Some of you may
think I’ve been living under a rock for having just learnt about the “Georgia
Guide-stones”. The reality is I just recently heard about them and found out a
bit about their history. They were inaugurated in 1980, the information the
convey is written in multiple major languages of the past and present and it is
aligned with curious astronomical significance. I will not address any of these
symbolisms. I had heard the first manifesto of these mysterious tablets quoted
by others but never knew the source. In reading a bit about the origins of
these stones and their content I felt impressed to address the implications of
the text. As I see it, excluding the first point, all the other proposals are
very vague and leaves a lot open to interpretation. That is my general
impression of the list. The declared motivation, “guidestones to an Age of
Reason”, brings to mind events in 18th Century France when religion
in all its forms was banned. They dressed up a prostitute and declared her the
“goddess of reason” parading her into their national assembly as an object of
worship. During this time France fell into chaos, rejecting all things
scriptural, they even attempted a disastrous 10-day week. As is repeatedly
demonstrated throughout history without God all human reasoning will collapse
into utter disaster (1 Corinthians 1:19-25).
The next thing I
observed is that there are 10 proposals itemised that should be the guide for
this “age of reason”. They are all listed on one stone; this still brings to
mind the 10 commandments God itemized on two tables of stone. In God’s 10
commandments the first table outlines our interaction with Him and the second,
our interaction with our fellow man. The guide-stone proposal is curiously only
focused on man’s interaction with his fellow man and the environment. Therefore,
I can safely assume that the authors of this proposal do not believe in a deity
and imagine that with sheer human intellect they can bring about this new way
of being. 6,000 years of human history suggests that this is not the case. Because
we did not just appear, and we have a Creator, in all things that we do, He
must be the primary factor. Removing our obligation to Him will only lead to
anchor-less chaos. (Psalms 14:1; John 15:5).
Since the orchestrators
of this new society have chosen to have “Reason” as its “god” lets get a
definition. Reason – the power of the mind to think, understand, and form
judgements logically or, what is right, practical or possible; common sense. This
seems like a good way of making decisions. However, these definitions require a
basic set of systemic rules on which reason can be exercised. For example, reason
tells me that I should not walk off the top of a building unless there are
stairs on which to walk. Why is this choice reasonable? My understanding of the
rule of gravity says that if I were to initiate that journey without stairs, or
some other conveyance, things would not end well for me. For these proposals to
make any sense foundational systemic rules need to be established. Who will be determining
these rules? How will what is logical, right, practical or possible be
determined? What are the foundational rules? Does something being possible make
it right?
Now to the actual
text. The first proposal is the only one I had heard prior to learning about
the guide stones. I imagine this to be the case because it strikes at the basic
decency and love of freedom, we all still possess. The shock of executing this
proposal horrifies anyone with an appreciation for life. The proposal states:
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” The
current population of the world is about 7,500,000,000. To achieve this
proposed peak population 7,000,000,000 people would have to be wiped out
somehow. Some apologists for this manifesto suggest that this may be an ideal
that would be achieved after some cataclysmic event on the earth decimating the
world’s population (eg. Effects of climate change, detonation of a nuclear
weapon, MDR epidemic, etc.). Ok, so let’s suppose (God forbid) one of these
tragic events should occur wiping out 99% of the world’s population, leaving
75,000,000 people, who happened to get into a bunker, with enough food, before
the tragedy hit. Some years go by the environment begins to clear and these
underground dwellers resurface. Nature takes its course people pair up and
children are born. After a few years the 500,000,000 population is achieved (a
random number with no scientific support). How is this maintained? Are people
killed as a new person is born? Are people not allowed to have children until
someone dies? What if someone has twins shifting the population equilibrium? How
is the male/female ratio maintained? What of racial balance? My questions may
seem facetious, but they are rooted in a truth. Is this new “age of reason” a
free, life respecting society? We have a practical example of the disaster that
population control is. China ballooned to a peak population of about
1,300,000,000. To curtail this, they instituted a one child policy. Those who
had children chose to have a male child and sacrificed their female children.
Others who had multiple children could only afford to register one therefore
the others went without basic resources. Some chose to have no children. Now
the nation is faced with an aging population that will soon have a sharp
plummet and insufficient females for the males to find mates to supplement the
population. Is this the world we are to face under these worshipers of
“reason”? (Genesis 1:28; 9:1)
The second
proposal states: “Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.”
Setting aside the unnerving prospect of who will be guiding reproduction, lets
assess fitness and diversity. As a biologist I learnt that fitness, in
reference to evolutionary biology determined survival rates (survival of the
fittest). Fitness can be determined by various factors, strength of genes,
level of practical reasoning ability, age, and general health to name a few.
This seems to me to be eugenics. The limited population of this society will
then be engineered to produce traits deemed desirable by the leaders of this
society. With this focus on fitness, then diversity automatically becomes
limited. Who determines the diverse desirable traits of fitness? Are all
recessive traits to be eliminated? Is race or ethnicity the source of
diversity? And in what proportion will this diversity exist? Or will age be a
factor in diversity and in what proportion is this 500,000,000 to be divided
age-wise? (Psalms 139:14; Ecclesiastes 11:5)
The third proposal
“Unite humanity with a living new language.” On the surface of it this sounds
good. All remaining humanity will be able to communicate freely. However, if
you are a Bible believer then you’ll know when and why we received all the
different languages we have. Humanity lost faith in God and defied His
instructions to spread out in the world and populate it. They opted to form one
community and to build a tower that would take them to Heaven. This would not
do; so, God destroyed the tower and confounded the languages, resulting in
dispersion (Genesis 11). Multiple languages bring its own inherent diversity.
Varying ways of expression and points of view. Is this one of the undesirable
traits that needs to be eliminated from the “age of reason”? Or is this a
defiance of a direct act of God?
The fourth
proposal, “Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered
reason.” In this new society passion, faith and tradition are to be controlled
by “tempered reason”. No one should believe in anything fully. This brings to
mind the Laodicean church – not hot or cold, insipid and disgusting to the
taste, completely lacking commitment (Revelation 3:14-17). I am particularly
drawn to the reining in of faith. The term faith is typically used to denote
religious belief. Religion by its nature is founded on specific rules – for the
Christian faith it is the 10-commandments. How can baseless reason control well
anchored faith?
Proposal five,
“Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.” Excellent
proposal! This world could use the proper application of fair laws. My question
stands and may become repetitive, what is the foundation of these fair laws.
Are any of the laws currently in existence considered fair under lawless
reason? Proposal six ties into five, “Let all nations rule internally resolving
external disputes in a world court.” I appreciate the fact that nations will
still be able to exist within their own borders, however, will these nations be
free to make their own laws? Or must they adopt the laws of the architects of
the “age of reason”? Proposal seven is also in the same vein, “Avoid petty laws
and useless officials. Again, on the face it seems reasonable, but based on
what? What determines a petty law? Is “Thou shalt not commit adultery” a petty
law? Or “Thou shalt not covet”? Or is “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it
Holy” a petty law? All these laws and the remaining seven in their set are
vital to our acknowledgment of our origins, the demonstration of love and
respect toward our creator and how we are to love and respect our fellow human
beings. Will humanity be free to kill, steal and lie in this new society in the
name of weeding out the weak and maintaining fitness?
Number eight,
“Balance personal right with social duties.” The golden rule as spoken by Jesus
expresses this, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise.” My rights should never infringe on yours, nor should your rights
infringe on mine. Nine, “Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the
infinite. I only know One who is infinite, however, the first two proposals of
these guidelines are diametrically opposed to His instructions about how life
on the earth is to be. What is truth, beauty and love? Are these ethereal
concepts that are determined by the beholder? I know truth is absolute.
Scripture says that the word of God is truth (John 17:17), it also says that
Jesus is truth (John 14:6). Love is also absolute. From scripture we learn that
keeping God’s commandments is love (1 John 5:3). It can also be argued that beauty
can be determined objectively. While each individual has his own preference, a
mathematical formula has been derived to determine beauty.
And the tenth
proposal, “Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room
for nature.” Also, excellent advise but how do we do this. I imagine for the
architects of this new society this ties in to the first two proposals.
Adherence to God instructions would ensure this. When God made man, He gave him
a garden for which to care (Genesis 2:15). Agrarian lifestyles lend to caring
for the earth. When the Israelites were given rules about how their society was
to run, they and their animals received rest once per week and the soil
received long-term rest every seventh year so that nutrients can be replenished
(Leviticus 25:1-5). Maintaining a patient, unhurried lifestyle that does not
require the use of dangerous chemicals to accelerate production, is the design
of our Creator.
I don’t know who
the authors of these guide stones are. The individual who commissioned their
erection utilized the curious pseudonym R.C. Christian. The origin of this
manifesto is unimportant – though with some thought I’m sure we could ascertain
the source – however, their instructions are dangerously imprecise. In the
world we now find ourselves living, it is very possible for us to experience a
cataclysmic event that could require such a rebuilding of society. Such vague
platitudes will not hold any society together. What we will need in such an
event and what we need now is the Word of God. The absolute, reliable, all
encompassing law of our Creator will ensure synchronicity with our Maker and
cooperative unity with our fellow human beings. Let us reason together with Him
and be made whole (Isaiah 1:18).
Blessings,
