Atheism Culture Darwinist rhetorical tactics Evolutionary materialism's amorality evolutionary materialism's self-falsification Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Dan Brown tries the Science disproves/dismisses God trick

Spread the love

As Breitbart (as a handy source) reports:

>>“Historically, no god has survived science. Gods evolved,” the best-selling American novelist said at the Frankfurt Book Fair, where he unveiled his newest book, “Origin”.

The fifth instalment in the wildly popular series that started with “The Da Vinci Code” tracks Harvard professor Robert Langdon’s latest code-cracking adventure to uncover the mysteries of the universe, this time exploring the battle between religion and science.

“I happen to believe in looking at advances through technology,” Brown told reporters.

“Over the next decade our species will become enormously interconnected at a level we are not used to, and we will start to find our spiritual experiences through our interconnections with each other.

“Our need for the exterior God that sits up there and judges us… will diminish and eventually disappear.”>>

This already tells us a lot about our popular culture and the sort of thinking that celebrities imagine they can get away with saying in public. First, his history is wrong, science proper is not an engine of atheism, though evolutionary materialistic scientism is — but this is a self-referentially incoherent, inherently amoral, bankrupt ideology, not science. Second, blind chance and mechanical necessity have not been observed to spontaneously generate complex, coherent, functionally specific organisation and associated information, whether cell based life or major body plan elements, or the cosmos. By contrast, such FSCO/I is routinely seen as produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity [oops: intelligently directed configuration], and this is backed up by search challenge in configuration spaces beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity.

But, who said that the fallacy of confident manner to promote a populist form of atheism or new age-ism in novels is anything new? Or, that there are not millions who will leap at the chance to take a peek at novels pretending to be giving us actual scientific results that disprove God? Which, is where we should be deeply concerned, the state of the Western mind given what passes for education and the agendas pushed in the media. END

32 Replies to “Dan Brown tries the Science disproves/dismisses God trick

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Dan Brown: “Historically, no god has survived science”

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    Headline-

    Atheist Writer Writes Another Fiction About Science Hostile To Religion: Atheists Again To Think It’s Real And May Even Read It.

    Film At 11.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Better to write fiction than have a God.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    kairosfocus- That Dan Brown quote is funny in the light of Sir Isaac Newton and others who saw science as a way to understand God’s Creation.

    Do atheists even have a clue?

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    EugeneS posted this quote @33 in another thread:

    Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
    Max Planck

    https://uncommondescent.com/mind/can-ai-become-just-like-us/#comment-641489

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos, or anybody else, @ where ever,

    which God, and which religion is Dan trying to bring down? Yours? Or some other god and religion?

    Secondly, science does indeed destroy religion! Where as in the past we would say, ‘the gods are angry’, when there was an earthquake, today we know, continental plates shift.

    Where as, in the past we would say, ‘god gave us HIV to punish homosexuality’, today we know it as an evolved disease inherited from ou close cousins, chimps.

    Science relentlessly destroys religion, except in backward areas of the world. There, religion, and god thrives. Perhaps you should move to the Middle East, North Africa, Mother Russia, or India, to exerience God’s, and religion’s full impact? We’ll keep the Man Made Constitution warm.:)

    As Hitchens elequently noted; humanity is ditching its mysteries,fears, faiths, and religions. They have gone from hundreds of gods, down to one. They are slowly approaching the real figure; zero!

  7. 7
    EDTA says:

    rvb8,

    >which God, and which religion is Dan trying to bring down? Yours?
    Since we know his book will sell the most copies in the West, he is clearly targeting the Christian God primarily. But killing him here may not have much impact at all elsewhere.

    >Perhaps you should move to the Middle East, North Africa,
    >Mother Russia, or India, to exerience God’s, and religion’s full impact?
    The “impacts” are clearly not all the same, because not all religions are the same. (Although in the mind of an atheist, I suppose they would get lumped together.)

    >We’ll keep the Man Made Constitution warm.
    I’m not sure you’ll actually be able to keep that Constitution warm. Our nation today has quite a dearth of meaning and purpose happening, and religions like Islam are good for filling up voids like that. (The pursuit of pleasure doesn’t count as “purpose”, btw.) Are you really sure your optimism is justified? Human nature appears to abhor a spiritual vacuum…

    >As Hitchens elequently noted; humanity is ditching its mysteries,fears, faiths, and religions…
    You mean the West is. The other regions you pointed out are not ditching theirs so fast.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    I will make a few remarks, first it is clear that Mr Brown has a particular animus against the Judaeo-Christian tradition (which has been sustained across his career as a novellist), but also that he has sought to propagate conspiracy theories. In addition, his agenda seeks to undermine ethical theism and much more.

    Indeed, his fiasco of including a specific physicist by name and apparently twisting his research into an attempt to pretend to solution of OOL has led Jeremy England to rebuke him on the record: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/dan-brown-smacked-down-by-real-life-physicist-he-wrote-about/

    This of course is a second matter, he is trying to erase a huge hole in the evolutionary materialist picture of origins. It fails.

    Next, your own attempt to sneer at those who believe in God as backward and in the path of the advancing juggernaut, “Science,” simply reveals naive believe in the sort of evolutionary materialist scientism that Lewontin discussed 20 years ago:

    . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    This exercise in question-begging and self-referential incoherence failed twenty years ago, and it continues to fail today. For, it is incoherent and necessarily false.

    Evolutionary materialist scientism and fellow travellers simply are not a serious worldview option. Never mind the agit prop power games used to prop it up. (Cf the fate of Communism.)

    As for tangential attempts to set up and knock over a strawman caricature on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, it is to be noted that sexual promiscuity and insistence on indulging in inherently disordered and often outright insanitary sexual behaviours that are provably unhealthy are major contributors to the spreading of that epidemic. So is the illicit use of IV drugs.

    All of which have a definite moral component.

    As for the Hitchens clip, that may be a neat rhetorical talking-point, but it is in fact empty of substance. There is every good reason to see that we live in a world that is a creation, that we are morally governed responsibly and rationally significantly free creatures, and to further understand that this points to an inherently moral root to reality.

    The nonsense about whittling down from hundreds of small-g gods to one God reflects refusal to address the matter seriously. The God of ethical theism is ontologically utterly distinct from superhumans of pagan religion, and the notion that one evolves from the one to the next fails. FYI, in a world where we are morally governed even in our reasoning — duties to truth and sound reasoning — it remains that we must face a worrld-root IS capable of grounding ought. On pain of reducing morally governed action to meaninglessness and amoral nihilism; including the world of the mind; thence, to might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ justice’ etc. Which, should sound familiar, if you have ever paused to ponder Plato’s warning in the Laws Bk X, 2350+ years ago.

    As I have pointed out, there is only one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    Clever rhetoric in support of the inherently self-refuting, irresponsible and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers does not change that balance on the merits.

    KF

    PS: Every scheme of argument or thought, ideology or worldview, pressed back stage by stage will reach a finitely remote faith-point, the level of its presuppositions and first commitments. The notion of discarding and sneering at faith is not only yet another preening on ignorance but it leads those enmeshed into taking up an ideology without due examination on comparative difficulties. The characteristic result of such is question-begging, ill-informed first points and often utter self-referential incoherence. Exactly the faults of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Plato’s warning, for ready reference — not that those who most need to heed it are prone to pay it heed. However, the impacts on communities through irresponsible factionalism should give us pause — if we are willing to learn from history instead of foolishly repeating its worst chapters:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF,

    Regarding rvb8. I applaud your efforts to penetrate his ignorance, but I fear such might be invincible. This is, after all, the man who said that the scientists who created the weapons of mass destruction that could kill every man, woman and child hundreds of times over did not actually know what they were doing.

    Not making this up. Here is what he said:

    I’m not sure of your image of crazed scientists deliberately creating sarin or mustard gas to kill people is accurate.

    BTW, the part about the scientists being “crazed” that he attributes to me is pure lie. I never said or hinted at such. I understand rvb8 is a teacher. That some educational institution would deliberately expose its students to such as he takes my breath away.

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    BA,

    In a frivolous world that gets so excited to read hogwash from authors like the one exposed in KF’s current OP, why would one be surprised that anybody out there -regardless of qualifications- can teach anything anywhere? Just note that words don’t have meaning. Facts are not important. Truth is not sought and many times avoided or even rejected.
    A distinguished biochemistry professor from a reputable university publicly calls ‘dishonest’ a simple ‘yes/no’ biology question that includes the word ‘exactly’. That happened here in this website a couple of years ago.

  12. 12
    rvb8 says:

    To all,

    Dan Brown is a mediocre writer at best, he writes fiction, admits it, and is free to write any twaddle he wishes; why take him seriously?

    Better to aim your shaming barrels at Tim LaHaye, and Jerry B. Jenkins, for their outstandingly egregious ‘Left Behind’ series; sixteen books in all, I never got past page 160 of the first spouting.

    These writers are monumentally deranged, and their writings have millions of followers; please KF, tell me you aren’t one?

    Their kind of writing leads to third rate movies with ‘B’ grade hasbeen actors; now that should get your goat!

    Thank you once again Barry for the insults, you remain a class act, and a gentleman.

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord.

    In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek Him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”

    Psalm 10:3-4

    The fool may be highly intelligent by the world’s standards, but is oblivious to the true nature of reality (Eccl. 2:14). To be called a fool is a moral judgment.

    The fool denies the existence of God as a matter of human concern. This is practical atheism. God is held to be unconcerned about the affairs of the world and especially the affairs of the individual. See “Mankind’s Guilty Knowledge of God” at Rom. 1:19.

    Note the use of this psalm by Paul in Rom. 3:10–18. Foolishness points to lack of morality, not absence of native intellect.

    Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

    Psalm 14:1

    The fool may be highly intelligent by the world’s standards, but is oblivious to the true nature of reality (Eccl. 2:14). To be called a fool is a moral judgment.

    The fool denies the existence of God as a matter of human concern. This is practical atheism. God is held to be unconcerned about the affairs of the world and especially the affairs of the individual. See “Mankind’s Guilty Knowledge of God” at Rom. 1:19.

    Note the use of this psalm by Paul in Rom. 3:10–18. Foolishness points to lack of morality, not absence of native intellect.

    Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, we notice how — after enthusiastically endorsing the new atheists and fellow travellers (in which circle we must include Brown) — when specific counters were offered, you tried to go off on a tangent. The matter on the table is that evo mat scientism (including its enabling fellow travellers) is not a serious worldview on the merits but likes to hide behind the colours of Science. As Brown’s latest book exemplifies. Now, have you or any other an answer that is cogent? Let us hear it: ______ KF

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, a whole range of weapons of mass destruction were created by scientists. Indeed, leading scientists were among the first to champion war gases 100 years ago; after which others felt it necessary not only to create defensive measures but to lead retaliation in kind lest things go even further. It is noteworthy that while gases were created and stockpiled for Round 2, they were not used (though the UK intended to use such on the invasion beaches in 1940). The key exception was of course against the disarmed and defenceless herded into Zyklon B showers in the death camps. The relevant scientists were not crazed, but I have personally known some who woke up to what is termed an attack of conscience. Some, have changed their course of life as a result. There is a world of needed ethics, including ethics of rationality that should be addressed. KF

    PS: I add, that reason and responsibility (which entails duty, thus ought) are inextricably intertwined and entangled. Hence the concept of wisdom and the magnificent opening stanza of the Proverbs:

    Proverbs 1Amplified Bible (AMP)
    The Usefulness of Proverbs

    1 The proverbs (truths obscurely expressed, maxims) of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:

    2 To know [skillful and godly] wisdom and instruction;
    To discern and comprehend the words of understanding and insight,
    3 To receive instruction in wise behavior and the discipline of wise thoughtfulness,
    Righteousness, justice, and integrity;
    4 That prudence (good judgment, astute common sense) may be given to the naive or inexperienced [who are easily misled],
    And knowledge and discretion (intelligent discernment) to the youth,
    5 The wise will hear and increase their learning,
    And the person of understanding will acquire wise counsel and the skill [to steer his course wisely and lead others to the truth],
    6 To understand a proverb and a figure [of speech] or an enigma with its interpretation,
    And the words of the wise and their riddles [that require reflection].

    7 The [reverent] fear of the Lord [that is, worshiping Him and regarding Him as truly awesome] is the beginning and the preeminent part of knowledge [its starting point and its essence];
    But arrogant [a]fools despise [skillful and godly] wisdom and instruction and self-discipline.

    I suspect, the folly of making a crooked yardstick the standard of straightness and accuracy then rejecting what is really straight and accurate escapes those caught up in such schemes. too many of these will then reject plumbline, self evident or empirically manifest factual tests that show up the crookedness they cling to.

  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    Man’s Wickedness and God’s Perfections

    An oracle within my heart concerning the transgression of the wicked: There is no fear of God before his eyes.

    Psalm 36:1 (NKJV)

    no fear. This is the opposite of the attitude which characterizes true disciples. The word here is actually “dread” or “terror” (cf. Deut. 2:25; Ps. 119:120; Is. 2:10, 19, 21; etc.).

    MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV)

    no fear of God. The psalmist identifies the root of all evil, just as Prov. 1:7 cites the fear of God as the beginning of all knowledge. The fear of God that springs from faith is a special response to revelation, the reverential awe that recognizes total dependence upon the Lord. In the absence of reverence a different type of fear of the Lord will be experienced, namely dread

    Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries

  18. 18
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    Perhaps this is off topic, but maybe it somehow relates to BA’s comments?

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1975/sakharov-bio.html

  19. 19
    Dionisio says:

    This was posted @5, but maybe it’s worth repeating it?

    EugeneS posted this interesting quote in another thread:

    Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck

    https://uncommondescent.com/mind/can-ai-become-just-like-us/#comment-641489

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Dionisio, Sakharov was both father of the Russian H-bomb by an original design (their a-bomb was a copy of the US designs by way of spies), and later a leading dissident scientist. Yes, by way of an attack of conscience. KF

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    Typo in OP spotted and corrected.

  22. 22
    bb says:

    From what I understand, it’s Christianity that has done away with most deities. Science follows this progenitor. Then, when people are prosperous, fat, happy and think they have solved so many mysteries, and arrogantly think they understand how it all came about, science is wrongly credited for the death of “unnecessary” religion. Scientism follows, then science, and civilization, die. After that people worship nature. The current rationale is to save it. When pantheism falls short, lesser deities are invented to personify nature, and the cycle is complete.

    Paul describes this in Romans 1, and we see it happening before our eyes. My conclusion is based on a comparison of what Paul wrote to current observed trends. You see it portrayed in some radical environmental groups that pray to trees for forgiveness. ENV recently highlighted a movement to designate personhood to rivers and waterways. If a river is a person, one would need to get its permission before he used it as a resource. How? Why a priest for river person/soon-to-be-god of course.

    There you have it. Christianity leads to education, science, technology, and modernity. Arrogance and denial of God leads first to destruction of what foundational principles, then primitive religion, magic, superstition and idolatry. rvb8 will deny this, of course, but he denies what is clear in history.

  23. 23
    critical rationalist says:

    God supposedly walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, expressed anger as thunder, opened a woman’s womb and separated the waters above from the waters below.

    That God didn’t survive science or even philosophy.

    Which God has?

    Furthermore, science is criticism that happens to include emperical tests.

  24. 24
    tribune7 says:

    This guy, literally, writes fiction.

    People, ironically, accept it as fact.

    The moment you start worshipping science, the moment you start saying it can answer all the questions of existence — ironically a faith statement in itself — is the moment you become an enemy of science.

  25. 25
    tribune7 says:

    –God supposedly walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, expressed anger as thunder, opened a woman’s womb and separated the waters above from the waters below.

    That God didn’t survive science or even philosophy. —

    The scientific method has been with us for close to 500 years and philosophy since before history was recorded.

    Many — maybe most in the U.S. depending on the polls — believe in Adam and Eve.

    The Biblical literalist view seems to be surviving just fine.

  26. 26
    tribune7 says:

    –There you have it. Christianity leads to education, science, technology, and modernity. Arrogance and denial of God leads first to destruction of what foundational principles, then primitive religion, magic, superstition and idolatry.–

    Really great point.

  27. 27
    tribune7 says:

    –Better to aim your shaming barrels at Tim LaHaye, and Jerry B. Jenkins, for their outstandingly egregious ‘Left Behind’ series; sixteen books in all, I never got past page 160 of the first spouting.–

    You did better than I did.

    I suspect that if authoritative social influencers treated Left Behind respectfully and seriously, you’d find a lot here putting it in its place.

    My personal view is that Left Behind is more corrupting than Dan Brown’s garbage.

  28. 28
    critical rationalist says:

    @tribune7

    So, why didn’t Adam and Eve die? No man can look at God and live. Of course, this is because God changed from a being that could walk with you to an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexpcable realm that works in inexplicable means and methods.

    That God didn’t even survive in the Bible itself.

    There are good arguments that the Bible was retrofitted to present a mono-theistic view (but not very well, as reminants still remain.)

  29. 29
    tribune7 says:

    –So, why didn’t Adam and Eve die? No man can look at God and live. —

    That’s an argument premised not just upon an extremely literal interpretation but on the idea that words found in one part of the Bible can be stripped of context and applied wherever.

    In fairness, there are those who were raised upon the dogma that the Bible must be taken literally and that it never contradicts itself. Children raised as such more often than not it seems wind up as atheists.

    Treat the Bible as one would a secular work and it holds up remarkably well. Compare it to Origin of the Species 🙂

    –There are good arguments that the Bible was retrofitted to present a mono-theistic view (but not very well, as reminants still remain.)–

    There are not actually. There are those, however, who want to make arguments about the Bible to justify their rejection of it.

  30. 30
    bb says:

    CR,

    You say nothing to effectively counter my point. Christianity, not science, or Atheism, did away with most of the small “g” gods in the world. The Roman, and Greek gods were eliminated by Christianity. The same happened with all the European deities, North American (Aztec, Incan, etc..), Egyptian, African, parts of India.

    Buddhism did so in China and the far east, but Christianity is actually dominant in the most populous, and prosperous eastern regions now. It was so popular, and compelling, in Japan that the 17th century Tokugawa Shoguns worked to suppress it violently, like the Atheist/Communist nations in the 20th century. Force is the most effective means because no other worldview can match Christianity with reason.

    Christianity is still thriving in the west now, but most in power reject God. Not because science killed Him, but because of an irrational denial of His existence. Opting for cosmogonies that are more similar to the ancient Egyptian story of how all life started from a dung beetle. Dismissing the observation that life looks designed as illusion. So dismissing observation itself. Talk about undermining science.

    Science is declining now, with Lysenko-like efforts to penalize those that dare to offer explanations that make more sense. Those that don’t need to dismiss observation as illusion in order to force-fit science into one’s presupposition.

    Stark difference to the explosive growth of science when Christians were at the helm. The idea of natural law actually comes from the Old Testament in Job 28. That’s where we first see recorded the idea that natural phenomena, like rain, follows law and not the arbitrary dictates of some weather deity. I think civilization will return to weather deities when Atheism has run its course. Nature gods are a growing trend with many turning from Christianity, and fearful of environmental impact. As Paul wrote 2,000 years ago, that is, and has been, the end-result of a rejection of God.

  31. 31
    Origenes says:

    bb @30

    Thank you for that post; I especially enjoyed the third paragraph about irrational denial.

  32. 32
    bb says:

    You’re too kind Origenes. Most here are way above my pay grade, so I don’t comment often.

Leave a Reply