Randomness can never be a scientific explanation, since we can never know that something is random. At best, saying something is random is shorthand for “we don’t know.” So, when scientists state the origin of something in our universe is random, they do not know the origin.

It is common in the sciences to claim aspects of our universe are random:

In evolution, mutations are random.
In quantum physics, the wave collapse is random.
In biology, much of the genome is random.
In business theory, organizational ecologists state new ideas are random.

There is a general idea that everything new has its origins in randomness. This is because within our current philosophy of science, the two fundamental causes in our universe boil down to randomness and necessity. Since necessity never creates anything new, then by process of elimination the source of newness must be randomness. Similar to how the ancient Greeks believed the universe originated from chaos.
Read More

How should we wage battle in the war on lies? As in everything, we must follow Jesus’s lead. First John 3:8 tells us, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Jesus came to destroy the work of the Devil, and the work of the Devil is spreading lies. Our part in this war is similar: we must labor to destroy the Devil’s work by resisting lies. That’s why our motto should be “Live not by lies.”

For the past decade, we’ve been living in what many scholars and cultural observers call the “post-truth” age.
The Oxford Dictionary—which named “post-truth” its word of the year in 2016—defines this term as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
While skepticism toward truth claims is nothing new, the past two decades have been distinguished by several factors that amplify the post-truth phenomenon. Social media’s rise has created echo chambers where misinformation can spread rapidly and unchecked. The decline in the influence of traditional information gatekeepers—such as established media outlets, universities, and religious institutions—has led to a fragmentation of shared narratives. And the increasing polarization of society has made many people more likely to accept information that confirms their existing beliefs, regardless of its factual basis.
This post-truth age poses profound challenges for Jesus followers. How does the church proclaim the gospel in a world where all truth claims are viewed with suspicion? How do we engage in meaningful dialogue when emotional resonance often trumps logical argument? And perhaps most critically, how do we maintain the integrity of our witness when the very concept of objective truth is under assault?
Truth, Lies, and the Devil
Before we can answer such questions about the post-truth world, we should first answer the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus: “What is truth?” (John 18:38).
The best definition of truth, and one presupposed by Scripture, is that which corresponds to God’s reality. As philosopher J. P. Moreland explains, according to the correspondence theory of truth, “truth is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) corresponding to reality.” Christians have a special relationship to truth since, as Scripture tells us, the ultimate reality—the most really real thing of all—is Jesus (John 14:6).
The opposite of truth is untruth or lies. When we say something is a lie, we mean it doesn’t correspond to reality. And if it doesn’t align with reality, it doesn’t align with the ultimate reality—Jesus. If it doesn’t correspond to reality, it’s in opposition to Jesus.
A lie is making an untrue statement or acting in such a way as to leave a false or misleading impression, especially with the intent to deceive someone who is deserving of the truth (and there are few situations where hearers are not deserving of truth [e.g., Josh. 2:4]). A lie is in opposition to the truth, and thus in opposition to Jesus. Post-truth is the phenomenon where public opinion is shaped more by unreality than reality, by lies rather than objective truth.
John Mark Comer notes that “the problem [today] is less that we tell lies and more that we live them; we let false narratives about reality into our bodies, and they wreak havoc in our souls.” In this post-truth world, we’re in the latest stage of what Comer calls the “war on lies.”
We’re both in a war on lies and with the one who started the war—the Devil. In John 8:44, Jesus says about the Devil, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
The Devil has many things he can do, many ways he can harm humans, such as demonic possession and affliction. But his most powerful and effective tools are often more subtle. In 1836, John Wilkinson wrote, “One of the artifices of Satan is to induce men to believe that he does not exist.” A corollary for our age is that a primary artifice of the Devil is to induce men to act as if objective truth doesn’t exist.
The most effective means the Devil has of introducing evil into this world is to tell lies and encourage humans to spread them. That’s why there’s a war between truth and lies—and why everyone must choose a side. We either choose to side with reality and Jesus or we choose to side with Satan and lies.
If you side with Satan, you’ll be enslaved by lies. If you side with Jesus, then as John 8:32 tells us, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Those are our only two options.
To be effective in this war on lies, we must know what we’re fighting against, have a strategy for engagement, and develop tactics to implement our strategy.
Four Fronts in the War
There are numerous battle lines within this war, but four are primary.
1. Emotional Untruth
As a manifestation of the post-truth phenomenon, this occurs when people prioritize their feelings, intuitions, or emotional responses over objective facts or empirical evidence. At its core, emotional untruth reflects the human tendency to trust our gut feelings and personal experiences more than abstract data or expert opinions. This can be particularly powerful when the emotional response is tied to deeply held beliefs, personal identities, or traumatic experiences.
Emotional responses aren’t inherently negative or irrational, as they can often serve as valuable intuitive guides, especially in individual social situations. However, problems arise when we allow our emotions to consistently override factual information, leading to decisions or beliefs disconnected from objective reality.
2. Narrative Untruth
This refers to the phenomenon where people accept or believe something because it fits into a compelling storyline or explanation, regardless of its factual accuracy. This type of post-truth thinking capitalizes on the human tendency to make sense of the world through stories. We are, by nature, storytelling creatures, and we often find it easier to understand and remember information when it’s presented in a narrative format.
Narrative untruth’s power lies in its ability to provide a sense of coherence and meaning to complex or chaotic events, to offer simple explanations for difficult problems, and to reinforce existing beliefs or worldviews.
This can be a particularly seductive type of lie because it often contains elements of factual truth interwoven with speculation, exaggeration, or outright falsehoods. This mixture can make it challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction, especially when the narrative aligns with one’s preexisting beliefs or desires.
Unsupported conspiracy theories are the most obvious type of narrative untruths. But an even more common form, especially on social media, is the oversimplified or distorted narrative of current events. These narratives take complex social, political, or religious issues and reduce them to simple, emotionally charged stories that often vilify one group while glorifying another.
For example, a complex debate about how to respond to a political issue might be reduced to a meme portraying one political faction as purely evil and the other as entirely virtuous. Or a nuanced social issue might be boiled down to a viral video that presents only one perspective, ignoring important context and alternative, biblically valid viewpoints.
These narratives spread rapidly through likes, shares, and comments, often reaching millions of people before fact-checkers or more balanced perspectives can catch up. The danger lies in their ability to shape public opinion and even influence real-world actions based on incomplete or distorted information.
3. Tribalistic Untruth
The philosopher Richard Rorty once claimed that “truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with saying.” He was suggesting truth is a social construct influenced by the norms, beliefs, and power structures of a given time and place. A corollary to this claim is “tribal truth”—that truth becomes what your tribe lets you get away with saying.
An individual’s “tribe” is the “in-group,” the group a person belongs to and feels a strong sense of identification with.
Read More
Related Posts:

Taking disciplined time away from screens may not be the only way to live in the digital world without being conformed to it, but it is one good way. Over time, the gravitational pull of our phones may grow weaker, and we may find ourselves drawn into a different, far better orbit: the bright, life-giving sun of God himself.

A few years ago, a group of cognitive and behavioral psychologists took five hundred college students, split them into three groups, and gave them two tests. The groups were alike in every way except one: the placement of their phones. The first group had their phones screen-down on the table; the second had their phones in their pockets; the third didn’t have their phones at all. You probably can see where this is going.
Though the phones of all three groups were on silent, and though few students said they felt distracted by their phones, the test scores followed an inverse relationship to the nearness of the device. On average, the closer the phone, the lower the grade. Nicholas Carr, who discusses this study in the 2020 afterword to his book The Shallows, summarizes the psychologists’ troubling conclusion:

Smartphones have become so tied up in our lives that, even when we’re not peering or pawing at them, they tug at our attention, diverting precious cognitive resources. Just suppressing the desire to check a phone, which we do routinely and subconsciously throughout the day, can debilitate our thinking. (230)

The finding — corroborated by similar studies — gives clear expression to the vague sense many feel: our phones shape us not only, perhaps not even mainly, by the content they deliver to us, but also by the mere presence of something so pleasing, so undemanding, so endlessly interesting. Smartphones, though small, exert a (subconscious) gravitational pull on our attention, drawing our thoughts and feelings into their orbit, even when their screens are dark.
Which means, if Christians are going to heed the summons of Romans 12:2 in a smartphone age — “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” — we will need to do more than resist the false content on our phones. We will need to resist the false gravitational presence our phones so subtly exert upon us.
And to that end, we might find help from an ancient practice: Sabbath.
Our Intimate Companion
Before considering what the Sabbath might mean for our screens, take fresh stock of where we are. The smartphone entered the world in 2007; by 2011, most of us had one. Now, just over a decade later, most of us have a hard time remembering life without one. Screens have become ubiquitous, seemingly inescapable — digital Alexanders who conquered our consciousness overnight.
For many, our phones are the first face we see in the morning, the last at night, and by far the most frequent in between. We have become a sea of bent heads and sore thumbs, adept at navigating sidewalks and store aisles with our peripheral vision. Phones have become so thoroughly embedded with mind and body that many feel phantom vibrations and find their hand repeatedly twitching, unbidden, toward the pocket. As of two years ago, the average American spends at least half his waking hours on a screen (The Shallows, 227).
Where shall we go from this digital spirit? Or where shall we flee from its presence? If we ascend to heaven, airplanes offer WiFi. If we make our bed in darkness, something buzzes on the nightstand. If we take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there 5G coverage will keep us within reach.
The stupendous prevalence of our phones may not be a problem if we knew a screen-saturated existence improved our quality of life and helped us follow Jesus more faithfully. Unfortunately, we have many reasons to think it doesn’t.
Digitized, Dehumanized
The irony has not escaped me that I am currently staring at a screen, and so (most likely) are you. Lest I saw off the branch I’m sitting on, let it be said: Our phones and other screens are gifts to thank God for. So much good can be done by them and through them. The need of the hour is not to shoot these wild stallions dead, but to tame them and harness their power.
But oh how they need taming. Jean Twenge, in her carefully researched book iGen, includes a graph that shows how much certain screen activities (like gaming, texting, and social networking) and certain nonscreen activities (like exercising, reading, and spending time with friends) contribute to teens’ happiness. She writes,

The results could not be clearer: teens who spend more time on screen activities…are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time on nonscreen activities . . . are more likely to be happy. There’s not a single exception: all screen activities are linked to less happiness, and all nonscreen activities are linked to more happiness. (77–78)

And as with happiness, so with other categories of mental health: “More screen time causes more anxiety, depression, loneliness, and less emotional connection” (112).
Read More
Related Posts: