"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science?" Part III

Part Three

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was the Reformation not the Renaissance that saw the great uptick in scientific discoveries.

Part Two answered some of the specific inaccuracies that Christianity supposedly cites against Science.  Again many of the arguments tendered by Christianity’s opponents are less that valid.  Not the least of which is the false notion that conservation Bible believing Christians oppose the legitimate sciences. 

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Scientific Theory

It would then appear that in order to seek to gain some credibility, the closed system science people have redefined scientific theory from something to be theorized and therefore studied to a more fact based definition as in the following.

Referring to science and theory, the notion is that when the two terms are used together, the suggestion is that theory “refers to a well-developed, logically consistent explanation of a phenomenon, and an explanation that is consistent with observed facts.”

However for the evolutionist the problem of reproducible validation still remains.  For example one cannot reproduce evolution, thus it is a theory and shall remain so until there are reproducible results which confirm the notion and thus move it from theory to fact.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

(Full article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Inconsistent and Unfair Accusations

On the one side is atheistic science claiming that they can without legitimate scientific data make claims for valid scientific theory all the while pointing an accusing finger at the creationist with the unfounded claim that creationism is without scientific foundation.  They postulate such to be so by claiming that creationism is a wild guess and claiming that religious myth is unsupported by science.

Yet they themselves cannot explain some of the issues discussed in the previous post (Part II) and conveniently posit the notion that science will one day be able to explain these things.  Frankly it becomes of question of where one chooses to place trust. 

Libeling the Opponent

To discredit the other side of an argument by libeling or name calling is well beneath fair and respectful debate.  Such is the behavior of the one whose arguments lack substance and foundation.  To label the Children of Israel (Jews) as “slave holding goat herders” is inaccurate, libelous, and unfair.  Such is spoken out of derision not of the careful and sound study of non-biblical archeology.

Would it not be more profitable to engage in the highest tradition of argument and debate in order to attempt to prove one’s point?  Such seems lost to those who posit their own positional superiority and thus discount the realities of genuine truth.

Incomplete Quotes

For example the citing Martin Luther’s comment in Table Talk which supposedly says, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.” is ripped right out of context and unfairly represents the position of the Reformer.

The context is a discussion as to whether children should be baptized.  The full quote is as follows.

“The anabaptists (sic) pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  (Table Talk CCCLIII)

Said another way, Luther is dealing with children and is not making a general statement that would be inconsistent with other sections of that same collection of his thoughts.

At no point does Luther disparage learning (cf. Table Talk DCCCV). As a matter of fact, numbers of times Table Talk contains references to the learned, medicine, astronomy, understanding, science, and people such as Aristotle.  The point is that Luther makes is that by what is later titled Rationalism and reason one cannot know of Spiritual matters. 

Either—Or

The whole argument by those who oppose Christianity is an “either-or” discussion of Christianity and Science.  The fact is that the Bible does provide a foundation for the study of all knowledge.  The problems come when one seeks to do those same studies based upon a closed system secular model. 

When one accepts an open system Divine model, to be sure all will not be discovered for the miracle of creation is that it reflects the character of the Creator.  Just as God is eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and so on, so too all that the science that is to be discovered and studied will reflect those things. 

Even secular science indirectly and without meaning to acknowledge such to be so as they observe that no matter the advances man makes it is but a small understanding of the whole of reality. 

The Ultimate Problem

There is not one example that secular science can provide of randomness leading to order. It is always, always, always away from order. It is moving toward chaos and eventually entropy.

Degrading Systems, Entropy Ahead

Genuine reality to include nature is now much different than it was at the big bang. Therefore, push it out into time far enough there will come a time that its randomness will degrade exponentially.  At such a point, man’s theorizing now stressed, will not be able to theorize enough to keep ahead of the chaos.

The Theoretical as Gospel

Besides, the Theoretical Physics and Theoretical Mathematics and all the other theoretical postulations that can be put on the table are based upon theory and theory relies heavily upon presuppositions or assumptions which are to be proven.  Now as one can read in the previous section on scientific theory such postulations are more and more being accepted as genuine reality.  So the creationist presupposes a benevolent God and the secular scientist presupposes that which is necessary for his secular science.

Degrading or Dependable

The problem is that man’s theories when they leave out the Divine suffers under the decline toward entropy.   The creationist and his science suffers under no such decline but only the privilege of a deeper look into reality, the reality of the one who said that He is the same yesterday today and forever.

Why should the rational thinking person make the choice for the random over the stable? Makes no sense.  It is as if one is standing on the edge of a cliff, and has to choose between standing on Theoretical Jell-o or a unmovable boulder—a boulder that has existed at least ten times as long as the theoretical.

Summation

Anyone can argue a point through distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood.  The key to any honest debate is to present and defend a position based on logical argument.  To argue against a distorted position is to argue against a position that does not exist.  Doing to simply means that one argues against that which does not exist.

One can always win the argument when there is not one in the opposing chair.  That in effect is what the writer of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity does.  That is not to say that at points he does not make legitimate criticism, however at most points he fails in his characterizations of the Christian faith.

Go ahead and argue against Christianity and the Church but do not do it by arguing against the reality not one's perceptions clouded by bias and attitude.  The reality is that the Christian Faith (Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic) with all of its human weakness has done more to improve conditions of mankind in this life than any other movement, faith, or belief system.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science" Part II

Part Two

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was not the Renaissance but the Reformation that saw the uptick in scientific discoveries.

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Answering the Specific Inaccuracies

All Knowledge in Scripture 

No knowing person says that all knowledge resides in the Scriptures.  That is in fact a misrepresentation of the truth that the foundation of all knowledge resides in the Scriptures. That is to say that Scripture does not exhaust all science but merely provides the foundation or the basis of science and knowledge.

Certainly as limiting as is that statement, still there are those of secular mindset who would disagree.  However, the point to consider is that the Scriptures reveal the Divine and the Divine is the basis of all reality, therefore the Divine is the basis of all true science.

Galileo’s Treatment by Pope Urban VII

The argument goes something like, because Galileo embraced the Copernican theory and therefore he fell into disfavor and was banned from teaching.  The facts are quite different.

Pope Urban VII initially supported Galileo but because of political difficulties and court intrigue and threats against his reign as pope, plus a misstep by Galileo in assigning the Popes words to a scientist known as Simplico (often wrong and inaccurate in his science) he fell out of favor and thus was placed under house arrest.

Miraculous Events 

As the result of the Age of Enlightenment, Modernism became popular among scientists and others who pursue knowledge.  Thus there is a belief in truth but that truth  is contained in a closed system.  Therefore, miracles cannot exist for there is nothing outside the closed system. 

Others, generally people of faith believe that the system is not closed but open and that the Divine can interrupt the natural forces and causes of life at any time of His choosing.  This is the Judeo-Christian truth paradigm. 

Conservative Christians Opposes Science

Those how hold to this idea again paint Christianity with a broad brush.  Take for example the question of creation or evolution.  The fact is that Conservative Christianity is far more accepting of variations in belief.  From the Divine start of everything to those who believe God started the processes and then took His hands off, Christianity has a big tent.  Much bigger than that of the secular evolutionist.

Evolution or Intelligent Design

Interesting how militant the evolutionist has become when genuine questions are asked as to the veracity and proof for his theory.  Even while casting doubt upon the evidence for creationism, such people conveniently look past the problem that they cannot answer.  For example,

Decline:  Left on its own every system decays toward chaos and yet the evolutionist postulates that it is exempted from this descent.

Intermediary Fossils:  Of the over 50,000 plus fossils, the evolutionist cannot produce one intermediary fossil.  There is no part monkey, part man. 

Faulty Assumptions:  The evolutionist discounts honest science when it produces data that does not suit the evolutionist's presuppositions and yet is willing to accept the mythical theory of evolution in the place of honest scientific work.

First Causes

Among the various issues that the Modernist scientist with their closed system theory cannot explain is that of first causes.  Assuming for a moment that the “Big Bang Theory” is true, what caused the Big Bang and from where does matter, time, and energy originate. 

While the Big Bang does explain that there was a beginning, closed system science is at a loss as to how or why it happened.  Oh, certainly there are those who place their faith in theoretical mathematics, theoretical physics and the like.  Problem is even if they unravel the Big Bang to some new theory as frequently is the case, they still cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Publically Funded Education

The creationist and intelligent design camp is asking for equal time with the evolutionist.  When ever Creationism is brought up, the evolutionist decries it as indoctrinating kids with a wild myth.  Yet, if anyone remotely suggests that public education refrain from teaching evolution they immediately fall into disfavor.  Teaching both seems to be only fair since it is not just the evolutionist that pays to fund public education.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science?" Part I

Part One

Christianity Opposes Science

The notion by those critical of Christianity is that the Church has opposed and continues to oppose science.  The idea is that during the Dark Ages the Church of Rome was opposed to scientific investigation and that then lead to a current anti-intellectual and anti-scientific mind set on the part of some elements of the Christian church. 

The argument is that the period which has been titled the Dark Ages, seems devoid of scientific discovery and the growth.  It is said that such a consequence is because the Church was not scientifically progressive.  It further suggests that the Church limited its vision to what is in Holy Scripture had to say about Science.   

Thus the there are the 1,000 years in which the body of knowledge ceased to grow.  That assumption is then brought up to date with some pretty general statements about where Christianity is today.

As well various quotes and anecdotal examples are provided in support of the claims of the position.  The outcome is what is viewed as a legitimate position on the place of the Church in restricting science.

The Given of Science

Before looking into the accuracy of the above claims, take a moment and consider this question.  Does not science require order?  In other words, how could there be science if there was only the condition of randomness?  Of course most people understand that the basis of any genuine science is order.  Every law and rule of science presupposes order. 

The question then becomes this.  How did the world of science gain such order in light of the tendency of systems, physical and otherwise, to degrade into randomness and then into chaos?  How then can one defend the notion of order coming from randomness when there is not one shred of evidence to support such a claim? 

Why the Dark Ages of Science?

To understand why Western Europe struggled in this approximately 1,000 years of little if any scientific progress, one must consider the periods prior to the Dark Ages and the period following.

The Greek Period:  This is not the period of time during which Alexander the Great ruled but the period of time in which Greek writings were broadly circulated.  The body of scientific knowledge was recorded using the Greek language.

The Roman Period:  Some equate the beginning of the Dark Ages with the decline and eventual disintegration of the Roman Empire.  While that certainly had an effect there is a much greater issue involved.

The Great Schism of 1054 AD.  Consider the following observation.

“The story of the Middle Ages is a story of extremely slow recovery from the collapse of the Roman Empire. The thousand year lull in scientific progress could probably have been shortened if the Church had not been split into the same two parts as the Empire. The Roman Church had the scholars (the potential scientists). The Eastern Orthodox Church had the Greek language (the scientific language and the scientific texts). There was very little connection between the two branches of the Church. After the permanent split in 1054 (the Great Schism), the original Greek texts were almost lost as the Turks took over the Byzantine Empire.”

The author goes on to say

“The Church was not deliberately anti-scientific, only passively indifferent to science (as long as it respected the authority of the Church).  In fact, most of the scientists of the Middle Ages were Christian monks or priests.  Natural Philosophy (which was what science was called) was considered to be an acceptable extension of theological investigation Into God's work of creation. The exaggerated mythical conflict between science and the Church has done much to create the conflict that now exists. Most of the conflicts between the Church and science have been battles of extremes and extremists — involving attitudes and politics more than theology and heresy.”

Curtis, Harold, Following the Cloud, p.115

Therefore to lay the anti-intellectual and anti-scientific claim on the steps of the Church is less than accurate.  But then when your science is agenda driven as it is today (e.g. the global warming hoax), what else would one expect in the treatment of science’s history.

But what about the end of the Dark Ages?  Again the one with agenda will cite the Renaissance but again there is more than the biases of an “historian” to consider.

Those who popularize the notion that the Renaissance was the key to unlocking the influence of supernatural evils foisted upon the European populace are once again guilty of distorting history in order to support the unsupportable.

Renaissance Period Science

The truth of the matter is that the Renaissance began in the 14^th Century by focusing primarily upon recapturing the arts to include literature as had been practiced in the Roman Empire and the proceeding Greek Empire.  While there was scientific study for the most part it relied heavily upon previous scientific study and such as we left of it. 

A survey of lists of scientific accomplishment and discoveries in this period, will show that very little in terms of genuine advances in Science occurred.

Reformation Period Science

Later the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation (16^th Century) would occur.  Though there had been other religious movements, these movements had the effect of breaking open the religious culture and thus setting the stage for other movements outside of the Church such as would occur some two centuries later.

On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg.  Beginning shortly thereafter discoveries and advances took place in such varied subjects as human anatomy, microbiology, physics, and astronomy.  So began advances in science that would extend far into the future and more and more insights and understandings of the natural world took place. 

Examples

For example, Vesalius makes discoveries about human anatomy (1538), Copernicus discover the earth revolves around the sun (1543), Galileo discovered laws of falling objects (1604) and that Jupiter has moons (1609), Kepler discovers that planets have elliptical orbits (1609), Harvey discovers the human circulatory system (1628), Newton discovers laws of uniform gravity (1666), and Leeuwenhoek discovers microbes (1674) to name a few. 

Enlightenment Period Science

It was not until the 18^th Century, two centuries later that the Age of Enlightenment would arise and gain traction with the writings of Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire and others.  It was now that science continued to gain insights and understanding as men like Newton, Halley, Linnaeus, Herschel, and Jenner make new discoveries and/or build upon the previously mentioned discoveries.  However, unlike the previous periods Science now sought to explain the natural world without the Scriptures.  This instead of science explaining the Scriptures.  So it is that the movement toward secular Science gained a footing.

Light in the Darkness

What those who are so critical of the Church might ask themselves is just who was it that preserved such knowledge as had been discovered? 

So it would appear that secular science as we have today arrived on the scene much later than the Renaissance, much later by as much as two or even three centuries.  But that is not the only problem with this line of thinking.  Take for example the case of Galileo which well be discussed in the following blog.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.