Worshipping at the altar of science

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 4, 2006 | Tom Flannery

[DaveLoneRanger]

At the end of the 18th century, Founding Fathers like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were becoming increasingly troubled by the revolution that was unfolding in France.

Unlike the American Revolution, which was founded on the Christian principles delineated in the Declaration of Independence, the French version was virulently anti-religious (particularly in regard to Christianity). The revolutionaries sought to replace religion with human reason, even going so far as suggesting that Notre Dame be renamed the "Cathedral of Reason."

Adams observed of France with great alarm: "I know not what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists." Hamilton was just as appalled by the arguments undergirding the revolution. Commenting on French attacks against Christianity, he wrote in disbelief: "The very existence of a Deity has been questioned and in some cases denied. Death has been proclaimed an eternal sleep."

Adams and Hamilton recognized almost from the start that the move to supplant religion with reason would lead to wholesale slaughter (as it did during the Reign of Terror) and ultimately end in dictatorship (as both of them predicted long before Napoleon proved them right).

Well, don't look now, but a move is afoot by leftists in media and government today — having learned nothing from the horrors of the French Revolution or the Soviet experiment or other such examples throughout history — to once again enshrine human reason, with the twin engine of scientific discovery, as man's guiding light. They hope that by doing so they can do away once and for all with what they view as the "superstition" of religion.

Comedian Bill Maher, for instance, divides people into two classifications — those who follow the compass (science) and those who would rather "read the chicken entrails" (religion).

But the idea is not just fodder for comedians on cable television. It's a recurring theme these days among Democratic Party politicians. Indeed, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, John Kerry included a line he'd been using on the campaign trail in which he called for a president like himself who "believes in science" so we can "unleash the wonders of discovery." Bush, you see, wouldn't bow the knee before Darwin and confess natural selection.

It's also being propagated in left-wing intellectual circles, and not just by the nutroots crowd. In a piece entitled "Bush's God" published in the American Prospect (which he has since revised for its website), former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich originally wrote: "The conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism ... The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

That's right up there with Maher's statement that "drugs are good and religion is bad." To paraphrase Reich's main point, "terrorism is bad but religion is much worse."

Thus, we hear a great deal from these people about a "Republican war on science," but nothing at all about the moral implications of such "scientific advances" as embryonic stem-cell research. Perhaps that is because they wholeheartedly and full-throatedly support sticking needles into the skulls of babies who are partially-delivered from their mothers' wombs, then sucking the babies' brains out. If they have no moral qualms with the cold-blooded killing of partially-born babies, what chance does a human embryo have with them? Or a brain-injured woman who can't speak to defend herself, like Terri Schiavo?

The experimental method known as science, you see, was founded by Christians who wanted to explore the universe for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. But when you remove God from that equation, then man is the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad, what is morally acceptable and what is not. The result of this is the embrace of godless concepts like evolution and communism, which in turn leads to such inhumane practices as eugenics (which means "a good birth") and euthanasia ("a good death") — in short, the perverting of language to redefine ethical norms.

This is because man is a fallen creature, whose heart is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9). Yet liberals believe in the inherent goodness of man, so they end up essentially deifying human reason and science. They believe, as the proponents of the French Revolution did, that doing so will lead to a more enlightened and civilized world. But history has repeatedly shown that such humanistic folly always ends in a bloodbath of epic proportions and atrocities that shock the world hundreds of years after they are committed.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Robert Reiiiiiiiiich-UH. Another Democrat for Darwin.

[Rocketman]

Very poorly conceived article the quotes from Adams and Hamilton were weak as water concerning the French Revolution

And the Idea of using Political has been Robert Reich andcomedian Bill Maher as your money quotes on as to their leading the thrust of social change in the US is pathetic

This article is utter trash

[iamchipdouglas]

"Your" money quotes? This is a Dave Flannery article reposted by DLR.

I dislike the article for a different reason. Flannery accepts the pretenses of secular commentators: that this is Science (Left) versus Religion (Right); that the two are mutually exclusive and contain no traces of the other. From there his point is, "Okay, so it's Science versus Religion, but Science is dangerous! Look at embryo cloning, look at abortion!" Once you've agreed to a debate framed as one of Science versus Religion, there is no point to listen to "Religion." Flannery makes this common mistake and so everything he says after that is feeble and not worth listening to.

[DaveTesla]

"The experimental method known as science, you see, was
founded by Christians who wanted to explore the universe
for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. But when
you remove God from that equation, then man is the final
arbiter of what is good and what is bad, what is morally
acceptable and what is not. The result of this is the
embrace of godless concepts like evolution and communism,
which in turn leads to such inhumane practices as eugenics
(which means "a good birth") and euthanasia
("a good death") — in short, the perverting
of language to redefine ethical norms."

Once God is removed from society they will declare themselves to be gods.

Deciding who lives and who dies through Eugenics.
It's all for the better good of them creating heaven on
earth without GOD.
Nothing will restrain them in their lust for power.
In the end they create hell on earth.

[Turbopilot]

The experimental method known as science, you see, was founded by Christians

I imagine the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese who formulated the scientific method and began the study of natural existence centuries before Jesus' birth would be surprised to hear that.

The article itself is unfortunate, in that it takes statements from some leftists that happen to sound individualist (note: liberals are not, in fact, individualists) and extrapolates them to claim that all individualism is socialist and anti-religion. Such an extrapolation is no more logical or correct than claiming that the statements of a few liberal Protestants indicate that Christianity is liberal, pro-homosexual, and anti-capitalist. Reason and science lead inexorably to conservative principles of limited government, and (other than ticking off a few biblical literalists) they make no claim and have no conflict regarding any rational person's religious beliefs.

[Waverunner]

I still love the quote from the Evil Scientist in the movie,The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera. In answer to the question " What do you believe", His response was " I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything".

[driftless2]

Science without the moral element (religious principles, etc.) are the Nazi "medical" experiments of WWII. Of course we have people like that Singer idiot at Princeton who would dispense with human life even after birth if the "product" is not to his liking. There are many more humanist monsters out there just like him.

[SkyPilot]

The "money quote" was from Jeremiah speaking of the condition of the human heart.

Verses 5-7 of that chapter are more "money quotes."

Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who depends on flesh for his strength
and whose heart turns away from the Lord.

He will be like a bush in the wastelands;
he will not see prosperity when it comes.
He will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.

But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose confidence is in Him.

[StonyBurk]

AH-but didn't the young gun Harris wear a t-shirt proclaiming his devotion to "Natural Selection" as he
murderded his fellow public school students at Columbine
High School in Coloraod -after asking many of them if they
believed in God first? Those overtly devoted to Science
tend to be as immoral as Hitlers Nazi.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Say what you will, but it touches some real nerves. I've known too many academics to dismiss this attitude as fringe or marginal.

[Brit1]

You look up at the sky and see the stars and understand God as the ultimate physicist.

You look down at the pages of your ancient book and it tells you the exact opposite.

[palmer]

The global warmists take much the same view as Reich. The consider their war to be enlightened science and concern for the globe versus anti-scientific provincialism.

[raybbr]

...Science (Left) versus Religion (Right); that the two are mutually exclusive...

What a conundrum: What if God created evolution?

[Earthdweller]

All reality is based on faith in something, be it science, human reasoning or spirit.

Once excepted as truth, all are in fact a form of "Religion".

Thank you for the article DLR. This is someone who "Gets it"

[Erik Latranyi]

What a conundrum: What if God created evolution?

And what if he didn't?

The author's point is adherence to science as absolute without moral balance (God) is tyranny.

Evolution is a just a theory. It has supporters that are thoughtful and good. It also has supporters that are blinded by science above all else.

The other side is equally composed of good and blinded.

The liberals are trying to substitute science for morality. Promises of potential good outweigh religion-based morality.

Socialism depends on the worship of gov't. Man cannot have two masters. Liberals know this and are trying to dispose of one master and substitute it with another.

[DoctorMichael]

This article is utter trash

I partially disagree. I was thinking more along the lines of 'crap' as the operative adjective.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Darwin or not, for people like Reich, Maher or Kerry, "science" is little different from an alternative religion. They just believe that their priests have more powerful magic.

[thomaswest]

They just believe that their [science's] priests have more powerful magic.

And science has been demonstrated more powerful than witch doctors, psychics, exorcists, prayer, magnetic bracelets, etc.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Hmmm...

I'm only commenting on the mental state of certain people.

Karl Popper in the 1930's maintained, correctly imho, that Freudian psychology wasn't a "science" but rather an ideology. I don't think Reich, Maher, Kerry and that ilk are in any position to distinguish science from ideology.

Owen Gingrich shows that preference of Copernican cosmology over Ptolemaic was an aesthetic rather than a technical judgment. Copernican theory was certainly no more accurate and less economical computationally. It's primary attraction was that it resolved planetary motion into a series of uniform circular motions, in accord with Aristole's dictum.

Global Warming, to my mind most nearly resembles Freudian Psychology: "Pop Science" often harnessed to political ends, whose purveyors claim lay claim to a tooth sucking intellectual superiority to the unwashed and towering stature with respect to skeptics.

Global warming is not so much a scientific theory as an ideology. It is tautological; all observations confirm at confidence level 100%. "Global warming" is extremely robust with respect to evidence: it accounts for any and all evidence with any noticable change in form.

[DaveLoneRanger]

I think that's what a lot of people think about scientists, though. That there's no bias, no swaying of the minds toward one side or the other, no preconceived notions or personal beliefs of scientists at all. That just isn't the case.

[A. Pole]

"The experimental method known as science, you see, was founded by Christians"

I imagine the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese who formulated the scientific method and began the study of natural existence centuries before Jesus' birth would be surprised to hear that.

"ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese" had schools and learning. But it was VERY different from the institution of Western science with the system of universities, scientific method and underlying metaphysical and epistemological principles.

The official institutional science as we know it today was created by the Roman Catholic Church on the base of church structure and scholastic philosophy. As the Christian culture erodes so the science will decline. We can see it happening already through political correctness and commercialization etc ...

[A. Pole]

I still love the quote from the Evil Scientist in the movie,The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera. In answer to the question " What do you believe", His response was " I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything".

If you do not BELIEVE in scientific method you cannot be a scientist. If you do believe in it then you accept the underlying metaphysical principles even if you are not aware of them.

[freedumb2003]

Too bad so much of the Right gives easy ammo of anti-intellecualism, anti-science and willful ignorance to the Left.

We don't have to worry about them "painting" us as lowbrow Luddites -- we save them the trouble and paint ourselves.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To read later

[freedumb2003]

Those overtly devoted to Science tend to be as immoral as Hitlers Nazi.

And Jim Jones, right? And lets not forget that little "Inquisition" thing that killed a handful of people.

Abuse of an idea is nothing new.

[monday]

"Adams and Hamilton recognized almost from the start that the move to supplant religion with reason would lead to wholesale slaughter (as it did during the Reign of Terror) and ultimately end in dictatorship (as both of them predicted long before Napoleon proved them right)."

This isn't strictly true. Unlike America, France had suffered under centuries of feudalism and religious persecution. The power that church and Feudal leaders had upon the peasantry was absolute.

As a result, when the revolution happened, it was with extreme violence as the oppressors were living there among the oppressed. By contrast Americas oppressors were living an ocean away in Great Briton.

Of course the French revolution was much more bloody than the American revolution, but the reasons for that had little to do with the superficial atheism of the French revolutions leaders.

The premise for this whole article is flawed.

[monday]

"We don't have to worry about them "painting" us as lowbrow Luddites -- we save them the trouble and paint ourselves."

Perhaps Tom Flannery is a mole and he writes articles like this one in order to discredit conservatives? Actually it's the only explanation that makes sense. It's hard to believe anyone is really as stupid as he pretends to be.

[enviros_kill]

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

Quotation by F. Hoelderlin in The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek, 1944, p. 24.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Well, don't look now, but a move is afoot by leftists in media and government today — having learned nothing from the horrors of the French Revolution or the Soviet experiment or other such examples throughout history — to once again enshrine human reason, with the twin engine of scientific discovery, as man's guiding light. They hope that by doing so they can do away once and for all with what they view as the "superstition" of religion.

Comedian Bill Maher, for instance, divides people into two classifications — those who follow the compass (science) and those who would rather "read the chicken entrails" (religion).

Robert Reich? Bill Maher? Someone has a LOT of time on their hands.

It's an error of colossal silliness (and significant philosophical illiteracy) to circumscribe "reason" to the narrow parameters of materialistic scientism in the secular humanist sense. There is nothing "logical" or "rational" about the modern liberal mind. As the French Revolution and the recent history of American liberalism have demonstrated in spades.

Maher's schtick has more to do with adolescent genital politics than reading treatises by Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton.

[Coyoteman]

I still love the quote from the Evil Scientist in the movie,The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera. In answer to the question " What do you believe", His response was " I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything".

Perhaps there is a reason for that statement. Are you familiar with Heinlein's pertinent statement?:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[Coyoteman]

...for people like Reich, Maher or Kerry, "science" is little different from an alternative religion.

Science is not a religion of any kind! Here are two definitions from my infamous list. For two cents I'd post the entire thing, but most folks won't read past the first line (full list will be posted on request).

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

[Rocketman]

I relent to true wisdom :D

[RobbyS]

Modern science was founded by Christians rather than Muslims, Hindus, or Confucians. That's a historical fact. Furthermore, they were Latin rather than eastern Christians. Somehow these particular Christians took from classical civilization and, beginning in the 11 th century, went on to excell in the creation of machines and the development of the physical sciences. In terms of sheer wealth, China far exceed the Europeans, but something was lacking in the mix of their civilization.

[RobbyS]

Prayer is not something magical, although many belief it to be. It is a conversation between man and God.

[Coyoteman]

Somehow these particular Christians took from classical civilization and, beginning in the 11 th century, went on to excell in the creation of machines and the development of the physical sciences.

And they did so by studying nature and natural processes while avoiding fundamentalism.

Somebody on one of these threads recommended Human Accomplishment by Murray. Good read. This is one of his points as well.

[RobbyS]

And they founded universities which honored natural philosophy and taught their students dialectics, which is to say critical thinking. People think that the studeny of Aristotle was an impediment to schice, but he was, after all, a naturalist, and he provided a baseline for further advance.

[Waverunner]

No but I grok it.

[DungeonMaster]

One thing that is true, Christianity is not about reason. Reason is for the World which is dead.

[enviros_kill]

Another great book along these lines (Christian contributions to science and enlightenment) is "Under the Influence"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310236371/
I read this a few years ago and was reminded of how beneficial Christian men and women have been to society, to women's rights and to scientific discovery.

From Amazon description:
Book Description
A survey of the various ways--often unrecognized and overlooked--whereby Christianity has impacted the world, making the world a better place and enriching our everyday living.

From the Back Cover
Western civilization is becoming increasingly pluralistic, secularized, and biblically illiterate. Many people today have little sense of how their lives have benefited from Christianity’s influence, often viewing the church with hostility or resentment.
Under the Influence is a topically arranged Christian history for Christians and non-Christians. Grounded in solid research and written in a popular style, this book is both a helpful apologetic tool in talking with unbelievers and a source of evidence for why Christianity deserves credit for many of the humane, social, scientific, and cultural advances in the Western world in the last 2,000 years. Photographs and timelines enhance each chapter.

Some unrecognized contributions of Christianity include: * Bringing sanctity to human life by opposing the Greco-Roman practices of abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, and suicide * Raising the level of sexual morality and giving dignity to family life * Giving freedom and dignity to women * First founding hospitals in the 4th century * Originating universities and higher education * Bringing dignity and honor to labor * Spawning and developing modern science * First condemning slavery and inspiring its abolition * Producing major contributions to art, architecture, music, and literature

[colorado tanker]

Read the article again. It is not anti-science or pro-creationist. The point is that it's dangerous for a society to use science as a battering ram in an effort to banish religion and secularize society, as the French tried during the Revolution.

IMHO science and religion are compatible and I don't see anything in the article that would disagree. The point that some have used scientific advancements for evil ends should be unremarkable to you.