Essay Abstract

Modern science is founded upon unbelief. In its five-hundred year history science never once attributed the things of nature to God. Although there were men of science who confessed belief in God, they did so while swearing allegiance to the principles of science. Therefore, their personal beliefs would not alter the nature of science. So, science, by its foundational principle ignores God or declares that there is no God. If we assumed for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It follows therefore, that the universal purpose of the universe is God. Since science happens in the universe, it must have something to do with that purpose. However, as we see it, science works against purpose, and so, from this fact and from learning how opposites are paired and how they take turns in the universe, it follows that there is a counterpart to purpose. Science, therefore, is the counter-purpose that is opposed to purpose, the same way as sorrow is a counterpart to happiness, as evil is to good, as death is to life, as falsehood is to truth, as hate is to love, as war is to peace. Now in this essay I will show that science is wrong about everything by examining the most influential branches of science. I will show that science is harmful. I will also show that the Lord God Lives. I will show that choosing science is a fatal course of action to earth but choosing God will restore life in it. In my conclusion I will offer solutions and propose that all men of science should steer towards a goal of life, not wander towards death.

Author Bio

I was born in Ethiopia and leaned to read and write at St. Rufael Church in Gondar. There too, I studied the Epistle of St. John. That was as far as my formal education went but amidst the frightening tempest of the Western ideological conquest of the mind, I was taught of the Lord.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Wudu,

Interesting essay. But notice your claim being made here. Have capitalised the important points.

"If we ASSUMED for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It FOLLOWS THEREFORE, that the universal purpose of the universe is God."

You 'assume' a claim, and from this assumption 'follow therefore' from it. So your argument rests on pure assumption (for more than a second).

Also if science did prove a God it wouldnt necessarily follow that praising that God would be a worthwhile activity. That God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God.

Good luck with your entry.

    It does have to be pointed out there was a time when the western world was based on theology or theocracy. We generally call it the middle ages, from 600CE to 1500CE. I attach an image to illustrate a common practice during this time period. This sort of thing in that age of little entertainment were the spectator fun people had, along with watching witch burnings, breaking on the wheel and so forth. It was not a lot of fun, and murder rates were 50 times what they are now in the US or EU. The problem with the idea of returning to some age where belief in God is the main foundation of society is that we have been there and done that.

    Humans and maybe most intelligent tool making life forms in the universe are good at creating positive feedback for themselves. It may have started with Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago when they made fire and took themselves off the predatory menu. Science and technology just allows us to do this in an exponential amplified manner. In terms of our behavior it is quantitatively different, but it is qualitatively much the same as ever before. This means it was the same even during the middle ages that is sometimes referred to as the age of faith.Attachment #1: drawn-and-quartered3.jpg

      Boko Haram means education is a sin. In 1950, Ethiopia had 16 mio inhabitants. The number rose up to more than 100 mio today. Compared with cities this is a modest growth. Damaskus got simultaneously 16 times bigger. Women in Kenia have on average 4.4 children. Is the Lord resposible for such perspectiveless perspective?

        Dear Mr. Lawrence B. Crowell,

        The western society may have had what it called 'theocracy' but it is clear from the picture you presented and from the historical information many provide that the western world was a material world. That cruelty in the picture, if true, demonstrates that the claim of 'faith in God' was merely cosmetic. I understand there was some desire to be godly by some people but clearly it is easy to see from the available data that the majority of western society placed great credence in gold-digging than in the theology of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Apparently, the intense desire for wealth and power exploded in the form of the Renascence Movement which in turn led to countless savagery down to this day - savagery even worse than the picture you showed. Merciless colonialism, callous robbery and the ruthless extermination of fellow man became the standard praxis of the post 'theocracy' western society. So the barbarity was not in the 'faith' component of the society but rather in the gold-digging component of it. Of course, men of science who detest God will be glad to project the superficial 'theocracy' appellation in the 'middle ages' as a strawman for godly society in order to defeat any imaginings of an equitable future society.

        Without indulging in the realm of the 1.5 million years ago knowledge fantasy, I can give you that there were indeed some godly elements in western society. Those godly elements left descendants in what we see today as the Amish. I don't have inside knowledge of the Amish, but from what I see in the public information, their self-restraint to indulge in the excesses of western delicious living pretty much tells a story of the presence of thoughtful forbears. No need to spoil the gist of the message in petty argumentation here, but I wish to summarize that moderate living that I am appealing for can be exemplified by the Amish way of life in the west.

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

        The reason I used the term "if we assumed that science declared that God Is" was to bring men of science to the same thinking as those of Christians and to show them that in Christianity, Orthodox Christianity that is, God is the purpose of the universe. It was not to use science as a basis toward a conclusion. Since the entire message is especially for men of science, the point is to demonstrate that, when there Is God (for the mind that knows God Is), there is no nobler job than the praising of the Lord God. So it was just a proposal for the man of science to be in the shoes of the Christian for a second.

        Since I did not ask for science to prove God, the question of whether science would then deem the praising of God a worthwhile activity is irrelevant. I see that you strove to deploy science's habit of providing competing identities in order to diminish an identity when you remarked: "God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God." Science created many competing identities and elevated many idolatries in order to overthrow the Christian faith. Its preference has always been to fight Christianity using what it calls 'religion' and in the process science puts itself above the fray and its principals as 'gods'. This is a trick science used for five hundred years. I think that time has now expired.

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        Dear Mulugeta,

        How do you know that God doesn't want humans to do science?

        You see there is a difference between cause and purpose. Science only concerns causes. Should we assign any purpose to science? No. It is simply about correctly describing causes.

        That is why it is wrong to say evolution has a purpose of somekind, or that the purpose of life is evolution. When we speak of causes there is no purpose, just causes.

        If your charge is against scientists who 'believe' in science, those who assign purpose to cause, then this is a fair point to make.

        However to make the further claim, as you do, that God doesnt want humans to describe causes, which is to speak correctly about, presumably here, 'God's world', is actually to do just as the those who use science as a purpose do, as you are using purpose when it comes to causes.

        Best,

        Jack

        Dear Mr. Eckard Blumschein,

        You saw the fly hated the fire. That is fine. However, you will be in error to conclude the bee is the fly when you find that the bee doesn't like the fire either. There is more to my plea than an equation with a certain Boko Haram. As for the population figures you conjectured on, I took publicly available data and projected population growth using the pre-industrial revolution figures and you can see in the curves attached that science ignorantly transgressed to infringe the natural balance of life that God put in place. The western science man oozed prideful 'knowledge' and equated himself to God in knowledge; but look at what the bitter fruit of that prideful knowledge has become. Do you see now that your blame is misplaced?

        Regards,

        MulugetaAttachment #1: science_and_world_population.png

        I suppose it comes down an argument that your infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is true while the other guy's (Muslims etc) infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is false.

        God is a nice idea in a way, just as Santa Claus is a nice idea. That does not provide an argument for God's existence, but is just a special pleading. Special pleading is a classic flaw of syllogism and argumentation.

        World population around the time of Moses was about 50 million. By the time of the Caesers or Jesus around 250 million, by the high middle ages around 500 million and prior to the industrial revolution close to a billion. The surge of population was ongoing long before the scientific revolution. Malthus argued there would be a population crash from starvation, but the industrial revolution provided positive feedbacks that avoided that.

        Will we avoid a population die-off or collapse indefinitely? I can't say. I think this has ultimately more to do with the nature of the human species than the fact we know things about quantum mechanics.

        Cheers LC

        Jews, Christians, and Muslims obey the ruLe: Be fertile, get more, and fill the Earth. Mulugeta's attachment demonstrates the problem:

        There live already about ten times more people than responsible.

        Not just their number is growing rapidly. Global advertizing makes the poor too desiring a life in luxurity. However, this is not feasible due to limited recources, increasing amount of waste and pollution, and many other problems that were not yet envisioned by Malthus and Marx, not to mention the fathers of Bible. That's why I support Kadin's way out. Naively I hope for minimal resposibility evem among Catholics and Muslims. Science provided the option of contraception.

        The attachment shows a declining number between 1600 and 1650. In Middle Europe, a 30 years lasting war "fortunately" decimated the population more than did the plague. From the perspective of irresponsible growth of population, the largely peaceful era after 1950 did split the world into those who got richer with less children and those who will go on getting precarious with a "treasure" of too many children.

        Don't blame science for a quite natural evolution toward more human obligation. Blame the outdated irresponsive interpretation of the notion humanism.

        Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

        God's first instruction to man in Genesis is to stay away from the knowledge tree (science). God told man that the fruit from the knowledge tree leads to death because the fruit is tempting and would seduce man to vie for godhood and to compete against God. What science did to earth is exactly as God said it would. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the knowledge tree. What is this Garden? It is a metaphor. In the midst of a vast desert of space of lands, moons and stars, the Lord God planted a beautiful garden - earth - and furnished it with animated habitat teeming with life sustained by a puzzling circuitry of measured diversity that maintains abiding vigor.

        The supply circuitry or the cycles of natural supply of the garden is furnished for fair consumption to maintain strength and not for the excesses of drunkenness or mindless draining. For many days man lived with adequate consumption of furnished amenities and the moderation allowed the stock of furniture, which are the fruits of the earth, to be refilled by the endowed glory of replenishment (replenishment is a miraculous gift from God). This life of delightful security changed after the Black Death event that swept Western Europe in the fourteenth century Anno Domini. Out of the bubonic Black Death event arose an invigorated counter-purpose known as the renaissance movement and it imbued the Western European person with an unbridled fancy for the devouring of the whole earth. The Western European person, for the ruthless extraction of resources, fashioned a doctrine of counterfeit knowledge he named 'science' and pressed ahead and unfairly ravaged the earth. Adam and Eve lost the Garden and we now have that metaphor unfolding before our eyes. We are losing the earth because it is dying. You don't see it, do you?

        I don't know what message of mine you are arguing against in your discussion of cause and purpose. I provided an experimental summary in the essay that proved Mr. Darwin's evolution idea wrong. Whether Mr. Darwin tried to show that there is cause rather than purpose is meaningless since Mr. Darwin's elaborate discussion on 'decent' was elaborately wrong.

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        Dear Mulugeta,

        Writing is what men do. Therefore Genesis, its metaphors, is a product of men, not God. These are men of history who have used science to understand human nature, these are men who have causally understood the mind ( in particular our emotions, and how we respond to what we don't know) and then using this causal information have then applied their purposes as a method of seduction, control and power.

        Religion is the sum exercise of this control.

        Of course, religion has and had many benefits, chiefly it creates order within a population (of one religion) and a moral structure. I can understand the point of your story and agree with its sentiment about where the world is heading, but we dont, in my view, need a God to see that and nor can we blame causal information (for that is all science is).

        A better future lies in a more moral future, perhaps realised by a religion of sorts, but underlying purpose is always a best guess, so its very hard to say what value should be at its core.

        Dear Eckard Blumschein,

        In many a science man, in whom the antipathy seed was planted in early childhood, I see the feeling of aversion to God already. But I was hoping to encounter amenability to the persuasion of reason, however intense the dislike maybe. I provided data that can be verified very easily and I did so with clarity, without complicating anything. I can't invest time and energy to entertain vague insinuations and cold declarations. Please, let us reason - point by point. 'Be fruitful and multiply' is consistent with the pre-industrial revolution population growth. The industrial revolution messed up the earth in irreversible many ways. The data is there. The earth is here. You can't hide it. The calamity striking the earth is much more devastating than the little perceptional snit you are trying to avoid. The remedy, if it is not too late already, is to stop the root cause.

        By greed, the scientific west destroyed the once vibrant earth that God furnished. God furnished the earth for the "poor" too. The poor who are feared to be "too desiring a life in luxury" by way of "global advertisement" did not benefit one iota in the course of the earth's destruction. Now the western man of science says he likes the idea of eliminating, himself as god deciding who to eliminate. There is no consideration of reason in all this, is there? There is only projection of might.

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        It is curious to see how this thread goes.

        From a Jewish perspective, and the Jews invented the monotheist God, the mythic narrative of the garden in Genesis is about growing up. Remember that after eating the apple Adam and Eve's eyes were opened. This is not that different from the myth of Narcissis, where after seeing his image he knew himself deeper. He fell into the trap of loving his image. The Genesis myth this similar, and Adam and EVe were no longer the same and life was no longer the same. Children in growing up go through passages of such change. The symbolic idea can be applied to humanity at large, and in some ways the scientific revolution could be seen as a sort of eating of the fruit.

        The narrative is about a set up. The forbidden fruit was set up in the middle of the garden and YHWH then says "Don't eat that." That is what I call a set up. Adonai or God would have been disappointed in his human creation if they had not eaten it.

        Cheers LC

        Greed belongs to competition among animals including men. Was there really a "once vibrant earth"? History and natural sciences provide ample evidence for cruel gorrecting limitations to population growth in nature.

        Since I was baptized and have still the bible at hand, I am open to your arguments and anything but arrogant. When I was a child, I experienced a horrible war, hunger and other "natural", in the sense of godgiven, corrections to the imbalance of population.

        Well, we humans are greedy animals, with or without science, with or without God. However, science may provide the option to steer our evolution in a responsible manner that does no longer require wars, hunger, etc.

        What about your attachment, the alarming red data are perhaps close to reality. Aren't the green ones just guesswork? Please give your reference.

        Dear Mulugeta Wudu,

        Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

        You are absolutely correct about the implausibility of science.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any imaginary "universal purpose of the universe by an invisible God." The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

          Dear Mulugeta Wudu:

          There may be a relevant thought experiment--

          Say that the only information you have about an object are some pictures of it which you are given.

          In every picture the object is always perfectly still.

          Do you believe the thought: "The object IS moving"?

          Or, do you believe the thought: "The object IS NOT moving"?

          Next-- there seems to be a back and a front to the object. And, the front of the object is always facing to the right.

          At this point in the story would you tell someone who believes the thought that the object is NOT moving to "Stand in front of the object"?

          Next add one more piece of information:

          This object is, in actuality, a disguised kind of arrow.

          In which case-- the idea you believe in no longer matters. You know that you shouldn't stand in front of a moving arrow.

          It's an adaptation of Zeno's "paradox" of the arrow. Zeno was trying to help Parmenides make a point about the difference between believing and knowing. And in those days, everyone had seen many (many, many) animals killed by arrows. Because in those days it was how they got food.

          Moral: If you care about yourself, you know that you don't stand in front of an arrow.

          You make some interesting points... Not sure why you want to live in a dictatorship where everything is restricted. To me God is about gaining experience to know that it is real. So if you are going to limit that to only a few things and mostly praising the Lord... you will be in a boring hell...

            Look into a resource based economy... this is a world where we can have the best of both (science / God)... it was designed by a man named Jacque Fresco... this is the balance the world needs.

            Having read Wudu's essay, I will give 3 scores to it.

            I am definitely not the only defender of science who doesn't agree with his attitude: "an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science". My essay argues for almost the opposite: more reasonable evolution instead.

            However, Wudu's cry for help deserves, as Crowell correctly remarked, more attention than e.g. quantum mechanics, and it is written in excellent English.

            Science haram (= it is a sin)? It surely is irresponsibly oriented so far.

            Semmelweis endangered mankind when he saved the mothers. Ethis needs correction.