Runaway Planet

"THE LECTURE" BY MAGICIAN JAMES PIPER

A cool presentation by a friend of mine in the U.K.

THE FOUNDATIONLESS CHURCH

Cal Thomas makes many good points this column on the state of many American churches, including this astute observation about the recent move by the Episcopal church to allow gay clergy and weddings:

Denominational leaders explained they are attempting to stem the exodus from their church by embracing a new doctrine they call "inclusivity," which they hope will attract young people.

Apparently church leaders think that if they can reach people before they have fully matured in their faith, they can sidetrack them into beliefs that have nothing to do with the God that Episcopalians once claimed to worship and that they can be shaped into practical secularists who are willing to seek the approval of men, rather than God.

The ironic thing, of course, is that churches that embrace "inclusivity" don't attract many members and the exodus from their church will only escalate. In abandoning their reason for existence, the Episcopal church has also abandoned all the good reasons people once had for joining them.

8 BIG LIES ABOUT SALVATION AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Here is the first in a series of talks I gave recently in Canada. They are about popular propositions that produce false assurance of salvation in believers and spiritual weakness in the church. You can find the rest (in both MP3 audio and MP4 video format) here.

THIS IS YOUR MIND ON NEW AGE MYSTICISM

I realize that I may be the only that finds the self-refuting nonsense of new-age inspirational writers hilarious, but this heading to a Living Life Fully Daily Meditation made me laugh out loud:

Today's Quotation:

A cup is useful only when it is empty; and a mind that is filled with beliefs, with dogmas, with assertions, with quotations is really an uncreative mind.

J. Krishnamurti

So, let me paraphrase to see if I have this straight: "Quotation: Quotations are bunk and you shouldn't fill your mind with them. Assertions and beliefs are dangerous so I assert that you should believe this and accept it as domga: never accept dogmas."

"LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING I KNOW FOR SURE: I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE"

I got this funny and insightful email from listener Pete.

A few years ago Deepak Chopra appeared on Lee Strobel's TV program "Faith Under Fire" opposite Christian apologist Greg Koukl to talk about the "future of faith." Perhaps you guys have seen it… a very instructive exchange, as Deepak Chopra feigns open-mindedness and
Koukl demonstrates a vastly superior grasp of reason and logic.

But one of the funniest exchanges is when Chopra claims to "embrace" his own uncertainty. Actually on several occasions through the interview he champions his willingness to embrace his uncertainty, and points out proudly that in his books he talks about the "wisdom
of uncertainty" and then later mocks Koukl by saying "That's the difference between you and me… you're certain and I'm not." It's quite funny to watch.

Well, I started thinking… "What would Chopra's books look like if he was as uncertain as he claims?" Then I thought it'd be really funny to take a handful of Chopra's titles and alter them to reflect an author who really isn't sure of anything in particular. And so, I did just that. What follows are three of Chopra's book covers, actual vs. "altered", to demonstrate that Chopra's "open-mindedness" is merely a facade. He wants people to believe his way precisely because he thinks he's right… just like the rest of us.

DISCUSSION WITH AN ATHEIST CALLER

One of the clips over at DJEM TV, this is the radio show from May 4, 2009:

BLESSED ARE THE DOWN AND OUT

THE FIRE

WHY HE IS CALLED THE LAMB OF GOD

Here is my latest booklet as a free PDF download.

LINKS

Couple of articles to check out: Ron Dreher on silly gods and American idols and Frank Turek on sleeping with your girlfriend.

WHEN GOD SEEMS UNJUST

As a father of three young children, I am very familiar with the phrase "Daddy, that's not fair!" Appeals to justice ring out frequently in my home and I am often cited as the offending party. "You gave her more ice cream than me!" "You let her play the game longer than I did!" "I shouldn't have to go to bed so early!" From my kids' perspective, I could use a great deal of moral education and development.

In some instances, of course, they are right. I am far from perfect and sometimes their consciences correctly catch me treating them unfairly. However, most of the time they are wrong; there is no injustice taking place. There seems to me at least two common reasons for their mistakes.

First, they often don't have enough (or correct) information about the situation. They are ignorant or misinformed or both. For example, the girls may wrongly believe that they received different amounts of ice cream because the scoops were served in different sized bowls. Not yet knowing about optical illusions or how to measure volume, they perceive one helping as being bigger than the other even though they are not. When it comes to judging time, children simply don't understand that time seems to pass more quickly when you are enjoying yourself than when you are waiting to enjoy yourself. Not being able to use clocks as an objective standard by which to correctly evaluate how much time they each have spent playing games, they accuse me of being unfair based on faulty perceptions.

Second, they sometimes do not have a mature enough understanding of justice to make a proper judgment. For example, they might think I was unfair in not giving their baby brother any ice cream at all. In this instance they need to expand their definition of justice to something beyond "the same amount of stuff for everyone." The truth is, it is not unjust for me to withhold sweets from a baby. It is my ice cream and I can give it to whomever I please. If I deem it unwise to give unhealthy to a baby, that is a perfectly just decision. In fact, I wouldn't even have to give the girls equal portions and it would still be just, as it is my right as the owner to dispense it how I see fit. However, I don't expect the girls to have that sophisticated a conception of justice at age 4 or 7. That is one more example of where their understanding needs maturation.

I got thinking about this phenomenon the other day when a listener emailed me about the seeming injustice of God. He didn't see how it was fair that people who were basically good get sent to hell. (There was much more to the question and to my on-air response but for now I want to focus on one aspect of it.) Part of my response dealt with the idea that we are like children when dealing with God. We are too uniformed and immature to understand everything that happens. That is not to say that we should not try to understand more fully, it is just to state a fact about our current condition. The bottom line is that if we think God isn't being fair, it is due to some lack on our part, not his. Often God will help us see things more clearly - perhaps not see things completely, as that would be impossible (we are not God) - but at least with a little better perspective than before.

For example, when Job complained that God was not being fair, God chided him for being short-sighted and helped him realize that perhaps the creator and sustainer of the universe knew what was happening in that universe better than one of the creatures. God's answer to Job consisted of a theology lesson. Job realized he was ignorant and repented of his accusations. When Moses beseeched God to save Sodom and Gomorrah, he argued that God was not being just in destroying it because there must be some righteous people there. However, when the truth came to light, it was clear that God was perfectly just, as they couldn't find any. In Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard, the master hires workers at different times of the day and then pays them all the same amount at the end, regardless of how many hours they had worked. It didn't seem fair to those that had worked more, but in fact it was perfectly just, as Jesus explained.

In each of these cases, people questioned the justice of God based on incorrect information or an inmature view of justice. God answered each complaint with education and assurance that He was, in fact, doing right. I beleive that is part of the answer to the question about hell. Yes, it may seem injust, but that is probably because we don't know all the facts and/or our understanding of justice needs more development. I suspect that is also part of the answer to all the other times each day when we (probably quietly) accuse God of not being fair to us.

WHY THE FINANCIAL CRISIS COULD BE THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO YOU (BOOKLET VERSION)

Here is a free PDF download expanding on my radio show talk from a few weeks ago.

WHAT NOW?

It seems like the Onion may be cutting a little close to home with this hilarious video. Trying to find meaning in life through politics can have dangerous side effects:

WHY WE LOVE FANTASY STORIES

Richard Dawkins has taken a leave from his post at Oxford to study the effects of fantasy stories on children. It seems he is worried that they might be leading our children toward accepting irrational religious claims. Janie B. Cheaney has a good take on this, and Brandon and I discuss it at length on a recent radio show.

BEING AN ATHEIST IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE

British journalist Matthew Parris recently visited his native Malawi to witness some charitable work happening there. His trip produced some interesting results:

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

That belief is that Africa desperately needs God. As he expounds in his essay, Parris is convinced that Christianity produces real spiritual change in people and that this change is essential to African progress. We talked about this story at more length on a recent radio show, but for now I just wanted to point out Parris' self-professed approach to his world view. He is an atheist in spite of the evidence against it. His world view cannot account for the data, but he holds to it anyway. If this is not the blind, irrational "faith" that religious folks are often accused of harboring, I'm not sure what is.

HITCHENS NEEDS TO BRUSH UP ON HIS THEOLOGY

Christopher Hitchens seems to think that if you believe some people are going to hell you are a bigot, as it shows that you think the unsaved are worth less than the saved. This shows an extreme lack of theological understanding on Hitchens' part. According to Christian theology, all people are worth the same, no matter what their race, sex, lot in life or eternal destination. The salvation of an individual is decidedly not a matter of their intrinsic worth, it is a matter of God's grace and their choice. God extends grace to all and all get to decide what they want to do with it. The one who ends up in hell is as valuable in God's eyes as one who ends up in Heaven - the difference between them is their choices.

PENN UNDERSTANDS EVANGELISM

LONG TERM SECURITY

According to a study by Lisa Keister, conservative Protestants build up far less wealth than the average American. The USA Today reports:

Lisa Keister has scanned the Bible and found nearly 2,000 verses in the New Testament that touch on the topic of money. It's those very verses that may be keeping many conservative Protestants from building up long-term wealth, she says.

Jesus warned his followers not to "store up for yourselves treasures on Earth," and later cautioned that it will be "hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven." Perhaps the best known is the admonition that "the love of money is the root of all evil."

According to data analyzed by Keister, a Duke University sociologist, the median net worth for conservative Protestants in 2000 was $26,000, compared to the national median of $66,200.

Why the gap? Keister says it may all come down to theology.

"The one big difference is the conservative Protestants' assumption that God is the owner of money and people are managers of it," Keister said. "They are doing with their money what God wants them to do with it, so that does mean that it is not sitting in their bank accounts."...

Keister's new article in the American Journal of Sociology, "Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Poverty," argues that traditional views of money — it's God's, not ours — keep many Protestants from building a financial safety net.

Could be. If it is, I'm glad that people are taking Jesus' teaching about money seriously. I think it is important to point out, though, that a failure to store up material wealth on earth is not due to a lack of concern about security. There is some implication in this article that Christians are so busy doing God's work with God's money that they are foolishly unconcerned about tomorrow. This is untrue. The fact is, these Christians are spending their money on the kingdom of God because they see that as the way to a truly rewarding "retirement" - one that money will never provide.

While Jesus did teach that we are not to "Store up for yourselves treasures on Earth," it is because the treasure on earth is such a terrible safety net. It actually provides no security, and security is what you need. The end of the sentence is "where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19). Jesus then goes on to prescribe a course of action that is truly secure: "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:20).

The reason we are not to "put our hope in wealth" is that it "is so uncertain" (1 Timothy 6:17). Jesus did not teach that we are not to think about our future. Rather, he taught that we are to be wise investors, planning for a future that can never be taken away from us, built on a foundation that will never crumble. Money does not offer that future - God does. We are to put our trust in Him.

ON WHAT BASIS IS POLYGAMY WRONG?

Jacob Brinkman Reaume has an interesting piece on the potential moral quandary authorities face in prosecuting polygamy in Canada.

SHOPPING FOR RELIGION IS THE WRONG APPROACH

I submitted the following article to a local paper as part of a book promotion and speaking trip to Canada this past weekend. I don't think they printed the article, but I did get an interesting interview which resulted in a short story that ran today.

When I first meet people, I don’t usually tell them exactly what I do. It’s not that I’m embarrassed by my career; it’s just that I would rather not immediately get dismissed as some kind of weirdo or jerk. So I describe myself in general terms such as author or speaker. The whole truth is that I am a Christian evangelist. Unfortunately, to many that is the equivalent of being a snake oil salesman, and who wants to sit next to one of those on a plane?

Of course I think it is false to characterize me as a “traveling huckster.” However, I do not think it is unfair, especially considering how many people understand religion. The simple fact is that a large percentage of contemporary pastors and evangelists (and not just the TV variety) have much in common with the shady con-men of the past, and most of their converts have very similar mindsets to the old-time purchasers of cure-all elixirs.

I say that because today most people understand religion as a consumer product to be used by its adherents. Religion is seen as something that provides a service; meets a need or desire; scratches an itch. Particular religions are chosen, then, according to how they meet the specific needs, wants, or even whims of people.

For example, how do most pastors and evangelists try to convince people to join their church or religion? They emphasize what their brand of faith offers: “Want some meaning in life? Inspiration? Moral guidance? Fun for you and the kids? Come to our church! Join our religion! We have what you are looking for, and we’ll even throw in a high quality coffee bar as a bonus.” It’s no wonder that the term evangelist has become linked to sales. Selling is exactly what many of us do.

And buying is what many religious followers do. Spiritual searchers treat their quest like a trip to the mall, choosing religions and spiritual practices according to how what is being offered matches up to their shopping list.

According to a recent survey of over 35,000 people by the Pew Forum of Religion and Public Life, we are more willing than ever to change religions. It reported that “44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.” As columnist Timothy Shriver noted on the Washington Post website, religiously, we’re on the move doing what we do best: shopping. “And we’re shopping for God.” He goes on to say that “what’s clear is that we’re not going to accept religion based on the past. It’s got to meet our spiritual needs or we’ll move on.”

Exactly. Shriver then did his own brief survey to find out what those needs are. He asked, “What’s on your list when you go shopping for God?” Answers included: “I want to feel joy”; “I want a community of love”; “I want an experience that helps me discover magic and peace and the spirit of the universe” and “I can’t pay attention most of the time, and I get distracted easily, and it’s hard to stop my mind from wandering all over the place. If I were shopping for God, I’d want to go to a place where there was some way to help me be peaceful and quiet.”

Shriver thinks religious leaders should see this religious shopping spree as a positive sign. After all, it shows that at least people are spiritually hungry: “Nobody makes the effort to shop for something they don’t want.” As a religious leader, I disagree. I don’t have a problem with people switching religions, but I do have a problem with them switching religions for the wrong reasons. As great as I think it is that people are willing to learn about different religions and continually explore the spiritual dimension of life, I am very troubled that they approach this quest as a shopping trip. To do so exposes a grave misunderstanding of the nature of religion that may have very dangerous results.

Religions are not consumer products that have relative value according to the needs and desires of the consumer. In selling chocolate bars, the customer is always right. Not so with religions. They are much more like maps, which have objective value according to the accuracy of the facts they are alleging to communicate to their followers.

Religions, by their nature, do one thing above all else: explain ultimate reality. They offer propositional truth claims about the most important questions of life: “Is there a god?” “If so, what is he, she or it like?” “Why are we here?” “What is wrong with the world?” “What happens when we die?” “How should we then live?” 

Like a map, they present what is supposed to be an accurate and objective account of certain aspects of our existence. As such, the most important question we must ask when considering a religion is not “What can it do for me?” or “Do I like it?” but “Is it true?” The one thing we need to know above all else is whether or not this religion accurately describes the nature of our existence. If it does not, it is ridiculous to join it, no matter what aspects of it we may find appealing. And if it does, it is ridiculous not to join it, no matter how many aspects of it we may find unappealing.

Suppose we were offered several road maps claiming to be of North America, each one painting a radically different picture of the landscape and infrastructure. How would we decide which one to use? I trust that we wouldn’t ask “Which map was printed using my favorite colors?” or “Which map gives me the shortest commute to work?” The one question we need to ask is “Which one is true?” It does not matter how much we may like the idea of having a nice view of the mountains from our front porch. If there are no mountains, there are no mountains, regardless of what the map tells us. If a map is false, there is no point following it, no matter how many aspects of it may “work best for us.” And if the map is true, we must follow it, no matter how much we may dislike certain aspects of reality.

The same is true of religion. Therefore, when evaluating religions and churches, we should research what they teach and figure out which one is most likely to be accurate.

Religion is not a product, so parishioners should not to be consumers and evangelists should not be sales people. To misunderstand this is incredibly dangerous, because the stakes are so high. Imagine trying to reach a vacation spot that doesn’t even exist using a map that is completely false. It would be incredibly frustrating, and you would waste a lot of time, effort and money. That is why we are careful to plan our trips carefully and use only trustworthy guides. How much more then, should we search for a trustworthy guide to the journey of life. The destiny of our souls (should they exist) is on the line. It is one thing to be wrong about whether or not a great fishing lake exists and how to get there. It is quite another to be wrong about whether or not Heaven exists and how to get there.

SILLINESS FROM AN EPISCOPAL BISHOP

When asked to comment on Rod Parsley's assertion that Islam was a "false religion"  Episcopal Bishop of Washington John Bryson Chane offered this bit of nonsense: "If Islam is a "false religion" then so too must Christianity and Judaism."

The only logical way that statement could be true is if the doctrines of Christianity, Islam and Judaism were exactly the same. Let's take a cursory glance at some of the central tenets of these faiths.

Christianity teaches that Jesus was God. Islam and Judaism deny that.

Islam teaches that Mohamed was a prophet. Judaism and Christianity deny that.

So it's not even close. Perhaps the funniest aspect of Chane's little article is his condescension: "Pastor Parsley unfortunately demonstrates a level of ignorance that is both dangerous and divisive...what reputable theological [institution I assume, there seems to be a missing word in the original] did this uniformed Christian pastor graduate from?" I might ask the same of Bishop Chane. Apparently elementary comparative theology and logic classes were not required. 

MARGARET SANGER WOULD BE PROUD

Live Action's The Advocate does a wonderful job of exposing how successful Planned Parenthood is at fulfilling their founders racist, eugenic vision for the world.

WHEN JESUS WAS ACTUALLY BORN AND WHAT IT MEANS TO US

A Christmas sermon, adapted from my book, The Road to Heaven: a Traveler’s Guide to Life’s Narrow Way:

“Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?” So asks a despondent Charlie Brown at the beginning of one of the most famous scenes in the history of television holiday specials. You probably know what comes next: a spotlight illuminated recital of Luke 2:8-14 by Linus, who concludes the nativity story with, “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

A Charlie Brown Christmas was a hit when it was first broadcast in 1965 and has become a classic, mostly, I believe, because of Charles Schultz’s simple point: Christmas is about Jesus. We watch it again and again because we like to be reminded that Christmas is more than shopping and bustle. We know deep down that “Jesus is the reason for the season” and that we should “Keep Christ in Christmas.” But what does all that mean, exactly? Is the call to focus on the baby in the manger just some mild anti-consumerism, or does the birth in Bethlehem 2000 years ago have a bit more depth of meaning to it? That is what this message is about. I want to help us get beyond tired clichés and further explore Linus’ answer. We will do that by using the Old Testament to shed some light on the foundational story of the New Testament: Christ’s birthday.

The Outline

I want to try and lay out the roadmap for this quick journey quite clearly so you will have a good handle on where we are in each stage and not get bogged down at any one section, which are as follows:

Part 1: To provide some context, we will start by briefly reviewing the story of the Children of Israel and show how it is allegorical to our own, particularly in regards to the exodus from Egypt.
Part 2: We will then explain the Festival of Tabernacles and make the case that Jesus was actually born on the first day of this festival.
Part 3:. Part three is about the significance of this date for the meaning of the incarnation. I trust by the end of this post you will be able to see how the timing of Jesus’ birth is incredibly relevant to us today.

A SOCIETY THAT NO LONGER BELIEVES THE MULTIPLICATION TABLE

Regis Nicoll explains "Why Johnny Can't Multiply." It also explains why Johnny can't think rightly about  even more important matters, like "What is true about the nature of reality?"

JUDGEMENT DAY

Radio show listener Eric recommended this interesting article about John F. Kennedy, Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis showing up at The Pearly Gates.

OF COURSE CHRISTIANS WANT EVERYONE TO CONVERT

Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager does a great job of answering the charge that  Ann Coulter's desire to see Jews converted to Christianity is anti-Semitic. Coulter may not be the world's most sophisticated, accurate, or articulate theologian (Christianity is not the fast-track or Federal Express version of Judaism, and "Jews need to be perfected" is a clumsy assertion at best and simply wrong at worst) but wanting people to become Christians is not "hate" and is not a position that should offend people.

CONFUSION ABOUNDS

David Limbaugh assesses the weak theological and moral musings of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Whoopi Golberg in this good article.

THE REAL ISSUE IS TRUTH

This weeks question at the On Faith website is "What is the difference between a religion and a cult? What constitutes a real religion?" Chuck Colson absolutely nails the answer by pointing out that the real issue is truth.Read his entire response here.

THE PRO-ABORT MINDSET VI

I don't find the Sarah Silverman clip below funny (it is actually quite offensive, so be warned), but the fact that it is supposed to be confirms what I have been saying about the pro-abort mindset.

As far as I can tell, this is an attempt at satire. It is about making fun of a particular mindset and the people who hold to it. I'm not exactly sure who Silverman is mocking here, but there are only two possibilities. She is either taking a shot at the advice giving friends or the Silverman character herself.  Either way it supports the same point - that the pro-abortion movement is about nothing more high-minded than narcissistic sexual licentiousness.

If the moralistic friends are the brunt of the joke, it is because they don't realize what a handy and consequence free (indeed quite pleasing) birth-control device abortion really is. And if the Silverman character is being mocked, it is because she is convinced that a serious issue like abortion is equivalent to taking a 12 year old who has the measles to a friendly pediatrician. Either way the sketch only makes sense if such people like the Silverman character actually exist. They do. The fact is, the attitude displayed by the Silverman character is foundational to the pro-abortion movement. For this group, regardless of what they might say, abortion has nothing to do with saving women's lives or helping the downtrodden and abused. It is about being able to conveniently escape from responsibility by killing a child.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH SAYING "HINDUISM IS FALSE?"

Interesting story from Britain:

A Hindu organisation in Britain is planning to challenge the ban on yoga classes by two churches on the grounds that it breaches the country's Equality Act 2006.

Last week, priests at the Silver Street Baptist Church and St James' Church of England in Taunton, Somerset, had banned yoga classes for children by branding it as a "sham" and "un-Christian".

Now, the Hindu Council UK (HCUK) is actively considering challenging the ban. Lawyers of the organisation are exploring whether the comments by the churches indicate the priests acted contrary to Britain's 'Religion and Belief' section of the 2006 legislation, which makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services, the management of premises, education and exercise of public functions.

"These priests might appear to be advising Christians not to practice yoga because they believe it is based on a 'sham' and a 'false philosophy', but what in effect they mean is that Hinduism is a false religion," said HCUK General Secretary Anil Bhanot.

HCUK is also considering asking the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to investigate whether the comments by the priests amounted to "instructing or causing discrimination", Christian Post reported.

Let's start by establishing what the priests meant. I am not sure why Secretary Bhanot tried to contrast their statements with how he interpreted them. There is no doubt that the priests were saying that Hinduism is a false religion.Yoga is based on Hinduism, and the words "sham" and "false philosophy" leave little room for equivocation.

So what's the problem? Not wanting your building used to teach kids doctrines about reality that you believe to be false and dangerous to their souls is eminently reasonable, something any British law forbidding you to act on such sensibilities clearly is not.

As for the threatened investigation into "instructing or causing discrimination," there are at least two ways to look at it, depending how you define the term "instructing or causing discrimination."

We could point out that instructing and causing discrimination is what all teachers do and to get rid of it would be to end education. The goal of education is to instruct children (and everyone else) about the nature of reality and how to conform their lives accordingly. Through education, students learn how to properly discriminate between truth and falsity, good and evil.

This is inescapable. Whether they admit it or not, everyone practices this theory of education. The HCUK, for example, in fighting against the denigration of Hinduism, is trying to educate people to accept this proposition about reality and act accordingly: "The priests are wrong. Hinduism is correct in its assertions about the nature of our existence and the practice of yoga is beneficial to people's lives." The HCUK is clearly trying to get people to discriminate between right and wrong, truth and falsity, as these concepts are understood by the Hindu worldview.

Even those who claim to believe that objective truth and falsity (and therefore objective good and evil) don't exist practice this theory of education. They spend their time trying to convince the rest of us that a particular objective truth claim about the nature of reality ("There is no objective truth to be known") is correct and that the right thing to do would be to stop saying that any act is the right thing to do.

Another other way to look at the issue of "instructing or causing discrimination" would be to define discrimination as "causing harm to another person." (This likely gets more to the spirit of the British law against discrimination.) In this case, if telling a person that the worldview they believe in is false is discrimination, what harm is the British government trying to legislate against? Hurt feelings? Low self-esteem? The idea that a simple propositional claim about the truth or falsity of a religion can be construed as harmful  discrimination is ridiculous.