"Christianity - Does it Depreciate the Natural World?"

Christians Depreciating the Natural Word

Although this is the title of the article (see background below), there is a break down between the title and the article.  What the article really postulates is that because of the Christian’s belief that there is a future beyond this life, they have little concern about the natural world.

Of course even a cursory view of the history of scientific study, inquiry, and discovery will reveal a very different story.  The reality is that with the coming of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation, the theological groundwork was laid for there to be magnificent scientific discoveries. (See articles at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-opposed-to-science.html along with two accompanying articles).  

Truth of the Matter

In sum, the truth of the matter, genuine Christians deprecate the world as presented by the naturalist who presents either a less than complete verifiable scientific narrative or an unverifiable scientific narrative born of bias.  Because genuine Christians give truth an unequalled priority, they indeed cannot be comfortable with the secular naturalists views of the science.

Generalizations Abound

Those who hold this position must resort to anecdotal example and generalization to make the point.  The reality is that any argument that relies heavily upon these two sources for information is certainly to be suspect.  Even if the conclusion were true, the lack of factual data and the innuendo discredit the notion and especially so in this case.  Of course such characterizes much of the material that this and other postings call into question.

Fact Check

The problem with the anecdotal evidence presented in this argument is that the writer is presenting out of bias and not out of fact.  For example he wrongly attributes a quote to former Interior Secretary James Watt which if he would have fact checked would reveal it was wrongly attributed to him (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339686/posts).  As well the fact that there are Christians who are involved, rightly or wrongly, in the environmental movement is not mentioned.  Such is the behavior of one who writes out of bias and not fact.

Reality, Science, and Theoretical Conjecture

There is a basic process to be considered.  One becomes more and more convinced of that with which one feeds one’s minds.  That is to say if one fills their thinking with the theoretical it soon becomes reality. 

The problem that the secularist brings to the science table is that they are so filled with the notions of secular naturalism that they cannot see other possibilities for reality.  Consider the following quote.

Dinesh D’Souza in a debate with Christopher Hitchens regarding the notion that everything has a cause observes, “…In the weird world of the quantum, we can find exceptions to that rule.  But quantum effects cancel out when you come to macroscopic objects and whenever you hear someone say ‘consciousness I really don’t know what that is but perhaps it is a quantum thing’ what he is basically saying is that he does not know.  …The quantum is invoked to explain things that are unexplained.” (see debate at  www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=g-hist).

Such suggests that there are dead ends in naturalism.

Dead End Science

The point is that because genuine science constantly runs into naturalistic dead ends they have created a whole field of theoretical conjecture to include quantum physics, theoretical mathematics, etc.  Sometimes it is just plan difficult to do science in a closed system scenario when there are constant signs pointing to the fact that genuine science must include. 

The whole area of first causes is an example of such a scientific dead end.  The question that mystifies secular science is what precipitated the “Big Bang?”   Since it is not possible to postulate that nature big banged nature into existence and since it is an inconvenient truth to acknowledge the supernatural, science then resorts to quantum physics in which there is much speculation and theoretical conjecture.

Biases Exposed

The reality is that most of what passes for secular science today is an atheist bias or philosophy which then calls upon other more empirical studies to support the position.  This is not science, this is simply bias which grasps at science, physics, mathematics, etc. for support.  Of course genuine science cannot provide such support so we arrive back at the theoretical.

Faith in Fact or Theory

Now before one runs to the conclusion that one places faith in God, Religion, and Creation as a fact, consider the following.

Not one person alive today was there when it all began.  So no one really knows for sure so the prudent person is left with a choice.  It is as follows.  Should one place their faith in a closed system theory which constantly leads to dead ends or should one place their faith in an open system theory that answers many of the questions posed by the previous theory?

Should one place their faith in a closed system that is founded more upon the mores of a particular social system that proposes relative, secular, humanistic truth or in an open system that postulates transcendent, universal, and objective truth?  While one can make that choice the outcomes of that choice are beyond one’s control and should be considered very carefully.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  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.

"Does the God Gene Prove God?"

As If God Needed Someone to Prove His Existence!

There are I suppose two positions one might take when it comes to genuine science.  One can join the weight of history and view science as that which reveals and explains Scripture and faith.  There of course is another option.  It is that one can join the relatively recent (post enlightenment) group and seek to discredit Scripture and faith by using Science.

The discredit crowd will choose their particular issue and claim that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular could have said something about it.  Of course, such would turn the Bible into a science book rather than what it is, the revelation of just who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.

Then too, it really would prove nothing for the skeptical would find some other lack and make the same claim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are invalid because they do not treat ____________ (you fill in the blank)l

That being said the Bible does contain a great deal of indirect reference to matters of nature.  For example Jesus talked about the coming day of the Lord in terms of various activities in the Jewish household.  Since the coming day of the Lord is a point in time event and since being in bed, grinding, and being in the field would point to that which we call time zones or different parts of the day occurring at the same time.

Another is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon writes of wind currents and the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Then too consider that much early science was accomplished by people of faith.  Now there were differences in doctrine but the following men were committed Christians.

Copernicus, the first astronomer of the scientific revolution

Galileo discovered the laws of dynamics and is known for his achievements in astronomy. 

Kepler, the German astronomer, a contemporary of Galileo

 Newton on the Scriptures

Newton's mathematics influences optics, mechanics, and celestial dynamics*

These are but a few of the men who are joined by women who made a difference not because they devalued Scripture by their science but because they valued both Science and Scripture.  In fact, if you read the article cited below you will find that Newton wrote over a million words in his discussions of Scripture.  

Well, then what happened?  Why the change?

 

"Shifts in Thinking"

Perhaps the greatest influence was as the result of the Great Enlightenment and the coming of rationalism.  The point of agreement between Judeo-Christian (European thinking) and Rationalism is that there at least is genuine reality.  They did not agree on what constituted truth but they at least could agree that there was such a thing as truth.  Such difference was largely based upon the difference between revelation and rationalism (Modernism).

Again, there were different beginning points the outcomes were many times divergent but at leas there was an agreement that there was some kind of genuine reality.  However, a third movement would enter the picture--a movement that begin with yet another starting point.  The movement is Post-Modernism and further distanced itself from Scripture and matters of faith. 

Beginning some 150 years ago, the shift became more pronounced with a further move away from the Divine and toward secularism.  Secular Science came to the fore with the result that it was not even willing to exist along the side of Faith and Scripture.  In many cases it sought to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. 

Hitchens

 

"Extensions of Science"

As many will know, if you follow mathematics, physics, etc. out far enough they begin to merge into a philosophy as opposed to what we think of as algebra or geometry.  When that happens others enter the discussion, philosophers.  So it is that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not only enter the discussion but as their thinking gains traction, they begin to influence what happens back up the process and in the arena of research.

Now the outcome of research is that it is not so much science but philosophy and so instead of provable science you now have speculative or theoretical science with it emphasis on probabilities etc.  Of course the more speculative and probability you add to the discussion the more one's biases and presuppositions can enter into the discussion and such is not without influence in the outcomes.  Empiricism is now lost.

 

"The God Gene"

Now add the "God gene" into the discussion.  Of course such spawns a plethora of discussions and debates.  What secular science cannot answer is the reason it is there for it serves no evolutionary purpose.

For those who accept the notions of there being a Divine designer and Creator, the idea of a God gene is not problematic.  Such being a genetic reality (if it is true) is consistent with something that Christians have been saying for years.  God created man with a need for the Divine.  The Bible tells it this way, "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:19).  Once again, the Bible is not a science book but peaking through its pages is science.

On the other side of the discussion the secular evolutionist would say that such is simply a mutation, a quirk of the evolutionary process.  Further they would argue that this is a genetic dead end and that one day it too will mutate away and man will become completely free of the need for religion.

 

"Secular Spirituality"

Of course, this presents another problem.  What is one to do to meet the need fostered by the God gene when it is activated?  The answer is a fairly recent division of spirituality and religion.  That is to say that one can have a spiritual dimension in life without the inconvenience of Scripture, doctrine, creed, and denomination, etc.   

At a recent lecture on the subject, it was presented that things that speak to the deepest parts of man, speak to this spiritual dimension.  Such things as poetry, music, other of the arts, and a whole host of physical experiences will plunge the individual to a revelation, a consciousness of this arena of the individual.  Even Richard Dawkins give some credence to the notion of spirituality calling it "sexed up atheism." 

+ + + + + +

In closing, it seems to me that this notion of there being a spiritual dimension to man even though conflicted still in all takes us back to the beginning point of this post.  It seems to me that it takes us back to the Judeo-Christian notion of revealed reality.  However, since God is not involved this time it is getting in contact with the inner self.

That being said, would it not be easier just to give in to the God that is, rather than seeking the god that is within.  Remember the God that is, is infinite while the god within is finite and temporary.finite and as fragile as our mental capacity to understand and choose our way.


An interesting treatment of the "God gene" may be found at http://www.bethelcollege.edu/users/berkebj/Marian/God%20in%20Our%20Genes%20TEXT%20ONLY.pdf 

___________
* see article at http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm