The stark contrast between Science and Christianity says it all.

by Island Man 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Jesus prayed that all his followers be united as one. But we see christianity divided into thousands of denominations. This division is partly due to the fact that the book that christianity claims is the truth, the inspired word of a supremely wise God, was not written in a sufficiently unambiguous manner as to make its one true meaning indisputably clear throughout.

    By contrast take a field of science - say physics. How many different brands/versions/sects/denominations of physics are there? One! Barring respectful differences of opinion among physicists on matters not yet clearly understood, the field of physics is united. Physicists don't go off forming their own 'church' of followers resulting in different denominations of physics being taught in schools. Physicists the world over are united on all the major teachings of the field that have been established though experimentation. What the universe reveals through testing and experimentation is unambiguous, provable, repeatable, demonstrably true. Are we to believe the same God who created this universe and its consistent, unambiguous laws was unable to also inspire a book whose meaning is similarly clear and unabiguous throughout?


    Christianity condemns doubt and scrutiny of its teachings as a show of lack of faith and as trying to destroy the faith of others. Often, a christian who openly exposes a teaching of his church as being in error is branded as divisive and expelled - sometimes even shunned, as ex-JWs can attest to. Christianity claims to be about seeking truth but its behavior reveals that its leaders are really about maintaining their power and their traditions. Christianity's inflexible and unreasonable demand of unquestioning conformity to tradition - even those not explicitly taught in scripture - often results in friction and conflict that leads to honest-hearted truth seekers being expelled and going off to form their own denomination, thus compounding the division in christianity.

    By contrast, science welcomes doubt and scrutiny of its theories. Working to disprove a theory is seen as a good thing. It is precisely because of such scrutiny that scientific knowledge has increased and been refined. The scrutiny inherent in the scientific process serves to filter truth from error. Science does not condemn scrutiny of its theories - it feeds on it and grows as a result - because science is genuinely about seeking truth - not preserving the power of a particular leader or organization. Scientists respectfully have different hypotheses on matters not yet clearly understood or proven one way or the other. They don't let let their differening views on such matters divide them into different denominations that condemn each other.


    Christianity seeks to unite followers through obedience to an ecclesiastical authority of one kind or another. Many christian denominations claim that without such centralized authority or organization there would be division and God's will (such as having the good news preached in all the inhabited earth) could not be successfully accomplished. The top down approach is employed where teachings flow from the central authority down to the followers. The irony is that such authorities are the ones that often foment divisions.

    By contrast, science has no one central hierarchy demanding adherence to its theories. What unites scientists is truth itself. When a hypothesis is demonstrated through experimentation to be true, scientists the world over can't help but be united in agreement based on the hard facts proven through math and experimentation. This isn't to say that there aren't authorities in the field of science. There are multiple universites and other bodies that set standards and rules for research etc. But there is no one central body that seeks to impose its theories on others by pulling rank. There is no 'faithful and discreet experimenter' appointed to give hypotheses in due season which must be accepted by all without question. There is no magisterium. Knowledge flows from the bottom up - from individual scientists and researchers who prove their hypothesis to the universities and other bodies that publish them.


    I find these stark contrasts between science and christianity to be very revealing. Didn't Jesus say that wisdom is proved righteous by its works? So compare the fruitage of science re unity and getting at the truth with the fruitage of christianity. How is it that christianity - a system professing belief in an allwise God of order - can be so divided, whereas another system that professes no belief in God can be so united? For me this comparison reveals exactly who is in error and stupidity and who is in truth and prudence. Science puts christianity to shame!

  • HowTheBibleWasCreated
    HowTheBibleWasCreated

    I am an athiest and read quite a bit of science. I would point out the even science has some splits.

    Enstein could never agree about entanglement for instance

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    "I am an athiest and read quite a bit of science. I would point out the even science has some splits.

    Enstein could never agree about entanglement for instance"

    HowTheBibleWasCreated, I don't deny that physicists have different opinions on matters not yet frimly established. I acknowledge this in my post. My point is that they are more mature in the way they deal with differences of opinion. Differences of opinions like what you mention hasn't resulted in the field of physics being divided up into a plethora of sects with some claiming to be the only true field of physics and maligning the others as false physicists.

  • glenster
    glenster

    Faith isn't all "Paul Broun"s (see "Evolution" at the link below) and JWs
    leaders failing to find scientific agreement in making conservative arguments.
    Others more liberal in their faith may criticize their efforts.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun#Controversies

    You might as well label music a failure for it not finding scientific agreement
    for favorite songs (compared to better agreement for the objective math of the
    music). There's understanding faith as such: "Some Christians view denomination-
    alism as a regrettable fact. As of 2011, divisions are becoming less sharp, and
    there is increasing cooperation between denominations (See denomination for a dis-
    tinction between denomination and association in religious governance)."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominationalism

    Not knowing proof God is or isn't, the perpective I'd recommend is seeing faith
    in the basic God concept as a choice to hope or not in a possible God beyond the
    known things, and to have science keep us up on those known things. After all, if
    this God is there, it wouldn't honor Him to misinform in His name. And knowing
    it's a possibility, not a proven, to not see harm as justified by it.
    http://glenster1.webs.com/basics.htm

    You may fare better seeking agreement on scientific results and not wanting harm
    over faith from believers and non- believers than expecting all to be one or the
    other. Expecting science to prove one may be as much folly as expecting it to
    prove the other.

  • LisaRose
    LisaRose

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Religion is, by its nature, based on a leap of faith of some sort. Science is black or white, religion is nothing but shades of grey. That is not to give religion a free pass, the fact that it is shades on grey means people shouldn't go around condemning others because they have a different shade of grey, much less kill them for it, which has been done throughout history.

    But to say that religion fails because it can't be tested like a scientific theory is to miss the point.

  • Fernando
    Fernando

    Indeed, "Christless Christianity" is a particularly virulent and pathogenic strain of the religion virus.

    “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

    “The idea of being spiritual – not religious – is increasingly popular among the scientific community as well as in American culture at large. Many scientists who are politically liberal don’t want to associate with religion because of its conservative valence today. Historically, there are no boundary disputes between spirituality and science, unlike religion and science" (Prof David Yamane).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit