This essay was posted earlier and at first glance it seems very well written and appears to provide a compelling line of reasoning for the Christian religious way of life. However, I noticed many assumptions, biases and faults of logic within and would like to respond to them. The original essay is in yellow. I included the whole thing and did not take any sentences out of context.
Medieval science was based on authority -- primarily of Aristotle -- rather than observation. It developed through logic, rather than experimentation.[3] Both Copernicus and Galileo challenged Aristotle's authority, using experimentation in the spirit of modern science. The Biblical emphasis of the Reformation, just prior to this, had already paved the way for dropping Aristotle's authority; it also encouraged the rational investigation of our world.
What is the Bible and other religious rhetoric based upon, if not the logic of "appeal to authority" and fear of punishment for dissent?
Perhaps the most obvious affirmation that Biblical Christianity and science are friends and not foes comes from the fact that most of the early scientists after the Renaissance were also strong believers in the Bible as the authoritative source of knowledge concerning the origin of the universe and man's place in it.[4] The book of Genesis, the opening book of the Bible, presents the distinctly Judeo-Christian world view of a personal Creator God behind the origin and sustenance of the universe (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:17; etc.).
The early scientists were products of their religious upbringing and conditioning just as all people of the time were. That they were still able to think rationally and scientifically is a testament to the human minds ability to adapt and grow regardless of the repressive environment it finds it self within. The fact that they were as yet unable to entirely throw off the shackles of the conditioned mind does not prove that science and Biblical Christianity are friends. It could prove that the times they lived in were still too oppressive to allow them to voice completely what they truly believed. Perhaps they thought it better to live to speak another day. Or, if they did truly believe in God, it could prove that the development of rational/scientific thought is an evolutionary process in itself. Today's scientists have built upon a foundation started (not completed) by their predecessors. Regardless, belief is not scientific method. It is just belief.
Among the early scientists of note who held the Biblical creationist world view are Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and Samuel Morse (1791-1872) - what motivated them was a confidence in the "rationality" behind the universe and the "goodness" of the material world. The creation account in Genesis presents an intelligent, purposeful Creator, who, after completing the creation work, declared it to be very good (Genesis 1:31). That assures us that the physical universe operates under reliable laws which may be discovered by the intelligent mind and used in practical applications. The confidence in the divinely pronounced goodness of the material world removed any reluctance concerning the development of material things for the betterment of life in this world. The spiritual world and the material world can work together in harmony.
Science and the scientific method are unconcerned about the motivations behind scientists. True scientists are unconcerned about the "goodness" or "badness" of the material world they seek to understand. Science is concerned with the discovery of facts, what can be measured and observed and repeated, what "is" as is evidenced by the experiential awareness of our "common" senses. When these facts are observed repeatedly occuring without exception they are pronounced laws. Attributing "goodness" or "divinity" to those laws is an added layer of human meaning, an artificial construct. It is understandable that humans would perceive every law that aids in their survival/benefit as "good". We do tend to be inalterably egocentric that way.
Genesis also gives another important motivation for the investigation of the laws of nature and application of it to technology. That is the divine mandate given to man to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). Obviously, the discovery of the laws of nature is the key to harnessing the powers of nature for man's use and control. Herein is the key to the motivation for developing technology. Genesis 4 records the earliest technological developments by man (4:21-22).
Other religions also provide alternative motivations for why man does or does not do what he does. Science also provides possible motivations for man's investigatory/exploratory nature and adaptability. Namely, survival of the species. Providing a possible motive is not in itself evidence that the Bible's explanation of an observable quality of our species is the correct one. It is just one of many possibilities. Supporting evidence is necessary. Science attempts to find this evidence regardless of which supposition it supports.
The world view held in many cultures, however, is different from the Biblical creationist view. Religions influenced by dualistic philosophies view the material world with suspicion and hostility. The material world is considered evil, while the spiritual world is considered good and noble. Renouncing this world became the mark of holiness. Equally detrimental to the development of science were world views that did not have a concept of a supreme personal Creator God. Some of the ancient civilizations, for example, which did develop some mathematics and technologies, did not develop general scientific theories, because of the absence of a creationist perspective that gives confidence in the existence of rational laws in nature. This clearly explains the lack of interest on the part of these cultures in scientific research and technology. It also shows how the Reformation, with its return to Biblical Christianity, spurred a phenomenal interest in fundamental research and technology. The great scientific advances and the industrial revolution that followed bear this out.
I find it amazing that the writer can see the dualistic philosophies of other religions but not of the Biblical creationist view! Where shall I start with the Bible? Good and evil. Heaven and hell. Jehovah's side or Satan's side. Sin or perfection. Condemnation or redemption. Connection to the Creator or Everlasting cutting off. Self-sacrifice or hedonistic indulgence. The Bible is full of nothing but moralistic, dualistic philosophies and so are all the religons which sprung from it, not just JW's. Yes, I agree, so are most other major religions of the world.
The Ethical Foundation of Technology
The rise of North America to dominance in technology is related to the Judeo-Christian foundation with which it started. The founding fathers of the United States of America were theists who believed in a Creator who gave moral rules by which to live. The work ethic they practiced also contributed to the rapid progress of the country. In this ethic, all honest work was regarded as dignified, not just the "white collar" jobs. This also has Christian roots. Jesus, the founder of Christianity, Himself chose the profession of a carpenter prior to His ministry. Along with this work ethic, there was also the right climate for initiating research. The free-enterprise system allowed individuals and private groups to carry on research and to develop technology.
I offer an alternative view. The rise of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian religion in Europe and North America is directly attributable to the dominance in technology of their culture over other cultures and their ability and willingness to use that technology to dominate and control other cultures/religions. If Charlemagne, who conquered Europe and was considered the founder of Christianity in the West, had believed in Islam or Buddhism, then I dare say one of those relgions would be the dominant religion in Europe and North America right now and Christianity would be enjoying all the prominence of one of Africa's little tribal deities. Just as Christianity would not have pervaded as many other countries and cultures as it has if early western explorers did not have the ability to back up the "sword" of God with steel and gunpowder! I think the writer makes the common mistake in logic of confusing cause and effect.
There is no question that technology has given us untold blessings. But technology has also been used for monstrous destruction and human misery. This should alert us to the fact that technology, by itself, is not the means of salvation. Releasing the technology genie has caused our world to go out of control. The apocalyptic vision of some superdictator controlling humanity, using the incredible power of the computer or the atom, is no longer a laughing matter. The potential for deception through technology, coupled with the illegal use of technology, has also become a serious concern.
Technology is neither good nor evil, it is just technology. It can be used for harm or for benefit to our species and to other species. It has been used for both. Much of the harm it has been used for has been in the name of religion including, but not exclusive to, Christianity. It has also been used by atheists to exert power and political control over others. Although, I do not concede that this was done in the name of "atheism" but in the name of "political power" and "control". That those who wished to dominate and control happened also to be atheists, in this instance, is not evidence of the "harmfulness" of atheism. Again, let us not confuse co-incidence with cause and effect.
How can we hold in check the wrong use of technology? Here again, Christianity offers its powerful contribution. Jesus summed up the right law to live by in human relationships thus: "Love your neighbor as yourself." a powerful principle, indeed. It allows no justification for using technology to bring harm to others. On the positive side, this law encourages us to develop that which serves humanity. The ethical standards of Biblical Christianity also include the practice of honesty and integrity. The need for these in the handling of technology is being increasingly recognized.
Other religions have also offered up powerful words of conciliation and peace between men. I'm sure a few atheistic scientists have also waxed poetic on the subject now and again. Unfortunately, the contribution of words alone has, as yet, not proved powerful enough to check the harmful use of technology. To credit the Christian message with having achieved this lofty goal is not supported by any evidence although plenty to the contrary may be found. This is not a knock to all the sincere Christians out there who do their best to benefit their fellow man. It is an acknowledgement that there are sincere people of every relgion and also many atheists who do the same. Beneficial works are not evidence that one's beliefs are true. They are evidence of beneficial works.
The rise of evolutionist philosophy in the 19th century has led to the erosion of the epistemological and ethical foundations of sound technological advance. The collapse of moral absolutes resulting from it sets the stage for selfish and harmful use of technology. This poses a threat to the economic welfare of countries where easy credit is available and the appetite for more and more technological gadgets is insatiable.
Technological advance is technological advance. To label it 'sound' or 'unsound' has no foundation or evidence. It is a subjective judgement. The collapse of moral absolutes resulting from technology is an assumption not in evidence. A clear connection between technology and the "evils" of easy credit and overconsumption has not been demonstrated. I do agree that evolutionist philosophy has given rise to the erosion of moral absolutes. I do not agree that is a bad or a selfish thing. I can just as easily turn that sentence around to say that evolution has given rise to the erosion of moral absolutes that were used for the selfish and harmful domination and subjugation of those who believed in them. In which case, it would be a good thing.
There are hopeful signs, however. Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists. They have been carrying on their research as usual, as if they believe in the design and orderly laws of the universe -- a belief that has its roots in the Judeo-Christian world view. The gospel of Christ cannot only hold in check the destructive use of technology by its emphasis on loving others as ourselves, but also provides the antidote for selfish greed, which is behind our runaway buying habits. Jesus emphasized that the abundance of things does not produce happiness.
There are hopeful signs of what? I see no evidence that evolution theory has collapsed. Every month, scientists are discovering new evidence to support the theory. Every second viruses and bacteria are mutating and adapting for survival against our latest arsenal of anti-virals and antibiotics. Scientists DO believe in the orderly laws of the universe, they just don't believe the Judeo Christian god designed them. The belief in a heavenly maker does not have it's roots in the Judeo Christian world view. It has it's roots in other cultures and religions pre-dating the Judeo Christian model. Any scientific book on archeology or the history of the world will show this.
Back in 1832, Darwin, during his famous trip on the "Beagle," visited Tierra del Fuego, the southern coastal region of South America inhabited by savage barbarians and observed man at his worst. Their depravity was shocking to him. Darwin swore that the Fuegian savages were untamable. Within a few years, however, the Fuegian savages were converted, through the efforts of a missionary sent by the South American Missionary Society who brought the gospel to these people. They were radically transformed into a rational and civilized people. Darwin was very impressed by the success of the Missionary Society. Keen to spread the blessings of civilization, Darwin sent donations to the mission for several years. Thirty-five years after his visit to Tierra del Fuego, he proudly accepted the invitation from the South American Missionary Society to become its honorary member.[5]
I do not question the veracity of this story. Space and time do not allow me to print stories which show Christian missionaries dominating and abusing gentle natives. Anyone who doubts such stories can look to the history books. This story is evidence that some "good" people traveled to another land and showed other "depraved" people how to live a more gentle/beneficial/civilized life. Their efforts had a benefical outcome. This does not prove that all their beliefs about God are true any more than it proves atheism is true if I (an atheist) go and establish a school or health care clinic in Africa and effectively teach the village about western healthcare and the scientific advances that brought it about.
That power to transform individuals and nations is still available. The "Good News" Jesus brought is that the power to love others as ourselves is available to all, from the Creator. When we have that love, technology will be a blessing to all.
Yes the power to transform individuals and nations is still available. When we love others as ourselves, that techology WILL be a benefit to all. It never has been and never will be the exclusive domain of the Christian religion.
Cog