Is Science the Antichrist?

Another recent topic here made me go ahead and post this. Its just a real random idea I had one night. I don't know much about the topic of the antichrist really, so I figured this was about the best place for discussion on the idea.

I was watching some recycled show on the history channel. I really can't remember what it was about, but it mentioned scientists and Alhazen. It talked about how he was arguably the first scientist being the first person to use the scientific method.

It immediately made me ask myself is science the antichrist? I'm not entirely too familiar with antichrist "lore". But one of the things I do know is "he" is supposed to "rise?" from the Middle East. Science arguably being born with Alhazen in Egypt and Iraq seems to fit that idea. I don't know all of the "criteria" the antichrist needs to fit, but some I know could be achieved by or through science.

Also in many ways, science for some has "replaced" god. Before we had the understandings we do now, mainly due to science, rain, tornadoes and all manner of disasters and weather patterns were unexplained phenomena that was attributed to god.

In recent years scientific advancements have brought about alot of debate about stem cells, cloning, and other scientific developments like reported weather modification technology that in all respects allows you to "play", or in a manner "replace" god.

Any ideas, thoughts, or disagreements with the idea? Like I stated I'm not entirely familiar with the antichrist topic, so any ideas are welcomed.

[edit on 6/18/2010 by ThaLoccster]

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I really can't see science as the anti-Christ mainly because its the best way we have of looking at the world. Science isn't anti-Christ or anti-religion, it makes no judgments of religious belief though it has helped give us naturalistic explanations for phenomenon once thought supernatural (lightning and illness for instance).

I'm not a big fan of the anti-Christ narrative mainly because Christians tend to take versus scattered all over the Bible, tear them out of any context they are in and use them to prop up their interpretation of the end time narrative. This is the same thing we see with messianic prophecies themselves.

I do think there are plenty of hardcore fundamentalists who hate science, for reasons I don't quite understand, but I'm not sure any would embrace the idea of it being the anti-christ.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

I really can't see science as the anti-Christ mainly because its the best way we have of looking at the world. Science isn't anti-Christ or anti-religion, it makes no judgments of religious belief though it has helped give us naturalistic explanations for phenomenon once thought supernatural (lightning and illness for instance).

I'm not a big fan of the anti-Christ narrative mainly because Christians tend to take versus scattered all over the Bible, tear them out of any context they are in and use them to prop up their interpretation of the end time narrative. This is the same thing we see with messianic prophecies themselves.

I do think there are plenty of hardcore fundamentalists who hate science, for reasons I don't quite understand, but I'm not sure any would embrace the idea of it being the anti-christ.

Well its not that christians are taking verses out of the bible and misconstruing them. the bible pretty much describes a incarnation of the devil on earth that will trick/force people into taking the mark of the beast.

Is this incarnation science? probably.

People are starting to worship sceince as a religion in a sense. Take the scientific census for example. A bunch of people agree even though there is no 100% proof so it must be right.

Take the big bang as well. This has never been witnessed or repeated and yet its taught in public schools everywhere that it is fact. showing no other opinion but the 'consensus'.

By beef with scientists and science enthusiasts is that they tend to be sheeple. Not in the general sense. But in the sense that they tend to not question science consensus.

Basically what im saying is that they will defend such 'theorys' just as much as any fundie will defend the 'word' of god.

There tends to be two extremes in this.

Those that are religious to the core and tend to believe the world is only 2,000 years old and what not.

And scientific atheists that are douchebags that think they and there vaunted science is superior to religion and 'creationism'. They also have tended to become ultra cult minded or 'group think'. They will fall lock in step with other scientists even if the science is unproven.(IE global warming,big bang,etc.)

You can believe in science.....but there is a difference between believing in science and being into scientism.

Science has become corrupted into a dogma on par with other dogmatic religions(barring islam...nothing can surpass the crap that that religion says!).

Humanity, animals or whatever is the consciousness of God. Of Course he/she wants us to figure out as much as we can. Why create otherwise. I see no reason for God to create us for his/her own gain without purpose. We are God's consciousness.

Yes, Science is the Antichrist.

At least for people who can't spell.

[edit on 18/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by empireofpain

People are starting to worship sceince as a religion in a sense.

Any evidence of this? I've never seen anyone bowing down to a statue of science or worshiping science in anyway. I've heard of people worshiping giant sky beings for which there's no evidence though.

Take the scientific census for example. A bunch of people agree even though there is no 100% proof so it must be right.

Do you have any idea how science works? Do you know how hard it is to get scientific consensus? An idea has to stand the test of time, meaning we need a great deal of evidence in order to reach scientific consensus and even then scientists don't typically say we KNOW 100%. New information is discovered all the time that clarifies or overturns ideas in science, this is just an improvement of our understanding of the way the world works.

The reason the Big Bang is taught in schools is because we have extrapolated the Universe back based on how quickly it is expanding and how far we can see. We find that about 14 Billion years ago it was all part of a singularity which then expanded into the Universe we know today. This isn't some random speculation, there's real scientific data (and lot's of it) backing it up.

This brings me to my point - Science requires evidence while faith does not. HOW IS THAT BAD? Why is believing something on blind faith and warm fuzzy feelings okay but requiring evidence before you accept something considered the anti-Christ (by you at least). Would you prefer we stay ignorant about everything in the world and just go "God did it" every time a mystery presented itself?

But in the sense that they tend to not question science consensus.

Oh but they do. Clearly you haven't spent much time in the scientific community, there are many issues for which there is room for debating ideas outside the consensus. The consensus is the consensus because it has withstood peer review and the facts and evidence support it. Generally speaking if the evidence supports it, I, as one of your science enthusiasts, will accept it. Why - because the evidence points to it.

This is why I don't understand movements like creationism which ignore the evidence for evolution - if something is evidently true, if all the evidence points to it, than God or no God ITS TRUE so arguing against Evolution is arguing against what is evidently true about God's universe.

Those that are religious to the core and tend to believe the world is only 2,000 years old and what not.

Typically the figure is 6,000. If the world were only 2,000 years old it would have started with Jesus. But the thing is even simple astronomy disproves this, we can see a great many objects in the sky that prove the age of the Universe. We know the speed of light and we know how many light years away certain stars and galaxies are, many are too far away for their light to have reached us IF the Earth is young.

And scientific atheists that are douchebags that think they and there vaunted science is superior to religion and 'creationism'.

Evolution is far superior to Creationism. For instance Evolution has been directly observed. Science has actually WITNESSED one species become another in quite a few different cases. All the evidence points only toward Evolution as the source of bio-diversity on planet Earth and there isn't a shred of any evidence supporting God magically creating things.

You can believe in science.....but there is a difference between believing in science and being into scientism.

You're just making crap up now... scientism?

I do believe in science but the thing is that belief is based on evidence and not faith. That's the great thing about science, its supported by evidence and reality and not based on blind belief.

Also there's no worship in science, there are no Gods and to my knowledge no rituals. I think the most important proof that science is not a religion is that there are many scientists of all faiths. Science makes no statements on the supernatural and can only study the natural world and the Universe. Science is not a religion and it isn't anti-Christ, its not anti any religion.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I guess if you fall under the belief system that everything has NOT emanated from God...this may be so.

But I believe, science is of God, just as cycles and orders is of God. I dont believe that there are mistakes or errors in Gods manifestations...so I try to find the purpose in all things. I believe, that everything that emanated from God, is perfect in the way it is meant to be. Even the spirit side of life, has a science to it.

The purpose that I understand, through science, is all things have order and cycles. To me, this also says, for our soul/spirit, there is order, there is cycles. When you get down to it, the 'science' shows us...all things, every single thing, is a oneness of something, a singularity...that monad, is energy. So even in matter, God shows us ONENESS...that all things are a part of a ONE.

But I also dont believe in a antichrist...so my view is going to be more about finding reasoning for all things. Even through the science of nature, you are going to find oneness.

If anything, the 'antichrist' is the body complex itself, it causes us to not know who we really are, which is of Spirit. This is why verses like.....live your life for the spirit and not the flesh make sense to me. The understanding for me is, we must come to a point like Jesus did, and be willing to offer our Earthly bodies back to where they came from and offer our spirit/soul complex back to where it came from.

For me, science is a part of my spirituality.

Just thoughts,
LV

[edit on 17-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

Is science the anti-christ?

Actually, I was thinking that businesses are the anti-christ because everything seems so `alien` and opposite to that of nature, which provides everything for FREE!

And yeah, so science goes hand in hand with businesses, along with government regulations, as the anti-chirst.

[edit on 2010-6-17 by pikypiky]

*waves away the name-calling and insults* Evidence of love is not the same as evidence of physically-observable phenomena. That is not to say it is invalid. Emotional truth has little if anything to do with scientific truth. Nor should it be otherwise. They are two separate things. One does not need a PhD to know love. Love may have little if anything to do with a graduate degree, as well. These are two separate types of evidence, and that is why that type of criticism is not relevant to this type of conversation.

Attitudes about science is what the thread is referring to.

LeoVirgo, as always, your eloquent and thoughtful words enrich the thread. I agree with you in many, many ways, as I'm sure you know.


However, to the OP, I would like to add my thoughts.

Science is as much a part of my spiritual journey as the Bible, and probably more so in the beginning. It was my admiration for the majesty and order of the universe and what is observed inside it that made me able to conceive of something called "infinity." I learned about it in Science class, not Sunday school, by the way.

It was this concept that opened my mind to the thing called "eternal" and without science, I never would have sought God in the first place.

It's my admiration for His handiwork, natural selection, especially, that keeps me in love with Him.

It has nothing to do with douchebags, fundies, or any other hateful stereotype. I don't believe those words are attractive or useful in this topic and I hope we have seen the last of them.

For those who ridicule, I will remind them that Galileo went through the same thing, only from the church officials of his day.

Looks like things have come full circle. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong today, no matter who is doing the hating and insulting, ridiculing or belittling.

Great thread!

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Copperflower]

I'm reminded of the late Father Malachi Martin, the eccentric Irish priest who for decades performed exorcisms for the Catholic Church. After he retired from exorcising demons, he made the talk show circuit for many years, answering all sorts of questions about his life and profession.

One night on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell, back in the late 1990s, a caller asked Father Martin a very pointed and controversial question: Do you think Bill Clinton is the Antichrist?

You could almost hear Art Bell's hair standing on end.

Father Martin, however, was unflappable. With his trademark humor and gift for understatement, Martin answered: "No, I don't think Bill Clinton is the Antichrist. I think he's a very, very naughty man, but he's not the Antichrist."

I think the Antichrist is a literary device employed to keep Christians on their toes, ever-vigilant against false prophets and false messiahs. And it's worked, apparently, for centuries — virtually every generation for nearly 2000 years has had its own candidate (or candidates) for the Antichrist. Indeed, every generation has believed that the End Days were upon them.

For nearly two millennia.

Pretty good literary device, I'd say, and an extraordinary piece of cerebral programming. The Antichrist is such a scary bastard, a good many people who don't even believe in Christ seem ready to believe in the Antichrist.

Could Science be the Antichrist? Well, in spite of the various "miracles" Science has bestowed upon us, Science has also bestowed even more problems. Come to think of it, Science is responsible for every major problem in the world today, from overpopulation to super-diseases to nuclear weapons to unmanned autonomous weapons to manmade global warming to oil spills in the Gulf.

It's all the fault of Science and the small handful of humans who make their livings as scientists, sucking the government's rancid tits for grant money in exchange for half-baked scientific innovations.

Come to think of it, Science has never really "fixed" anything — it has only complicated our lives and ruined the environment. People have been aware of this fact for hundreds of years, and some have even militantly opposed the "march of Science"... The Luddites come to mind.

But I've seldom heard anyone seriously refer to Science as the Antichrist

I mean, the Antichrist arrives suddenly, presenting himself (herself) as a charismatic spiritual leader, a worker of miracles, and indoctrinates the great bulk of humanity before springing his trap. Supposedly, most Christians are going to think the Antichrist is actually Christ when he first appears.

To my knowledge, nobody has mistaken Science for Jesus Christ.

Rather, I think of Science as another terribly flawed human concept, just like Religion. Both Science and Religion originated in the mind of Man, and the mind of Man is notoriously flawed when it comes to answering our greatest questions and solving our simplest problems, that much is certain.

So, echoing Father Malachi Martin: No, I don't think Science is the Antichrist. I think Science is witheringly inadequate, but it's not the Antichrist.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 6/18/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


It has worked so much so that if a man truly stands up and unites the world...he will be killed for it.

Wait, havent we heard that story before? Didnt we already do that?

[edit on 18-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Are you seriously saying science has done nothing good?

Science is not the "anti christ" but it can definately be indirectly related to "evil" when it is abused for anti christian purposes.
I guess everything else can too but my point is this, science is actually the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Man was not allowed to taste it, yet he did, only after being deceived by evil.
Now Man s forced to rely on science to survive. Wanting more and more of it each day and now Man is on the verge of becoming God-like.

Science is not the anti-christ because there is no anti-christ and there never will be an anti-christ.. or at least that's what we know through science.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Are you seriously saying science has done nothing good?

I'm saying that, without Science and the Industrial Revolution (Parts I & II), the Earth's total human population would probably still be a few hundred million, the air would be clean, the water pure, natural resources would be abundant for our smaller population, humanity would be stronger as a species, and the various other species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years would still be here.

Without Science, our wars would still be fought with sticks and stones, rather than weapons of mass destruction. Without Science, we would live with Nature, rather than against it.

Like the Neanderthal of old, we could conceivably exist as a global population for hundreds of thousands of years, rather than teetering on the brink of self-annihilation every day, as we're doing now.

Yeah. The world would be a better place without Science.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 6/18/2010 by Doc Velocity]

I guess by definition science could be considered the antichrist, as it disputes through fact the idea of christ and creation in general, however.. it doesn't set out to do such, but religions sometimes speak against it as it does.

gravity is caused by satan, the devil, etc etc coz it pulls things down?

hell is down, heaven is up, right?

why must hell be down? why cant hell be up and heaven down, or hell is to the left and heaven to the right?

anyway, its all b**ls**t to me

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I think you are on the right track my friend. Now I think the science that benefits the good of mankind is one thing, such as treating diseases and coming up with technology that can aid man in the right situations.... I'm more or less talking about the science that perpetually wants to rule with an iron fist. The science that would like to say who should breed and who can't....the science that says Eugenics is fact....

I believe the antichrist will be a proponent for transhumanist ideals
mate with machine or be an enemy of the state!

Oh how I love the terminator movies!

reply to post by Doc Velocity


There is polarity to everything...

Its not so much the 'knowledge' that is corrupt...but the people that use the knowledge, for corruption.

Im thankful to know the vastness of space, that there are billions of other suns and galaxies. Im thankful for warm water to shower and heat for my home in the winter time. Im thankful for medicines, that have helped me and my family over time and have kept my mother from death over 100 times literally. Im thankful for the tiller that I have to make my gardening easier so I have more time with my children.

But I will agree, there are pros and cons...but its the people that make it into a 'con' .

My point is that its the people that corrupt things, not science itself.

So again, I say...its not science that is a 'antichrist' but the people that live more for the things of flesh. The people that sill live for the lower self over the higher self. We all have both...and its our choice of which road we walk.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

I'm saying that, without Science and the Industrial Revolution (Parts I & II), the Earth's total human population would probably still be a few hundred million, the air would be clean, the water pure, natural resources would be abundant for our smaller population, humanity would be stronger as a species, and the various other species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years would still be here.

Without science we'd still be wallowing in filth living for only 40 years at a time on average. Each new disease would have a chance at wiping us out completely, there would be no medicine to save us. Without science we wouldn't have electricity, running water (which is PURIFIED from natural streams very few of which are actually safe to drink).

Science helps build war technology yes, but science does not itself go to war or cause wars to happen. The atomic bomb didn't cause wars to happen, it was the result of a war already happening. Without science there would still be war and I think its pretty horrific whether done with sticks or bullets. No one goes to war over science though, its not like religion which has caused countless wars, you don't see rival factions of lab-coated scientists waging bloody battles over whether String Theory is true.

The enemy you are describing is not science, its greed, human greed is in everything we do and yes its hands stretch even into science.

rather than teetering on the brink of self-annihilation every day, as we're doing now.

I wouldn't call our current status teetering on the brink every day, though some fear mongers and doomsayers might want to convince us of such (usually people trying to make a buck selling paranoia).

The benefits of science far outweigh the risks, though this is true of the peaceful sciences and not the military-industrial ones.

I for one am grateful to be typing on a computer and looking forward to at least 50 or 60 years more of life in front of me rather than living in the dark ages with no medicine, electricity, easily accessible food and clean water, etc etc.

So Doc, if you dislike science, why not toss out the computer you're typing on now? Why do you get to deride science as the cause of all the worlds problems and still reap the rewards of living in a technology saturated science oriented world?