Science and Religion: The Battle of Two Kings

As we’ve often said, this isn’t an atheist blog. Your Curmudgeon is easy to get along with, and we’re never troubled by anyone’s religion — as long as he doesn’t use it as a license to interfere with the rights of anyone else. In some cases, however, weak-minded people can be led by unscrupulous leaders to do outrageous things, and when they do so they imagine that their behavior is not only acceptable — which it isn’t — but that it’s required.

Our principal objection to such behavior, aside from the obvious abuse of the rights of others, is the mindlessness with which it is pursued, and the impenetrable barriers such people erect to even considering any views but their own. What’s the cause of such behavior?

We have a good example in something we just ran across at the Christian Post website, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is When ‘King Science’ and King Jesus Collide. There’s a comments section at the end.

The author is Dan Delzell, a preacher at something called Wellspring Lutheran Church. This is their statement of beliefs — bible, bible, bible all the way. Here are some excerpts from the rev’s column, with bold font added by us:

Christians regularly point to scientific evidence in our efforts to encourage people to believe God exists, and ultimately, to believe in Christ as Savior. But not everyone is convinced by the evidence. Not by a long shot. In fact, some unbelievers actually seem to resent it when Christians use science while attempting to lead people to God. So what’s really going on here?

If you are one of those who isn’t convinced by the evidence, we urge you to pay attention, because the rev is talking about you. He says:

It’s actually pretty simple. Virtually everyone has a “king” on the throne of his or her heart. And for many people today, the ruler of their life is “King Science.” He is the one they look to for hope, security and certainty. They trust their king completely.

A very astute observation! Let’s read on:

So when Christians in their witness point to useful evidence from science, some followers of King Science don’t appreciate having their king used in this way. In the minds of those who bow at the altar of King Science, anything religious in nature must bow to King Science. And yet that is not the way God designed things. God established the world and His creation with beautiful order. And at the top of the food chain is the Creator Himself. Everything (including science) must by definition bow to King Jesus.

Who are the rev’s usual audience — children ages five and younger? He continues:

Science is assumed to be objective, while religion is assumed to be subjective. Therefore, followers of King Science feel they are on firmer footing than those who worship King Jesus.

[…]

The challenge when attempting to use science to point people to God is that in many cases, we are using evidence which our hearers consider to be part of their personal kingdom. After all, King Science is the lord of their reasoning. And while some unbelievers show an openness to looking at all the scientific evidence, (including the evidence highlighted by Christians) many followers of King Science are tempted to reject any evidence about their king which could lead to him being deposed and replaced with the true King of heaven and earth.

The rev’s column goes on for many more paragraphs, and they’re all quite repetitive. We’ll skip to some good stuff:

In reality, what some unbelievers perceive to be their kingdom of scientific evidence actually all belongs to King Jesus in the first place. Without the Lord, they wouldn’t even have life or breath or a rational mind with which to study science. Everything they have been given comes from God. And yet, they do not understand that fact in spite of all the evidence around them.

Those worshipers of science are fools! Here’s more:

Science is not a king to be revered with complete devotion. In fact, genuine scientific evidence doesn’t bring about too much rejoicing in heaven. Why should it? In heaven, the very One who created everything is being worshipped and glorified. Imagine how off-putting it would be to point to scientific evidence while standing in the presence of King Jesus. It would seem so out of place, and so “beneath” our Lord. As if God is impressed or enlightened when hearing all the scientific evidence of His creation. Yawn.

Okay, here’s one last excerpt:

So which king is sitting on the throne of your heart today? If your answer is King Science, are you willing to be converted by the Holy Spirit as you trust King Jesus to be your Savior from sin? Science has no business usurping God’s rightful place in your heart. On top of that, King Science won’t be a very good defense attorney when you stand in God’s courtroom on Judgment Day.

This is a good example of what’s going on out there. Isn’t it wonderful?

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

27 responses to “Science and Religion: The Battle of Two Kings

  1. I took a brief look at Danny boy’s article. It rambles on and has not a single piece of data (unlike any science article I’ve ever read). Get back to us, Danny, when you’ve got some data to support your rants.

  2. Hey, are you gonna believe my book right here or your lying eyes? Snake oil is being sold in the lobby along with DVDs of my best sermons. C’mon now, open your wallets. Jesus told us that rich men won’t get into Heaven, so spend, spend, and buy my nonsense!

  3. It is amazing how some can make BS word salad sound smart.
    Its too bad that all it takes is a small amount of analysis to show that it all stinks so bad that only those with any real analytical machine would think it sounds intelligent.

  4. michaelfugate

    1700+ words about “scientific evidence” for Christianity for which its “totality” will persuade unbelievers and yet he never mentions a single piece of it – let alone the “totality.” I doubt he has a clue what science is or what counts as scientific evidence?

  5. Preacher-man Dan Delzell says, “And at the top of the food chain is the Creator Himself.”

    Watch out, boys and girls — God’s gonna eat you alive if you don’t behave!

    The preacher also says, “…for many people today, the ruler of their life is “King Science.” … They trust their king completely.”

    No, we don’t. We are skeptical of claims until they are well-documented and verified, and even then a true scientist will keep his or her mind open to new evidence that contradicts long-accepted science.

  6. At least it was published on the Christian Post website and not a mainstream paper. Although he rambles incoherently, he’s more or less keeping to himself and those who already believe as he does.

  7. So when Christians in their witness point to useful evidence from science, some followers of King Science don’t appreciate having their king used in this way.

    Called cherry picking science, that’s all. Ignore the rest.

  8. After reading this it makes me think a good science vs. religion chess game would be very cool.

  9. Troy, I’m not so sure. The religious side could have pieces like the angry wizard who could smite all your pieces, and a magic carpet for flying over occupied spaces. Not to mention that the religious side could change the rules on a whim.

  10. Some people worship King Science, some worship the King of the Universe and some just worship the King.

  11. These guys are starting to sound desperate.

  12. I think I know what king is on the reverend’s throne. I can smell it from here!

  13. Doctor Stochastic

    No king here. No emperor. No top quark. Just an egalitarian hadronic collective.

  14. I’m going to let that woeful pagan, St. Augustine, answer for me:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

  15. Pastor Dan wrote, “In reality, a person can easily appreciate and utilize science while at the same time choosing to love and follow King Jesus.”
    This describes the people who see a doctor when they become ill, pray to Jebus to get better, and when they do get better attribute their recovery to the prayers.

    Note: A “pastor” is a shepherd, ergo, those who follow pastors admit to being sheep.

  16. But to answer the dude’s question…..The KING of my heart is the one who produces result to make the existence of humanity (Me specifically) better, easier, longer, healthier, etc. And the king is not any religion as they produce nothing and make nothing better!!!

  17. As a staunch unbeliever I have one little question.
    “In heaven, the very One who created everything is being worshipped and glorified.”
    How is that supposed to be “rejoicing in heaven”?

    “Imagine how off-putting it would be to point to scientific evidence while standing in the presence of King Jesus.”
    Off-putting?! No, I would call that rejoicing!

  18. @Hideo Gump: It also describes people who pray to Jebus to get better but sue the doctor for malpractice when they don’t.

  19. King? Well I didn’t vote for him.


  20. King? Well I didn’t vote for him.

    I’m giving this comment a thumbs up, even though this site doesn’t have the feature for it.

  21. Thanks Justin. Good to see a fellow Monty Python tragic here.

  22. God established the world and His creation with beautiful order. And at the top of the food chain is the Creator Himself.

    “Top of the food chain”? Which God are we talking about here, Jehovah or Moloch? This statement gives a new dimension of meaning to Christian references to human beings as God’s “sheep.” What happens to sheep, after all?

  23. Paul S., your chess reminds me a bit of the 80s 8 bit game “Archon”, which would make for an even better science vs. religion chess.

  24. @Eric Lipps: I guess that god likes mutton! Then there’s that lamb of god stuff. Those Bronze age myth writers sure were fans of Ovis aries, anyway.

  25. chess, etc.
    The ID version is more like Calvinball. We read in the Wikipedia article on “Calvin and Hobbes”:

    ‘The only consistent rule states that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice. Scoring is also arbitrary, with Hobbes at times reporting scores of “Q to 12” and “oogy to boogy”. … Players also wear masks resembling blindfolds with holes for the eyes. When Rosalyn asks Calvin the reason for the requirement, Calvin responds: “Sorry, no one’s allowed to question the masks.”‘

  26. michaelfugate

    Is Jehovah really hungry now that we are no longer making animal sacrifices? I wonder no one has thought that might be the problem?
    World Nut Daily – now’s your chance?