isolates minds, exploits vulnerability, and profits richly off fear and control. And while AiG is not a cult of physical suicide, it’s a cult of intellectual suicide, like countless other cults that have come and gone before it. 

 

The False Affirmation Trap

 

Famously, when a woman in the UK asks, "Do I look good in this dress?", it’s deemed to be an emotionally charged question with implied expectations that hinder the honesty of the answer. It’s similar to when a male asks his chum “Do you think my new girlfriend is good looking?”, and if he thinks ‘no’, he’s in trouble. 😀

Emotionally charged questions with implied expectations are difficult for society because they promote dishonesty or false reassurance, which means it becomes harder to know what people honestly think and believe.

This is another reason why the widespread assault on free speech is so damaging to society. When people are reluctant to say what they honestly think or believe, for fear of reprisal or backlash, they start to say what they think society expects them to say, and the truth of what people really think gets lost in a morass of lies, dishonest consensus, and social performance.

Assaults on free speech become assaults on truthseeking, honesty and integrity.

Monday Odds & Ends: Facebook Memories

 

I've noticed something odd about Facebook memories – you know, those memories of past posts that pop up every day when you log in. The memories it offers me are but a fraction of potential memories it could offer me. I’m sure you are constantly aghast at how frequently scintillating my daily posts are, but there was at least as much, probably more, scintillation between, say, 2009-2016, and Facebook almost never offers any of that content in the memories. The memories it offers are primarily posts between 2022-2024, and the occasional select one from the distant past. There would be lots that would be worth re-sharing from the aforementioned older period, that friends I’ve acquired in the past 10 years probably haven’t seen, but Facebook hardly ever offers any of them on the daily memories.

I wonder if it’s to do with contemporary algorithms being very selective about what it offers for sharing. Because currently it’s barely scratching the surface.

 

On 'Divine Hiddenness'

 

The concept of ‘Divine hiddenness’ is regularly cited as one of the strongest arguments against God’s existence. It’s a term coined by the philosopher J.L. Schellenberg, in which he asked why God is not more evident or obvious, especially to people who are open to belief. If a perfectly loving God exists, then God would want to be in a relationship with all people, he posits. There are people who he claims are "nonresistant nonbelievers" - those who are open to believing in God and would enter a relationship if they could, but don’t believe due to lack of evidence or divine presence. Schellenberg concluded that a perfectly loving God would not allow nonresistant non-belief, and therefore He probably doesn’t exist.

One of the subsidiary themes in my book The Genius of the Invisible God is along almost opposite lines – that a key part of the genius of God’s cosmic narrative is that He remained so invisible or hidden in so much of creation, and that it is for our benefit that He does. While the book doesn’t directly address the ‘Divine hiddenness’ contention (I hadn't heard of it when I wrote the book in 2012) – it indirectly turns the objection on its head by showing how we should be thankful for any hiddenness God chose to exercise on creation. Or to put it this way, people talk about God not making His existence more obvious, but I don’t see it that way. Through Christ, God voluntarily enters the world to suffer and die for the sake of everyone, and then leaves His Holy Spirit so that those who believe in Jesus as Lord can have an intimate relationship with Him.

Perhaps those who don’t think God has made Himself more obvious are not thinking the right way about what He HAS done, and continues to do. Through the Incarnation, God has made an impression on the world that will last for as long as human civilisation. Think about what it’s like when a charity worker in the UK leaves their comfortable, affluent lifestyle and goes across the world to a region in a country that is mired in poverty and hardship. Through their support, grace, kindness and generosity, and through the relationships they build, they leave a legacy that far outlives their stay in the region. In fact, in some profound sense, the deepest connections last for as long as time is recorded.

I think that’s what God is like in relation to how the power of the cross endures, and how Christ's Incarnation, scripture and the Holy Spirit provide and equip us with everything we need to know who God is, to have a relationship with Him, and to counter the issue of Divine hiddenness.

Bad Soiled In Good

 

It’s good to remember that false beliefs tend to be nested in many more true beliefs and good intentions – a bit like how a rotten seed is buried in rich, fertile soil under a blooming garden - which I think persuades people who hold them that their false belief isn’t wrong, or it enables them to suppress their doubts about the false belief.

For example, the false belief of young earth creationism is nested in a sincere and noble desire to honour sacred texts, to protect the world from people trying to pull Christians away from the faith, and the need to respect Christian tradition. Climate Alarmism is nested in the virtue of responsible stewardship, real concerns about environmental degradation, animal welfare, good-faith concern for future generations, distrust of institutional power and irresponsibility, and a sense of ethical responsibility to act. And socialism is nested in the desire for a less unequal world, concern for the underdog, compassion for the disadvantaged, that sort of thing. Even the extreme nationalist views  are nested in some very human and often well-meaning concerns, like the desire for belonging, the need for cultural continuity, the fear of losing identity in a rapidly globalising world, alertness to the problems of uncontrolled immigration, nostalgia for historical communities, all encased in a protective impulse to preserve language, tradition, a sense of rootedness, and so forth.

Rotten seeds buried in the otherwise rich, fertile gardens of the mind are easily disregarded by those in whom they are planted, especially while looking at the iridescent bloom of the sun-baked lilies and the climbing jasmine.

But that’s not quite the full picture either, because there are also the perverse incentives, self-serving instincts, socio-cultural pressures, and the tangle of faulty reasoning that guide the hand which plants the rotten seeds - sometimes knowingly, sometimes not. At the risk of a further stretch of the analogy, these seeds are often disguised as compost, offered by well-meaning neighbours, or sold by bad actor merchants with something to gain at the buyers’ expense.

Which is why the work of tending to our own intellectual garden is an essential, continual work in progress – aided by the trowel of open, rational enquiry, the pollination of dialogue, the water of truthseeking, and the sunlight of humility.

The Trouble With The BBC's Literary Adaptations

My wife and I are in a season of watching BBC TV adaptations of great literary works. The works of Eliot, Tolstoy, Austen, Hardy and Dickens have graced our TV screen in recent weeks, and they make for pleasant viewing. And as a funny aside, when we moved in, we named every room in our house after great authors or scientists, with 4 of the above 5 each proudly bearing a sign - all except poor Tolstoy, who has yet to find a room. But while watching the TV adaptation of Middlemarch, I sensed more and more of an issue I have with these dramatisations – they are so far removed from the written content of the book that their viewing is at best a pale imitation of the terrific works of literature they claim to represent.

When watching Middlemarch, I noticed that the adaptation rarely uses George Eliot’s actual words - and for a novel so dependent on its narrator's wise, ironic and deeply humane voice, that absence leaves a noticeable gap. I’d put Middlemarch up there with the greatest ever literary works – and reading Middlemarch is a profound experience in large part because of the way George Eliot guides us through the inner lives of her characters as the narrator. Her narration offers one of the broadest insights of the multiple characters you will ever read, often pausing the story to reflect on human nature, morality, and the quiet dignity of ordinary lives. Without this voice, the drama lacks much of the book’s power, because it is devoid of the means to convey Eliot’s brilliant, intricate and meditative prose. 

Much of the book’s brilliance lies in inviting the reader to bathe in superb long sentences, philosophical digressions, and subtle ironies - none of which fit easily into the rhythms of spoken dialogue. I suspect the BBC thought that adapting Middlemarch faithfully would mean laying out the story in psychologically sophisticated voiceover narration and long cerebral speeches that might alienate modern viewers – but if they were prepared to sacrifice that, then it’s no longer authentic Middlemarch, it’s just a fairly decent TV period drama.

I felt the same about the adaptations of Jane Austen’s works. Her novels are also rich with irony, wit, and precise social observation, much of which lies not in what her characters say, but in what the narrator says about them. Austen’s tone is also difficult to capture without quoting her directly – and the adaptations we watched (Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion) kind of…kind of… preserve the broad strokes of her stories and the charm of her characters, and with great casts of actors too, but they lose the razor-sharp narrative voice that gives Austen’s work its enduring brilliance.

I find there’s a slightly different problem with the Dickens TV adaptations. Dickens was a master of theatrical dialogue and memorable caricature, and much of his writing does lend itself to performance. But I found his adaptations often underplayed his darker satire, his biting political commentary, the fierce sense of justice conveyed with such energy and invention, and the rhythm and richness of his prose.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sympathetic that it’s difficult to adapt novels like the above without flattening some of their depth, but I lament the fact that these adaptations feel like a sketch of something much fuller – so brutally stripped of the artistry, rhythm, and soul that made the original profound. It must be a deliberate decision on the part of the creators – but it’s a bit like listening to a symphony through our 20 year old Honda’s car speakers, where the melody remains, but the nuance, texture, and emotional resonance are muffled and diminished. 

The Primary Reason People Don't Believe

 

We can dance around the numerous reasons people give for claiming not to believe in God, and rejecting Christianity for reasons x, y, and z. But I have a more compelling claim - one that 25+ years of discussing faith with sceptics has taught me: it's that the primary reason people reject Christianity is much simpler at its base. It's because they don't want to believe.

When you observe people, you can begin to identify algorithmic heuristics, which are a deep kind of pattern recognition around belief systems - especially the hidden motivations or psychological undercurrents beneath surface-level reasons. Once you've established this framework for a particular trait or pattern, you can apply it more broadly across a spectrum of claims, especially in empirically intractable subjects like religion, politics, economics and social commentary.

For Christians, I'd say the most useful heuristic that reveals a core resistance is this. I believe that if we could drill down right into the heart of why unbelievers are not Christian - the real reasons apart from what people claim on the surface - we would find that they are driven by what I think is the fundamental resistance to Christianity; that those who do not believe do not want to believe, but either can't admit this is the case, or can't recognise why it's the case.

When you hear the reasons why people say they don’t believe, they are mostly disguised intellectual or emotional coverings for a deeper unwillingness to believe. To truly engage with their resistance, you must discern why they don’t want to believe, and what lies beneath that reluctance.

I believe that is one of the primary insights that can equip both the Christian who wants to be a faithful and insightful witness, and the unbeliever who is honest enough to ask themselves why they currently might not want to believe. This is because one of the most profound insights of self-reflection in this matter involves attempting to recognise in ourselves; firstly, why we don't want to believe; secondly, how we determine what we want; and thirdly, what that lack of want is really disguising, or what concern or anxiety is it safeguarding, or what inconvenient need for change it is prolonging, or what short-term need it is fulfilling, or what particular superficial freedom it is shielding, and so forth. Get to the root of why an individual doesn't want to believe, and the rest is extraneous to the argument.

Abundance Begins With Gratitude For What We Have

 

I’m writing a book on gratitude, because gratitude is one of the superpowers of psychological and emotional well-being. As we grow wiser, we become more aware of one of life’s profound truths: the more we cherish what we have, the more satisfying, fulfilling, and abundant our life becomes. Conversely, the more we dwell on our struggles - on what we lack or have yet to achieve - the more life seems to withhold from us. When our attention is fixed on what’s missing, we compromise the ability to fully appreciate and enjoy our blessings.

But it gets even better, because the more we value what we already have, the more life seems to give. Gratitude doesn’t just deepen our appreciation for what’s already ours - the important people in our lives, our achievements, talents, possessions, memories, etc - it opens the door to obtaining more of what’s absent, and increases the chances of us receiving it.

Carrier Off Course With Cause

 

Standard variants of the Cosmological Argument are built on this syllogism:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause other than itself.

Christians who understand the essential two category distinctions, God (uncaused, necessary Being) and creation (caused, contingent things - basically, everything that isn’t God), accept the Cosmological Argument is correct in some form, but I think it’s better to have ‘creation’ in the premises not ‘universe’, in case God’s creative dispensations extend beyond this universe. So, an improvement is:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself.
P2: Creation began to exist.
C: Therefore, creation has a cause other than itself.

A Being powerful enough to bring all of creation into existence is the necessary, uncaused, eternal cause traditionally understood as God, who has made Himself personally knowable in Christ.

Recently, atheist Richard Carrier tried to offer a fundamental issue with the Cosmological Argument, where he says:

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself” is literally logically impossible. Why? Because “Everything” includes all laws of physics. Causality is a law of physics. Therefore it is logically impossible for any law of causality to apply before that law of causality even exists. The first premise is therefore logically necessarily false. Not just probably false. It is necessarily false. It can never be the case that “everything” that begins to exist has a cause. Nor can “physical reality” be an exception-case to “everything”. Those are part of the contents of what is beginning in “the universe began to exist” and therefore cannot exist before that so as to cause it. Causal laws cannot exist before causal laws exist.”

There are two main things wrong with Carrier’s assertion – one is a philosophical error, and the other is a category definition problem that is already negated if we use ‘creation’ in the premises’ not ‘universe’. The philosophical error is in stating that “causality is a physical law, so it can’t apply before physical laws exist” – because causality is not only a physical law, it is a metaphysical proposition that’s fundamental to reality itself. Carrier’s confusion, which is a popular one, rests on the mistaken assumption that the only things that exist are physical things, which is fundamentally wrong (see my mathematics blogs in the tab here for more on why this is the case). The premise “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is about ontological dependence, not merely physical cause-effect relationships governed by physics – which are only a subset of all of reality. Moreover, it doesn’t make sense to talk of ‘before’ except in the physical sense (as time is intrinsically linked to space, as per the spacetime of modern physics), so God bringing creation into being is not temporal causality in the sense that a physical human might imagine.

Secondly, my replacing “universe” with “creation” in the premise already addresses Carrier’s objection in a few ways. Creation is metaphysically broader than the physical universe, as “creation” means all contingent reality - not just physical entities or laws. The cause of creation is not limited to physical laws, and the cause that brings creation into existence isn’t subject to physical laws like causality. Replacing ‘universe’ with ‘creation’ grounds causality itself, and no longer remains limited by it. Talking about “creation” rather than “universe,” allows for an atemporal or transcendent cause, which is essential when you realise that time and causality are also created realities.

The claim “Everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself is literally logically impossible” is false under the above terms, where ‘creation’ replaces ‘universe’ in the syllogism. But if we are just talking about the physical universe – a long-standing matter of discussion in philosophy and cosmology – then applying the standard notion of causality to the origin of the entire physical universe when you think the only things that exist a physical is also problematic. What makes it most problematic is if you make the error in thinking that the only things that exist are physical, which is one of the many limitations of the philosophy of naturalism. 

The Psychology of Thinking Israel is Committing Genocide

Do you think Israel is currently committing genocide in the Middle East? I don’t, but I can see from social media activity that many people do. If you’re one of them, then I’d encourage you to consider why it is you think that. In a moment, I’ll explain why I don’t believe Israel is committing genocide, but before I do, I think there are principally four reasons why someone might be under the misapprehension that Israel is committing genocide - and they range from very bad to bad. I’ll list them hierarchically, from very bad to bad. 

1)    Malicious intent: The individual is blatantly anti-Israel (maybe in some cases hatefully anti-Semitic), and will accuse Israel of genocide reflexively, regardless of facts or definitions, as a way of demonising the state. 

2)    Ideological thrall: The individual holds a rigid, extreme leftist ideological worldview - often aligned with radical activist frameworks – and prejudice against Israel serves their own tribal bias, political agenda, virtue signalling and attention-seeking – all feeding into their overly-simplistic narrative of oppressed vs. oppressor. 

3)    Susceptibility to manipulation: The individual lacks the knowledge and awareness of context that would disavow them of the notion that Israel is committing genocide, and is ripe for manipulation. 

4)    Open to disinformation: The individual has been swayed by the biased reporting and bad actors in society to believe Israel is committing genocide. They have become understandably emotionally overwhelmed by images of suffering and death, and are mistaking visceral outrage for informed judgment. 

Each individual who believes that Israel is committing genocide will fall into one, some, or all of those categories. For example, Greta Thunberg probably falls into categories 1, 2 and 3 – or just 2 and 3 if you’re feeling generous (she is probably too ideologically entrenched to be in 4), so does Roger Waters. Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Owen Jones, and countless other politicians and media figures fall into category 2 (often 2 and 3). Category 3 is bursting at the seams with celebrities and lesser known bourgeois leftist dilettantes in artisanal sunglasses, and so is category 4, where you’ll also find a wide range of people, from gentle, well-meaning Methodist septuagenarians, to teenage keyboard warriors who aren’t yet old enough to shave, to some dear personal friends who I love and respect immensely.  

The commonality in categories 1-3 (but especially categories 1-2), is not just misinformation, but a profound psychological need; to employ simplistic black vs. white logic, to feel morally superior, to divest oneself of internal personal criticism and responsibility, and to belong to a self-congratulatory cause bigger than oneself. If you’re weak in ways that the world needs you to be strong, then this kind of in-group ideology is very seductive. And a surefire way to tell that this is the case is to see how easy it is to predict the other things people in that ideology believe. In a game of collectivist mime troupe bingo, the squares would be filled with similarly predictable dogmas - climate hysteria, ‘eat the rich’ socialism, woke platitudes, no-platforming, performative solidarity rituals - all delivered with the same sanctimonious tone. The commonality in category 4 is primarily the need to locate moral clarity in a morally and socially complex world, and to resolve emotional discomfort with simple, righteous certainty. To be fair, the latter is, in many cases, a humble fault, but in reaching for moral simplicity, many end up embracing a fiction that feels emotionally satisfying, but collapses under the weight of evidence and reason.

Designer Outrage
One more point on the psychology, then we’ll move on to the proposition in question. Here's a provocative but truthful statement. If you’re in categories 1 and 2 (and sometimes 3) and accuse Israel of genocide, but stay silent on Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other regional actors who openly call for Israel's destruction, then you're not standing for justice - you're showing everyone that you're, at best, guilty of being manipulated by perversely partisan media sources, and at worst, just an anti-Israel hypocrite, not to be taken in the least bit seriously. In fact, in the latter case, your selectivity is bordering on an anti-semitic weaponisation of language to legitimise your narrow, unbalanced tribalism.

And if you're in the former group, didn't you ever stop to wonder why the people who like to claim 'genocide' for Israel are completely silent on their enemies who actually do wish genocide on Israel? Surely you must have been just a little bit curious about the motives behind this blatant inconsistency? I'm not even commenting at this stage about whether it's fair to accuse Israel of 'genocide'. At this point, I'm merely pointing out the absurd hypocrisy that plagues our society - that even if you do think Israel is behaving awfully, staying completely silent on even more awful behaviour in surrounding regions is preposterous, making you look weak and incompetent. Unless the selective silence is because manipulative sources have convinced you that these Islamic perpetrators of murder, rape, violence, suppression of freedom and human rights abuses are not so bad after all - but that is just as preposterous, and makes you look just as weak and incompetent.

It's the same sort of incongruity we've seen with contemporary feminism for years – feminists such as the woeful Ash Sarkar, Kate Smurthwaite, Grace Blakeley, etc - they'll willingly stand in a safe capital city, holding a megaphone, screaming about "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity", angry that some people are upset about the rights of the foetus, or that more CEOs are men than women, but they'll never raise an eyebrow about Islam's toxic effects on women, with grooming gangs, repression of rights, sexual inequality, hijabs, honour killings, forced marriages and the oppressive nature of Sharia law towards the female sex. I call this Designer Outrage.

Israel Is Not Committing Genocide
I’ve pointed out the hypocrisy of those claiming Israel is committing genocide, while remaining silent on even worse regional actors surrounding them. For those attempting a more balanced view, but still holding the view that Israel is committing genocide, let's consider that claim a bit further. I share some of the public criticisms of much of Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians, but I also believe that throwing around the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's actions isn't just factually wrong - it's a lazy distortion of what the term means. Genocide refers to the intentional extermination of a people. Misusing the language of atrocity trivialises actual genocides - like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, or the Armenian genocide. It's not just bad history; it's offensive to actual victims of genocide whose families were actually targeted for eradication (in actual fact, as the Jews were in the Holocaust, and like they still are now by murderous ideologues in surrounding Islamic nations).

Too many people are cunning, slippery, or merely sloppy in their use of the word 'genocide' - because genocide means actions committed with the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The intent element is crucial, and it's disingenuous to ignore it. Israel's actions, while far from perfect, are undertaken against the continued regional threat of perpetrators who wish to wipe them off the map - fanatical enemies whose tactics are to use Palestinian civilians (and hospitals, for example) as fodder for their murderous aims. What's ironic is that Hamas - who wish to exterminate the Jews, and openly say so - are the ones with genocidal desires, but the same people are silent about this.

While it's appropriate to scrutinise Israel's conduct, failure to recognise the existential threats it faces is failure to engage in the subject appropriately. Hamas explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, as do the leaders in Iran. The October 7th massacre was not only a military operation; it involved targeted killing of civilians, torture, and rape - acts of terrorism driven by genocidal rhetoric. Hamas embeds itself among civilians, uses hospitals and schools for weapons storage, and prevents civilians from evacuating - both to shield fighters and to use civilian casualties as propaganda. This squalid tactic complicates Israel's military response and raises the civilian toll in a tragic environment.

It's hard to deny that some of Israel's responses have been heavy-handed, maybe even excessive, and even, in isolated incidents a shocking mirror image of those who want to destroy them. But if you're going to measure excess, you should at least understand what that means in this context. Try imagining what it's like attempting to govern a country continually under existential threat from some of the most wicked and morally devoid Islamic fundamentalist groups on the planet - a country that continually lives in self-defense against an adversary that openly calls for its destruction, and will use any tactic necessary to achieve its aims. It's difficult to imagine a country not acting excessively under those conditions - these are extreme acts of self-preservation, where Gazans are also many of the most innocent victims of this complex, harrowing situation.

So, I'd really encourage you to not use the word 'genocide' when describing Israel’s predicament - especially as they are a people who have themselves experienced one of the worst genocides in human history, and certainly the most systematically executed, and still carry the scars today. Words like "genocide" carry historical trauma and legal implications - and misusing language dilutes meaning and compromises the full truth and can blind us to the real moral and legal complexities at hand. Criticising Israel's military actions is one thing - but calling it ‘genocide’ undermines credibility, and perversely distracts from both the complexity of the situation, and the real goals of groups like Hamas and Iran, who do actually commit egregious violations of international law that are much more like genocide than what Israel is doing.