Has science really done better than religion?

Posted on Updated on

The modern age can be properly summed in this way: Man has moved away from relying on the unseen and has now placed his faith in the seen. That is: Empiricism. There can be little argument that this change in thinking has resulted in tremendous advances in medicine, engineering, and the overall comfort level of the Western citizen.

But this is all quite new. Aristotle’s theory of the Tabula Rasa barely impacted the ancients. Not until Aquinas and Locke melded empiricism with Christian doctrine did a real scientific method begin to form and even then,  it was not until the advent of the Steam Age, that it can truly said that science had a major impact on the life of the everyday man.

But the true schism of thought occurred when Galileo published his book: Dialogue. Man began a slow movement away from his belief in an invisible God, even though Galileo himself argued that his findings were not contrary to scripture. To this day, the following passages are used as “proof” that the scriptures are not scientific, therefore cannot be divinely inspired:

“the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”~Psalm 96:10

“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” ~Ecclesiastes 1:5

Galileo argues, like Augustine, that the above statements were obviously metaphorical. The fissure between science and God was set, and those who did not believe set about to insert a chisel to widen the gap. Darwin all but completed the split of religion and science as monolith.

The gap between science and religion has had several unintended and negative consequences for science itself. For one, it set those who are vehemently anti-religion on a path that seeks to use science as a weapon of religious deconstruction. This is no better–indeed probably worse–than the Church of Galileo’s day which sought to mold nature into an ideological model of a perfect Christian Universe. The problem was, they had no real arguments as to why that universe was perfect or Christian.

We see now, that the atheists try to prove the evil of religion, by labeling evil men of the past as religious, and assigning religion as these men’s motivation. In reality, any motivation of adequate power can be used to commit atrocity. Repeatedly we are reminded of Hitler’s mystical and religious overtones. I remain extremely sceptical of Hitler’s religious motivations and I urge those who want to dwell on his mysticism as his primary reason for slaughtering millions, to consider this: What would his efforts have come to without science? A zealot without a weapon is only a hateful monk.

Though Hitler may have searched for religious texts to justify himself, it seems his beliefs would have been the same regardless. Afterall, he was a staunch believer in the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion–a proven fraudulent document written by the Russian,  Czarist secret police.

The science used by the Nazi’s is well documented.

Nazis measure the skull to prove racial purity
Jew submitted to cold water experiment

And of course, the strides made by the Nazis in military tactics and weaponry have strongly affected all modern military thought.

Is this blog entry an anti-science, anti-intellectualism diatribe on my part? No–on the contrary. It is a call for truth. The schism between science and religion has in many cases boiled to scientists being afraid of what they may find, because it contradicts their ethos. Because of this, because of that split that ocured long ago, the intellectual Left, to this day, holds a heavy sway over science. And so, they are short-changing science by starting with an ideological premise. We’ve seen the terrible results of this type of thinking: The man-made global warming issues we have today are a symptom of a greater evil: Science as a weapon.

There are many other examples that I see, of science being twisted and truth suffering. Though some may not see the problem as a large one, let’s look at the effects of ideology on our diets. Heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Shouldn’t we take back the science of good diet from those that have reasons other than our best health in mind? What am I speaking of? Again, go back to the split of religion and science. While the original premise that fat is responsible for heart disease was originally born of over-simplified, linear thought, it has been allowed to remain and prosper because of the Left. It is the Left, with its adoration of vegetarianism–and therefore the over-consumption of grains and processed carbohydrate–that preach the evils of eating meat. The science simply doesn’t back it–but a modern liberal’s ethos does. Dr. Atkins, though his theories were not perfect, was willing to step outside his preconceptions–and more and more he is being shown as correct.

And to think that Christianity and science cannot coexist is simply wrong. I’m not pressing for the abolition of science, but for the abolition of fear. 

My novel’s title: For Want of Knowledge, is taken from the Bible verse:

For Want of Knowledge, my people perish, Hosea 4:6

It’s about a man, Craig Looms, who finds himself without friends, skills or direction, and so falls under the sway of an assassin vampire, resurrected. I understand man needs science, lest we perish.

I challenge scientists to cast aside their own bias. To face truth, however horrible it may be, however it may discredit their comrades. I see science drifting away and becoming the holy relic of an anti-mystical religion. The unipolar control that leftist intellectuals have exuded on science has damaged science and its reputation. Bring it back from the cliffs of idealism to the pastures of truth.


5 thoughts on “Has science really done better than religion?

    kernunos said:
    December 5, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    ‘What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.” It all comes down to this : When you have great faith in anything be careful for among men there are always predators willing to twist truths so that you will do their bidding. Man has a way of screwing anything up by accident or on purpose.

    Amos Volante said:
    December 5, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    How many people called me a right wing fanatic moron, idiot, republican, Nazi, dumbass because:

    I said global warming was unlikely to be caused by man.

    I also faced the same accusation when I suggested humans are omnivores.

    Seems like even the ‘open minded’ can be pretty hard at times.

    kernunos said:
    December 6, 2009 at 5:59 am

    Damn, I should have Dodge Omnis in my diet? I never knew.

    Amos Volante said:
    December 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    No, you should eat them instead of driving them.

    My point is just how The Club of That Which is Seen jumps readily into the unseen once they count up their blind followers check the odds.

    “Now that we’ve separated ourselves from these religious fanatics, let’s tell everyone the sky is falling.”

    Lou said:
    December 7, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    Very insightful post. God’s word is spirit, but natural man has used His words to justify all sorts of wrongs. Even Satan used scripture to tempt Christ in the desert. Why are people surprised to find that godless men would change data to fit their beliefs? They have no truth in them. Their father is the father of lies. It is important to know your father and your kingdom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s