the holy grail - where science meets the Bible

Science and the Bible were designed to be mutually reinforcing as they testify to the same reality - God created the universe and everything in it! As such they will always harmonize. If they are perceived to be at odds, it’s due to lack of knowledge about one or the other, or both. But that only applies in cases involving the general public. Outside that sphere, between the purveyors of religious and scientific doctrines themselves, we find a different reality. We find a consistent pattern of fostering misleading dogma that deviates from the truths borne out by thorough investigation of either science or the Bible. Since at least the period of the so-called Enlightenment the narrative of a growing chasm between science and the bible has been hoisted on society, but this is a false narrative. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth! Bankrupt religion and bankrupt science are always in agreement! Forming a most insidious tag team. A tag team that takes turns in fostering myths about the true nature of reality - in an effort to deflect the glory that belongs to the God who created heaven and earth. To accomplish this, a nuanced and undetected influence must be at play in society, as the authoritative source of such lies. Part of the commission of this blog is to put such lies to rest - for good. But, how does false religion or science accomplish their aims?

Depending on the mood of the times and the spirit of society, either the religious establishment or scientific class will take the lead, with the other bolstering that position by playing sycophant sidekick. In the Middle Ages, when spirituality reigned supreme in western society the cohorts burned people alive at the stake for expounding scientific truths. They both offered stiff and often violent opposition to the progress of science - or indeed, any truth, including Biblical. The Church made sure no new scientific discoveries came to light, while the Scientific community vehemently denied all evidence that would establish the truth under discussion. Today, when society is under the spell of secularism, the scientific stablishment is happy to run its leg of the relay, and the morally bankrupt religions eagerly change inviolable scriptural principles to accommodate the prevailing scientific views. For over 2,000 years this sick dance has been performed without interruption. Later, on this page, you will find the viewpoint they are so eagerly trying to promote, as told by leading Science communicator, Niel deGrasse Tyson.

“Why should two institutions of society which, seem to be at opposite ends of society’s spectrum of accumulated knowledge have a need to be illicit bedfellows” you may ask? For the simple reason that true scientific and biblical knowledge pay homage to the same reality - common authorship from the God who created the universe, and it is not in the interests of either of these errant institutions to espouse such facts. Any efforts to upend the reality of God's creatorship of the universe, would thus require coordinated efforts from renegade parties within both religion and the sciences. Because such efforts cannot rely on evidence - for the evidence will always testify to God’s creatorship - the respective purveyors must instead couple untested and untestable hypotheses, with baseless, meaningless consensus to achieve validity for their views. These intellectuals have no skin in the game. They exist as peddlers of influence, not shepherds of reality, hence the necessity for coordinated function to preserve their roles as masters of society. The emptiness of the concept of influencers who don’t produce anything but rather earn a living by monetizing their influence over others, has been thoroughly exposed by social media platforms - and is now common knowledge. Scientists and theologians are no different, they don’t derive their authority intrinsically from their respective avenues of interest. They garner it because they are perceived to be the door-keepers of those domains. When we trace the development of this dual relationship to it’s source we realise that its duality is due to the collapse of human institutions which regresses people into tribal interests, meaning to maintain influence over many as opposed to a whole, the sources of influence also need to multiplied and re-branded around narrower identities - hence one turns into two. But that is only for show. In reality, false religion and false science are one and the same thing. Here's Sir Isaac Newton:

The link is closer than two sides of the same coin. These are two manifestations of the same reality. Historically, they were both realized in one figure - in the magic-practising priest: with the magic part representing the current scientific knowledge, and the priest being a false representative of God. For God hates magic! We fast forward to our current times, when atheism has taken hold and false science is riding high. When people want to end an argument, they say, "that's what the science says." Or, they put that phrase in the form of a question: "what does the science say?" And so Science has come to be the final word on all matters! That has led to a society where the dominant narratives are those promoted by scientists. This newfound authority, is then grouped together with the claim that science and the Bible can never be reconciled. They are at odds, and will forever go their separate ways! Let us now look at this conventional wisdom as expressed by one-half of the current, leading magic-practising priests duality: Niel deGrasse Tyson.

The New Conventional Wisdom

Scientism and the triumph of intellectualism

"Religion has long ago been disproved as the explanation for the world around us. What’s more, faith and reason are directly opposed to each other, with the established relationship between the two being inverse, that is when one gains in strength, the other loses in value. History has proven that when religion is in the ascendancy, it is only because of the ignorance of the general populace, but as society has progressed ever-forward through mass education and a universal rise in standards of living, religions have one by one been relegated to the dustbin of history, mainly because the effects once ascribed to the gods, are, through the sciences, now understood to have natural causes and effects, with no need to appeal to supernatural forces to explain them. Bacteria causes rotting meat to produce flies and modern science understands the biological underpinnings of diseases like epilepsy. Thus, these discoveries, for instance, discredit the religious claims held by so many historically in bible times - including that epileptic fits were caused by demon possession - and rotting meat spontaneously creates living organisms." This is the plot of secular society. Below, we continue to lay out their argument:

"Once the Bible’s grip on what people believed was overshadowed by the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment was ushered in. The enlightenment allowed us, to be able to understand the universe as it really is - free from biblical mythology and superstition. Thereafter the Bible has served, to all serious-minded people not as a scientific explanation of the universe, but as a source of comfort and spiritual guidance for those who appreciate those values. So absolutely has science proven useful in explaining the natural world around us, that no aspect - given enough time for investigation, experimentation and verification - is beyond it’s irresistible ever forward moving power of elucidation. What is mysterious today, once discovered and explained becomes the foundation for tomorrow’s technology."

"On the other hand," so continues the story, "every historical attempt to reconcile reason and faith has failed so dismally that no future attempts hold any hope of achieving their aims! The scientific revolution has proven that the universe is governed by a unified set of laws and not the swaying dictates of an angry and temperamental deity. Though this gives weight to the argument of a unified set of laws behind the structure of the universe indicating the workings of a great and all knowing mind, the evidence shows undeniably that this does not in any way defend or support the argument of a monotheistic being as the metaphysical agent behind the creation of the material universe. That fact is only a necessary condition for belief in God as creator but it is not a good explanation for how the universe came to be."

"For that to be true, there would have to be an undeniable link between the empirical evidence now in abundance and the declarations of the Bible. What’s more since every religion claims that its particular God, is the omniscient, ruler of the universe, not only would the religious proofs have to supply sufficient arguments that are in line with the discovered evidence, but such claims would have to meet three conditions. They would have to be comprehensive, falsifiable and infallible. That is, even if the first two parameters - both of which are detailed and unambiguous statements - were met with 100 percent accuracy, if even one, out of a thousand claims of the God in question were verified to not be how nature works, then the 999 correct claims would have to be taken as lucky guesses. To lay claim to being the perfect and almighty owner, designer and creator of the universe one cannot ever make a mistake in any of the details - even 1 in a million - be that conceptual, mathematical or in its engineering. Otherwise, what does it mean to be a perfect all-knowing being if your actions and/or statements are not without fault and lack accurate knowledge and/or understanding of the empirical evidence?"

"Throughout history," the claim goes, "no attempt has ever succeeded in dovetailing the claims of the numerous Gods found in every culture of mankind and the many scientific discoveries mankind has achieved, over that time. Quite the opposite! The fanciful tales found in religious literature, have, time and time again, been debunked by scientific discovery. And gods in general, but specifically the monotheistic god of the Bible has been proven to be a god, not of knowledge but of 'gaps in knowledge!' His claimed positions always being re-interpreted to fit the scientific understanding of the current time. To be found true, it would be necessary for his claims to be in accord with the evidence."

The above position is a narrative paraphrase of the essence of current secular belief. This is borne out in a conversation between Bill Moyers (BM) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (NdGT) on the former’s Youtube podcast - Moyers & Company. Excerpts of that conversation follow below.

Figure 2 - Origin of Mankind according to Scientism (Credit: Natural Histroy Museum)

NdGT: "When science discovers things and you want to stay religious. Or you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring. What you would do is…say: ‘well let me go back to the Bible and re-interpret it.’ Then, you say things like: ‘oh they didn’t really mean that literally, they meant that figuratively.’ So this whole … re-interpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are, came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It’s the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literal truth of god, and want to see the Bible as a science textbook…. Enlightened religious people are not behaving that way. They’re saying: ‘yes science is cool, and we’re good with that,’ and [they] use the Bible to get [their] spiritual enlightenment and [their] emotional fulfillment.”

BM: "I have known serious religious people, not fundamentalists, who were scared when Carl Sagan opened his series with the words: ‘The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.’ That scared them, because they interpret that to mean ‘then if this is it. Then there’s nothing else. No God, and no life after.’”

NdGT: "For religious people, many people say: 'well god is within you.’ There are ways in which people have shaped this, rather than: ‘god is an old grey bearded man in the clouds. Well if god is within you … in you in your mind, we can measure the neuro-synaptic firings when you have a religious experience…."

BM: "But do you have any sympathy for people who seem … to only feel safe in the vastness of the universe … if they can infer a personal god who makes it more hospitable to them, cares for them?"

NdGT: "In this country, what we tell ourselves is a free country … I don’t care what you think. I just don’t. Go think whatever you want. Go ahead. Think that there’s one god, two gods, ten gods or no gods. That is what it means to live in a free country! The problem arises … if you have a religious philosophy that is not based in objective realities…. You are not doing science. The history of…scientific discovery, is one where at any given moment, there’s a frontier. And there tends to be an urge for people, especially religious people to assert that across that boundary, into the unknown, lies the handiwork of god. This shows up a lot. Newton even said it…. Ptolemy…didn’t invoke Zeus to account for the rock that he’s standing on or the air he’s breathing, it was [at] this point of mystery - and in gets invoked god! This over time has been described by philosophers as: ‘the god of the gaps.’ If that’s…where you’re going to put your god in this world, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance - if god is the mystery of the universe. So, to the person who says: 'maybe dark matter is god.' If the only reason why you’re saying that is because it’s a mystery. Then get ready to have that undone."

Strong words!

"In conclusion," the secular scientist who believes in atheism would say, "it is correct to say that conventional wisdom claims a materialist explanation, that is, one that claims that only time, physical forces and mathematics are enough to explain everything we see and more importantly, to explain how it emerged: as a product of lifeless forces and chance applied over time. In a word: Evolution. Hence, life itself, though valued and valuable to those who possess it - is ultimately meaningless! As are questions such as: "why are we here?" There is nothing special about humanity! Given the structure, scale and age of the universe, what occurred here on earth, must certainly have happened many, many times over ... throughout the eons of time since the Big Bang. Hence, the Big Bang must have littered the cosmos with various life forms throughout its many, many galaxies over the billions of years of the universe’s evolution."

everything you have just read is wrong!