Scientism Is Unbelievable - Historian of science Michael Keas

Historian of science Michael Keas critiques the idea of "scientism," the claim that only science (not religion) is reasonable. He explains how this idea is based on fake stories about Christianity being at war with science in history. According to Keas, scientism also ignores evidence of how Christianity actually stimulated the growth of science.
This presentation was taped at the 2022 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Westminster Theological Seminary.
Michael Keas is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and is author of the book, Unbelievable: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion. He serves as lecturer in the history and philosophy of science at Biola University and on the board of directors of Ratio Christi, an alliance of apologetics clubs on college campuses. He earned his PhD in the history of science from the University of Oklahoma.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

"Some of the cultural matrix that made the scientific revolution possible." The more accurate historical analysis is that Christianity provided most of the cultural matrix that got modern science of the ground.

[@moggpiano8043]

Or science developed regardless of, or even despite Christianity.

[@boereherp8705]

christianity is 1 of the reasons for the dark ages, they refused to believe science.

[@eswn1816]

@@moggpiano8043 The search for scientific laws, historically, was based upon a belief in a law giver who created an ordered universe. Read "the father of modern physics" Isaac Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion." "He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God."

[@gluteusMAXlMUS]

@@moggpiano8043 from the famous words of the anti-christian Neil deGrasse Tysone while explaining inventions that came from Astronomy such as wireless pwer tools, " non astronomers could have invented that, but they didn't". Just like Science (which is far more complexed), you can argue it could have emerged without Christianity, but it didn't.

[@goor1322]

I love this article below about Scientism By J. Warner Wallace - If you’re like me, you have non-believing friends who claim that Christians are biased. They know that we, as Christians, believe in the existence of God, so they assume that we are unable to evaluate the evidence properly. Non-believers are convinced that Christians start out with a presupposition that clouds our judgment. In truth, however, many of our “rational”, “science based” friends are far more constrained by their presuppositions . Remember that ALL of us have a point of view, but this does not necessarily mean we are unfairly biased. Bias has nothing to do with holding a viewpoint. Bias occurs when this viewpoint eliminates certain forms of evidence and evidential conclusions before we even begin the investigation. And while atheists may argue that Christians have this kind of bias, a quick examination of the culture’s reliance on science reveals that just the opposite is true. I bet you’ve heard a friend say something similar to: “I am a science and evidence person. Truth can only be determined empirically, and science is the only way to really know truth.” When people make statements like this, they may be revealing something more than a point of view; they may be exposing a rigid bias that is grounded in an over-reliance on science known as “scientism”. There are three dangers in over estimating the ability of science to determine truth: An Over-Reliance on Science is Self Refuting When people make the claim, “Science is the only way to really know the truth,” simply ask them if they “really know” that this statement is true. If they do, ask them how science helped them come to this conclusion. It turns out that the statement, “Science is the only way to really know the truth,” cannot be verified by science! This statement is a philosophical proclamation that defies its own claim: it cannot be verified or confirmed as “true” through any scientific examination or method. It turns out that, for people who make this claim, there is at least one truth they can know without the benefit of science: the fact that science is the only way to really know the truth! See the problem here? An Over-Reliance on Science is Inappropriately Limiting There are many things that we know without the benefit of science . The previously mentioned philosophical claim is just one example. But there are more: 1. Logical and mathematical truths: these must be accepted as foundational presuppositions in order for us to engage in any scientific study, so we clearly can’t use science to determine the logic and math facts that precede science. 2. Metaphysical truths: some truths about the nature of the world (such as whether or not the external world is real in the first place) cannot be determined through the use of science. 3. Moral and ethical truths: Science cannot tell us what is morally virtuous or vile. It may, on occasion help us to know what “is” (related to the material world), but science can never tell us what “ought to be” (related to moral judgments). 4. Aesthetic truths: Science cannot help us to determine or judge what is beautiful or what is ugly. 5. Historical truths: Perhaps most important to the study of the Christian worldview, science cannot determine what is true historically. Science can tell us nothing about who won the Oscar for best picture last year, and in a similar way, science can tell us nothing about the ancient claims related to the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the Bible. If we are going to reject all categories of truth that cannot be determined or verified scientifically, we are going to have to reject all truths related to logic, mathematics, morals, aesthetics, history or metaphysics. The most important claims and assertions of life would have to be ignored as untrustworthy. An Over-Reliance on Science is Prejudicially Biased More importantly, an over-reliance on science eliminates explanatory options on the basis of bias. There is a difference between the scientific method (a rational process of testing) and scientism (an irrational commitment to philosophical naturalism ). Philosophical naturalists refuse to consider anything outside the natural world as an explanation for the events they observe. Christians, on the other hand, are better able to let the evidence take them where it leads. If natural laws and processes can account for a particular phenomenon, so be it. If natural laws and processes fall short of providing an explanation and the evidence points to the existence of something supernatural, that explanation is still on the table. Philosophical naturalism rules out an entire category of supernatural explanation even before it seeks to determine if anything supernatural exists! It turns out that the Christian worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the supernatural ones out of hand. An over-reliance on science (often described as “scientism”) causes us to reject anything supernatural before we even begin to investigate an explanation. Which of these two approaches is most prejudicial? Which is least tolerant of the variety of explanations that are available to us? An over-reliance on science has blinded our culture to the rich explanatory possibilities. It’s no wonder that many post-enlightenment “truth seekers” have so much trouble finding what they seek.

[@GhostBearCommander]

Thank you for sharing this!

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

I'd love to see the philosopher and scientist Bernardo Kastrup speaking here. The way he logically and coherently refutes materialism is mind-blowing

[@autobotsNdecepticons]

Do you have a link for where he has done that concisely? (So I can check it out.)

[@RodMartinJr]

Sounds interesting. I'd love to see that, too.

[@boxelder9167]

@@autobotsNdecepticons kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ6ac6uijNGpsMU He has a channel.

[@boxelder9167]

@@RodMartinJr kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ6ac6uijNGpsMU He has a channel.

[@martha-schalleck]

Kastrup believes in evolution. What he teaches comes from Mystics and Hegel. They´re trying to explain how everything works without Almighty God. If you ask: Where does everything originate? Who was the architect, they have no explanation. There is no complete explanation possible without God.

[@GhostBearCommander]

Here's the thing: There's a difference between Science and "Scientism." In other words, Science does not equal Naturalistic Materialism.

[@busby777]

The Pope actually defended Galileo against attacks by scientists, until Galileo foolishly called the Pope stupid and ignorant

[@moggpiano8043]

Yes Galileo paid the price for his honesty.

[@goor1322]

What doesn't make sense is why would Galileo call the Pope stupid before he condemned Galileo. Common sense tells me this doesn't follow.

[@boereherp8705]

galileo got put in exile by the church 🙂He proved heliocentrism and the globe. The church silenced him for that.

[@robsrob1283]

@@moggpiano8043 Sigh.....

[@timducote5713]

@@boereherp8705 Didn't watch the video, did you?

[@VernonChitlen]

God encouraged science: Ecc 1:13 And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised. Gen 2:19 God brought all the birds and beasts of the field to Adam's attention to see what he would call them and that was it's name.

[@Bane_questionmark]

Another set of verses also from Psalms relevant to the "issue" of cosmic scale: 3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man, that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. -Psalm 8 ESV The psalmist, when looking up at the night sky, initially has the EXACT same thought as Nye. What significance could man possibly have to God when He has created such a vast and glorious cosmos? I'll go farther than Nye, before God I in absolute terms am even less than a speck. But this seeming insignificance of mankind before God makes God's care for what happens in this world all the more amazing. To save the soul of some of those less-than-specks, the Son Himself was born as a man, God was born a speck and lived a very humble life even by speck standards. He suffered and died an agonizing death that He uniquely did not deserve, all to bring some of those specks into eternal life and perfect communion with Himself. The more of a speck I am, the greater God's love is shown to be.

[@History_MadeMe_Catholic]

I can tell you on behalf of many upbringings of friends and friends of friends. . . I'm not sure why the parents of children over the years played the moral high ground while not knowing anything about history. These same parents that, when they were not at work they were reading the Bible, for many years, and the kids ask science questions at all and totally get shunned for it. . The kid is raised up to shun that worldview of religion, unaware that their parents were as wicked as anybody without God. Albert Einstein said religion without science is dumb; Science without religion is boring.

[@Alec_Cox]

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”4 Ruse didn’t always espouse the religious foundation of evolution. But since evolution asks the same questions as religion-telling us where we came from, where we’re going, and what we should do on the way-he had to admit the religious nature of his chosen materialistic worldview. For Ruse, and he is correct, “evolution is a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” If evolution is a “substitute for Christianity,” and Christianity is religious, then evolution, as Christianity’s substitute, is religious. The distinction in this debate, therefore, is not between religion and science, as so many claim, but between one religion and science (materialistic evolution) and another religion and science (creation science).

[@soberthinking2102]

Materialistic Evolution is pseudo-science, not science. Of course Darwinists have an ideological basis; it is called Social Darwinism. But, that socially destructive ideology springs DIRECTLY from the evidence free speculation that "all life forms are the product" of random, undirected processes. Therefore, Darwinists have no justification whatsoever for claiming morality or ethics is part of the Darwinian worldview. Blind chance Natural Selection cannot be considered to have any moral or ethical component whatsoever. Christians DO have that justification. From the fine tuned physical constants governing matter and energy to the factorial mathematics proof that the complex internal cell glycoproteins and cell wall active transport structures of cellular molecular machines, self repairing DNA code in the nucleus AND the ability to reproduce IMMEDIATELY after the intial full assembly of a functioning cell, could not have come about by random undirected processes, actual scientific empirical observation completely invalidates Darwinian speculation. soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-170822190120.png This is NOT hard. If factorial math rules out life through random undirecticed processes, life was created by an Intelleigent Designer Superbeing (i.e. GOD). soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png Darwinists cannot handle that irrefutable mathematical proof reality, so they make things up as they go along. That is NOT science. soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422180601-815856.png "And even as THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being FILLED with all unrighteousness, ... ... HATERS OF GOD, despiteful, PROUD, BOASTERS, INVENTORS of EVIL things, ... ... . WITHOUT understanding, covenantbreakers, WITHOUT natural affection, IMPLACABLE, UNMERCIFUL: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, NOT ONLY DO THE SAME, BUT HAVE PLEASURE IN THEM THAT DO THEM." -- Romans 1:28-32

[@craighostland4914]

Agreed

[@dunoze]

Venus was high in the western sky through the night in early 2020 . I watched it from 10 pm until 2 am many nights .

[@boereherp8705]

Proving heliocentrism and the globe.

[@Winonaah]

Surprised to hear a talk about the contemplation and exploration of the wonders of the universe and only see one verse of scripture followed as referenced from the Judeo-Christian Bible.

[@RodMartinJr]

*_Lovely!_* At 35m 30s, discussing Kepler's theological foundations for his scientific views, he discusses the fact that we were made in God's image. While our ability to think, and thus, to share in God's own thoughts, is part of that image, many modern Christians do not go far enough with their understanding of *_God's image._* God is spirit; and man, created in God's image, is also spirit (Genesis 1.26). But God created man twice! He also created man from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2.7), and we have to be clear on this: *_The image of God is most definitely NOT one of "dust."_* This dual nature of man is echoed throughout the Bible, including Genesis 6.3 and John 3.6.

[@jackforeman2742]

As for the speck concept, Horton Hears A Who shows a better concept as to the specialness of speck dwellers

[@profoundgreetingsfromneptune]

Thank you for uploading a video like this. It is vital to any godly ministry in this sphere not only to profess intelligent design but also to profess precisely who that Designer is. The lost must be led all the way across the river. And God is faithful: if we pronounce His name on earth, He will pronounce ours in heaven.

[@cbwilson2398]

1:33 "matrices" is the plural of matrix

[@poetmaggie1]

We no longer have to imagine a world while not without God still has God removed, and His morals with Him.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

What is zero, anyway? Our understanding of zero is profound when you consider this fact: We don’t often, or perhaps ever, encounter zero in nature. Numbers like one, two, and three have a counterpart. We can see one light flash on. We can hear two beeps from a car horn. But zero? It requires us to recognize that the absence of something is a thing in and of itself. “Zero is in the mind, but not in the sensory world,” Robert Kaplan, a Harvard math professor and an author of a book on zero, says. Even in the empty reaches of space, if you can see stars, it means you’re being bathed in their electromagnetic radiation. In the darkest emptiness, there’s always something. Perhaps a true zero - meaning absolute nothingness - may have existed in the time before the Big Bang. But we can never know. Nevertheless, zero doesn’t have to exist to be useful. In fact, we can use the concept of zero to derive all the other numbers in the universe. Kaplan walked me through a thought exercise first described by the mathematician John von Neumann. It’s deceptively simple. Imagine a box with nothing in it. Mathematicians call this empty box “the empty set.” It’s a physical representation of zero. What’s inside the empty box? Nothing. Now take another empty box, and place it in the first one. How many things are in the first box now? There’s one object in it. Then, put another empty box inside the first two. How many objects does it contain now? Two. And that’s how “we derive all the counting numbers from zero … from nothing,” Kaplan says. This is the basis of our number system. Zero is an abstraction and a reality at the same time. “It’s the nothing that is,” as Kaplan said. He then put it in more poetic terms. “Zero stands as the far horizon beckoning us on the way horizons do in paintings,” he says. “It unifies the entire picture. If you look at zero you see nothing. But if you look through it, you see the world. It’s the horizon.” Once we had zero, we have negative numbers. Zero helps us understand that we can use math to think about things that have no counterpart in a physical lived experience; imaginary numbers don’t exist but are crucial to understanding electrical systems. Zero also helps us understand its antithesis, infinity, in all of its extreme weirdness. (Did you know that one infinity can be larger than another?)

[@chloemartel9927]

scientism is a religion.

[@moggpiano8043]

No. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc are religions. Simply, religion, has to be believed, in order to exist. Science does not, it's right there in front of you. How do you think you are reading this? Magic? How did you turn on your computer? Did you press the button, or just pray? Science deniers totally embrace scientific discovery until it disagrees with their faith, then they ridiculously turn on it like baying hyenas.

[@mickeyguide3112]

@Robert Clive the founder of India triggered... so easily lol

[@bryangatward9327]

Great talk. Thanks

[@SeaScienceFilmLabs]

Excellent Info! Thanks for another awesome video!

[@candeffect]

The evil of moving away from God is everywhere: every day destructive crimes.

[@2Corinth5.21]

The Word of the Lord is always true. Man is sinful and always untrustworthy. Just live by the Word and you always be fine.

[@bentobin9606]

RIGHT R WORD!

[@ready1fire1aim1]

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural 4) necessary (unconditional) 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural 4) contingent (conditional) Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. space /spās/ noun 1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied. "a table took up much of the space" 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move. "the work gives the sense of a journey in space and time" We should all be learning Leibniz. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.

[@jimhughes1070]

How could you tell? 🤣🤣🤣 Sorry 🙏🤳... It just seems that mathematicians absolutely must, in order to save their very lives, take the longest possible route.... To the starting point 🤣🤣🤣🤣.,.0...1....2....3

[@MountainFisher]

He's mistaken about doing science you need math. According to Richard Dawkins math has no place in biological evolution. E. O. Wilson thought otherwise and called Dawkins a journalist not a scientist. I studied biology and had to study Organic Chemistry which needs math. Dawkins having a degree in biology certainly had to study Organic Chemistry. What Dawkins meant was there is nowhere in evolution for math making his version of it a pseudoscience.

[@soberthinking2102]

Dawkins is charlatan. He doesn't want to talk about math because Factorial Math in our universe completely invalidates the possibility of random undirected processess producing even the first functioning cell. But even if we don't mention the math (to avoid trying to debate the obviously irrational denial of biological event(s) cause and effect in our universe), the bold faced claim by Dawkins that the Fossil Record "provides irrefutable evidence" for Evolution is pseudo-science: Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGKYpJ2vbMynjK8 "Darwin hoped that time would reveal his desperately needed transitional fossils. It has not, and what science has learned since Darwin's day would've shattered his hopes as Bechly explains."

[@sanjosemike3137]

i agree. I also took organic chemistry and biochemistry. Both required mathematics. It is impossible to discuss the biology of life without probability and combinatorial issues. The main problem Darwinists face is the "combinatorial" issue. They always get stuck on the issue of "no designer." I could not perform chemical experiments without a detailed laboratory notebook to outline the steps I needed to take, apply categories to each step, define the order of the steps and "check off" the ones that had been completed. And periodically monitoring and calculating yields. As you know from your own experience a LOT of planning is necessary to do even basic laboratory chemistry. Missing or screwing up a step usually means you have to go back to an "original" place in your list. I know that some students tried to avoid or "fudge" their lab notebooks. That is a fool's errand. I cannot understand how Dawkin's could have completed his degrees without lab notebooks. By definition, laboratory notebooks are "design." (On a slightly different subject, while I was in college in spending endless hours in various labs, many of my friends were galivanting through Europe on trains with a backpack, meeting pretty girls and having a great time.) In order to get stuff out, you have to put a lot of time IN. You and I both did that. LOL Sanjosemike(no longer in CA) Retired surgeon

[@MountainFisher]

@@sanjosemike3137 Jim from Balboa Island Newport Beach CA, Bio/engineer. Retired as well.

[@charlessalcedo3049]

WWII would have not ended and more lives would have been lost, if not of the atomic bomb?

[@robmarshall956]

What’s your issue ?

[@bobs4429]

There will always be fanatics in any culture, and those who espouse scientism are the fanatics among those who value the truths of science. And yes, there have been those whose science was inspired by a Christian faith. Many things inspire scientists, but inspiration has no role in the results of science. Sure, it's easy to say there is no war between science and religion generally, but one does not have to look very far here in the US to find many, many Christians who deny science because of their faith. They are much more mainstream (and hence dangerous) than those on the scientism fringe.

[@tmcche7881]

You're dreaming.

[@jimhughes1070]

You probably just misspoke... But to clarify... Inspiration and philosophy... Being the beginning of science... Without which there would be any results at all... There that's better... And no doubt one's philosophy determines the interpretation of the scientific results... Which are data only... And lastly, Christian should not deny science or fear it in any way, as every scientific discovery has brought me to a better understanding of God's creation... Every time 🙏🤳🥰

[@S_F_D_]

🙂👍

[@RodMartinJr]

Sorry, but learning Hebrew and Greek is never a requirement in learning the Bible [38m 40s]. Sure, these, plus a little Aramaic can help understand the "ink" more deeply, but the *_Truth_* of the Bible is NOT written in any human language, but in the language of spirit. For those who feel that the Bible is inerrant, they are correct, but not the way many of them think of it. The "ink" (literal or "letter") can be corrupted, as it has on numerous occasions! *_The spirit of scripture is what is "inerrant!"_* And learning ancient languages will do little to help you crack into the spirit of scripture. For that, you need *_humility_* and *_hard work._* There are many things *_hidden_* in scripture -- hidden from physical, egoistic eyes -- but *_not_* hidden from spirit. REFERENCES: *_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover) *_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_The Art of Forgiveness_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)

[@shipwright6122]

Robert Sungenis has a pretty compelling argument supporting a geocentric universe

[@boereherp8705]

Galileo easily proved heliocentrism in 4 different ways. Educate yourself.

[@shipwright6122]

@@boereherp8705 You’d probably be surprised if you dug into it.

[@timducote5713]

That sounds much like the flat Earth proponents. Why are you opposed to a heliocentric solar system? It is proven without a doubt. God takes pleasure in knowledge, not ignorance.

[@IntoAllTruth.]

Sure, there are numberless, inhabitable and inhabited worlds. Yet Man is still special. God is eternal. His work and glory is bringing about the immortality and eternal life of Man, from all eternity to all eternity. Ergo, every inhabited world, or "earth" He has created, is populated by His children created in His image. In other words, His works, words and children are just as eternal as He is and Man, the children of God, is not confined just to this earth but is to be found throughout creation.

[@eswn1816]

Really? Highly speculative. There is no contemporary evidence of life, intelligent or otherwise, on other planets.

[@agtucker8]

@@eswn1816There are lots of things in this world and the universe for which we have no evidence. That said, in Job, Chapter 1, we were told there was a cosmic meeting in Heaven, and the devil showed to represent our world -- a position that should have been filled by Adam, who ceded the crown to the devil, when he sinned. Thus, this is indeed circumstantial evidence that the other creatures who attended the meeting in heaven were creatures from other planets. The devil went to represent our sinful world due to his usurpation of Adam's position as the established leader by God of our planet. The devil had been evicted from Heaven, so he had no justified reason for going there, other than he had usurped Adam's position. God's creation is infinite, so let's not limit his creation to a small speck, called earth.

[@NathanMcKay199]

Only science is reasonable? How about his for reasoning? Survival is based on fear: You see a new thing, and you handle it or the situation with caution. Why? Because you might get hurt or die from this new thing, it could be dangerous. Just because you take a logical approach to this awareness doesn't mean you're not afraid of it, if you weren't afraid of it, you'd walk up to it and handle it familiarly like the things you're not afraid of, like your dog, or whatever you're not personally afraid of. So, survival is based on fear of uncertainty, like it really needed to be described with such detail, but there are people out there who really think that they're not afraid of stuff, and that brief discussion still probably isn't adequate for them, but pretty much, if the reason you're doing something is to prevent a loss, further loss, unpreferred change in lifestyle, or death: YOU'RE AFRAID OF THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE RESPONDING TO. End of discussion. Since survival is based on fear, and we don't know what this universe is, where it came from, and all those big questions, we are naturally afraid of this, completely reasonably. We perfectly reasonably propose God as a solution to the enormous unknown that's even bigger than we previously imagined through our ancestors, because we seek answers when we don't know, and God is the line of what we can't understand. God of the gaps, but why not? We try and fill holes with answers. God is the theist answer to the great unknown question, and "no answer"'is the answer to the atheists. And we look at our evidence, and the atheists are lacking. And I feel like a total fool at this point but I'm still going to stick to my ground that I am who I say I am.

[@RodMartinJr]

*_4th century Christian scholars_* had similarly shallow imaginations to those of modern atheists -- for they could not conceive of a God who could create evil, yet Genesis 2 tells us that this is *_precisely what God had done with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and EVIL!_* Yes, God created evil. And for good reason, too. God needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. He needed to purify His son, Adam Kadmon, and this needed to involve the many, disparate parts of Adam -- the shards of divine light shattered from one another by the many temptations available in physical reality, and the new opportunity afforded them by the diversity of location found in this NEW thing called "space." This physical universe was created ONLY with God's spiritual children in mind, and these Homo sapiens bodies were merely a necessary tool toward that Divine Purpose. And now, the purification is coming down to the finish line, being led by God's First Graduate, Christ (read John 3.13, carefully and with utter humility).

[@History_MadeMe_Catholic]

In Romans 3, when Paul is talking about governing authorities, he also talks about evil and says that evil is a minister of God for our good, the building up of a Holy character, and it bears a sword.

[@RodMartinJr]

*_"...trillions of sterile planets?"_* Atheists seem to have such limited imaginations. *_Their sedentary certainty_* blinds them to other possibilities -- possibilities which this fertile imagination finds easy to consider. God created this universe for *_one purpose:_* to divide the "wheat" from the "chaff" -- to give the shattered parts of Adam Kadmon the free will choice between Good and Evil (remember the tree in the garden?). REFERENCE: *_Dumb Genius: How intelligence is sometimes its own worst enemy_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)

[@boereherp8705]

LMAO Atheists are realists. There is no god. Until they prove there is. Would god approve of war, murder, rape, floods,... Educate yourself.

[@chrisxavier1848]

The Bible was written from the standpoint of an observer standing on earth.

[@sithwolf8017]

So trusting hard evidence and logical thinking is considered a religion? Alright then. Use the bible to explain the mechanisms of infectious diseases. Pick any infectious disease you want and provide a Biblical explanation with evidence and I'll provide one with scientific evidence.

[@truthbebold4009]

The Bible doesn't delve into the mechanisms for infectious diseases, it offers the laws of healthy living in order to avoid infectious disease.