Science needs Christianity to survive

Christians must realize that they need science in order to defeat atheism. But, what’s even more true is that science needs Christianity in order to survive. It has to be stated clearly that genuine and productive science cannot exist without Christianity.

The historical truth is that science was born of Christianity. All of the great pioneers in astronomy and physics were devout Christians, because modern science has been based from its beginning on uniquely Christian beliefs and faith. If Christianity had never existed, there would have been no science to lift humankind out of ignorance and barbarity.

Most atheists are not only ignorant of the true history of science; they make up their own history as in the totally false story of the alleged persecution of Galileo. Those few atheists who know and admit the truth about the origins of modern science would undoubtedly argue that science has outgrown its Christian roots. Richard Dawkins and other scientists-turned-professional-atheists argue that science has been liberated from Christianity, which is either a self-serving delusion or an outright lie. The one thing atheists are correct about is that Christianity has become a diminishing factor in science through the last few generations.

The loss of Christian guidance is distressing, because science cannot survive as a source of truth and useful knowledge without the preeminence of Christian values, beliefs, and faith. Individual humanists and other non-Christians can certainly do real science, but only in a Christian intellectual environment that inhibits the natural anti-scientific impulses of the human mind. Secular humanists see science as a human endeavor that must be in constant and unfailing service to humankind, which really means that science must be bent in service of humanist preconceptions of how the world should be.

True science can serve only one purpose — the search for truth. It is up to engineers, entrepreneurs, and others to use the results of science in ways that are beneficial to society. Scientists, however, can have only one guiding concern, and science is corrupted to the degree to which other concerns (wealth, reputation, and political power) motivate them. Christians as a group were never perfectly motivated by the desire for truth, but the Christian scientific community was effectively guided by that ambition. It is difficult for people who really believe that the scientific search for truth is an attempt to learn something about God to disappoint their God by allowing worldly concerns to get in the way of the search for divine truth.

The vitality and trustworthiness of science is in direct proportion to the Christian influence in a discipline and in inverse proportion to the influence of secular humanism. The following is a list of the major fields of sciences starting with those which have been most influenced by Christianity to those that have been least influenced:

  • Physics and astronomy
  • Chemistry
  • Biology
  • Medicine
  • Climatology
  • Social and behavioral studies

The above also serves as a list of scientific fields from the least corrupted by secular humanism to the most corrupted. It is ironic that humanists think of themselves as the great rational defenders of science, but in truth, the more influence secular humanism has in a discipline, the more it prevents real science from occurring.

Astronomy and astrophysics was for centuries the bastion of Christians trying to understand God through the study of His magnificent creation. Atheists supported astrophysics as long as its findings could be used to undermine Christian beliefs and faith. When the discovery of the big bang confirmed Christian scriptures and a new understanding of the exquisitely precise fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life destroyed the atheists’ cherished principle of mediocracy, humanists abandoned genuine science and grabbed onto the quasi-scientific notion of the multiverse the way a drowning person clings to a life-preserver. Atheists will destroy astronomy and cosmology before they will accept any science that supports Christian beliefs and faith.

The corruption of science by secular humanism is far worse in biology, medicine, climatology, and the social and behavioral studies. Biology, climate science, and medicine have gone off the rails as secular humanists have infiltrated and appropriated them for humanist social and political purposes. The behavioral and social studies have been constant failures of science because humanist followers of Freud and Marx controlled them from the beginning.

Science can survive individual humanist scientists, but when a critical mass of humanism occurs in a discipline, all of the intellectual failings of the human race are let loose and the ancient barriers to knowledge that prevented science until the intellectual triumph of Christianity 400 years ago are once again raised. Humanism will always destroy everything it touches.

Articles will follow that demonstrate the corrupting humanist influence on science in biology, medicine, climatology, the social fields of study, and the study of individual human behavior.

12 thoughts on “Science needs Christianity to survive

  1. Interesting article but I have to point out that Science existed long before Christianity. Your blog seems a bit detached from the article you posted concerning “Modern Science”.

    I could give you examples of how Christianity both helped and hindered to be non-biased but I’m pretty sure based on your language, you are not looking for something non-biased.

  2. I have to point out that Science existed long before Christianity.

    Since most historians would disagree with you, you will need to provide some actual evidence to support your hypothesis. While it is true that men saw things and wrote down empirical observations almost as soon as written language was developed that is not modern science – not even close. Your lack of understanding points that you should consider looking things up on the most basic of sources like Wikipedia before stating stuff that makes you look ill informed and silly. From Wikipedia:
    “The dawn of modern science is often traced back to the early modern period and in particular to the scientific revolution that took place in 16th- and 17th-century Europe.”

    Yes, the first primitive work on geometry was done by the Greeks before Christ, but that is not what is considered to be science by the vast majority of historians or those who specialize in the philosophy of science. So you are wrong, the scientific method was indeed developed in the time frame as stated on Wikipedia. I am guessing that since you present no evidence of support, you have no interest in the actual truth of the matter.
    The modern scientific method developed when and where it did for good reasons. The reason it did not develop elsewhere or at another time was not because the humans in those other locations or other times were not smart enough – they were plenty smart enough. It did not develop elsewhere because of foundational reasons of culture and belief as Surak well laid out.

    In fact, exactly because science is turning its back on its Christian roots it is experiencing a crisis of truth and accuracy.
    When money, fame and politics are more important than truth, science will have a major problem – and its starting to already. Here is an article from Nature from earlier this year:

    http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

  3. Both of the previous comments from David and Chris contend that science predated Christianity, but I think it would be awkward if this article had to use the term “modern scientific method” in every mention of science to make the point. It is pretty clear that in its broadest sense people observed things and tried to figure stuff out before the advent of the modern scientific method with Francis Bacon and all the other Christians who were the predominant contributors to the modern scientific method. Smart guys like Solomon were doing that as far back as Ecclesiastes, or you could even argue that Adam was “doing science” by classifying animals in the Garden at the very Genesis of sentient humanity. These commentors seem to be totally missing the point. smh

  4. Dennis, it appears Chris was quoting David before refuting him.

    David, there is more than one author at SixDay. This article was posted by Surak, not me. Nevertheless, I’m certain Surak would not disagree that Christians have done things to hinder science — they are human, after all — and it’s not his hypothesis that Christianity has flawlessly supported science. He is asserting that without Christianity we would not, and will not, have modern science.

    Commenters are free to dissent here, as long as they follow the rules of the blog, so give whatever examples you like.

  5. I think David & Dennis would be helped if the author thoroughly defined what secular humanism entails. Secular humanism runs into a road block entitled cultural relativism. Cultural relativism leads to moral skepticism. Everyone knows (or should know) the dangers of moral skepticism. We are currently live on a planet where moral skepticism is gaining momentum.

  6. The entire Old Testament points to the coming Messiah. Therefore, the presence/influence of science either before or after the time of Christ on earth and the beginning of Christianity is actually a rather mute reference point in the timeline of history. ‘True science’ and the ‘true understanding of the Word’ are simultaneous working entities both defining each other throughout all of time. It is taking all of history for mankind to understand these ‘truths’ in the light of each other and for them to converge into a unified understanding of creation – perhaps this convergence will only be understood in eternity. Science seeks to determine the ‘what’ and ‘how’ God created while the Creator God in His Word gives us an overview perspective of creation but focusing on the ‘why.’ Most importantly, He gives us in His Word the gift of faith in the redeeming work of Christ on the Cross for mankind’s sinful nature – starting at Day One.

  7. I never received notification of the 4 other comments since no one actually replied to my message.

    To clarify, Surak only mentioned the term “modern” science once and as such is was difficult to discern if he was talking about Science as a whole or “Modern Science”.

    I pointed out that Science has existed long before Christianity as Dennis agreed “Smart guys like Solomon were doing that as far back as Ecclesiastes” but then commented “These commentors seem to be totally missing the point. smh. My post above makes reference to Science vs. Modern Science.

    I pointed out that Christianity hindered and helped science. and as Sarah pointed out “I’m certain Surak would not disagree that Christians have done things to hinder science”

    If one needs more information about how Christianity hindered Science only needs to research the Enlightenment era. This is a time where modern science, on the most part, was no longer under the thumb of religion and thrived.

    Christianity had a huge role in education, no doubt about that and had an impact on science. Surak mentions “The one thing atheists are correct about is that Christianity has become a diminishing factor in science through the last few generations.”, and I would have to counter that it has diminished for a few centuries (as pointed out above, see: Enlightenment Era)

    Science needs everyone. Christians, Islam, Atheists, Humanists..etc. What it doesn’t need is people claiming ownership or blaming another group for it’s issues.

  8. David K,

    A few of your statements are either inaccurate or debatable (I’m surprised that the author, Surak, hasn’t responded).

    First statement: ‘Christianity hindered and helped science. and as Sarah pointed out “I’m certain Surak would not disagree that Christians have done things to hinder science’ ”

    One (or two) of the definitions of science is ‘a systematic attempt to establish theories to explain observed phenomena and the knowledge obtained through these efforts’ or ‘The branch of knowledge that produces theoretic explanations of natural phenomena based on experiments and observations.’

    Christianity hasn’t hindered humans (scientists) from doing this (science)? What Christianity has done is to inform the scientist (for lack of better words) about acting sinful (Christianity term for immoral) while conducting his/hers scientific experiments, observations, methods, etc.

    Second statement: ‘If one needs more information about how Christianity hindered Science only needs to research the Enlightenment era. This is a time where modern science, on the most part, was no longer under the thumb of religion and thrived.’

    This is not true. Please review the following site about the Age of Enlightenment, especially the section about science and religion (where (1) ‘Some historians have marked the 18th century as a drab period in the history of science’ (2) there is debate on when the Age of Enlightenment started (1700s?) and ended (early 1800s?), and (3) the Enlightenment Age didn’t change the religious landscape in America or Europe :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

    Third statement: ‘and I would have to counter that it has diminished for a few centuries (as pointed out above, see: Enlightenment Era).’

    Here a quick historical exert, dimissing your 3rd point:

    ‘As Thaxton and Pearcey point out in their recent book The Soul of Science, for over 300 years between the rise of modern science in the 1500’s and the late 1800s the relationship between science and religion can best be described as an alliance. Up until the late 19th century, scientists were typically Christian believers who saw no conflict between their science and their faith—people like Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and others. The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century, carefully nurtured by secular thinkers who had as their aim the undermining of the cultural dominance of Christianity in the West and its replacement by naturalism—the view that nothing outside nature is real and the only way to discover truth is through science. They were remarkably successful in pushing through their agenda. But philosophers of science during the second half of the 20th century have come to realize that the idea of a warfare between science and theology is a gross oversimplification.’

    Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion#ixzz4J2DErCFr

    Finally: ‘Science needs everyone. Christians, Islam, Atheists, Humanists..etc. What it doesn’t need is people claiming ownership or blaming another group for it’s issues.’

    In Surak’s article, he doesn’t do a good job of explaining why science doesn’t need atheists, but he does mention secular humanism (a precursor to abandoning morality-if you are a Christian, then you should believe that you can’t have morality without God-in science). If you are a Christian, then there is no compromising (even though, it seems that we have been compromising alot lately) with other religions or ideologies that run counter to Christianity, even in scientific experiments, methods, one’s work place, etc.

    As I mentioned earlier, science and religion flourished together, (they went through a separation in the late 19th century), and currently, they are getting back together, again.

    ‘ According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.’

    http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

  9. “What Christianity has done is to inform the scientist (for lack of better words) about acting sinful (Christianity term for immoral) while conducting his/hers scientific experiments, observations, methods, etc”. That would be a perfect example of hindering!

    “In 1616, on the orders of Paul V, Bellarmine summoned Galileo, notified him of a forthcoming decree of the Congregation of the Index condemning the Copernican doctrine of the mobility of the
    Earth and the immobility of the Sun, and ordered him to abandon it.[7]Galileo agreed to do so.”

    Second statement: “This is not true. Please review the following site about the Age of Enlightenment, especially the section about science and religion (where (1) ‘Some historians have marked the 18th century as a drab period in the history of science’ (2) there is debate on when the Age of Enlightenment started (1700s?) and ended (early 1800s?), and (3) the Enlightenment Age didn’t change the religious landscape in America or Europe “
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

    (1) You left out the rest of the sentence “however, the century saw significant advancements in the practice of medicine, mathematics, and physics; the development of biological taxonomy; a new understanding of magnetism and electricity; and the maturation of chemistry as a discipline, which established the foundations of modern chemistry.”

    (2) (3) When the Enlightenment era started and ended have no bearing on this debate, it is the actions of the Enlightenment era. It would help you out if you read the entire wiki link as well as the one I offer below. If you don’t want to spend a great deal of time, get John Robertson’s “The Enlightenment” (a very short introduction) to give you details on its effect on the religious landscape.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Age_of_Enlightenment

    “Here a quick historical exert, dimissing your 3rd point:”. It doesn’t dismiss my third point at all. There is no conspiracy.

    And none of the rest of your response is pertinent to me, sorry. Science does not need atheists? Why do you want to make science biased with your Christian belief?

    “If you are a Christian, then there is no compromising (even though, it seems that we have been compromising alot lately) with other religions or ideologies that run counter to Christianity, even in scientific experiments, methods, one’s work place, etc.”

    I finished my original post with this:
    “I could give you examples of how Christianity both helped and hindered to be non-biased but I’m pretty sure based on your language, you are not looking for something non-biased”.
    I have stuck to the non-biased approach. You have shown that the truth does not matter as long as it argues for Christianity. Are you looking for the truth? or the truth as long as it involves Christianity?

  10. David K.

    ‘That would be a perfect example of hindering!’

    If you are going to engage in immoral behavior, then you should be prevented from engaging in scientific endeavors (for the sake of this reasoning…but actually all endeavors).

    “In 1616……”

    Can so called ‘Christians (I don’t consider the current form of Catholicism as Christianity. It changed in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or maybe 6th century. I don’t remember which one, but that’s a whole different debate) misinterpret the Bible/Christianity and/or abuse their authority? Sure, it happens all the time, especially when there is no Christian checks and balances in place. However, this doesn’t mean that it was the doctrine of Christianity that created the misinterpretation or abuse.

    “You left out…..”

    Were there advancements in science throughout the 1600s,1700s, 1800s, 1900s, etc? Sure there were. But Atheism did not play a significant role in this advancement:

    “A number of novel ideas about religion developed with the Enlightenment, including Deism and talk of atheism. Deism, according to Thomas Paine, is the simple belief in God the Creator, with no reference to the Bible or any other miraculous source. Instead, the Deist relies solely on personal reason to guide his creed,[63] which was eminently agreeable to many thinkers of the time.[64] Atheism was much discussed, but there were few proponents. Wilson and Reill note that, “In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism.”

    Remember during the Age of Enlightenment, the 1st (1730-1740s) and 2nd (1795-1835) Great Awakenings were also transpiring.

    “Why do you…..’

    As I stated earlier, if preventing immorality is being biased, then I guess am biased towards immoral behavior.

    “You have shown…….’

    No. There is no truth/morality without God:

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god

    Remember I provided evidence that science and religion were historically partners for over 300 years (and it wasn’t until the 1960s that prayer wasn’t allowed into public schools…..it’s interesting that our dollar bill and coin still states in “God we trust’) and so far based on the data and info that I presented, they’re still (at least more than a few) are working together:

    -Locke said that if there were no God and no divine law, the result would be moral anarchy: every individual “could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions.’

  11. For ease of reading, I am going to start numbering the debate topics.

    1. and who was dictating morality? I think we can agree that there is a distinction between religious morality and non-religious morality.

    2. You have gotten off the point here. My original statement was:

    “If one needs more information about how Christianity hindered Science only needs to research the Enlightenment era. This is a time where modern science, on the most part, was no longer under the thumb of religion and thrived.”

    Let’s call your discussion of atheism point #5

    3. “You have shown…Christian Bias” vs “No. There is no truth/morality without God:”

    That is your belief and as I pointed out, that is your Christian bias.
    Let’s follow up with Morality under point #6

    4. “Remember I provided evidence that science….”

    I don’t but it’s not really pertinent as, in my second response above I agreed: “Christianity had a huge role in education, no doubt about that and had an impact on science”. Your comments about
    prayers in schools and “In God We Trust’ on money— have nothing to do with my responses but while we are on the topic, E Pluribus Unum use to be the official logo but still appears on the money.

    5. Technically, I have not been talking about Atheism, I have been focused on the role of Christianity in Science. You are the one bringing Atheism into this debate. I’m quite sure there were atheists throughout the 1600-1900’s that kept their atheism secret for fear of being called a heretic and being persecuted. Times really haven’t changed much, I grew up Christian but most of my life have been an atheist, I am studying world religions and have attempted to follow along with Buddhism mostly (an Atheistic religion) and even though I am a good person, I still get pressure and abuse from religious folks who cannot fathom someone not believing in a god or their God. We may never know what advances an atheist brought to science as they may have been hiding their atheism but here is a list from Wiki.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    6. Morality without God…
    Let’s define Morality first, I am using this:
    –>principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
    Morals:
    –>a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience:

    Morality is possible without god. My best example would be a Buddhist. They do not believe in a god and have some of the more moral and peaceful societies.

    As shown above, morals and morality can be learned through society. I hate to use the term because of the sensitivity of the word to some but, society evolves. Imagine a Caveman, bouncing his son on his lap, throwing him up in the air, suddenly he is distracted, his son falls on his head and dies…. the caveman learns that he probably should not throw his children in the air much less drop them on their heads. I know that sounds elementary but sometimes we learn by our mistakes or experiences.

    If we get morality from god, why are there immoral Christians?
    How can we get morality from god and not immortality?

    I’m not here to debate Atheism vs. Christianity- or to expand from the central focus of the pro’s and con’s of Christianity in Science, so let’s not expand too far away from the discussion at hand.

Comments are closed.