III.
Thus, having characterized the last millennium as the period of formation of science, we have not clarified the situation, because the term science itself is unclear. It seems that a scientific world-outlook is something completely different from investigative science. These two different things are often placed together under one shingle, but such a union is artificial. The dictionary definition applies to investigative science, but, as we have seen, it does not apply to a scientific world outlook. To understand the essence of the latter, we must keep in mind not only what it tries to establish, but also what it is directed against.
One who is familiar with the unwritten rules of academic circles knows that the most "anti-scientific" world outlook is considered to be creationism – the concept of an intelligent creative First Cause present in the world. Not only in biology, but in any other given sphere of knowledge, there is nothing else which scholars reject so vehemently. If in some work they find even a hint of such a view, they contemptuously call this "teleology," and the discussion of such a paper is terminated. Therefore, the pathos of the scientific outlook is in the determination of the purposelessness of the universe.
Such a conclusion will only be confirmed if we answer the question: which world outlook did the scientific outlook replace? Of course, it replaced the religious outlook. In Europe the Christian understanding of the world once reigned. It was based on the book of Genesis, with its description of the six days of creation and the Gospel formula of In the beginning was the Word. The creation of things and their stability were seen in a descending current, as were gnoseology and existence. "Knowledge" meant "the knowledge of God," that is, of the Highest of all which is in existence, and the primary efforts of the individual ought to have been directed first toward saving the soul, and only then concern for the body. God as the Creator served as the most fundamental understanding in Christianity, which imprinted itself in the first words of its Creed: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth ..." This means that creationism was incorporated in the very foundation of cosmology. Yet the second millennium of the Christian era, as we know began with the turn towards reductionism. This concept would later peak in the naturalistic scientific theories of our time, which are based on the concept that the diversity of the world arose by itself, moving from the simple to the complex. This point of view destroys creationism, eliminating the understanding of God as Creator. It is this kind of destructive reductionism that the authors of famous theories of the last centuries were occupied with. It looks as though reductionism was to them not an end in itself, but the agent with which to liquidate creationism, and the Christian religion along with it. But then automatically we come to the second hypothesis: the essence of the pan-European spiritual process which began in the 11th century consists of the destruction of faith and the restoration of godlessness.
There is more evidence in support of such a conclusion. There are relatively few people who occupy themselves with investigative science, less than one thousandth of all the earth's population. True, its fruits – the means of communication and transportation, commercial products, food, manufactured through industrial technology, etc., are used by everyone, but that is all material, and we are speaking of the spiritual side of life. Yet science as a world view, carrying with it the virus of atheism, has penetrated into the consciousness of millions, forcing them to fall away from God. On a conceptual plane this falling away is a very substantial fact.
Pious Christians agree with the hypothesis of apostasy. The fact that the world has fallen into godlessness is to them obvious, and they are ready to see it as an unfortunate historical inevitability.
Pious Christians will be the most willing to agree with the hypothesis of apostasy. The fact that the world has fallen into godlessness is to them obvious, and they are ready to see it as an unfortunate historical inevitability. The Holy Scriptures are full of prophesies about future lapses into unbelief, the most menacing of which is in the Apocalypse: And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth [Rev. 20:7,8].
True, although the present falling away began exactly a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ, which marked the defeat of hell, to apply this directly to that which was revealed to the "Seer of Mysteries" would be incorrect. Such freedom will be given to Satan "for a short time," but the "thousand years," according to the holy fathers, should be understood not literally, but as "the fullness of time." Nonetheless, theology allows for the possibility of the devil's destructive influence in the world before this short span of time when he will be granted full freedom. He is allowed to possess those who desire this themselves. For this reason Christians blame the enemy of mankind, and not science for the godlessness. vvike all honest people they a priori consider others honest, and therefore willingly accept the official definition of science, which actually refers only to investigative science. They even allow for the peaceful coexistence of science and religion, since the first studies the material world, and the second serves the spiritual needs of people, so their spheres of activity do not overlap. All of contemporary apologetics taught in theological schools is built on justification of science, because thereby the accusation of anti-religiosity is removed from it.
Atheists, however, are in no hurry to shake the hand outstretched to them by contemporary "clerics." They know that science and religion are incompatible. They are surprised: how is it that in this age of space travel, someone can still believe in God? They are not about to sign an agreement with the theologians about the separation of their spheres of influence – for them these dialogues are simply the craftiness of churchmen who try to hold on to some sort of status in today's world. They are convinced that the key to the real understanding of the spiritual world of man also lies in the hands of science, and if someone goes to a priest with his sorrows, such a one can only be pitied: in church he will receive only illusory consolation.
True, well-known scientists usually do not allow direct accusations of religion. But such caution is explained not by oscillation, but the desire to work towards the affirmation of atheism as effectively as possible. People are much more apt to believe not one who gets emotional, thereby revealing his personal interest, but one who presents the image of an impartial triumvirate judge. It is this role which is taken on by our scientists. But their verdicts are always pronounced in support of only one side. If one of them inadvertently gives foothold to the other side, he immediately gets punished by his own colleagues. For example, the contemporary evolutionists Raff and Kaufman, citing the words of paleontologist Osborne – "nature does not waste time and effort needlessly, hoping for success or a coincidence and doing experiments, but directs itself consistently and creatively toward the achievement of its wonderful goals" – call them "amazingly dogmatic and erroneous." It is understandable why they find this statement so offensive. First, it is "ideologically insupportable," for no matter how much you call the entity which sets goals for itself and achieves them "nature," it still bears remarkable similarity to a Creator. Second, this statement is irrefutable, because it indeed reflects the truth, and since it is impossible to dispute it through objective argumentation, there remains only anger about it.
Yet the moment some theory takes a shot at religion, with great satisfaction it is labeled as "done by science." The higher the anti-religious potential of a theory, the greater the ease with which its lapses in logic are forgiven. This potential reached its maximum, of course,in the theory of natural selection, and for that reason the leniency toward it was without precedent. Having proposed the study of the development of living organisms as a random process, Darwin did not even attempt to estimate the magnitude of the improbabilities of his proposal. Overall, he showed full indifference to accountability, but easily got away with this. His book The Origin of Species could have been classified as artistic literature, as journalism, even better as science fiction, but it would never have occurred to anyone to call it a theory, if it did not contain the precious pearl: the confirmation that man originated from an ape! From this it immediately follows that there was no sixth day of creation, no Adam and Eve and their fall into sin, no redemption from the fall and expiation of the forefather's sin at Golgotha ... The Bible, the great book containing Divine Revelation on the creation of the world, is reduced to merely folklore. Then what is Christianity worth if it is based not on revelation but on folklore? Here is where the arrows of science as a world view are aimed – at Christianity.
