The Theft of Our Values

the Christian legacy in America has
historically manifested in attempts to
usurp the very freedoms of which they
ironically claim credit freedoms that
didn't exist throughout the vast
majority of Christian history that's
especially disconcerting during this day
and age when people seem to think that
the answer to Islam is Christianity when
in actuality Christianity and Islam have
shared some disturbing similarities both
being ancient middle eastern Abrahamic
religions with long histories of
authoritarianism censorship and
brutality while their DNA is identical
the main reason Christianity manifests
differently today is because it has been
declawed by a few hundred years of
secularism this should tell us that the
answer to Islam is not more religion but
less to many people mistakenly believe
that religion stabilizes society in fact
it has been our Christian leaders in the
West who talked tough on terrorism only
to then prop up an armed Islamic
theocratic regimes in the Middle East
and Asia which have destabilized their
regions thereby causing refugees and
migrants to flee their highly religious
countries into the stability and safety
of secular countries we will never solve
this problem if we keep giving the
problem credit for being the solution
religion is not the answer that is why I
feel I must set the record straight when
a recent wave of populist voices have
been duped into presenting Christianity
as the solution to geopolitical and
social problems because they think it's
the foundation of our culture and that
even atheists like myself are cultural
Christians I say it's the exact opposite
Christians are typically cultural
secularists all the way to the point
that even their most sacred holy days
are now omage is to capitalism and
that's fine by this old atheist but that
leaves Jesus with far too many tables to
overturn so let's not overstate
Christianity's true role in this ever
change
world of ours to frame my point I'm
going to respond to David woods
defibrillator argument for God the
reason I chose David is because his
approach exemplifies what Christianity
has done throughout history from the
current idea of what we call Western
values to science itself Christianity
loves to take all the credit but when
you delve into the actual history you
find that at best
Christianity played only a part and at
worst it was active opposition in this
case David gives Christianity the credit
for science decrying what he calls
atheist teenagers on Twitter who think
they're champions of science
I think that's posturing however because
I suspect David would not trouble
himself with such a response to mere
teenagers on Twitter the more probable
reason for his argument I believe is
that modern scientists are typically
atheists and since scientists are the
foremost experts on the mechanics of our
universe with far more information than
their illustrious predecessors it's very
telling that most of them are not
religious david falls all the way back
to the Copernican scientific revolution
beginning during the mid 16th century
this was the scientific revolution that
birthed modern science and led to the
enlightenment so it's quite a valuable
thing indeed of which to claim ownership
he does this with the beginning of his
defibrilator argument premise one no
hypothesis in history has more
scientific confirmation than theism
premise two no hypothesis in history has
more scientific disk confirmation than
atheism conclusion if we have respect
for science we must accept theism and
reject atheism notice that if we replace
the words theism and atheism with their
actual definitions the premises fail to
support the conclusion for they'd be
statements of confirmation of belief and
dis confirmation of disbelief and belief
or disbelief have no bearing on the
actual truth so he's using the words
improperly what he
means to say is that science confirms
the existence of God the reason he
thinks God has so much scientific
confirmation is because he believes that
everything we've ever learned from every
scientific experiment ever conducted
constitutes evidence for God he does
this by crediting Christianity with
ownership of the very basis of science
as he describes the Slee 1 the universe
can be understood 2 we can understand it
and 3 it is good to understand it since
the scientific endeavor is predicated on
these beliefs every single scientific
finding no matter what it is is evidence
for God according to David this is
because David thinks that not until
Christianity did people believed that
the universe could be understood that we
could understand it or that it was good
to understand it notice however that
David is once again using imprecise
language since the universe is literally
everything all this means is that
learning is possible we can learn and it
is good to learn given that human beings
have always believed this and done this
or we'd be extinct so I think what David
is actually referring to is the way we
look to the natural world as a reference
point to systematically gain knowledge
unfortunately for David this was common
practice in ancient Greece hundreds of
years before Christianity David actually
vaguely mentions that there were some
scientific advancements in ancient
Greece but glosses over that because
there was never a scientific revolution
there as you'll see that was his biggest
mistake in making this argument Greece
fell Rome fell and their knowledge was
suppressed by Christian tyranny only to
resurface and become a vital part of the
very same Scientific Revolution David
credits Christianity for causing you'll
see once again that it was Christianity
that fought tooth and nail against
something that caused greatness only for
Christianity to take all the credit
once the greatness was realized
historically this has been
Christianity's typical MO
fight a war against progress lose that
war against progress and when that
progress turns out to be a good thing
after all claim credit for that progress
David makes his case for Christianity
being the cause of the Scientific
Revolution by pointing out that all of
the scientists at that time were
Christians and to find out why they
devoted their lives to understanding the
universe he provides various quotes from
those scientists this is a very flawed
way to present the argument to truly
understand why the Scientific Revolution
happened it requires an extensive study
of much more than the scientists
themselves but rather what was going on
in that region politically socially
philosophically technologically and yes
religiously so let's save the scientists
for the end and dig into what actually
caused the Scientific Revolution in the
first place
why were Christians the pioneers of the
Scientific Revolution
David is more than happy to answer for
we a theists by saying atheists often
insist that it was just dumb luck anyone
could have done it and if Europe had
been filled with atheists it would have
happened even faster as you will see
however luck more aptly describes
David's explanation he goes on to note
that there were cultures and
civilizations around the world that had
the opportunity to study astronomy
physics chemistry and biology but these
branches of science all took off at
roughly the same time in one particular
civilization when we investigate why
this is so David says what we find is
people who believe that the universe is
intelligible because of their theistic
beliefs that they're rational because
God is rational and they were made in
the image of God so by setting out to
understand it they're worshipping God
BAM
Christianity gets the credit for science
case closed right not so fast
let's take off our guard goggles and
look at what actually happened
first let's clear a theists of the
incompetence David implies he boasts
about how it was Christians not atheists
who began the Scientific Revolution
David's argument is a classic
supremacist argument one of the reasons
supremacist arguments are so bad is that
they usually don't account for
oppression as a variable he's boasting
about the accomplishments of his group
the oppressor over the lack of
accomplishments of the oppressed group
the atheists who would have been burned
at the stake back then this is adding
insult to injury
of course his group accomplished more
than the groups they were oppressing
what else would we expect now that the
variable of oppression has been affected
however and the playing field is more
even can we still say that is so no of
course not if we look at our top
scientists now there are mostly atheists
that's true even in the United States
where atheists are still a tiny minority
let that sink in as soon as you're no
longer allowed to kill this tiny
minority suddenly that same tiny
minority becomes the majority of your
top minds very telling isn't it maybe
theists should have tried listening to
us rather than killing us and censoring
us David's argument doesn't even make
sense from a logical standpoint the
Scientific Revolution happened suddenly
and proceeded very quickly as the
influential historian physicist and
philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn
pointed out scientific progress is based
on paradigm shifts which is what causes
scientific revolutions in the first
place during the Copernican Scientific
Revolution however Christianity was
already a 1500 year old established norm
when a paradigm shift occurs we simply
do not look to a 1500 year old cultural
norm as the cause as the question
quickly arises why did this widespread
brutally enforced ancient cultural norm
called
Christianity fail to produce anything
like a scientific revolution for 1500
years the first full seventy-five
percent of its entire existence only to
then spontaneously simultaneously
inspire a bunch of scientists to trigger
the Scientific Revolution no I couldn't
find any historian who believes that
David's explanation is more luck-based
than anything history has to tell us to
find the real answer we need to look at
what changed not at what stayed the same
as it just so happens that era was
filled with change after Rome fell
ancient Greek philosophy science
literature and politics which heavily
influenced Western culture today were
largely lost this knowledge was
discovered by the Arabs who translated
and preserved the knowledge in Arabic
it's no coincidence that many Muslims
claim Islam is responsible for the
creation of science just as David claims
Christianity is responsible guess why
while the Islamic world did produce some
scientific advancements during its
golden age that came to an end as
Mongols invaded around the exact same
time ancient Greek knowledge was finally
rediscovered by Europeans who translated
it from Arabic to Latin and introduced
it to Europe during the 12th century
which as any historian will tell you was
the reason for a major turning point in
history this was something new to them
something different something we can
look to as a reason for a paradigm shift
precisely what is necessary for a
scientific revolution the recovery of
ancient Greek philosophy culminated
during the 13th century coinciding
perfectly with the Renaissance and
subsequent Scientific Revolution a much
more narrow timeline than the fifteen
hundred years Christianity had to
allegedly inspire this sudden change on
the contrary
rather than inspire the Scientific
Revolution
gianna tea delayed it Aristotle had
views that were deemed incompatible with
Christian belief he did not believe in
divine intervention but determinism he
also believed not in divine revelation
but rather that knowledge could only be
gained through direct observation and
reasoning that sounds a lot like science
doesn't it heretics during the 12th
century were put to death so the church
certainly didn't approve of teaching
unaltered Aristotelian philosophy Thomas
Aquinas most notably recognized the
value in Aristotle and worked to
reconcile Aristotle's work with
Christian theology modifying what he
could and eventually helped convince the
church that they were compatible after
that Greek philosophy was allowed to be
taught at universities and became
standard this did not happen as quickly
as it would today reading material back
then was very time-consuming and
expensive to create as we trace back the
roots of what we call Western
civilization today however we would be
remiss to claim that we only took the
good and left the bad
unfortunately Aristotle used his ideas
about natural law to justify slavery and
Thomas Aquinas found validity and those
ideas preserving them in the Christian
tradition which wasn't difficult to do
with tacit approval in the form of rules
for the practice coming from both the
old and new testaments approval of
slavery eventually became a blight on
the rise of America so while many
American values including the structure
of our government were inspired by
ancient Greece and Rome for the
betterment of society we absolutely had
to have the will to override some of
those values like the approval of
slavery let us also not forget that the
ancient Greeks and Romans persecuted
atheists as well not that anyone from
their era was quick to volunteer their
thoughts about the non-existence of
deities no the charge of atheism was
more commonly used as an accusation to
rid oneself of their enemies
the ultimate irony is that early
Christians were killed under the charge
of atheism for rejecting the existence
and power of the state-sponsored gods of
Rome which is another unfortunate
disease that carried over into
Christianity the persecution of atheists
and the toxic mingling of governments
and religion a thing the founding
fathers of America were at least wise
enough to reject from the very beginning
thereby working against nearly half of
the ten commandments the most unique and
foremost of our values those that
protect our freedom of speech religion
press and assembly are absent throughout
the vast majority of a Christian history
that often enforced the very opposite of
our values as Americans so a couple
hundred years before the Scientific
Revolution we have ancient Greek
knowledge being widely disseminated into
the universities while universities did
evolve from theological studies their
utility wasn't realized by the secular
world until the recovery of Greek
philosophy and not until that secular
utilitarianism did we start to see rapid
progress it's important to note that
there have been geniuses all throughout
history within Christianity and beyond
so why couldn't uh nuh them accomplish
what the geniuses of the Scientific
Revolution did notice that a component
of science has still been missing from
history up until this point a component
that David did not mention at all the
widespread cooperation and eventual peer
review of other scientists
while the term peer review didn't exist
until the 20th century it's vital
precursor goes back to the exact era of
the Scientific Revolution before people
could easily study each other's work
geniuses were often separated by
hundreds of years and hundreds of miles
so did something happen during that time
and place to solve that problem yes the
printing press was invented in Europe
during the 15th
shuri after that books and other mass
publications including new scientific
discoveries weren't so expensive and
time-consuming to translate create and
disseminate that facilitated a vast
network of geniuses working together all
studying and building off of each
other's work relatively quickly like
never before it was like the old worlds
internet david totally ignores this
crucial factor and instead argues that
no it was a widely established ancient
cultural norm that did something it had
never done before by suddenly
simultaneously causing scientists who
just so happen to live in the same time
and place where the printing press was
invented to spark the Scientific
Revolution again david's argument is the
one that's based on luck not mine it's
true that the initial viability of the
printing press was due to the demand for
bibles as such a thing would be in high
demand during the brutal reign of the
church but that's a mere credit of
logistics they're not a matter of credit
for anything philosophical or scientific
furthermore this was a period when
explorers were leaving Europe on voyages
all over the world for the first time
leading to many discoveries of other
cultures and ideas and when they
returned to Europe they brought
knowledge of those cultures and ideas
with them David seems to think that
Europe existed in a vacuum during the
15th and 16th centuries but that is very
much not the case
he ironically blames the rest of the
world for being ignorant when in
actuality the rest of the world's ideas
were converging in Europe at that time
and inspiring people in new ways
including contemporary Greek scientists
scholars artists and philosophers who
were fleeing into Europe as refugees
after the Ottoman invasion of
Constantinople many historians believe
this also played an important role in
the rise of Renaissance humanism before
we get too far
ahead of ourselves I want to emphasize
the importance of ancient Greek
influence as it just so happens history
provides us with a brilliant visual
representation of the Greek influence on
thought during that time despite the
brutal hold Christianity held upon
people back then
art and science have always had a
special relationship borrowing from each
other and inspiring each other just
before the Scientific Revolution which
marked a huge shift in science there was
the Renaissance which marked a huge
shift in art again this was no
coincidence so what inspired this sudden
shift in art the rediscovery of ancient
Greek civilization of course why is this
significant because the art of ancient
Greece and Rome was actually far more
advanced than medieval art which came
many hundreds of years later we people
of modernity aren't accustomed to the
past being more advanced than the future
but in many aspects of Christianity's
brutal reign that was exactly the case
when you look at ancient Greek art a
tradition that was carried on in ancient
Rome as well you see art that was
created using methodology that David
falsely accredits to Christianity this
is why Christian medieval art was not
realistic but Greek and Roman art was
because not only did the Greeks value
the natural world but they knew how to
reference it that was hundreds of years
before Christianity so Christianity
cannot be credited with that way of
thinking
David's argument was defeated around
2,500 years before he ever uttered it
look at the artwork the Christian world
was producing during the medieval period
from the 5th century
not long after Christianity gained
dominance to the 15th century the
century that marks the beginning of the
cracks in its foundation what we have
here is a thousand years of slowed
progress a period during the height of
Christian power and influence when
scientific philosophical technological
and artistic advancements were
relatively few
far between they did occur of course and
we have religion to thank for preserving
literacy during that time but it wasn't
anything like the rapidly improving
world following that period spurred on
during the Renaissance
after the rediscovery of ancient Greece
look at the artwork look at where our
minds were unlike the Greeks and Romans
the Christians were not looking to the
natural world for reference as David
claims they were looking inward to their
flawed imaginations they were obsessed
with fantasy realms like Heaven and Hell
and they ignored the natural world this
is clearly reflected in the primitive
childish two-dimensional badly
proportioned artwork that followed the
far more advanced artwork of ancient
Greece and Rome fallen and swept into
the dustbin of history Christian
authoritarianism resulted in the
censorship and desecration of Greek and
Roman statues they destroyed history
because it was contrary to Scripture and
their sensitivities thus prohibiting
progress when Christianity has unchecked
power over government the results are
always Orwellian when does this period
of ignorance end not until the
Renaissance do you see a lot of history
finally picking up where it left off a
thousand years beforehand the visual cue
of this manifests in the adoption of
greco-roman artistic methodology you can
clearly see the change in the artwork
which was quickly followed by the change
in the science not a coincidence this
was the birth of the Renaissance
humanists when people started looking at
the natural world again for reference
causing a resurgence of realism David
thanks Christianity for this shift in
thought but it's evident that
Christianity inspired the exact opposite
for over a thousand years inspired
people to look to the spiritual world a
make-believe world for knowledge which
is precisely why we did not
advanced like we did until we gained
from classical antiquity a renewed
appreciation for the natural world the
real world not the spiritual world and
that is what finally ushered in real
progress think about all that damage
religion has done to our basic progress
the next time you want to ask atheists
why they talk about God so much sure
much of the artwork back then was
biblically based but that was the
sanctioned story of the time and the
church was the main entity with the
money to Commission such work so that's
again a matter of logistics or even
indoctrination we saw the same subject
matter during the medieval period but
clearly their techniques their very way
of thinking changed and that was
definitely not thanks to Christianity
because for 1500 years Christianity had
its chance but what about what the
scientists of that time actually said
those damning quotes professing God to
be the reason for their inspiration it
would be quite a shocking historical
incongruity if they were anything other
than Christian consider the context of
that period this was the beginning of
modern scientific knowledge before they
had very many answers as I said after we
gained a respectable amount of answers
scientists naturally shifted to atheism
that's because the answers didn't point
to God the way everyone thought they
would 16th century scientists lived
hundreds of years before Darwin before
there was a significantly exhaustive
most highly confirmed theory and science
that explains in great detail exactly
how human beings came to exist before
that we didn't know and the deliberate
design of our bodies seems perfectly
plausible putting all that aside those
scientists live during a time when
heretics were put to death because of
their discoveries as history shows those
scientists walked on a Razors Edge
between Christian approval and heretical
the latter of which caused some of the
very same scientist David Bose as devout
Christians to be persecuted and censored
by the church for wrong think as their
scientific findings were deemed
incompatible with Christian doctrine no
doubt retarding scientific progress so
yes without Christians at the helm there
are very good reasons to believe it
would have happened much faster so what
damning quotes did David provide us with
from those scientists of hundreds of
years ago
those who study the Stars have God for a
teacher Tycho Brahe hey brah hey was a
Danish nobleman our piety is the deeper
the greater is our awareness of creation
and its grandeur since we astronomers
are priests of the highest God in regard
to the book of nature it befits us to be
thoughtful not of the glory of our minds
but rather above all else of the glory
of God
Johannes Kepler Kepler was the Imperial
mathematician - Rudolf the second
emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and his
grandfather was Lord Mayor a ville de
Raadt I see plainly that the certainty
and truth of all knowledge depends
uniquely on my awareness of the true God
to such an extent that I was incapable
of perfect knowledge about anything else
until I became aware of him Rene
Descartes the carts father was a member
of parliament there are two kinds of
people one can call reasonable those who
serve God with all their heart because
they know him and those who seek him
with all their heart because they do not
know him Malays Pascal Pascal's father
was a judge and a member of the nobles
of the robe the vastness beauty and
orderliness of heavenly bodies the
excellent structure of animals and
plants and other phenomena of nature
justly induce an intelligent
unprejudiced observer to conclude a
supreme powerful just and good author
Robert Boyle Boyles father was the first
Earl of quark
atheism is so senseless and odious to
mankind that it has never had many
professors Isaac Newton I actually have
something to say about the content of
this quote because of its incredible
hypocrisy Isaac Newton you see was
secretly against the Trinity yet dared
not make his views public his private
writings on the matter safely discovered
long after his death of course he knew
the limitations the Orthodox Christian
view imposed upon his speech he of all
people knew that it would have been
suicide to openly profess atheism in
most cultures yet he attributes the lack
of atheist professors to the
senselessness and odious nosov atheism
now Newton obsessed over alchemy and the
Bible and ironically if he had limited
his studies to such we wouldn't even
know his name today to know the mighty
works of God to comprehend his wisdom
and majesty and power to appreciate in
degree the wonderful workings of his
laws surely all this must be a pleasing
and acceptable mode of worship to the
Most High to whom ignorance cannot be
more gratifying than knowledge nicolaus
copernicus if it is the case that God
finds knowledge more gratifying than
ignorance then it forces one to wonder
why he plagued all of humankind with
death just because the first people ate
from the tree of knowledge Nicholas
Copernicus son of a wealthy merchant was
the guy at the very beginning of the
Scientific Revolution I do not feel
obliged to believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense reason and
intellect has intended us to forgo their
use when I reflect on so many profoundly
marvelous things that persons have
grasped sought and done I recognize even
more clearly that human intelligence is
a work of God and one of the
most excellent Galileo Galilee unlike
the limited knowledge available to
Galileo during the 17th century we
people of the 21st century are
privileged to understand quite well how
human intelligence evolved naturally
notice that throughout these quotes I've
included the connections these
illustrious scientists had with the
aristocracy this is important to note
because there were many peasant
uprisings going on all over Europe at
that time making the upper class very
nervous the aristocracy supported a more
authoritarian Church in order to help
keep the peasants in check these
scientists were caught between a rock
and a hard place not only did they have
to worry about the peasant uprisings but
they had to worry about persecution from
the church because of their scientific
findings being deemed heretical of
course I'm not saying they were secret
atheists but they had everything to lose
and nothing to gain by deviating from
the norm and failing to declare that
their work was in devotion to God in
other words they had no choice but to
profuse sleep and er to the church
especially if they wanted to continue
their research unmolested those
scientists definitely did not have the
leeway to deviate to allow their
scientific sightings to cast any sort of
doubt at least not publicly and that is
hardly something about which David
should be boasting from the comfort of a
country that values freedom of religion
one of our most important values a value
that was violently opposed by
Christianity all throughout its history
and certainly opposed by the Bible
itself note that Galileo the father of
modern science was censored by the
church and held captive under permanent
house arrest and threatened with
execution for the charge of and I quote
following the position of Copernicus
which is thoughtcrime rest assured that
the church finally apologized to get
lael when I was in high school in 1992
359 years after condemning him better
late than never
but how could Copernicus be so damned he
was the guy at the very beginning of
this revolution David claimed him as a
devout Christian vital to modern science
so how could it possibly be a crime
punishable with life long incarceration
and possibly even death to merely follow
the position of Copernicus David
proclaimed that Copernicus his reasons
for doing his scientific studies
involved his desires to know and
comprehend the works of God and that he
believed those studies to be a form of
worship but that doesn't sound like a
guy the church should be suppressing
David said and I quote sounds like his
scientific research was grounded in his
religious beliefs wrong the motive for
his research may have been grounded in
his religious beliefs if you believe he
wasn't pandering to the church for his
very life but his actual research was
grounded in scientific methodology which
is completely absent from Scripture and
the objectivity of that methodology is
utterly immune to anyone's motives you
can use the scientific method to create
a nuclear bomb for instance or you can
use it to create better crops to feed
the starving in other words the answer
is the answer regardless of why you
decided to seek the answer in the first
place just as telling however is the
fact that David mentions nothing of
Copernicus's most influential detractors
famous theists who derived most of their
arguments against Copernicus not from
scientific methodology but from
Scripture they included John Calvin
Martin Luther Philip Melanchthon
Nicholas sir arias and Francesco Ingo
Lee so let's be clear even in the midst
of the Protestant Reformation there were
influential Christians on both sides
United in their condemnation of
nika's the Catholic Church actively
suppressed Copernicus's work removed and
altered passages of it because it was
quote contrary to Holy Scripture and
they didn't want it to quote creep any
further to the prejudice of Catholic
truth 400 years later david wood comes
along on YouTube and says we have
Christianity to thank for Copernicus's
discoveries yet when we look beyond the
surface level thinking look beyond the
snippet of a quote and as we actually do
the work and delve into the history what
we actually find is a great swath of
influential Christians fighting tooth
and nail against the very progress that
Christians will eventually claim credit
for
after the truth of the matter becomes
apparent Christianity fights and fights
and fights and when it finally loses it
pretends the fight never took place
and then plagiarizes the winner if the
findings of those scientists reaffirmed
Christian truth they would not have been
so thoroughly persecuted from every
corner of Christendom the reason they
were persecuted is because the
implications of their scientific
findings were contrary to Christian
belief at least until the apologists
could figure out some mental gymnastics
that would make them acceptable a
long-standing Christian tradition I'm
actually glad that they were there to
find the loopholes that stopped
Christians from suppressing the science
in that regard
even we atheists oh those apologists our
gratitude the bulk of Christianity
however believed that if those new ideas
about the universe were accepted and
disseminated it would mean that their
religion would lose influence and they
were right because that is exactly what
happened their fears were justified the
truth will out their brutal dominance
was righteously sacrificed for a better
more prosperous less authoritarian world
we need to do everything we can
maintain that direction a surefire way
to ruin our wonderful progress would be
to indulge in a misguided Christian
revival to combat Islam secularism is
the answer to Islam both Christianity
and Islam are ancient middle eastern
Abrahamic religions no matter how
different they may seem to you their DNA
is identical and their histories are
both brutally oppressive either one is
more than capable of throwing us all
into limbo for a thousand years so let's
not play with fire and figure out an
intelligent and peaceful way to deal
with Islam while preserving the freedoms
and rights we have and striving to gain
them for those who do not