The Religion of Modern Science

The Religion of Modern Science
Roots of modern God-free thinking
Harun Yahya

"Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purpose principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society. Third, human beings are marvellously complex machines. The individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. Fourth, we must conclude that when we die that is the end of us." [One of the contemporary supporters of Darwinism Prof. William Province, Cornell University]
"And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture:" (Quran, 45:24)
All the recorded information indicate that the evolutionists- or that are unconsciously evolutionists even though they do not name themselves so- are in some kind of mental vicious circle. The most important factor that stops them from pondering deeper is their belief in the concept of 'modern science'. They regard modern science as absolute and true religion, and want to impose this view to all humankind.
We can summarize this degenerate understanding: The referred people, and the system of thought that shape their mentality impose that this 'scientific', in other words 'experimental' knowledge, is the unique guide for mankind. Experimental knowledge is the knowledge that can be proved or disproved through experiment: "Water freezes at 0ºC" is an example for experimental knowledge. You can make an experiment; get some water, cool it down until it freezes and find if it really freezes at 0ºC. In fact making experiments and observations, science is all what men do to learn about the universe they live in.
According to the evolutionists, experimental knowledge is the only guide of mankind. Even the abstract concepts like love, hate or sorrow can be observed through (psychological) experiments. The consequence of this thought is 'not believing in' things which cannot be proved through experiments and observations, or being systematically sceptic. This thought originated first with the 18th century Renaissance, formed the core of 19th century Positivism, and reflects all essential premises of materialism.
According to this belief of science, all religious information is considered as unreal, and questionable. For this reason this materialistic understanding which adheres to modern science as the sole guide considers the existence of the Hereafter, and the existence of Allah, as questionable because They can neither be proved nor observed through an 'experiment'.
The evolutionists maintain the view that religion originated when science failed to provide explanations. Taking this as a fact, it is claimed that the ancient civilizations rationalized things which they could not explain through experiments with the "supernatural powers" - God in monotheist religions: "The more the field of experimental knowledge expands, the more the field of religious information lessens". According to the supporters of this belief, the time will come when everything in the Universe will be explained through experimental knowledge and observation, and the humankind will not need religion.
This positivist mentality that regards 'modern science' as the unique guide is very well summarized in its original source in the text of a free-mason lodge:
In every society with insufficient information, vain beliefs will command mankind for sure. These in fact demolish the freedom of soul and lead men to morality of fear and hope. Thinking of a person who behaves with the fear of God and hell, or the hope of heaven for every deed of his; is there any virtue and nobility in his behaviour? When the man ponders deep and attains the quality of discussing and criticising, he will then understand that mentioned fears and hopes are only the results of mystical imagination. In order to be saved from vain beliefs or ignorance, there is need to attain the principles of positive science and wisdom, and data: the prominent command and inclination of masonry.
This is the understanding that forces evolutionists to explain nature without accepting the existence of Allah in any case. If they happen to accept that nature is created and regulated by a Creator, then they would have to accept an explanation that cannot be proved through experimental knowledge. And this will absolutely cause their excommunication from 'modern science' which they take as religion. They will be regarded as a "transgressor" before their colleagues who devote themselves to this 'religion', because they accept knowledge other than experimental knowledge.
Why and How is this Positivist Thought Wrong?
Before answering the above question, we should note the difference between 19th century positivism, and the cognition of science in the 20th century. Because, most people has the wrong understanding that the 19th century positivism is exaggerated, however in 20th century the required balance was established.
The positivist thought summarized above, in fact, belongs to 19th century and lost its popularity within that century. With the impact of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it has been comprehended that science is not an absolute guide that explains everything and, can never be. Various science-philosophers, especially Karl Popper, asserts that science cannot explain everything, and that it has a "field" and there also exists other fields apart from this.
A natural consequence of these arguments is this dull cliche: "Science and religion have their different fields, and should not interfere one another".
The idea behind this commonly used slogan actually still supports this experimental knowledge as "the most important guide". Only, this "most important guide" should not try to explain the fields of "metaphysics" left to religion. (And surely if there is any discovery that is conflicting religious teachings, science should be preferred, and supported.)
Definitely there are some political and social consequences of this enlightened semi-positivism of the 20th century. This science-religion balance isolates humanity from religion, because humanity can be explained by "experimental knowledge and observation" and includes all political, economical, legal, and social regulations. There remains only two limited areas for religion which are personal ethics and belief. This thoroughly means the continuity of the New Secular Order established in the 19th century.
Moreover, New Secular Order, by giving this limited area to religion, created a "safety valve". The defenders of the new secular order now has the right and the chance to say "we are not against the true-religious people, in fact we love them." This "true religion" is the religion within the walls of the temple.
In short, there is no basic difference between 20th century semi-positivism and 19th century positivism, like there is no basic difference between Auguste Comte and Karl Popper. Both models are in agreement that 'experimental knowledge' is more reliable than religious knowledge, the knowledge communicated by "revelation of Allah" to humankind. In both models 'modern science' is accepted to be the most important guide with the only difference that semi-positivism has made a more realistic evaluation, and left a small field for religion. This small difference provided an important benefit for them with a 'security valve'.
But what was wrong with positivism or semi-positivism?
The Real Meaning of Science
To see the reasons why accepting science as the only guide is wrong, first it should be grasped what science is and what science is not.
For the ones who support the idea that science is the guide, science is absolute, and independent from all the cultures, all ideologies and beliefs. According to this, science is the universal criteria different than all other sources of knowledge. It is the centre of everything, and everything should be regulated accordingly.
The deception is at this point. Contrary to the propagation, there is no such constant and 'universal' science above religion, cultures and ideologies. Science is not a universal guide, contrarily, science is guided.
The "paradigm" concept of American science philosopher Thomas Kuhn explains it clearly. According to Kuhn, who is not semi-positivist like Popper, all kind of science are built on a series of some presumptions. The general theoretical conjectures, rules and technics that are made up by the people in science and their applications constitute "paradigm". Until a new scientific fact comes up, this paradigm will be valid, but later it will definitely collapse. For example Newton's scientific hypothesis is a scientific paradigm. With the rise of Einstein's paradigm that is valid today, Newton's paradigm lost its validity. This means: when a new scientific crisis appears, this paradigm will lose its validity too. The important point is that paradigms cannot be stated as a general law. Paradigm is nothing but conjecture that is accepted to be true for a temporary period of time. The scientists who take science as their guide and their followers accept a certain paradigm as being the absolute truth, hence in fact they take a conjecture as their guide. The Qur'an points out that the unbelievers:
"....follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!" (Quran, 53:23)
According to Paul Feyerabend who went further than Thomas Kuhn, it is absolutely the result of a subjective preference to consider science as being superior than any other teaching that humankind has put forward. Therefore the government should give up the education policy that regards science as the guide and assumes it is superior than other branches. These final points show us that science is as "subjective" as any other belief or ideology, and that no paradigm can be accepted as the 'absolute'.
Therefore, no one has the right to say "this is the truth discovered by science and all beliefs and thoughts should be evaluated in accordance with it".
The deception behind modern science is hidden here: "New Secular Order" has fixed a paradigm in modern science that fits its own ideology and imposes this produced science as "universal guide" to all cultures. This is offering the ideology with a label of science.
The concept behind the basis of this paradigm in modern science is; in simple words "atheism". It is designed to explain the universe in a non-religious way and the aim is to create a society totally isolated from religion.
The comment of American biologist Robert Shapiro on Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box is a good example for the above mentioned paradigm. The microbiologist Behe has put forward a very concrete explanation for the basis of being alive: Intelligent design. However Shapiro does not accept this fact and explains his "scientific" attitude:
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of the life on the planet. Prof. Behe selects an answer that falls outside of science: the original creation of life by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself included, will prefer to continue the search for an answer within science. Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the most through and clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen."
It is clear that the science that Shapiro and many other "scientists" rely upon, which is called "modern science", supports that it is absolutely not possible to accept life to be created. Because, this understanding of science has been developed to serve this purpose and to make people reject creation. As stated previously, the powers that established the New Secular Order insist the social-politic system to be anti-religious, and guide modern science to form the basis of this anti-religious socio-politic order.
This means that people take something they formed themselves as their guide; in other words they idolize it. This makes modern science an important idol of the modern age. This understanding has become so intensive, that even it has been accepted that everything should be approved by them. For example there are some "renaissance men" who claim that "Islam is not scientific". Their stand point is that some of the miracles of the Prophets cannot be explained with the rules of nature fixed by science. (As if the things that they call "the rules of nature" are independent from Allah Who creates the miracles.) Moreover, some of them deny the Hereafter thinking that it is not "scientific". In spite of these, some naive ones defend and say "No, Islam is in line with science".
However the question is not that whether Islam is in line with science or not, but whether science is in line with Islam. What needs to be approved is science, not Islam.
The Guide of Modern Science
We clearly state that we are not against science, in terms of the aim of learning and discovering the universe that people live in, we are against what is called "modern science" which accepts the New Secular Order as the guide.
The information above explains that science cannot be a guide but contrarily, every belief and every ideology guides science in various ways. Science is neither a guide, nor an aim within itself, but only a tool - a tool that can be used in favour of an intention.
At this step, an interesting point should be mentioned: the identity of the guide of modern science. Definitely the guide of the modern scientific teaching which was established to support the war against religion, is the social powers that established the New Secular Order. However, there is also a "spiritual guide" of these social powers. And the real leader of modern science is this spiritual guide.
This is a well-known guide: Satan who has been struggling to isolate humankind from religion, since the beginning of history!
In the article called 'The Scientific Way' by Moiz Varon, one of the "masters" of the Turkish freemasonry lodges, the first time the Satan encouraged men to rebel against Allah was told as the 'the beginning of science and freedom':
"The humankind to become human started with a mysterious word: "NO". First rebel came from the woman. Man agreed and they chose freedom. They ate the "forbidden fruit", they knew they became conscious. They understood their sexes. With snake's words, they learned to differentiate between right and wrong, they became like God. The price of knowing was mortality and the price of freedom was responsibility."
It is possible to see these kinds of statements in masonry magazines between the lines. In another masonic source: "The torch of the Satan enlightens the darkness at the place where you reach" is stated while mentioning the basis of "renaissance" philosophy. According to this, Renaissance, regarded as the touchstone of modern science and secularism, obtains its lights from "the torch of the Satan".
Michael Bakunin, one of the leaders of socialism is the person who expresses clearly this inclination in masonic teaching. Being a very senior free-mason, and as he names himself, being a "Satanist" he relied every "revolutionist" teaching including modern science on Satan's spiritual guidance. According to Bakunin, who regards Satan as "the spiritual leader of all revolutionists and the real guide for human freedom", Devil is the biggest rebel and the "saviour" in the struggle against Allah and religion in history. As the Quran informs, the Satan really owns the mission to dissociate people from religion.
The Satan has promised to make humankind transgress:
"He said: "Because You have thrown me out of the way! I will lie in wait for them on Your straight way: "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor will You find, in most of them, gratitude (for Your mercies)." (Quran, 7:16-17)
Modern science which finds its spiritual guidance in Satan, together with the evolution theory, being its most important component, are the biggest "traps" to make humankind transgress. This trap or deception that finds its spiritual guidance in Satan is supported by social powers that plan:
"a plot by day and by night: and order to be ungrateful to Allah and to attribute equals to Him!" (Quran, 34:33)
If this modern science relies on such a basis, then we should get rid of this deception and achieve a holy understanding of science as soon as possible. Instead of a dogmatic understanding of non-existence of a creator, there should be an understanding that confirms the clear existence of Allah and searches for answers to explain "how the universe is created".
"They said: "Glory to You, of knowledge we have none, save what You Have taught us: "In truth it is You Who are perfect in knowledge and wisdom." (Quran, 2:32)
What's more, Kuhn, a relativist, definitely does not accept that the people who put forth a paradigm are either objective or impartial. Kuhn, strongly opposing to the ones who claim that there should be unique, universal and standard criteria for advancement of science (especially to Imre Lakatos) states
"There is no standard higher than the ascent of the relevant community."
(Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, p. 94.)
Kuhn again states that scientific information, like a language, is the intrinsically common characteristic of a certain group, and nothing more. Again according to Kuhn, there is need to know the common characteristics of the groups who create and use it (scientific knowledge). (Ibid., p. 201.)
The important point here is that the concept used as society is indeed the people concerned in science. This is a certain proof that science cannot be accepted with no prejudice. Stating more clearly, Newton's paradigm is not independent from the beliefs and prejudices of the people defending Newton's scientific findings. Conseqently, it is not possible to accept science as objective.
With his book Against Method, Feyerabend who challenges the traditional pattern defends that all theories scientifically accepted as true will be discharged. Feyerabend summarizes this view with two words: "All goes!". Feyerabend expresses his view about the scientific view saying that the idea of science is unrealistic according to the universal and accepted rules. Feyerabend says it is unrealistic because it regards human instincts and the view which develops and reasons of it as too simple. It is to be destroyed because the attitude to keep up the rules is due to the professional improvements in our humanity. Feyerabend says, additionally the reason behind destruction of the idea of science is because the complex physical and historical conditions influencing scientific change being neglected. Feyerabend asserts that this makes science less compatible, but more dogmatic. (Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London: New Left Books, 1975, pp. 295-96.)
Feyerabend agreeing to Kuhn's relativity theory on determining criteria for science states that science has no superiority over other branches. He mentions that Lacatos confronts other fields once he completes the re-construction of modern science as if the structure of modern science is against magic and Aristotelian science. But there is no such argument. Wise approaches are considered to be basic scientific wisdom. However this does not evidence it has any higher wisdom than witches'. (Ibid., p. 205.)
Feyerabend defending the view that the government should as well include other teachings in the education system since science has no superiority over other branches, states that people living in free societies own the freedom of deciding what to believe in with their own will. He expresses this with an example: while an American citizen can believe in religion he agrees, the students are not allowed to learn magic instead of science at school. Feyerabend says there is a distinction between state and science but no difference between science and state. (Ibid., p. 299.)