I wasn’t surprised when I read this article that cited a study revealing that, “when we fall under the spell of a charismatic figure, areas of the brain responsible for scepticism and vigilance become less active.”

The research used MRIs to examine the brains of believers and non-believers as they listened to pre-recorded prayers from someone posing as a faith healer. “Parts of the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices, which play key roles in vigilance and scepticism when judging the truth and importance of what people say, were deactivated when the subjects listened to a supposed healer,” the study noted.

This research is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine if scientists were to explore the effects of certain subtle keywords and phrases, musical stimuli or hearing someone speaking in tongues. From experience I can say I have sat through Christian events and accepted things being said—only to later evaluate them in a more neutral (and biblical) light and realize that I had been completely hoodwinked.

Often in these settings, music was being played in the background, statements were prefaced with phrases such as “The Bible says …” and “The Lord told me …” or the speaker was introduced as “a pastor of a great church” or “a man used mightily by God.” Of course, these are subtle—and mostly unintentional—cues that have become part of religious subcultures. However, in some settings, the manipulation is anything but subtle, as audiences are instructed to “shut down your mind” or “don’t question what God is doing.”

I’ve learned–sometimes the hard way–that any religious system that openly discourages discernment, critical thought or reflection and instead encourages us to evaluate truth based on our feelings and emotional responses should be avoided.

I would point out that this phenomena is not exclusive to flakey Christians. Have you ever sat through a visually-stunning film or listened to a moving musical performance, only to realize after the fact that you were manipulated into accepting the artist’s worldview by the aesthetic appeal of their art?

One of the books I read over my Christmas vacation was John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate—highly recommended for anyone unsatisfied with the major interpretations of Genesis 1: Young Earth Creationism and the Framework, Day-Age and Gap Theories.

For instance, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) had become increasingly problematic for me, as I read about the geological and astronomical evidence for an ancient universe and began to ponder the theological significance of living in a cosmos that was created 14 billion years before my arrival. Additionally, I did not see an exegetical necessity for a 6,000-year-old earth and found increasingly problematic YEC’s extreme attempts to reconcile scientific evidence with their biblical interpretation.

Although it is built on solid Ancient Near Eastern scholarship, Walton’s book is brief and highly accessible to the average reader. The core of his argument is this: The author of Genesis 1 was not attempting to argue that God created the material substance of the universe—his ancient readers would have all assumed this to be true. Instead, Genesis 1 is an account of God’s ordering and arranging the cosmos into a temple which would reflect His glory and from which He would rule. With this view, Walton argues, it is unimportant whether one believes the universe is 6,000 years old or 14 billion years old, because this is simply not what Genesis 1 is about.

I picked up Hugh Ross’s Creation as Science several years ago and haven’t bothered to read it until recently. Ross is an astronomer, an evangelical and the founder of Reasons to Believe, a ministry whose mission is to “show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.”

If you believe in a 6,000-year-old earth and that creation occurred in seven 24-hour days, the book may challenge your worldview. (Ross effectively argues for a 13.73 billion-year-old universe that began with a God-initiated Big Bang.) He also takes on classic evolutionists, traditional creationists and IDers as well, in a tone that is both respectful to those with whom he disagrees and reverent toward Scripture.

The most amazing effect of the book, though, is that I have found myself utterly amazed at God. The profound size and age of the universe and infinitesimal conditions that are required for life on this unique planet make not believing in God a joke. Ross spends almost no time defending the existence of God—he merely lays out the facts, and it becomes obvious.

Here’s just one item that will blow your mind:

“… Astronomers determine that the entire observable universe contains at least 200 billion galaxies. These galaxies contain an estimated average of 200 billion stars each. The total number of stars in these galaxies, then, is 40 billion trillion. The unobserved dwarf galaxies would contribute an estimated additional 10 billion trillion. Thus, the total number of stars in the observable universe adds up to about 50 billion trillion.”

Yeah, my mind can handle that just fine, but what about this?

“One reason the universe must be so massive is that life requires it. The density of protons and neutrons determines how much of the universe’s hydrogen fuses into heavier elements. With a slightly lower density (producing fewer than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be less productive and at no time in cosmic history (either in the big bang or in stars) would elements heavier than helium be produced. Or, if the density were slightly higher (producing more than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be so productive that only heavier-than-iron elements would exist. Either way, life-essential elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous would be too scarce or nonexistent.”

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20

Did you ever stop to consider that we as humans are able to experience only a minute fraction of Creation? Only 6,000 stars (at best) are visible to the naked eye. There are 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is only one of millions of galaxies. There are distant stars being formed whose light will not reach our planet for millions of years. Depending on your view on the age of the universe, there were stars burning, planets spinning, and countless creatures prowling the earth before we even arrived on the scene.

Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God–the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?

As much as I love scholarly interpretation tools for the Bible, I’ve always contended that “Joe Sixpack” with a good cross-reference Bible (preferably an NASB) would come to the same conclusions 90 percent of the time as a Ph.D. with access to a seminary library. The scriptures interpret themselves, and the image below illustrates that.Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). ” ‘It almost looks like one monolithic volume,’ said Carnegie Mellon’s Chris Harrison, who–along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany–won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.”