Who is Anti-Science?

Creationists have long been smeared with being anti-science. However, few remember that atheism had also been notably anti-science. In Awesome Creation, Yosef Bitton writes:

•  In the 1940s, the Soviet communist regime rejected Hubble and Gamow’s conclusions [regarding the Big Bang] completely, despite their scientific soundness, on the grounds that their hypothesis failed to comply with the tenets of Marxist Leninist ideology (i.e., atheism). The Soviets’ opinion on the Big Bang was summarized by Comrade Andrei Zhdanov: “Falsifiers of science want to revive the fairy tale of the origin of the world from nothing.”  The Soviets persecuted physicists who supported the Big Bang theory. Some of those scientists paid for their support of the Big Bang theory with their lives like Matvei Bronstein, who was shot after being arrested on trumped-up charges of espionage.

For these atheists, the findings that the universe had a beginning gave too much support to the biblical account. It wasn’t just the communistic atheists who were disturbed by this support. According to Bitton, C. J. Isham said it best:

•  “Perhaps the best argument...that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas...being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory”

I don’t mean to pick on atheism. We all have our theistic-philosophical lenses through which we attempt to conform reality. However, I think that we need to be particularly suspicious of the pervasive influence of atheism since it now exercises such extensive control over the scientific community.

Here’s just one thing that should make us suspicious. Only natural, unintelligent causation or explanations are acceptable. Others are labeled and denigrated as “non-science.” However, it might be relevant to ask if this naturalistic monopoly is instead non-science. Is our determination to find only naturalistic explanations for the origins and fine-tuning of the universe, the laws of science, life, the cell, DNA and consciousness the product of science or religion?

Naturalism and its Claim that People of Faith are Biased

People of faith are often accused of “bias.” We are told:

• You have a religious agenda. Your mind is already made up. You are not open to the facts and therefore cannot do science in a responsible way.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Director of the Hayden Planetarium, represents the latest example of this thinking:

• Go think whatever you want. Go ahead. Think that there is one god, two gods, ten gods, or no gods. That is what it means to live in a free country. The problem arises, is if you have a religious philosophy, that is not based in objective realities, that you then want to put in the science classroom. Then I’m going to stand there and say “No, I’m not going to allow you into the science classroom.” I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just telling you the science classroom—you’re not doing science, this is not science, keep it out. That’s when I stand up. 

There are numerous problems with the statement. Having a “religious philosophy” shouldn’t be grounds to exclude anyone from the “science classroom.” For one thing, “religious philosophies” are not the same. One’s philosophy of life might be a help and not a hindrance to doing science. For example, the biblical philosophy enables scientific discovery in a number of ways. It posits that:

1.     God wants to be understood.

2.     Loving God through understanding Him is a necessity.

3.     It is legitimate to understand God through His creation.

4.     His creation is worthy of examination. It is “good,” and not something to merely transcend.

5.     Those created in His image have been given the mandate to tend to His creation. This requires that we understand it.

6.     He rules by the laws He has put in place.

It is therefore not surprising that devout Christians had led the way in re-discovering science. In contrast, some philosophies posit that our thinking is all chemically determined and that we lack the freedom of thought to truly pursue scientific questions. Others posit that this world is illusory. Therefore, it would not be worth our effect to pursue these questions. Even others suggest that our purpose here is to transcend this meaningless, purposeless world – a sure science-stopper.

Tyson also has his own “religious philosophy.” It’s called “naturalism.” It requires that all explanations – all research – are natural, unintelligent, and unpurposeful. For the most part, this works. However, it is also needlessly limited. It’s as if you hired a detective to solve a crime, but he informs you at the start, “I only consider men over six feet tall.” This needlessly narrows the field. The perpetrator might be less than six feet, and so he would be entirely overlooked.

This is one problem with Tyson’s “religious philosophy.” It might arbitrarily narrow the field of causal candidates. Consequently, it assumes that matter, energy, time, life, consciousness, freewill, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the laws of science all have a natural causal explanation. This assumption is not only religious, it is also ludicrous. After all, how can the “natural” laws cause the “natural” laws! Nevertheless, the naturalist is hopeful that science will eventually come up with an explanation. However, such a religious faith blinds itself to the fact that it is a logically impossibility that science will ever have a scientific explanation for science. (Scientifically, the cause must precede the effect. Hence, the scientific explanation/cause for science must precede science itself – a scientific impossibility!)

None of us can do science with a blank slate – total neutrality. We all approach this discipline with our biased languages, paradigms, and philosophies. When Tyson attempts to discredit and reject those with a “religious philosophy,” he pretends that he is neutral and unbiased. If he refuses to recognize his own “religious philosophy,” he is perhaps more biased than the rest of us.

Thinking, Feeling and Well-Being

Our ideas drive our emotions; our thinking is the foundation for our feeling. When my neighbor turned away from me, I thought that he was rejecting me and felt hurt. However, after my thinking changed, and I learned that he was depressed and turned away from everyone, I felt differently about him.

In a similar way, I had been upset with my wife, who had been making numerous calls for three consecutive nights, after I had gone to bed. However, when I later learned that she calling to organize a surprise party for me, my feelings immediately changed.

The way we conceptualize the world determines how we will feel about it. This principle also pertains to our philosophies and theologies. As a Christian, God has made this principle real for me in a variety of ways.

I had grown up experiencing waves – even tsunamis – of self-contempt and feelings of condemnation. Even after coming to Christ, I continued to experience these overwhelming feelings. However, as my thinking changed and I grew in the understanding that “there is no condemnation for those who are Christ’s” (Romans 8:1), these intense feelings began to subside.

Likewise, I struggled with feelings that I was a second or third-class Christian – a reject. However, as Scripture began to change my thinking, my feelings changed correspondingly.

Regardless of our worldview, this principle of the power of our thoughts still pertains. For example, many today believe that we are no more than animals, albeit advanced animals. However, if we think this way about our fellow humans, gradually, we will also feel this way (and even act this way). The reason that it is gradual is that it takes a while to replace all of the old thinking patterns and social cognitive and legal structures.

For instance, the law communicates that there is something sacred about humanity. It forbids us from eating humans, placing them in zoos, or even turning them into rats for medical experiments. In other words, the law still says that we human are qualitatively different from animals.

Our worldview will also impact our psychology and quality of our lives. I gradually came to understand that suffering was not a sign that God hated me, but instead, a sign of His love and that He is character in my life. This thinking changed my orientation towards suffering, making it acceptable.

Had I instead believed in karma, my suffering would have presented a double-whammy. The first whammy is the pain; the second whammy is the conviction that I must have done something horrible to deserve it. Likewise, when a child is born crippled, not only does he have to deal with the infirmity, but he also has the burden of thinking that he is less deserving than others. Besides, he is also stigmatized.

Others understand their suffering as proof that God doesn’t exist and consequently that suffering is purposeless. However, this understanding deprives them any appreciation of the positive role that suffering might play in their lives.

Suffering can also last. Therefore, belief in a joyous eternal life with my Savior enables me to look beyond my present circumstances. However, for those who deny an afterlife, only their present circumstances are left.

If our thinking is so critical to our feeling and quality of life, what does this say about psychotherapy? About psychotropic medication? Medication does not address our thought life – our worldviews. Instead, it addresses what is relatively superficial – our feelings. If our thoughts are determinative, psychotherapy must be able to address, not only the thought life, but also the philosophy of life.

This means that the therapist must be a philosopher/theologian. If the therapist ignores this dimension, then she ignores what is of supreme importance. However, not any philosophy is adequate. It must be a philosophy that embodies the truth.

In order to drive a car, we need accurate feedback from our eyes. Inaccuracies can cause a fatal crash. This, of course, is an extreme example. However, this principle pertains to all life. Whatever we manage, whether it’s a car or our lives, we require accurate understanding and feedback. This means that we have to understand what it is that we are managing. Our philosophy of life matters! It is therefore essential that we understand human nature and know how to nurture it.

In contrast to this notion, some have argued that human nature is a blank slate on which we can write anything we want and live in any way we want. Without a nature, there are no natural constraints. Anything goes! However, as the many schemes to reprogram the human core have shown, there are evidently certain fixed parameters, beyond which we cannot proceed. For instance, despite the obvious appeal of an open marriage, our nature has proscribed this institution.

If our nature is blank, then there is nothing to learn about it. If it isn’t blank, then we have to learn about its parameters and how to live within them. How can we do this? For me the answer is easy – “Read the Bible.” However, for those who do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, perhaps there are other ways they can learn about human nature. We can ask the question, “What truths enable us to maximize our lives and manage them effectively?”

With the growth of “positive psychology,” there is a growing consensus regarding the healthfulness of certain beliefs or ideas – the belief in other-centeredness, charity, forgiveness, gratefulness, taking responsibility for our actions, living according to our moral code, and trusting in a Transcendent power. Try it out, as the Psalmist advises:

• Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him. (Psalm 34:8)

Jesus put it like this:

• If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. (John 7:17)

Just “choose to do God’s will.”

   

The Power of Ideas, #1

Ideas are powerful. Therefore, the Apostle Paul warned that a little leaven (yeast) will leaven the whole loaf (Gal 5:9). This is because some ideas are so powerful that they can undermine all the other players on the field. Darwinist and atheist Daniel Dennett termed Darwinism an “acid” because this naturalistic idea is so powerful that it can corrode all of the other competitors in its path. In fact, I’ve read many testimonies of atheists who had surrendered the faith of their youth as they learned about Darwinism.

Consequently, our battle is of ideas and beliefs, fought on the battleground of the mind. (God must deal with the hearts!):

·        The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:4-5)

“The knowledge of God” is so important, that Paul argues that it must be defended. We do this by examining and rejecting every thought that contradicts this knowledge. It’s almost as if Paul instructs us to have an anti-virus program in place to examine every piece of information that enters our head. A little piece of information can be so corrosive – so viral - that it can undermine our entire computer. This is also the case with what we believe and understand. Jesus warned that if we are going to bear fruit, we must understand His Word properly:

·        “But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (Matthew 13:23)

He therefore also warned that we have to be on-guard against false teaching:

·        How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:11-12)

When a computer is infected with a deadly virus, it might take quite a while for this to become apparent, depending upon the nature of the virus. This can also be the case with false teachings. We become compromised, and we are not even aware of it.

Some ideas are as natural or endemic to our culture as the air we breathe, and so we fail to notice them. For instance, we learn that we have to trust in ourselves. We hear this so often that we don’t even ask ourselves if this is what our Lord expects of us. Actually, He is looking for the very opposite thing:

·        This is what the Lord says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man [or himself], who depends on flesh [himself] 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.” (Jeremiah 17:5-7)

According to our Lord, the one who trusts in himself “turns away from the Lord.” Self-trust is the antithesis of “the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him.” According to Scripture, the result of self-trust is this: “he will not see prosperity.”

This same message is echoed throughout Scripture. Jesus told a parable about two men who entered the Temple to pray. The first trusted in his moral superiority (Luke 18:9). The other, seeing himself a sinner, had absolutely no trust in himself, but Jesus tells us that it was only the sinner who had been forgiven. He concludes:

·        "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:14)

While our culture and secular therapy preaches self-trust, Scripture preaches the exact opposite. We have to humble ourselves to confess our sinfulness and brokenness. But the way up is the way down.

This was a difficult lesson for me to learn. I entered into a relationship with Christ carrying a lot of pop-psych baggage. I was still convinced that the way up was the way up. Even as a believer in Christ, I tried to convince myself that I was worthy of self-trust and deserving of Christ’s love. As long as I was “exalting” myself, I was denying the truth about myself – that I was selfish, self-centered, and didn’t deserve a thing from God. I was also alienating God and alienating myself from His blessings.

In retrospect, I now see that Jesus had to burn away some false ideas so He could fill me with humility’s truth, preparing me to receive His blessings. As long as I was full of myself, I had no room for Him. Besides, if He did bless me with the things I wanted before He had made me ready, I would have thought, “I am blessed because I earned it, because I am a good and worthy Christian!” How odious, and how freeing to just trust in my Savior - looking toward Him and away from me!

We inhale so many other culture-based ideas, which contend with the truth. No wonder that the “blessed” man,

·        Delight[s] in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. (Psalm 1:2-3)