Monday, October 21, 2013

Is "science" the evolutionists codeword for religious faith?

Atheism is the most common term. Evolution is another.  Lesser known titles are naturalism, modernism and secular humanism.
These are all titles for those in the secular religion.  Secularists like to consider themselves non-religious.  That they have no religion faith or beliefs.   They have been careful to gaurd their claim over the years.
However it finally dawned on me, that the there is a keyword which these naturalists used in order to hide the natural fact they have a religious belief system like everyone else.  That sacred word is "science".  It is easy for a naturalist to describe science as a religious term and yet when confronted retreat into acting as if they are only talking about natural science with no religious sentiment.
So here I debate this concept with others to prove my point.

Here I am on an evolution promotion page on facebook. ...

 Matt Singleton Science as used here is not empirical study of the physical world.  It is the modernist/humanist/evolutionists religion.  The atheist may crow how they don't believe in anything, but in reality their faith is in science. In this way, I can't believe in science. And the religion of science has caused too much destruction for me to have faith in.  All modern warfare is based on faith in science.  All drug addiction is based upon faith in science.  All hospital death is based upon faith in science.  All car, plane and shipwrecks are based in faith in science.  Modern terrorism and cyber-terrorism is based in faith in science.   For every new drug there are a dozen new "risk"  So I don't have faith in science, which is why I have even less faith in evolution.
Matt Singleton  Also we have an empirical and historical record of God in history. But we have no historical observation of a million years.
If evolution were a fact, we would only have one record of how it took place. As oppose to an ever changing there that never keeps the story straight.

*^%%$$*(&^&  Matt, I appreciate you commenting. You've really given me a challenge here on how to respond. My honest reaction is one of sadness. There are so, so many great scientists of faith that would very strongly disagree with you. Best wishes.

  Matt Singleton: Thx ##, to really dialogue on this issue I would have to have you define Faith and Science.  But I understand your feelings; in fact that same reaction is identical to an evangelist. Because you are promoting Faith in Science and evolution.  It is natural for you to feel sad because I can not produce the same existential joy in your object of faith. in terms of the modernist evolutionary worldview I am a skeptic. I can study science, and even take advantage of technology But I simply do not exalt it to have as much authority. I find it as the product of Man to be hopelessly inadequate to the knowledge of God. I find science to be Subordinate to the laws of logic as well. In fact I find science to be a child in comparison to the observations of History. It is simply a higher authority than political truth. But I do respect it in it's proper place.  :)
 *^%%$$*(&^&  Alright, well that's a little more encouraging. Take care.
 Here I am on Youtube, debating with a christian apologist over issues involving innerrancy.  At this point I was able to uncover his own submission of scripture to the "bait and switch" definition of science.   
Matt Singleton 9 hours ago I understand %%%%%% has also gone to an inbetween position. The problem is that your understanding of inerrancy means nothing. Why stop at the Bible being inerrant? We could call tons of Good books innerrant. Maybe your favorite teacher wrote something inerrant, because nothing was wrong in what he said. What is it that makes inerrancy relevant in your view?
######## 9 hours ago It's really hard to take you seriously on the topic when you regularly get the name wrong. It's %%%%%%. I also don't call any other good book Inerrant. For me, Inerrant means that the Bible is trustworthy in all that it teaches, including the things I can't immediately test. What matters is what it teaches and determining that.
Matt Singleton 9 hours ago Why don't you call other books inerrant?? You can't find a book that is "trustworthy in all that it teaches, including the things I can't immediately test"?
########## 9 hours ago Because I don't find ones that are inerrant. If you find one, well alright, but all of Scripture is unique from any other book and I still have that conclusion after years of studying it. I wouldn't even say my own writings are that way and I am quite sure my ministry partner, &&&;, would say the same. Study Scripture like any other book and you will find, it is not like any other book.
And actually, I see you got it wrong. The Earth goes around the sun. In case my post did not come up. Most all authorities on all sides agree with this and counter-theories are not given an ounce of credibility.
Matt Singleton 9 hours ago How do you know the earth is moving around the sun?
######## 9 hours ago Not having the time to test it myself and study it, I accept it by the best authorities. I see no reason to deny it and that it is affirmed by people from all persuasions and sides lends credibility to it. Do you seriously deny it?
Matt  Singleton "Because I don't find ones that are inerrant."####### "For me, Inerrant means that the Bible is trustworthy in all that it teaches, including the things I can't immediately test. "###### "Not having the time to test it myself and study it, I accept it by the best authorities."######## Looks to me like you believe whatever "science" is, is in fact inerrant in your mind.
Matthew Singleton 41 minutes ago First, it would be natural to assume that the sun and heaven revolves around the earth because we observe it every day. Your worldview does not test assumptions if they are popular. if "science"(popular opinion) is given a counter theory then you do not give it an ounce of credibility. Because you deem science/popular opinion inerrant.

I have dubbed over the names here so as not give any disrespect to the parties involved in these discussions.  Yet they were convincing interactions.

Here we see that both christians and non-christians are assuming that science has religious overtones, even though it is supposedly just secular.  The christian even erroneously attributes science to be an equal or greater authority than scripture.

No comments: