Science and Religion: Questions about the Scientific Revolution

A couple of months ago, I was on an online debate with a group of non-Christians (atheist/agnostic) discussing the interface between Religion and Science, particularly the Christian religion. This latter designation is important since all of them seemed to have been former Christians by their own account. The dialogue touched many topics and one of them is the claim that Christianity has been opposed to Science in previous centuries. When asked to prove their points, they offered the following two names as the alleged proof that there was religious persecution of scientists in Medieval time. Of course, they always go for many centuries in the past because it is not obvious now to use contemporary history to support their case. They always rely on ancient history, I assume, hoping that people would not check the historical record to verify their claims. I have learned that when in dialogue with a virulent secularist (atheists and others), ALWAYS FACT-CHECK them! ALWAYS! Their persuasiveness rely on their interlocutor ignorance of history, science, and philosophy.

I. QUESTION ABOUT RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS?

1) The Case of Michael Servetus:

Michael Servetus wasn't executed for his science but because he entered in conflict with protestant reformers by upholding the heretical doctrine of 'Unitarianism'. He published his book, The Restoration of Christianity, which put him in trouble with his co-religionist reformers. The book was not a scientific book as the title itself shows! The Cambridge trained Historian Dr. Hannam had this to say about Severus: 

"The book infuriated Calvin, to whom Servetus had foolishly sent an advance copy ... Servertus escaped but fled through Geneva where Calvin himself lived. There he was apprehended and at Calvin's insistence, executed as a heretic. In later years Servetus's work on the heart led to him enjoying a reputation as a martyr for science. This is unwarranted because he was executed for purely religious ideas that had nothing to do with anatomy."

- Source: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Chapter 14: The Reformation. Page 292 - (ePub version)

Even today when a Government enjails or executes someone for an ideological reason, that person doesn't automatically become a martyr for what the person happened to have studied at school (example, electrical engineer) nor doesn't he become a martyr for the type of professional work he does (example, electronic maintenance). His persecution is unrelated to his educational background or professional work. So it is the same as the ancient trials on heresy. If the trial is about doctrines, then this can't be transferred to whatever the person's job or lack of a job happened to be (gardener, scientist, book-keeper, etc). As sad and regrettable was Servertus trial, he was put in trial for his religious views, and NOT for any scientific ideas.

2) The Case of Bruno Giordano:

As unfortunate as Bruno death was, it is nevertheless important to present the historical data correctly. Bruno Giordano was not a scientist but rather a mystic as documented historian Tim O Neil (Tim is an atheist by the way):

Bruno the Mystic: To begin with, any knowledge of Bruno that goes beyond internet memes will make the idea that he was in any sense of the word a “scientist” immediately dubious.  Bruno was a brilliant and eclectic thinker who ranged over a number of the disciplines of his day, and so is difficult to put into any one category.  He was a metaphysicist, a magus, an expert in mnemonics, a neo-Pythagorean, a neo-Platonist and an astrologer. He advocated a kind of philosophical reasoning, but it was one focused on images and symbols and the use of visualisations and metaphors.  He had a cosmology that included the physical universe, but he rejected the use of mathematics to explore it, considering that too limiting and preferring what he believed was his own intuitive sense for symbols, sacred geometries and what simply felt right. His eccentric melange of ideas included things like Copernicus’ heliocentrism and Nicholas of Cusa’s centreless infinite universe, but it also included magic, stars and planets with animating souls, ancient Egyptian religion and Pythagorean symbolism.  Probably the best word to describe him in modern terms is to say he was a “mystic”."

- Source: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/

Moreover, Bruno's trouble with the Catholic Church had nothing to do with him doing science since he wasn't a scientist to start with. It was about theology. Heresy is always about a fight against orthodox theology from within the ranks and nothing else. Bruno wrote books calling (i) the Pope the beast of the apocalypse (while still being a Church member), (ii) denying the trinity, teaching the view that the Holy Spirit was the soul/spirit of the world, (iii) teaching that only the Hebrews descended from Adam and Eve and that the rest of the Nations descended from two people that God made the day before (hence questioning the doctrine on the original sin); (iv) that Christ was not God, but a distinguished magician that mocked people, etc.

Clearly, his many grievances against the Church were doctrinal in nature and not scientific. And he was handed over to secular authority after his ecclesial judgment on these matters of doctrines and not for any science-related issue. Also, see the translated letter from 1606, the day he was executed by the secular authority that details the issues of Bruno in his many trials and they happened to have been doctrinal in nature. As unfortunate as his death was, Bruno doesn't qualify as the Science Martyr some ill-intended atheists try to pass him for.

II. OTHER QUESTION ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION?

3) Kick Starting the Scientific Revolution (1543 - 1632)

When the uninformed skeptics finally realize that Christianity has been quite favorable and conducive to the emergence and growth of modern science in the medieval period, they usually react in two ways: The first option, they recognize their error and concede the point and no longer regard Science and the Christian religion as being at war. The second option, they double down in their historical ignorance and try to find alternative reasons for how science might have arisen in medieval times without giving credit to Catholic Christianity.

In my experience, my skeptical interlocutor (usually the virulent no-nothing atheist type) chooses option two and proposes alternatives for he can't bring himself to the realization that he was historical clueless about his misgivings against Christianity. The particular skeptics I was exchanging with made two particular claims: (1) The precursor to the scientific revolution started by Christian scientists was preceded by the discovery of mathematical documents preserved by non-Christian Arabs. (2) The printing press was the technological advancement that kick-started the whole thing and that it is not thanks to Christian fervor or Christian interest to knowledge and progress.

Allow me to interacts with these two claims: 

(a) Recovery of Ancient Documents

The recovery of ancient Greek philosophy documents from Arab countries (which were the possession of Eastern Greek-speaking Christian Monk before the Islamic invasion) was recovered purposely by the Latin speaking Christian monks, priests and clerics of the West who would take these works written in classical Greek and Arabic languages and translate them in Latin for a wider consumption in Cathedral schools and later in Universities which were mainly promoted by the Church. These works were translated from the 12th century onward up to the time of the 'scientific revolution'.

As Cambridge historian Hannam acknowledges, these documents were acquired and translated by Churchmen:

"The most prolific of the translators was Gerard of Cremona (1114-84), who spent many years in Toledo working on the manuscripts in the library there."

Source: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution; Chapter 4: The 12th century Renaissance. Page 63

 We also know that Gerard of Cremona worked in concert with other translators in Toledo under the direction of Bishop Raymond.

(b) The Invention of the Printing Press

The Printing Press was produced by the religiously motivate German, Johannes Gutemberg. If you wondered, why on earth the Printing Press which spurred the scientific revolution as my skeptic friend would have argued was first invented? I bet that the answer to the inventor of the printing machine would surprise many. Here is a line that Gutemberg wrote on the first book that he printed:

"God suffers in the multitude of souls whom His word can not reach. Religious truth is imprisoned in a small number of manuscript books, which confine instead of spread the public treasure. Let us break the seal which seals up holy things and give wings to Truth in order that she may win every soul that comes into the world by her word no longer written at great expense by hands easily palsied, but multiplied like the wind by an untiring machine. Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall soon flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of man! Through it God will spread His Word. A spring of pure truth shall flow from it! Like a new star, it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine among men."

– Lines written in the Gutenberg Bible by Johannes Gutenberg

 Isn't it interesting to note that the printing press was made with the inventor's religious fervor to see the multi-production of Bibles to reach the whole world as the driving force and impetus for his ingenuity? 

 Hence we see that both main points the skeptic mentioned as instrumental to the scientific revolution were essentially done, carried out, and produced by motivated Christians in the Middle age. There is no escaping this fact. What is sure, there were NO atheists or skeptical secularists on the horizon when science was emerging. For all their grievances against religion, their historical contribution to science is nowhere to be found, except sadly in their internet Memes and/or Popular Atheistic books. What we do witness contrary to popular belief in our secular world, it is that fervent and passionate Christians along the way championed the emergence and progress of natural philosophy and science during the middle age (medieval period).

4) Why for 1,500 years did Christianity fail to produce a Scientific Revolution?

The other question I received once from a skeptic was rather unexpected but I think It had some good legitimacy. If Christianity was the principal cause that brought the Scientific Revolution and the emergence of modern science in the 16th Century, why didn't modern science arise earlier? I guess this is a fair question. It is important to note that this question doesn't nihilate what we have already covered above about Christian scientists' contribution to new field of scientific studies or the role the Church played with the translated documents and the innovative emergence of the printing press.

Nevertheless, let consider the question on its own right.

First, though Christianity emerged in the first century in Palestine as a persecuted minority throughout the Roman Empire. It wasn't an established institution until many centuries later, as it contended against many powers trying to control it until Pope Gregory VII in 1066 AD freed the Church from the political hands of European political leaders (Kings, Nobles, and Dukes) and strengthen Church discipline.

Second, the scientific revolution didn't occur in a vacuum. The 16th century might have been the revolutionary period but it was preceded by many natural scientific endeavors from earlier on which aggregated knowledge from the previous Millenium. Many minds had to succeed to each other while leaving a growing body of knowledge to the new generation. As an example the Franciscan priest Roger Bacon (who is considered as one of the founders of the scientific method, empiricism) in the 13th century (1214-1294 AD) built on the work on previous Christian thinkers.

As Medieval historian, Tim O Neil (who happens to be an atheist) points out, the advent of the Scientific Methods was preceded by an aggregation of prior knowledge from Christian thinkers, each adding their own contributions to the vast body of knowledge growing incrementally toward the eventual explosive 'Scientific Revolution'. Tim puts it this way about the pre-scientific revolution thinkers, which many have contested did not exist due to the alleged Church persecution of scientists, and I quote: 

"I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong."

This quote from an atheist such as Tim also resolves one of the frequent misleading assumptions of skeptics which assumes that natural scientists/philosophers pre- 16th Century were either inexistent or living in fear of the Church. Clearly this is an unfounded claim.

Thirdly, regarding the emergence of Modern science when it did, it is not always obvious to know why something happened (cause-effect relationship) but sometimes a simple correlation can be indicative of a hidden parameter. I submit this view: Christianity was still expanding throughout Europe during those 1500 years and meeting obstacles to its philosophical views in the European continent. But when all Europe became fully Christianized, that's when its view which was already being practiced by those who held the Church views on nature, philosophy, and theology exploded throughout the continent unimpeded as new knowledge aka modern science. The evidence for this reasoning of mine is that I noticed that it just happened that the scientific revolution occurred in the same time laps of when Europe was fully Christianized. I quote again Tim,

"Jenkins notes that we tend to think of Christianity as a religion which began in the Middle East and then spread west, via the Roman Empire, eventually finding some kind of natural home in Europe before expanding across the globe from there in the Modern Era.  Whereas, in fact, it was not until around 1500, with the conversion of the last European pagans in the Baltic and the expulsion of the last major Muslim presence in Spain, that Europe became fully Christian." 

- (Review of the history book, The Lost History of Christianity, by Professor of History at Baylor University, Dr. Philip Jenkins)

I think this information from Dr. Philip Jenkins does point us toward a possible answer. Europe was still being Christianized, and hence growing in awareness in what Christianity could offer intellectually. Therefore it took time for Christianity to bring about the rise of science. However, when everybody was embracing the same natural sciences and philosophical worldview (scholasticism) proposed by the Catholic Church, that's when the scientific revolution of the 16-17th century started to emerge forcefully throughout continental Europe. Hence, Christianity is absolutely in the heart of the process for the rise of science despite the time it took to be fully formed as a new discipline of investigation of the natural order created by the Creator.  

Science and Religion: Friend or Enemy?

I have frequently heard from antipathic people who hates the Christian faith that Christianity has been a 'science stopper'. That religious people have always prevented the growth of scientific knowledge. They even advance the idea that if it wasn't for the Christian religion, the world would have made significant progress in science and culture many centuries ago. However, what is missing in their grandiose claims against Christianity is ANY shred of evidence to substantiate their claims.

Contrary to their repeated claims, we do have historical evidence for Christianity as the only major contributor to the rise of modern science. We know for example that if it was not for Christianity there would have probably never been anything resembling the scientific establishment that we are all so proud of today. The Cambridge trained Historian Dr. James Hannam argues convincingly in his book that the very idea of science and its brilliant methodology also known as 'the scientific method' has arisen because of Christianity and not in spite of Christianity. His book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, was twice shortlisted for The Royal Society Science Book Prize 2010 and the British Society for The History of Science Dingle Book Prize 2011. Yes, the book is that good that even secular institutions shortlisted it for multiple awards.

This book is a powerful antidote for the wide-ranging historical ignorance going around among the modern youth and the uninformed young adults who have swallowed the ludicrous narrative against Christianity under the misguided veil of being 'skeptics' or 'free thinkers' or even 'enlighted intellectuals'. You would think that with these self-congratulatory titles, they would have at least done their homework and check their history books or do some minimum research before they publicly expose their ignorance when they speak about the relationship between Christianity and Science.

I was in a heated exchange with a gentleman who was overtly skeptical about the contribution of science by religious persons during the period of the 'Scientific Revolution'. I was surprised that he chose that specific period in order to launch his offensive. I then proceeded in sharing with him a list of some Medieval (Middle Age) scientists during the Scientific Revolution Era who were Christians and who were pioneers of many scientific fields. Read them below in their own words:

1. Nicholas Copernicus, (1473-1543) – Astronomer: “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 grateful than knowledge.”

2. Tycho Brahe, (1546–1601) Astronomer: “Those who Study the Stars, have God for a Teacher”.

3. Galileo Galilei, (1564-1642) Astronomer: “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, saw and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is the work of God and one of the most excellent”.

4. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was an astronomer: “Our piety is the deeper, the greater is our awareness of creation and its grandeur. Since we astronomers are priests to the highest God with regard to the book of creation, it befits us to be thoughtful not of the glory of our mind but rather above all else of the glory of God”.

5. Rene Descartes, (1596-1650), Mathematician and Physicist (the early text on optics and anatomy): “Thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depend uniquely on my awareness of the true God in such an extent that I was incapable of perfect knowledge about anything else until I became aware of Him”.

6. Blaise Pascal, (1623-1662) (Mathematicians, Physicist): “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”.

7. Sir Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (Founder of modern chemistry): “The vastness, beauty, orderliness of heavenly bodies, the excellent structure of animals and plants, and other phenomena of nature justly induce an intelligent, unprejudiced observer to conclude that a supreme, powerful, just and good Author.”

8. Anthony van Leeuwenhoek (1632—1723), Dutch Microscopist who was the first to observe bacteria: “It is to be hoped that the inquirer into nature works by searching deeper and deeper into her hidden mysteries will more and more place the discoveries of the truth before the eyes of all so as to produce a version to the errors of former times which all those who love the truth are diligent to aim at. For we cannot in any better manner better glorify the Lord and Creator of the universe than that in all things, how small forever they appear to our naked eyes which has yet to receive the gift of life and power or increase, we contemplate the display of His omniscience, and perfection with the utmost admiration”.

9. Sir Issac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was an English mathematician, physicist: “ The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.”

This list was adapted from a Dr. David Wood presentation debate. Some of the quotes are longer than the one provided initially by Dr. Wood, for I went to the sources and selected lengthier quotations to bring out more clearly their strong Christian beliefs and commitment to show how their faith guided their scientific exploration.

As the list of those luminaries above demonstrates, there is nothing inimical between Science and Christianity. On the contrary as Dr. Hannam argued in his book, Modern Science arose within Christian Europe and not somewhere else for a reason. Christian thoughts were the decisive factor that provided the background knowledge and a foundation for the development of the whole scientific enterprise.

Why do Modern Scientists who believe are in a minority then?

For some, the exaggerated report that today's body of scientists do not believe in the existence of God (the divine) seem to strike a point in favor of the secular proposition that science doesn't work hand in hand with belief. And the evidence usually provided to support such a claim is that ‘93% of the National Academy Of Science scientists are atheists’. 

However, this is an inadequate reading of the evidence. The National Academy of Science (NAS) is not representative of all scientists neither in the USA nor in the world. NAS has only 2 thousand (2,000) scientists as members of the organization; while the whole country of the United States of America (U.S) has 2 million (2,000,000) scientists. And of these 2 million scientists, 51% of scientists in the USA believe in the existence of the divine. 

And this reflection only caters to the demography of scientists in the USA which doesn't take into account the number of scientists in another part of the world such as Africa, India, etc.

The warfare thesis that pit Science against Christianity is quite a modern idea. It has taken a stronghold in the public imagination thanks to a virulent secularization of our society which foister this misrepresented view to an unsuspected public.

An Atheist Question: Why do Christianity support slavery?

It feels like a long time but truly it has been only 2 months since I started interacting with some atheists in Rwanda. Just like religious folks, atheists come in all shape and form. The clever ones, the annoying ones, the mocking type, the self-controlled ones, the arrogant ones, the humble ones, the hostile ones, and the mildly friendly ones and so on. We've been at it since September discussing almost all types of topics with the unfortunate outcome of never-ending any. The tendency is to jump from topic to topic without fully exhausting the subject under discussion.

However last week, we had a short extended discussion on the topic of slavery. One of my interlocutors brought a series of what he considered grievances against Christianity, one of them being the slavery topic. Below is my feedback on the second round of our exchange on the matter. I have selected the key aspects of his rebuttal as he called it. I will not share many of our dialogues, i left out from this post what I considered the unkind and often insulting remarks addressed against my person to keep this post PG. 😅

I hope you find it interesting and informative. I will leave in the same way, I responded and he reacted. My interlocutor remarks are in RED. My comments are in black. I drew heavily on the work from Emergence to build my case.

......

[Atrocity in the bible]: Ephesians 6:5 (Endorses Slavery)

Here is the text below. It is not an endorsement of slavery but how to behave if one finds himself a slave in the first century, where slavery was still part of the socio-economic institution in Ephesus. He gives advice not only to slaves but also to the masters.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah. Masters, treat your slaves the same way. Do not threaten them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." - Eph 6:5, 9 

Since your rebuttal was multifaceted, I will insert my comment after different sections of your reactions.

a) “so my issue is why didn't Jesus and any of his followers REBUKE THE PRACTICE?”

Before I answer your questions, it is important to open a parenthesis here and point out that the concept of ancient slavery in the Bible (Old Testament among the Jews and New Testament in the Roman Empire) was different from the racial-slavery practices in the South of the USA. Maybe we will have some time to explore this in greater detail later on.

As for the question asked, we have New Testament texts that point away from ancient slavery and encourages the slaves who have the opportunity to be freed to take advantage of the opportunity for freedom,

Text 1:  ‘for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine’ - 1Timothy 1:10 MKJV

Text 2: “Were you a slave when you were called [by Christ]? Do not let that bother you. Of course, if you have a chance to become free, take advantage of the opportunity.” - 1Corinthians 7:21  

b) “Why go through the the trouble of advising the slave master & the slave of how to act while in their sorry states instead of doing the most HUMANE thing of rebuking the practice of owning & treating another human being as property (chattel slavery) or an indebted servant (indebted servitude)?”

Once again, slavery in ancient times was different from the chattel slavery practiced in recent memories of blacks. As for why not a direct attack on the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire? I gather it is because slavery as an institution was part of the Roman Empire's socio-economic system and protected by the imperial edict. Hence, all attempts for changes about it could either be brought through (i) a violent revolt or (ii) by changing the system by using a bottom-up approach. Since the Christian doctrine coming from Christ to his disciples were non-violent in nature, arm-revolt would be contrary to the core of the religious teaching of Christianity. Hence, they chose the bottom-up approach of mind-set changes as a teaching method to win over the culture war in the Roman Empire by teaching equality among themselves with the hope that it will permeate society as they grow in number. As one New Testament text inform:

‘Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.’ - Galatians 3:28 

c) “Why condone such an evil practice by going ahead to advise the slave to accept the inhumane treatment accorded to him instead of encouraging him or her to revolt & fight for his or her right?”

They did not condone such practices as already informed above since the Christian teaching is equalitarian in nature ‘all of you are one’. But Christianity according to its own text is also non-violent by nature, hence uses non-violent methods to achieve its ends as per its own doctrine (see its modern application with Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mandela). And truth to be told, you don’t mount a violent revolt against the Roman army and Empire with a small number of pacifists in your ranks. And I also read somewhere a good observation stating,

“Were any of the New Testament writers to incite slaves to rise up against their masters, they would essentially have been compelling them to death, probably by crucifixion, as was the fate of the 6,000 who revolted with Spartacus a century earlier.”

d) “Why not do the most noble thing and ask the Slave master to stop treating other human beings as objects & beasts of burdens but instead encourage him or her to continue practicing such an atrocity on other human beings?”

Once again, slavery in ancient times had different features from the modern usage of the word today. As for the question, the Bible does ask Masters to treat their ancient slaves correctly as they would treat a brother in the Lord for ‘all are one’. It is also important to note that some ancient slaves would have preferred to remain slaves in an ancient way since their socio-economic status would have been better than if they were freed. As already pointed out by some authors,

“In Roman society, slaves could own property and other slaves, they were not enslaved based on the color of their skin (it was not a racist institution), and slavery was often temporary. While there were certainly very degrading and dehumanizing forms of slavery in the Roman world (e.g., mining), many served in more dignified positions, such as tutors, professors, estate managers, bookkeepers, and doctors, or as artisans. Roman Emperors used slaves to manage imperial estates and often placed them in charge of important tasks, such as lighting, tailoring, wine-keeping and tasting, and cooking. The slaves addressed in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3, as well as Onesimus in Philemon, would have been household slaves, as is evident by the placement of these texts amongst advice to household members (i.e., husbands, wives, and children).”

e) “Jesus would have made freeing slaves from physical & mental bondage one of his major priorities while he was here on Earth.”

This is not something he could have done while living in Palestine (and in 3 years of public ministry), especially as a member of a persecuted minority Jewish religious movement (he himself was crucified by a Roman governor for something of less socio-value to the Roman Empire). Ancient slavery was a wide institution in the whole Roman Empire. And only by changing people’s hearts could they have changed how they live and legislate these practices. You start with the heart and you affect the action, was Jesus teaching (remember our discussion above on Matthew 5). And basically, this is what his disciples went on doing while preaching the gospel about ‘all are one’ in this new faith in Christ. Moreover, freedom from ancient slavery (which is different from the racial slavery of the South) was not always the desired will of all slaves either. You can’t force someone to be freed if they assess by themselves that they get more benefits from their ancient slave social status than as freed-men.

See for example what the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (himself once a slave) writes of the common experience of freed slaves:

“If I shall be set free, immediately it is all happiness, I care for no man, I speak to all as an equal and, like to them, I go where I choose, I come from any place I choose, and I go where I choose.” Then he is set free, and forthwith having no place where he can eat, he looks for some man to flatter, someone with whom he shall sup: then he either works with his body and endures the most dreadful things; and if he can obtain a manager, he falls into a slavery much worse than his former slavery; or even if he is become rich, being a man without any knowledge of what is good, he loves some little girl, and in his happiness laments and desires to be a slave again. He says, “What evil did I suffer in my state of slavery? Another clothed me, another supplied me with shoes, another fed me, another looked after me in sickness, and I did only a few services for him. But now a wretched man, what things I suffer, being a slave of many instead of to one.”

It is important to end this post by reminding us of the New Testament teaching on equality in Christ: ‘Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.’ - Galatians 3:28

Atheists persecution of Christians

Recently, someone asked in a Facebook wall page, how come Christians were persecuted in the past but aren't persecuted nowadays. The expected answer that i have heard in the past - i used to give the same answers too when i was less informed by history - is that in early century they preached the Gospel but now we no longer preach the Gospel. But this ain't necessary the best approach about that. Religious intolerance has always been directed to the Church when a religious or a secular society got dominated by an intolerant anti-christian man or extremist group in power. For example, in the first century Christians fled Jerusalem to other cities because of the persecution. It is also safe to say that on the Island of Malita, there were no persecution of Christians to the point that St. Paul were free of persecution. The peaceful cohabitation between a Christian and non-Christians on the Malita Island shouldn't be interpreted as if the apostle Paul was no longer preaching the true Gospel. All it means, is that there were no murderous ruler that hated Christianity or its message there.

With these words, I'd like to share with you some information on these issue from Vox Day blog. See a sample of them here below.

Please feel free to also Check My Book here.

...

There are four atheist countries in which atheists are presently jailing, torturing, and murdering Christians. These countries are China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. (Cuba was doing the same in the past, but has shown some respect for religious freedom for nearly a decade now.) While American atheists customarily try to fall back on a spurious No True Atheist defense, government documents prove this defense to not only be illogical, but incontrovertibly false. For example, the motivation for China's most recent wave of anti-Christian persecution was laid out in a government document entitled "Notice on Further Strengthening Marxist Atheism Research, Propaganda and Education". This proves that the motivation underlying the persecution is atheism; specifically the Marxist variant which is the heart of a godless worldview that correctly sees Christianity as a serious threat.


A subsequent document laid out the case against the Christian church: "We have dealt with the Falun-gong. We have arrested and put their leaders on the run. Now we must resolutely and strongly deal with the unregistered house churches. They are too numerous -- too many. We must deal with them strongly."


Given that at least 1,600 Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured to death and a number of recent Christian deaths have also been confirmed, such as the beating death of Ms. Jiang Zongxiu in prison on June 18, 2004 and the death of Bishop John Han Dingxian on September 12, 2007, there is absolutely no question that Chinese atheists are murdering Christians today and intend to continue doing so.


The situation is much worse in North Korea. In TIA, I quoted a 2004 articlepublished by The Guardian: "The number of prisoners held in the North Korean gulag is not known: one estimate is 200,000, held in 12 or more centres. Camp 22 is thought to hold 50,000. Most are imprisoned because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime. Many are Christians, a religion believed by Kim Jong-il to be one of the greatest threats to his power." These North Koreans are not "Kim Jong-ilists"; they are atheists and correctly identify themselves as such. Their atheist self-identification is less dubious than that of the American atheist who makes a fetish of science and/or Darwinism and believes in the ever-ineffable "progress" towards a shiny, secular, material paradise.


In Vietnam, the atheist regime is currently persecuting the Montagnards, a predominantly Christian minority. This is probably done as much for ethnic reasons as anti-religious ones, but the persecution has been purely religious and directed against ethnic Vietnamese Christians in the recent past.Persecution is most intense for the ethnic minorities, especially the Montagnards from the hill country. Many of these people have attempted to flee to neighbouring Cambodia. However, under an agreement with the Vietnamese government, the authorities there have been returning the refugees to Vietnam to collect a bounty. Those who are returned are imprisoned, tortured or killed. Despite the persecution, instead of being destroyed, the church in Vietnam is growing and becoming stronger. Christians now make up almost ten percent of the population.


In Laos, Christians are considered to be enemies of the state and have been viciously persecuted since 1975. Although the persecution has not been as intense in the last three years, it still continues: "At least thirteen Christian villagers who were falsely accused of stirring rebel dissent have been killed by authorities in Laos over the past month, according to an August 7, [2007] report from Compass Direct. The report also states that approximately 200 Christians in the village of Sai Jerern have been arrested and imprisoned."


Atheists have been murdering Christians almost non-stop around the world for the last 91 years and they have done so with predictable regularity in the majority of countries where they have obtained political dominance. It is all too typical that American atheists are far more concerned about Christian crimes committed against non-atheists in Europe more than 500 years ago than they are about the crimes being committed by avowed atheists against Asian Christians today.


But the persecutions will fail in the end, as they always do, and as Western Christianity continues to decline amidst its sloth, wealth, and apostasy, Eastern Christianity will rise, energized by the bloody test of its faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

'No-True-Scotsman' Argument?

I read this at Vox Day's book: "The Irrational Atheist" page 127-129.

You might find it interesting!

God bless you and have a productive week in Jesus' name.
..................

When the deception is not so obvious, one way of detecting if someone is arguing in good faith or not is to see if his argument has been constructed as a tautology, or in other words, presented in the form "heads I win, tails you lose." Since a tautology cannot, by definition, be contradicted because it is universally true, presenting a tautology as if it were a legitimate matter for debate is inherently dishonest. One form of argument by tautology is known informally as the "No True Scotsman" argument, courtesy of a British philosopher named Antony Flew. It goes like this:

Assertion: No Scotsman drinks Jack Daniels.
Response: But my uncle Angus is from Glasgow and he drinks Jack Daniels.
Rebuttal: Then your uncle Angus is no true Scotsman!

Because the historical record of atheism is so bloody, so recent, and so well-known, Harris is forced to construct a No True Atheist argument in a preemptive attempt to ward off the inevitable response to his assertion that religious faith causes murder and genocide.

Harris: Atheists don't kill people because they have no good reason to do so.
Response: Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed millions of people.
Harris: Then Stalin and Mao were No True Atheists.

Of course, Harris doesn't come right out and present this argument directly, because even a militant atheist would laugh in his face. Instead, he uses several deceptive techniques to try to disguise the fact that he is defending his thesis with a No True Scotsman argument.
...
The actual No True Scotsman example is as follows: 

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the `Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.' Hamish is shocked and declares that `No Scotsman would do such a thing.' The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, `No true Scotsman would do such a thing.'" Flew, Antony, Thinking About Thinking—or do I sincerely want to be right? London: Collins Fontana, 1975.

The Danger of Blind Tolerance

I was reading Maximus post on God vs Men where he take charge against atheism and strident secularization. In the process of doing that he made a rather interesting case for Islam. Of course it has no theological value but has a rather powerful cultural significance. Since he chose Rwanda as a case study for the positive impact of Islam he was able to pull it off rather well. If he had chosen Islam as lived and experienced in Middle East and the former soviet countries during the Bosnia tumult, his case would have been rather unattractive and crushed down. Nevertheless his point and comments about Rwanda is rather interesting. I am sure you'll find it relevant given our recent debates with the Islamic leaders in Kigali 6 months ago.   
      

Islam…was a small faith in the country of Rwanda at the time of the genocide, almost non-existent. It is rising now faster then ever, mosques overflowing, and playing a part in healing wounds and bringing forgiveness to that country. Why is Islam growing in Rwanda? In their own words:

During the genocide, Muslims were among the few Rwandans who protected both neighbors and strangers. Elsewhere, many Hutus hunted down or betrayed their Tutsi neighbors and strangers suspected of belonging to the minority.

But the militiamen and soldiers didn’t dare go after Tutsis in Muslim neighborhoods like Biryogo, said Yvette Sarambuye, a 29-year-old convert. ”If a Hutu Muslim tried to kill someone hidden in our neighborhoods, he would first be asked to take the holy Quran and tear it apart to renounce his faith,” said Sarambuye, a Tutsi widowed mother of three who survived the slaughter by hiding with Muslims. “No Muslim dared to violate the holy book, and that saved a lot of us.”

For many Hutu extremists, Muslims were regarded as a group apart, not to be targeted in the genocide.

Muslims take God and the Quran VERY seriously. They don’t have faith or belief…they KNOW God exists and that his word came down to man through the holy prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

You will note that while Muslim Hutus did partake in the slaughter, but when they were confronted by their own religious community and asked to leave Islam because it forbids the killing of innocents, they put down their machetes, at least in Muslim neighborhoods. Islam saved lives…by the Koran alone. In contrast to the Christian majority that the country is now moving away from, the Bible did not save anyone as a holy book:

Although the Christian clergy in many communities struggled to protect Tutsis and often died with them, more than 20 Roman Catholic and Protestant priests, nuns and pastors are facing charges related to the killings. Rwandan courts already have convicted two Catholic priests and sentenced them to death.

… the message of the Koran and the small Muslim community spared countless lives that would otherwise have been lost as there was no sanity to be found anywhere during that black time in Rwanda’s history…except if you found yourself in a Muslim village.

Isn't it fascinating if the story are completely true? When I first read this at Vox Day blog, I was interested in his diagnostic given the fact that it isn't the first time he gives it:

"The Rwandan church failed in much the same way that the Christian church in the West has failed. We tolerate the unrepentant sinners in our midst rather than doing what is explicitly commanded in the Bible, confronting them, demanding repentance, and expelling them from the church community if they will not do so. And in both cases, the resulting consequence is that people walk away from a faith that is not true to itself. The church that will not confront the adulterer, the thief, the homosexual, the liar, or the gossip is one that will not confront the murderer either when he appears at their door, demanding the blood of the innocent."

Vox is spot on. Authenticity is what is required of the disciples of Jesus by Jesus himself. He expressly called his followers - his disciples - light of the world and salt of the world. Lacking to walk in light - read integrity and authenticity - as sons of light we loose our value and relevant just like a salt that would loose its saltiness. Uselessness becomes then their label. Tolerating people like that in our midst is dangerous for our reputation.

I also read a comment made by Kajeneri Christian in his Facebook wall:

"Christianity is not failing because of the evil doings done by Born-again Christians, but rather the fact that we have abandoned our regular customs, nowadays neglected by many: morning & evening devotion, fulfillment of vows, grateful hearts, Bible reading, Meditation of the Word of God, bearing fruits which is a result of Intimate fellowship with the Holy Spirit, Love/ brotherhood Love, Winning souls for Christ, etc. The lack of all these basics principles/customs are the one killing Christianity today. God help us!"

What he was trying to say wasn't to exonerate the evil done by the 'Born-again' but rather to bring to light the fact that those evil acts are symptomatic. They proceed from a deeper problem, the lack of genuine faith on the part of some 'born again' Christian folks.

In few weeks we will be celebrating the first coming of our Lord Jesus through the traditional Christmas event. And the Catholic church has called his members to take the call of season called the 'Advent' seriously. This season is one of the season in the catholic church that calls the members to practice their faith through acts of kindness to the poor and so on. Christmas is good season to reminds us about our mission as Church and the purpose of Christ coming. However a religious season of holiness is not enough to really change people's hearts. A genuine encounter with Jesus is the key to a man's heart change.

The human heart need more. It needs a rather complete makeover to even start valuing things that are sacred - such as life. I remember reading a book written from a Rwandan Catholic priest who survived the genocide. He tells the story of man coming to him with a bleeding machete, and at the sight of it he regretfully informed the slaughterer: "I regret to have baptized you without converting you." This statement coming from a priest is really revealing. It reminds me a catholic movement of apologists coming from New Zealand that had/has for motto: "Evangelizing the Baptized." It has become clear to many over the years now that we have baptized people who aren't even Christians in the first place. That which seemed restricted often in Catholicism in the past is now as present as ever in protestant churches and ministries. We have dangerous people in high profile ministry seats and we allow them to be there at our own perils. We have gifted men but they have no authenticity and that is what is killing us. I wish at time I could just be Jesus' hand so that he could use me handling some whip and drive the merchant away from the Temple once again. They just bring a lot of confusion and darken the purpose of Christ through the Church which is Love.


I'll end with this last admonishment - do not compromise the faith by allowing tolerance of what is prohibited in the scripture. If you ignore the warning, you might just live long enough to witness the consequences of your unwise tolerance.

Check My Book here or more here.

Three Strikes Against Atheism

As we enter in this new decade, an anti-christian sentiment is still growing so does the faith of the faithful. The combat between opposite and contradictory worldviews will just escalate. I, for one, know on which side of the debate i want to be or should i say i am actually on.

As last year ended, three christian articles on atheism attracted my attention. The first one came from the catholic church Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the second from the eminent evangelical New Testament Scholar Dr. William Lane Craig and the third one from the christian libertarian Theodore Beal aka Vox Day.

It was just a pleasure to read them all and enjoy their wit as they undertook the task of facing the atheistic claims. Feel free to check them at your free time.

Have a happy new year filled with abundant graces in Jesus name