It is often claimed that education should be neutral about the existence of God, religion and moral values. Atheist humanists frequently campaign against ‘faith schools’, complaining if they teach children to believe or behave like Christians.
Does this claim stack up?
In this resource, Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe looks at whether this is desirable – and if it is even possible.
Some thought experiments on neutrality
To assess the claim of the possibility of neutrality in education it is worth conducting a few thought experiments about neutrality in education.
Let’s imagine a school decides to be neutral on morality. Is that actually possible? Could a school be neutral on whether stealing is wrong? Or whether cheating is wrong? Surely not! Any school must advocate for some moral values. It will inevitably teach a certain set of moral values to its pupils. The question then arises as to from where it obtains these moral values?
Perhaps the school will claim that certain moral values are ‘self-evident’. But then, how do we decide what is ‘self-evident’ and what is not? Why then do different cultures and different people disagree on moral questions? Even if some moral values are ‘self-evident’ this still begs the question as to where they come from and why they are self-evident? Moral laws surely point to a moral law giver?
Now, let’s imagine a school decides to be neutral on the value of education. Surely that is not sustainable? Any school must value education since that is its purpose. It cannot be neutral on the value of education.
What if we imagine a school deciding to be neutral on all religions and worldviews? This school will take no position on the vast array of opposing viewpoints and beliefs. Pupils will be allowed to believe whatever worldview they like, and the school will not pass judgement. Would it make a difference if a pupil’s worldview was racist? Would it matter if a pupil’s worldview encouraged violence towards unbelievers? Would it matter if a pupil’s worldview encouraged rape and abuse of girls in class? This may sound extreme, but there will be pupils who believe these things. They may well be exposed to ‘toxic’ views online such as Andrew Tate, for example. In fact, neutrality on worldviews is not possible. An attempted ‘neutral’ worldview is actually a worldview itself. There is no escaping having a worldview.
This reminds me of a heated conversation I had with my boss when I was in secular work. He argued: “The thing is, Tim, you are coming at this from a particular worldview!” To which I replied: “So are you!” This reply shocked him as he realised that he couldn’t claim that he didn’t have a worldview!
Imagine this scenario: a school decides that it will adopt a position of neutrality on the existence of God. This school will therefore teach children that it takes no position on whether God exists. Children will be free to make up their own minds on the question. This may sound laudable in today’s pluralistic society, but realise that this means it will be implicitly teaching the children that the existence of God is not important. Whilst this may promote respect for different views, this teaches the children that it is possible and reasonable for them to be neutral on the existence of God. But that is simply false. It is not actually possible to be neutral on the existence of God. God is constantly seeking to capture our attention and to get us to obey our consciences and to recognise that He is our creator. Disregarding the existence of God is actually supressing the witness of the Holy Spirit to his existence.
As Romans says:
“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 people are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).
There is no excuse for not recognising the existence of God.
Furthermore, being neutral on the existence of God means actively promoting the idea that belief in God is unimportant. It is a deliberate rejection of the Biblical revelation of the Christian God who holds everything together and who is the source of all truth and the source of all meaning in the universe. A neutral perspective on God’s relevance to education is tantamount to an atheist perspective on the curriculum. It claims that we can make sense of the world independent of God and that God does not provide the underlying meaning behind our learning. It denies that God is at all relevant to the subjects we study. Ultimately, this is really an anti-Christian perspective.
So, can a school be religiously neutral? Obviously not. There is no neutral position on religion. The claim of ‘neutrality’ is a claim that it is better to take a ‘neutral’ position on religious claims than to take a specific position. That, itself, is not a neutral position to take. You can’t be neutral when it comes to religion.
As C.S. Lewis famously stated:
“There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan”[1]
This is certainly true of education. No doubt Satan is very happy with schools teaching ‘neutrality’ with respect to his existence! Satan is very interested in mentally vaccinating young minds against the truth claims of Christianity.
My story
My own story illustrates the myth of neutrality in education. I was brought up in a Christian family. We went to church and Christian youth clubs. But then I went to secondary school. There I was taught the standard curriculum by my teachers. I’m quite sure they would claim that religion didn’t enter the classroom – except in religious studies where any religious claims were never taught as fact. Science and history and other subjects were all taught as fact, however. Without any teacher explicitly stating it, I took the assumed worldview from what we were taught as some form of scientism. Basically, science was held up as the great arbiter of truth and explainer of the universe. I liked science and I accepted this worldview. I believed that science could explain everything. This led me in my teenage years to become a very convinced atheist. If science could explain everything then there was no room for God. I even took this mix of scientism and atheism to its logical conclusion and decided that free will was an illusion and that there were no moral values and no purpose to life. God had to shake me out of this nihilistic nonsense. My point is that pupils will easily see the logical consequences not just of what is being taught, but of how it is being taught.
No one explicitly taught me to be an atheist, I reached that conclusion as the logical consequence of how and what I was being taught at school.
But let’s take C.S. Lewis’s claim further. What about neutrality in the curriculum? Surely teaching a subject like Maths can be religiously neutral? Let’s assess the claim of neutrality in the curriculum, and let’s start with maths.
Mathematics
Let’s take a simple mathematical equation like this one:
5 + 7 = 12
There is only one correct answer to the question what is five plus seven. The correct answer is twelve. There are an infinite number of wrong answers!
Let us consider, where is it true that 5 + 7 = 12? Is it just true in the West? Is it just true where humans can add beyond 10? It is true anywhere on earth? Is it true where there are no humans? Is it true anywhere in the universe? In fact, as you have no doubt realised, this simple mathematical equation is actually omnipresent! It is true everywhere in the universe. It is inescapable and unavoidable.
When is it true that 5 + 7 = 12? Is it only true today? Was it true yesterday? Will it be true tomorrow? Was it true before humans existed? Will it be true at the end of the world? You guessed it – this mathematical truth is eternal. It is true throughout time and for all eternity it will remain true. It is also immutable. The answer to 5 + 7 will never change. Furthermore, it is immaterial. This truth exists in our minds without any substance. So mathematical truths transcend culture, time and space. They are immutable and immaterial.
Humans clearly cannot invent eternal omnipresent things. Therefore, mathematics is discovered, not invented. The eternal omnipresent immaterial and immutable nature of mathematical truths points to an eternal omnipresent immutable and immaterial source of mathematical truth. Thus, mathematics points to a transcendent, omnipresent, eternal, immutable, and immaterial God!
Maybe you never thought of maths in that way? Maybe you thought maths was neutral? But it can’t be neutral when you think about it? Where does maths come from? What does it point to? Is it a human construct? But no human construct can be eternal! Yet if young people are taught that maths is mere human invention this will lead them to think that maths is independent of God, which will in turn encourage them to live their own lives independent of God.
Cornelius Van Til put it this way:
“Now the fact that two times two are four does not mean the same thing to you as a believer and to someone else as an unbeliever. When you think of two times two as four, you connect this fact with numerical law. And when you connect this fact with numerical law, you must connect numerical law with all law. The question you face, then, is whether law exists in its own right or is an expression of the will and nature of God. Thus the fact that two times two equal four enables you to implicate yourself more deeply into the nature and will of God. When an unbeliever says that two times two are four, he will also be led to connect this fact with the whole idea of law; but he will regard this law as independent of God. Thus the fact that two times two are four enables him, so he thinks, to get farther away from God. That fact will place the unbeliever before a whole sea of possibilities in which he may seek to realise his life away from God.”[2]
In short, does your view of maths lead you towards God or away from God?
J. Gresham Machen explained:
“A Christian boy or girl can learn mathematics, for example, from a teacher who is not a Christian; and truth is truth however learned. But while truth is truth however learned, the bearings of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian; and that is why a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all, of the curriculum of the school.”[3]
All truth is God’s truth – and that includes mathematical truth. But all truth needs an explanation. Where does it come from? What does it point to? What is its purpose? In this sense no subject can be religiously neutral.
The non-neutrality of maths was illustrated in a recent news story which exposed a $1m ‘Dismantling Racism in Mathematics’ program funded by Bill Gates. The program tells teachers not to push students to find the correct answer because this allegedly promotes white supremacy![4] ‘The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false,’ reads the manual. ‘Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates “objectivity.”‘ I find it interesting that they think that objectivity is ‘false’! Is it objectively false or just subjectively false? You can’t escape from objectivity.
Logic is an aspect of mathematics. It is also eternal, omnipresent, immaterial, and immutable. The law of non-contradiction states that: “Two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.” This has always been true and is true everywhere. In fact, you can prove anything from a contradiction.[5] Mathematicians use proof by contradiction to prove that certain statements are false – since they lead to a contradiction.[6]
The law of non-contradiction reflects the character of God. God will never contradict himself. He is fully trustworthy and reliable. Hence there are no contradictions in the universe he created which is why the law of non-contradiction is true.
Maths, then, is far from being religiously neutral. The laws of maths point to the great mathematician and logician. What about science?
Science
It is worth quoting C.S. Lewis again:
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, & they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”[7]
Or, to put it another way, the laws of science point to a scientific law maker. It is no accident that science flourished in countries where Christianity took root. Discoverable laws of science require a law giver. The whole realm of science requires belief in a real world ‘out there’ which is independent of mind, language or theory. It requires the belief that the underlying nature of the world is orderly and governed by laws, which implies that it is created by an orderly law giver. Science requires belief in objective truth about the world and the objective truth of the laws of logic and mathematics pointing to a truthful and trustworthy God. Science also requires belief that human sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable – which does not make sense if they arose as a result of random processes. The fact that the laws of science are discoverable points to a God who intended them to be discoverable by humans. It is no surprise that virtually every major scientist from the 13th century to the 18th century explained his motivations in religious terms.
I remember being very impressed by Newton’s law of universal gravitation when I was at school. This law is expressed by a simple mathematical equation:
This means that the gravitational force between any two objects is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. It is a striking result, and it applies throughout the universe. It has been proven to apply not only between gigantic planets, but right down to distances of 56 thousandths of a millimetre. G is the gravitational constant. Scientists estimate that if G varied by one part in 1060, then life could not exist in the universe.[8] In other words it is very precisely tuned for life.
But laws like Newton’s raise big questions. Why should science obey maths? Why should scientific laws be so neatly expressible in mathematical terms? That might sound like a silly question, but many scientists have puzzled about it. Back when Galileo was disputing about the nature of the universe using mathematical reasoning, one of his accusers claimed it was crazy to assume that maths applies to science. Here’s what he said:
“Before we consider Galileo’s demonstrations, it seems necessary to prove how far from the truth are those who wish to prove natural facts by means of mathematical reasoning, among whom, if I am not mistaken, is Galileo. All the sciences have their own principles and their own causes by means of which they demonstrate the special properties of their own object. It follows that we are not allowed to use the principles of one science to prove the properties of another. Therefore, anyone who thinks he can prove natural properties with mathematical argument is simply demented, for the two sciences are very different.”[9]
Galileo, it was argued, was “simply demented” for thinking that maths applies to science! People saw no reason why maths should apply to science and thought it was crazy to assume that it did!
In more modern times, scientists have expressed astonishment at the fact that scientific laws follow mathematical equations. Albert Einstein said this:
“How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality.”[10]
Nobel prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner even wrote an article entitled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” Here he wrote:
“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.“[11]
Richard Feynman, another Nobel prize winning physicist said:
“I find it quite amazing that it is possible to predict what will happen by mathematics, which is simply following rules which really have nothing to do with the original thing.”[12]
Yet another Nobel prize winning physicist, Stephen Weinberg said:
“It is positively spooky how the physicist finds the mathematician has been there before him or her.”[13]
‘Spooky’ is not language you expect from a physicist! He clearly believed that the applicability of maths to science is inexplicable. But it is only inexplicable if you choose to disbelieve in God. Once you accept the existence of a creator God, who is both the ultimate mathematician and the ultimate scientist, the applicability of maths to science makes perfect sense. Our creator God is the source of all mathematical truths and logic and He decided to apply them to formulate scientific laws.
As Professor Robin George Collingwood expressed it:
“The possibility of applied mathematics is an expression, in terms of natural science, of the Christian belief that nature is the creation of an omnipotent God.”[14]
The applicability of maths to the laws of science demonstrates that the scientific legislator was also a mathematician. It also shows, once again, that maths is not invented, but discovered. A ‘neutral’ position on how maths applies to science is really a position of choosing to disbelieve that the origin of maths is the same as the origin of science – a great creator God who is the ultimate mathematician and scientist.
Then there is the whole subject of design in nature. Many books have been written on this, but in short, the abundant evidence of design clearly points to a great designer. This is the essence of Romans 1:20 cited above.
Furthermore, scientific inquiry prompts some fairly obvious questions about life. Where did the universe come from? How did life begin? Did humans evolve by survival of the fittest? What does that say about human nature? Are we descended from apes? Why is the school telling me to behave differently to animals then? In what ways are humans different from animals? Why are we here? There are no neutral answers to any of these questions. Any attempt to be neutral, as happened in my own school, will lead students like my teenage self to believe that there are no answers to why humans are any different to animals and why any different behaviour should be expected.
English and Languages
When pupils study English, they study both English language and English literature. The study of language demonstrates that language follows rules. Who invented these rules? How come we can communicate verbally and in writing? It is a remarkable thing to be able to communicate our immaterial thoughts in writing. How did that originate? Is communication merely subjective? Is communication merely a product of human evolution? Is there a ‘neutral’ interpretation of a text? Is there an intended meaning? Is the intended meaning the only valid interpretation or are there others? There are no neutral answers to these questions.
As Christians we know that God is a communicator. He communicates to us in human language – primarily in written form in the Bible. We are communicators because we are in the image of God. We can understand the author’s intended meaning. We can even understand God’s intended meaning in his communication to us. Every text communicates from within a worldview. There is no neutral worldview.
If there was any doubt about the non-neutrality of English it can be seen in the way it is taught today in A-level and above. The subject of ‘English Literature’ has become feminist and woke studies. Students are regularly asked to write a feminist interpretation of a text. A-Level students are asked whether Shakespeare was a feminist! Students are asked to assess texts affirming queer theory and other ideologies. The whole decolonialisation campaign in universities is rife with woke ideologies. See, for example this statement from Nottingham University:
“Decolonising the curriculum is about recognising and challenging the colonial roots and Western biases of what we teach, how we teach it, and what we value in our students’ work.”
This means challenging the Christian roots of the moral values of much of English literature.
“The challenge to decolonise the curriculum emerges from critical race studies but, as we develop our teaching, we can and should also be thinking about gender, sexuality, disability, and social class.”
Note the uncritical acceptance of critical race studies.
“We have considered how our teaching of Shakespeare can move beyond his identification as the archetypal dead white male author, and consider the fact that his works have always been appropriated to speak for disenfranchised groups as well as those in power. This module decentres the author and instead privileges the diverse range of practitioners and interpreters who have re-performed Shakespeare to speak to different moments and communities. We work on productions directed by and cast with diverse practitioners across race, gender, dis/ability and language, and our secondary reading draws on a wide range of critical approaches (including Critical Race Studies, Queer/Trans Theory, Feminism and Global Shakespeare studies) to support students in continuing the work of decolonising Shakespeare.”[15]
So, this is about reinterpreting Shakespeare through the lenses of Critical Race Studies, Queer theory, and Feminism. Forget Shakespeare’s intended meaning.
Such an approach is very far from neutral. A whole generation of students are absorbing woke ideology through studying English.
The same sort of thing applies to the study of foreign languages. What lenses will they be studied through? What kind of literature will be studied? Is faithful communication in translation possible? Why do we have different languages? How did languages originate? What is the purpose behind learning another language? There are no neutral answers here.
Art and Music
God is also the ultimate artist. He created all the beauty in the world – fresh sunrises and sunsets every day. In fact, fresh scenes the whole time. Humans are in his image and are therefore creative themselves. God wants us to be creative for his glory and to bless others. Godly art will be objectively beautiful and will lead believers to praise and adoration of our wonderful creative God. Yes, there is objective beauty. Beauty is not merely subjective as our postmodern culture would have you believe. Some things are objectively more beautiful than others. God’s own perspective is the ultimate standard for beauty.
All art is communicating something. It comes from an assumed worldview. It carries a message. It arouses certain emotions and responses. In this sense, there is no neutral art. Attempts to entirely subjectify art are rebelling against objective values and thus ultimately rebelling against God. Modern works of ‘art’ such as Marcel Duchamp’s famous Fountain which is merely a male urinal are deliberate attempts to undermine true beauty and creativity. Incredibly, this was cited “One of the first pieces of conceptual art” as by a teacher in Afghanistan to try to persuade Afghans of the value of Western culture![16] What the Afghans learnt, as is evident from their facial expressions in the video recording of the incident, is that the West has entirely lost its way.
Philippians 4:8 says: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.”
Yes, that means there is objective truth, nobility, purity, loveliness, admirability, excellence and praiseworthiness. That is not what you will learn in most art lessons these days. Art is very far from neutral.
This is not to say that we should not also sometimes depict pain and suffering in art too. Art can and should be powerfully used to portray some of the horrors of our fallen world and to motivate people to action against injustice. This is not to glorify evil, but to object to it. Art which glorifies evil, immorality or violence is clearly rebelling against God’s moral laws. Art which complains against the fallenness and evils in the world is noble and worthy of respect and praise in the sense that Philippians 4:8 means.
The same sorts of ideas apply to music. God is the ultimate musician. Music touches our emotions and communicates values. There is objective skill and beauty in music. Musicians write from an assumed worldview. Music that intentionally breaks the natural, proportional relationships between notes (like serialism) is objectively different to music that seeks to honour those relationships. Without even considering lyrics, the music of J.S. Bach and Arnold Schoenberg display radically different values to one another. When you also consider lyrics, and how music is used, you can see that popular music is advocating immorality in ever more explicit manners. It is not neutral.
History
From a Christian perspective, all of history fits into His-Story. God has been at work throughout history. The Bible is history. There are lessons to learn from history – moral lessons and spiritual lessons. There is objective truth in history. There is no neutral perspective on history. Every historian is approaching the historical task with an assumed worldview. We can and should try to learn lessons from history – surely this is a key message of the Bible. We can also try to discern God’s role in history. I co-authored a book on this very subject: Beyond the Odds: Providence in Britain’s Wars of the 20th Century.[17] We sought to demonstrate the vital role that prayer played in key events in Britain’s 20th century wars.
There was a very interesting court case about the nature of history back in 2000. Holocaust denier, David Irving, had accused Deborah Lipstadt of libel. The defence relied on proving the historicity of the holocaust. No eyewitnesses gave evidence in the trial, so it was all about historical research. Thankfully, Lipstadt won. Emminent historian, Richard Evans, who acted as an expert witness in the trial reflected on the significance of the case a couple of years later:
“The trial demonstrated triumphantly the ability of historical scholarship to reach reasoned conclusions about the Nazi exterminating of the Jews on the basis of careful examination of the written evidence. It vindicated our capacity to know what happened after the survivors are no longer around to tell the tale. It showed that we can know beyond reasonable doubt, even if explaining and understanding will always be a matter for debate.”[18]
This is a good example of the reality of objective truth in history. As we plumb the depths of the postmodern turn, such objectivity is denied, and some historians argue that knowledge relies only on shared experience. For example, Laura Lee Downs, Professor of History writes:
“Only those who share the group identity and have lived experience, whether seen as biologically given or socially constructed can know what it means to be black, a woman, blue collar, or ethnic, in an America constructed as white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.”[19]
Richard Evans takes this kind of idea to its logical conclusion:
“The ultimate implication indeed is that no one can know anything beyond their own bodily identity. Experience is the sole arbiter of truth. There is no universal truth, only truths particular to specific groups of people.”[20]
The ultimate implication would be that no understanding of truth from history is possible. Only autobiography. But Jesus’ resurrection is a universal objective historical truth. This is what the Bible explicitly teaches. This reveals just how anti-Christian subjectivising history really is!
Ultimately, history is the story of the conflict between good and evil – between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Jonathan Edwards, in his History of the Work of Redemption, surmised that history shows “How shortlived the power and prosperity of the church’s enemies is.”[21] We say that history will judge how people acted in current affairs. In fact, it is God himself who will judge. History in this sense is a stage. We all have a role to play, and we will all be judged for how well we played it. There is no neutral perspective on history.
Geography
When we talk of physical geography, the question of origins and the purpose of this remarkable planet naturally arise. Was there a universal flood by which God judged the whole of humanity? How did this affect the physical geography of the planet?
As 2 Peter 3:3-7 says:
“Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
Physical geography is not neutral.
As for human geography, at present this suffers from cultural relativism. But it is just not true that all cultures are morally equal. Some cultures are objectively better than others – in their treatment of women or their acceptance of slavery for example. We can and should make moral judgements about cultural practices. Neither are political and economic practices morally neutral. Human geography is not neutral either.
Conclusion
I think we have covered all the main subjects studied at school, with the notable exception of religious studies. I hope it goes without saying that religions and worldviews are not equally true. God wants all people everywhere to be saved. One of my sons was actually taught in a Church of England school that Islam is better for women than Christianity! This is the opposite of the truth. Religious studies cannot be taught from a neutral perspective. Teaching it from a so-called neutral perspective to children will relativise and ‘neutralise’ Christian belief.
The idea that education can be neutral is a myth. There is always an assumed worldview and pupils will naturally pick up on this. As our culture becomes progressively more dismissive or even intolerant of Christianity, schools are increasingly becoming dismissive or even intolerant of Christian perspectives. This is as we should expect.
What can be done? Parents are the primary educators of their children. Parents can and should discuss with their children what they are being taught and explain a Christian perspective on it. Many parents, however, are deciding that enough is enough, when it comes to state indoctrination of Children against Christian values. Particularly when it comes to the sexualisation of young children with explicit sex and relationships lessons and the normalising of immorality and alternative families through all the subjects in the curriculum. They are setting up new schools or joining home-schooling communities. You need to pray about how God is calling you to educate your children.
Neutrality is a myth. Education that enlightens young minds to the truth and wonder of our amazing creator God and all that he has done in the world is possible and happening today in the UK. What will you choose?
References
[1] Lewis, C. S. (1967), Christian Reflections (Eerdmans) 33.
[2] Louis Berkhof and Cornelius Van Til, Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers (ed.) Dennis E. Johnson (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub, 1990), 7-8.
[3] J. Gresham Machen, The necessity of the Christian School, Lecture, 1933.
https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/necessity.html
[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9717063/Educators-slam-math-workbook-claims-racist-ask-students-right-answer.html
[5] Here’s how in a short example. Let’s prove that pigs can fly. We will start by assuming two contradictory statements are both true.
(A) All humans are male or female.
And (B) Not all humans are male or female.
The truth of (A) implies: (C) All humans are male or female OR Pigs can fly.
The truth of (B) and (C) implies: (D) Pigs can fly.
[6] For example, Euclid’s proof that there is an infinite number of prime numbers starts by assuming that there is a finite number of prime numbers and proving that this leads to a contradiction.
https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/cyc/p/primeprf.htm
[7] Lewis, C. S. (1960), Miracles: A Preliminary Study (London: Fontana Books), 110.
[8] https://www.wordonthestreets.net/Articles/583662/The_fine_tuning.aspx
[9] Vincenzo di Grazia, Considerazioni, 1613, Philosophy Professor at the University of Piza
Cited in: Mario Livio, 2010, Is God a Mathematician?, 72-73.
[10] Cited in: Livio, Mario (2011), Is God a Mathematician? (Simon & Schuster) p1.
[11] Wigner, Eugene (1960), ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13. https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf.
[12] Cited in: Mark Steiner, 1998, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, Harvard University Press, 14.
[13] Cited in: Mark Steiner, 1998, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, Harvard University Press, 13.
[14] Cited in: Nancy Pearcy, 2005, Total Truth, Crossway, p43.
[15] https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/about/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/decolonising-the-curriculum-in-english-studies-at-uon.aspx.
[16] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/marcel-duchamp-toilet-afghanistan-conceptual-art/
[17] John Scriven, and Tim Dieppe, Beyond the Odds: Providence in Britain’s Wars of the 20th Century, Wilberforce Publications (2021). Available on Amazon here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Odds-Providence-Britains-Century/dp/1916121128/
[18] Richard Evans, Telling Lies About Hitler, Verso (2002), 272.
[19] Cited in: Richard Evans, In Defence of History, Granta Books (2000), 211.
[20] Richard Evans, In Defence of History, Granta Books (2000), 211.
[21] Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. J. F. Wilson; vol. 9; London: Yale University Press, 1989), 113.
