Satan And Science

[jskains]

I have always enjoyed the concept behind the movie The Matrix. To me it is a reminder of the fluid nature of reality. Conspiricy Theories exist because we know human limitations and our abilities to be manipulated.

Other examples of interesting mind concepts are The Truman Show (tricking someone through extreme manipulation into believing a false world), Total Recall (was it all part of his "memory vacation" or not), and many Twilight Zone eposides.

It poses an interesting question. If someone creates virtual reality so realistic, you can't tell the difference, once you go into the system, would you ever know from that point forward if you ever escaped? (IE: you being removed from the machine never happens, rather its simulated).

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would be know if it was?

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. The followers of the religion of Science believe it replaces the need for a God. It seems conveniently moving people away from spiritual dependence and giving people an independence from "childish concepts" like God, etc.

Abandonment of a dependence on Heavenly Father is a common theme in many religious texts, expecially the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It seems we are warned against it and have been before Science was even a concern as a threat toward spirituality (removing the idea those passages were added as a safety value for people to say what I am about to say to protect "religion").

It just seems science is conveniently a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality. Everything the Bible warned us against.

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

Something to consider.

JMS

[TAO]

I would say it's the way science is used by opponents of religion, not necessarily science itself.

So that means, I guess, we should put religion before how science is interpreted =).

[jskains]

I would say it's the way science is used by opponents of religion, not necessarily science itself.

So that means, I guess, we should put religion before how science is interpreted =).

I think it goes far beyond that. A poll done some time ago (sometime around 2003 I believe), which I am still trying to find, indicated that at least 75% of scientists admitted to doctoring their results to adjust to perceptions and possible loss of grant money. The concern, IMHO, is that a lot of data could be manipulated to prove an agenda in order to acheive a political, or even personal goal which society will never question because for the most part with good media backing, these "facts" go fairly unquestioned.

JMHO.

JMS

[Eldwynn]

Science is a philosophy of discovery.

Saying "god did it" does not advance science. It's basically saying "I don't know, and you can never know". Over and over again, we have been wrong. Humans used to think that the earth was flat. It wasn't. Then they said that everything circled the earth. It doesn't. Then we thought that our sun was the only star with planets- and there were no other solar systems- which was wrong. Then we looked at our galaxy, the milky way and thought that's all there was. We were wrong. Now we know that there are many galaxies in our universe, but many still think this is the only universe. Probably wrong about that too.

At every single level, the greatest minds (Newton included) was given a problem that they could not solve. For example, Newton wanted to understand how the planets orbited the sun, and he invented calculus to solve it. Yet, he invoked god to explain how multiple bodies influenced each other. It's not that Newton couldn't solve the problem- it's that his religious beliefs prevented him from discovery.

That is why many scientists (but not all) are skeptical to religion. It's funny that you say "WOW 80% of the top scientists don't believe". I think it's the wrong statement to be making. I wonder why 20% DO believe to be honest.

[Eldwynn]

I think it goes far beyond that. A poll done some time ago (sometime around 2003 I believe), which I am still trying to find, indicated that at least 75% of scientists admitted to doctoring their results to adjust to perceptions and possible loss of grant money. The concern, IMHO, is that a lot of data could be manipulated to prove an agenda in order to acheive a political, or even personal goal which society will never question because for the most part with good media backing, these "facts" go fairly unquestioned.

JMHO.

JMS

Let me know when you find it. I'm betting you won't because it didn't exist- but I am sure you already knew that.

Science does this thing- its called replication. If your results can't be replicated, it can really damage your career. So unless every scientist has the same agenda (which is a funny concept), this wouldn't make sense at all!

Edited May 16, 2011 by Eldwynn

[erichard]

...Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. ...Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

...

I am not convinced that 80% of scientists are Athiests. At least not in America.

Since the worst enemy of Christ was the leadership of the religion he was sent to cry repentance to, there is every reason to believe that even today the myriad of divergent religious leaders are still the worst enemies of Christ, except possibly in one case.

So, I suspect that science is just the opposite. It is the workings of God to possibly bring truth into the world without the cloak of priestcraft. Unfortunately, scientist often do not live up to their ideals of objectivity, and they can be as full of scientistcraft as religion.

But the fruits of a certain amount of science are good fruits. They must be from God, not from the adversary.

We are all eternal beings. All atheists in this world will realize their foolishness soon enough.

Richard

[Franktalk]

The idea that Satan does have some control over the messages from science is very interesting. But is a chicken or the egg question. Did man research natural laws and then did Satan start to use it for his purposes or did Satan guide man to science? I would suspect that man was pure in purpose in the beginning and Satan has found a way to use it for his purposes. I am not saying that science is evil but some ideas in science are anti-Christ. Christ is a miracle worker yet science denies supernatural events. But science is not a thing. It is a construct of man and as such is subject to the powers of Satan. Is Satan a trickster so that some parts of science are falsely reported by man? Who knows, but a good question.

If we cast off the world as we seek God then it does not matter what science says. If we think of our self as a spirit passing through then it does not matter what science says. We give science any power that it holds over us. We can give it veto power over everything or give it no power at all. It is our choice. But what is sad is the way society views science as the answer to all questions. This is drummed into our kids so they have a stumbling block preached to them for years.

Myself I came to religion through science so I have no problem with science as an idea. But I only came to faith after a great deal of study. When I was studying at lower levels of knowledge it was all anti-god.

I will tell you that science makes many promises. If oil runs out and people get hungry then scientist will be killed in the streets in a purge. All I can say is be careful what you promise. But more than likely the end will come before that happens. If indeed we are judged based on what we teach others then scientist should be real careful. But many don't fear God because they don't think He exist. So when these people take the last dirt nap and wake to find out they were wrong there will be problems.

[zerinus]

Science is of God, not of the devil. Just because some “scientists” are devilish, it doesn’t make science of the devil. Some of the greatest scientists have been religious, or believed in God. That was true of the two greatest ones we know, Einstein and Newton.

Science, or more correctly what is now known as the “experimental sciences,” was originally a branch of philosophy, called “natural philosophy,” until it got separated and became known as a separate discipline by itself. (That was true of mathematics and geometry as well.) Ancient philosophers believed that you could discover truth by just thinking about it—which is actually a true principle, as far as it goes. The discovery of truth is a revelatory process that takes place in the mind. The person receiving it may not always realize that that is what is happening to him; but it is a revelation nevertheless. What distinguished “natural philosophy” was that its hypotheses could be empirically tested, and thus verified. But still, the initial discovery process takes place in the mind, and is a revelatory process. You observe a stone falling for example, and formulate a hypothesis as to why it happens, and then devise an experiment to test your hypothesis. Many such hypothesise have been formulated long before they could be experimentally verified, such as the gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein. They were made in the minds of their discoverers.

Aristotle believed that when you drop an object, the heavier it is, the faster it will fall to the ground. Galileo proved, by a series of clever experiments, that that is not true! All objects fall at the same rate, regardless of how heavy or light they might be (discounting air resistance). But he couldn’t take it any further. We had to wait for Newton to build on that discovery, and create a valid hypothesis as to what exactly happens when something falls, and the discovery of the inverse square law of gravitation. But it took a long time before his hypothesise could be proven by astronomical measurements. The discovery was made in his mind. The experimental proof came later. But that was not a complete theory either. It could not explain all the phenomena that can be observed with gravity. We had to wait for Einstein to build on earlier discoveries, and take them further still; and postulate a much more complicated gravitational theory that explained the strange phenomena that Newton’s theory could not explain. But still, his discoveries were made in his mind, long before experiments could be devised to verify them.

Scientific discoveries, like all discoveries (philosophical or otherwise) are made in the mind, and by revelation. The old philosophers were right about that. It is a very foolish scientist indeed who tries to remove God from the process of scientific discovery.

[jskains]

Let me know when you find it. I'm betting you won't because it didn't exist- but I am sure you already knew that.

Science does this thing- its called replication. If your results can't be replicated, it can really damage your career. So unless every scientist has the same agenda (which is a funny concept), this wouldn't make sense at all!

Nice. So your method of dialog is to agressively come out swinging, call people liars, and act like a bully without knowing all the facts?

JMS

[jskains]

I am not convinced that 80% of scientists are Athiests. At least not in America.

Since the worst enemy of Christ was the leadership of the religion he was sent to cry repentance to, there is every reason to believe that even today the myriad of divergent religious leaders are still the worst enemies of Christ, except possibly in one case.

So, I suspect that science is just the opposite. It is the workings of God to possibly bring truth into the world without the cloak of priestcraft. Unfortunately, scientist often do not live up to their ideals of objectivity, and they can be as full of scientistcraft as religion.

But the fruits of a certain amount of science are good fruits. They must be from God, not from the adversary.

We are all eternal beings. All atheists in this world will realize their foolishness soon enough.

Richard

Satan can create the illusion of good fruit. He has to make it inticing, But like the old monkey's paw story, a lot of technology, for example, has come at a price. The Internet, for example, while doing a lot of good, has also make pornography (including child porography) very accessable. Has increased the ease of crimes like identify theft, phishing, etc. It has given ugly hate groups a wider audience. It has increased pedophile access to children through internet chat groups. It has made bullying more destructive by allowing people to post hateful things to a larger group. I could go on, but some have wondered if the Internet has caused more social damage than helped.

Medicine, while going a lot of good, has also come at a price. There are theories that eventually Medicine, by creating superbugs, might end up killing our species.

*shrug* Everything has a price, and in some cases science has a price that I am not sure our society can ultimately handle.

JMS

[Franktalk]

Science in some fields of study I call the hard sciences is very structured around direct observation and repeatable experiments. If done properly it is hard to argue over the results from this group. They define well the laws of nature and relationship of the parts. But then we have other areas of science that are soft science where the conclusions are based on indirect methods and repeatable experiment is not possible. Like evolution and geology, as soon as people project backwards in time to a place or event then the connect to that place or event is subjective. The analysis of the trace evidence although clever at times does not have the same weight of conviction that the hard sciences maintains. This does not stop those in the soft sciences from acting like they have the authority of the hard sciences. They wrap them self in the absolute certainty of repeatable experiment yet perform none. This is where all of the problems come from in science. No one questions the ability of science to accurately describe a magnetic field or the path of a projectile fired in a gravitational field. But if someone questions the theories that come from the soft sciences then those in the field declare that I am anti-science. Nothing could be more wrong. I question the conclusions of the soft sciences. I question the assumption that supernatural events have not happened in the past. I question the assumption of a uniformitarianism past that shows incredible time scales. I question the layers and layers of assumptions leading to conclusions where many declare past theories as fact yet can't prove a thing.

Because of the nature of the soft sciences it is the devil's playground. This is where he does his damage. He demands through our social structure that our kids are taught a worldview which excludes God. He demands that our kids have the ability to parrot back the mantra of a Godless creation. He demands that our kids are taught how everything is subjective and relative. He demands that morals have no basis in an absolute code from God. He sets the stage for scientific inquiry to be more important that spiritual development.

I see this problem because I have spent years studying science but what of the young minds that are buried under the crushing weight of this system? Although most people believe in God we have become a Godless society. Just who do you think did that?

[thesometimesaint]

I need neither God nor the Devil to demonstrate my science. Further I believe that God uses science in ways that we don't entirely understand. But we are getting better at it.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it.

[Nathair/|\]

I believe some GA's have said that divine inspiration was involved in advancing science and technology.

[BCSpace]

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic.

I can't think of any anti-God position in science. But yes, many scientists themselves are atheists etc.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

I'll agree. However I believe that science has to be Agnostic(not necessarily the scientists themselves) in that we can't put God in any experiments. We can't put the Devil either.

[Brian 2.0]

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic.

The religious beliefs of the scientist should have no bearing the outcome of the scientific process. If an Athiest used his bias and tampered with an experiment to prove his point, the experiment wouldn't be "repeatable" and thus wouldn't survive the peer-review process and it would never become "scientific consensus."

When scientist try to draw conclusions based on the evidences in front of them, the should not be using any personal spiritual experiences to shade their conclusions, because those experiences are not "evidence."

It just as difficult to trust a "true believer" scientist because you have to wonder if they are throwing out evidence that contradicts their religious worldview.

All things being equal, I would prefer my scientist to be agnostic. I would imagine they would LOVE to find evidence and present finds that scientifically prove God or some other "supernatural" thing. It would be a breakthrough. Whereas it doesn't go the other way. A die-hard believer wouldn't LOVE to find evidence and present findings that deny a certain aspect of their belief in God or their religious worldview.

[Walden]

I have always enjoyed the concept behind the movie The Matrix. To me it is a reminder of the fluid nature of reality. Conspiricy Theories exist because we know human limitations and our abilities to be manipulated.

Other examples of interesting mind concepts are The Truman Show (tricking someone through extreme manipulation into believing a false world), Total Recall (was it all part of his "memory vacation" or not), and many Twilight Zone eposides.

It poses an interesting question. If someone creates virtual reality so realistic, you can't tell the difference, once you go into the system, would you ever know from that point forward if you ever escaped? (IE: you being removed from the machine never happens, rather its simulated).

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would be know if it was?

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. The followers of the religion of Science believe it replaces the need for a God. It seems conveniently moving people away from spiritual dependence and giving people an independence from "childish concepts" like God, etc.

Abandonment of a dependence on Heavenly Father is a common theme in many religious texts, expecially the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It seems we are warned against it and have been before Science was even a concern as a threat toward spirituality (removing the idea those passages were added as a safety value for people to say what I am about to say to protect "religion").

It just seems science is conveniently a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality. Everything the Bible warned us against.

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

Something to consider.

JMS

An interesting question....one of my best friends is a born-again evangelical who firmly believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy, orchestrated by satan and involving the world's scientific community, to make man believe that the world is older than the 6000 years as told in the bible. He also believes that part of this conspiracy is to make man believe that dinosaurs were not present during the biblical ages, and he in fact has shared with me tapes by biblical scholars arguing for the existence of dinosaurs during biblical times.

The way in which your post is worded makes it sound as if it is the goal of scientists is to remove us all from "spiritual dependence", which is not the case. The goal of science, in general, is to provide objective evidence for the laws that define the natural world. Science itself, as someone else pointed out, is agnostic. If god could be proven by scientific analysis backed by objective, empirical evidence, then he would be proven to exist.

I also don't believe that your statement that "science is a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality," is correct. Sciencific analysis is a tool that is used to shed light on facts and uncover the mysteries of the natural world. Yes, these facts may be turning people away from god, as they provide explanations to those things which were once a mystery and thus assumed to be created, manipulated or controlled by god in civilizations that once lacked teh technology to understand the basis for these facts. It is fact, empirical data and objective evidnce that is turning people away from god, not scientists.

Knowledge and intelligence, IMO, is not of the devil. I would think that a god who values such things would certainly support scientific advancement and it's abilities to answer the mysteries of the universe.

Of course there are bad scientists out there, some who may even manipulate data as a means to an end. This is true of all walks of life, whether it be a scientist, a priest, etc. However, one should not confuse the exception for the rule.

[jskains]

I find it interesting how agressively some defend science. That defense and devotion is exactly why I think it would be excellent for the Devil to manipluate. If Science can continue to "proof" the idea that God is an unnessesary componet, the more secular society becomes and the more the Devil gets his way.

*Shrug*

I just like to examine things from multiple angles. I think it is healthy.

[Franktalk]

I need neither God nor the Devil to demonstrate my science. Further I believe that God uses science in ways that we don't entirely understand. But we are getting better at it.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it.

I hope you are not saying that science has truth in it. The whole of creation has no truth, the laws of nature have no truth in them. They are a thing just like a rock is a thing. In science we have observation and declare relationships between the parts of creation and the forces. This is not truth.

[Walden]

I find it interesting how agressively some defend science. That defense and devotion is exactly why I think it would be excellent for the Devil to manipluate. If Science can continue to "proof" the idea that God is an unnessesary componet, the more secular society becomes and the more the Devil gets his way.

*Shrug*

I just like to examine things from multiple angles. I think it is healthy.

I guess the same could be said about faith.....I am often amazed at how agressively people defend some of those aspects of faith that have long since been disproven by science (take my example above of my evangelical friend).

Do you think that blind adherence to one's religious dogma could be manipulated by the devil as well?

I think it comes down to those things that we regard as "truth".....believers who believe that they have found truth in religion will vigorously defend it, while those who have found truth in science will do the same.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Walden

[Franktalk]

I guess the same could be said about faith.....I am often amazed at how agressively people defend some of those aspects of faith that have long since been disproven by science (take my example above of my evangelical friend).

Do you think that blind adherence to one's religious dogma could be manipulated by the devil as well?

I think it comes down to those things that we regard as "truth".....believers who believe that they have found truth in religion will vigorously defend it, while those who have found truth in science will do the same.

I am curious what aspects of faith have been disproven by science.

I am interested in your opinion on some of the assumptions of science. The first I would like your opinion on is the refusal to consider supernatural events. The second is the assumption that atomic decay has been constant going back in time. These assumptions set the stage for all theories that follow. But the assumptions can not be shown to be valid, they are assumptions. So the weight of any conclusions of the soft sciences is only valid if the assumptions are correct, but no one can show the assumptions are correct. We don't have a time machine. We have no recorded measurements going back thousands of years.

[Stargazer]

I've seen those movies you reference. The Matrix Trilogy in particular caused me to think that there might very well could be some giant put-on with respect to existence, but that if there were, there would be no way whatsoever to prove it, being inside it and all. In the Matrix the inhabitants see only what is relayed to their minds from outside, and it is all perfectly controlled, EXCEPT that they have independent thoughts, make independent decisions, take "action" from those decisions, and thus influence the Matrix itself in some minor way. Even in the Matrix a human being can make something of him or herself.

So, if we were in a Matrix, instead of being in the physical energetic universe that we perceive, it would be six of one and half-dozen of another. A decision to do something wrong would still be a decision to do something wrong, and this life would still be the Test.

[Walden]

I am curious what aspects of faith have been disproven by science.

I am interested in your opinion on some of the assumptions of science. The first I would like your opinion on is the refusal to consider supernatural events. The second is the assumption that atomic decay has been constant going back in time. These assumptions set the stage for all theories that follow. But the assumptions can not be shown to be valid, they are assumptions. So the weight of any conclusions of the soft sciences is only valid if the assumptions are correct, but no one can show the assumptions are correct. We don't have a time machine. We have no recorded measurements going back thousands of years.

Reference my evangelical friends beliefs that I mentioned in an earlier post (earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs existed in biblical times) that are part of his faith that have been disproved by science. Of course, considering your following argument regarding atomic decay, you may be one who believes that the earth is indeed 6000 years old and that dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah. Again, it generally comes down to where one derives their "truth."

It is not the job of scientists to study "supernatural' events....the goal of science is to explain the natural world. If events are "supernatural" then they fall outside the natural world, and thus, the tools that scientists use to analyze the natural world are useless.

Regarding your atomic decay argument, of course nobody has a time machine, and thus everything regarding ancient history is an assumption. What science does is to constantly hone down the various assumptions until there is a select set of assumptions, or a single assumption, that can be empirically proven and objectively verified to the greatest degree possible. What science does is make the most valid assumption about ancient history using the known facts as they are known at this time.

[cinepro]

The second is the assumption that atomic decay has been constant going back in time. These assumptions set the stage for all theories that follow. But the assumptions can not be shown to be valid, they are assumptions.

I'm not a scientist, but it is my understanding that there are several different methods to date natural phenomenon, and part of the strength of many theories about the ages of certain things are the precision with which the dating methodologies coincide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dating_methods

It's not just "carbon dating".

[cinepro]

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would we know if it was?

Interesting question.

The first question would be how, exactly, the Devil would "manipulate" science? For example, if a scientist were creating a theory about the age of the Grand Canyon, how would the Devil become involved? Would he be able to physically alter the dirt and fossils? Would he possess the mind of the scientist and make him construct false theories (and if so, also possess the minds of every scientist who examined the theory to prevent them from falsifying it)? What are the tools he can use to influence the outcome of experiments? How does he influence the formulation of theories?

And if he is able to influence that actual data, then we can't say that scientists are being fooled by the Devil, since they are accurately observing the natural world as it is (only they are observing it as Satan influenced it). Whether or not the true origin is due to God, the Devil, or plain natural development isn't a question science has sought to answer.

Ultimately, the same safe-guards that "science" has developed to protect against self-delusion and a dependance on God-based theories would also serve to safe-guard against satanic influences as well. If Satan were to start tampering with data or evidence, then theories would fall apart and weaken. If unexplained phenomena were observed, then new theories and investigations would be needed, but it wouldn't serve to strengthen already founded non-Satan theories.

Edited May 16, 2011 by cinepro