In our last blog we discussed the atheist argument that Christianity is responsible for killing more people than any other philosophy or religion in the world. If such were true then it would be little wonder that people would reject it as negating its message of peace. However, we tried in our response to show that the atheists magnify several-fold the evils of history for which Christianity is responsible while at the same time almost completely ignoring the good that has resulted from Chrisitianity.

In the present blog, I want to evaluate their criticism of Christianity because of its alledged opposition to science, knowledge, truth and progress. All of the recent books advance the view that Christians have always opposed science and that scientific advancements have occurred because scientists were willing to be oppressed and persecuted by Christians in order to advance the cause of knowledge and truth.

Of course this view is not new. One of the best known advocates of this view was Bertrand Russell who popularized it in his lecture WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN delivered on March 6, 1927. He argued that people believe in God because they are indoctrinated as small children, then he adds that "the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you." Its interesting that in the same year that Russell delivered this lecture, the FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION by the father of psychotherapy was published.

The following quote from Freud agrees with Russell that fear is the origin of God. Religion he says is an illusion. "They are illusions, fulfillment of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessnes in childhood aroused the need for protection--for protection through love--which was provided by the father; and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life made it necessary; to cling to the existence of a father; but this time a more powerful one. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the dangers of life." In a later paragraph, he says that "scientific work is the only road which can lead us to a knowledge of reality outside ourselves." Thus according to Freud, God is a product of our neurosis and is a result of wish. God has no basis in reality outside of our wishes.

Hitchens in GOD IS NOT GREAT longs for the day when religion will be but a distant dream of a terrible past. "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it (religion) no longer offers an explanation of anything important...It can now only impede and retard --or try to turn back---the measurable advances that we have made."

Dawkins in the GOD DELUSION gives a great deal of attention to the conflict between Christianity and science. The following words show how he sees each: Christians "know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief...The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence."

It is clear from the previous series of quotations that Christians are viewed as weak psychologically and thus in need of a father, and have a superstitious belief in a holy book rather than a mind open to research and evidence.

There is so much here that needs to be addressed, but for the moment I simply want to address the charge that Christianity has waged war on Science. This story of conflict goes back to two books written toward the end of the 19th century alledging that Christianity has been in conflict with science since the early days of science. John William Draper, in 1874, wrote HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE and in 1896 Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University wrote a two volume work entitled HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM. In the 100 years since the publication of these books, the conflict model has prevailed.

The centerpiece of their argument is the story of Galileo. According to their account, Galileo, who promoted the Heliocentered view of our galaxy was resisted by the Catholic church, because it would seem to diminish the value of man. The previous scientific model had assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. In that view man was far more important. Actually Galileo was only continuing in the footsteps of Copernicus ( a loyal Catholic) who had already introduced the heliocentric view.

As the story goes, the Pope tried to silence Galileo and when he couldn't, he had him arrested and held in a dungeon where he nearly starved to death. That interpretation is more "wish fulfillment" as Freud would say than scientific. The truth of the matter is that a number of Catholice theologians were open to this new view, but at the time proof was lacking and Galileo was asked not to promote it without any proof. He agreed, but then later broke his word. Thomas Kuhn, a scientist and author of THE STUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS admits that during Galileo's life there was no proof available for this theory. Galileo tried to support with evidence that proved to be false. Later he wrote a treatise DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE CHIEF WORLD SYSTEMS. This treatise is what produced the problem with the pope. Galileo had been free for 20 years since he first announced his support of heliocentric view, but in 1632 with this publication things changed. Pope Urban VIII had been a friend and admirer of Galileo. He even penned a poem honoring him. However, in Galileo's treatise, he featured a dialogue between his view and one named Simplicio. He placed in Simplicio's words an argument that had been publicly espoused by Pope Urban, and then he humiliated Simplicio. In Italian "simplicio" means simpleton. The Pope took offense to what he viewed as an embarrasing "put down". Galileo was ordered to travel to Rome where he was put under house arrest. He was never placed in a dungeon, but was treated with respect.

No question the Pope did not behave properly, but Galileo was not without blame in breaking his word, producing erroneous support for his hypothesis, and betraying his friendship with the Pope in the way that he did. I'm not trying to defend the Pope and the Catholic Church, but am trying to say that this great conflict between Christianity and Science based on this episode is largely a myth.

There is reason why the west has made advancements in Science that the Arab world and most other areas of the world have not. Christianity provided the environment that would encourage Science. Genesis one says that mankind is to exercise dominion over the earth. Such a relationship warrants investigation into how the world works. Furthermore, Christians assume as Paul wrote that God is a God of order. Thus we would expect to find laws that govern the natural world just as we find order in the moral world.

Atheists up until about thirty years ago argued that the world had always existed. The advent of the Big Bang theory was actually a disappointment to many because it said there was a beginning. Eastern religions such as Hinduism had been perfectly content with no beginning, but Jews and Christians insisted that there was a creation. The Big Bang confirmed that there was a beginning.

Polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. At least 40% of American scientists believe the same thing. This troubles Richard Dawkins to no end. He says well the best scientists tend to be atheists. Elitist intellectualism has gone to seed with these guys, but as we noted in a previous blog, they are the "BRIGHTS" don't you know.