Baha'i doctrine embraces "Science" and mankind's intellectual ability with special reverence. This is true even though Science operates within the constraints of and according to rules dictated and defined by materialistic naturalism. One should observe that mankind's great advances in intellect and technology progress without any dependance upon spiritual advancement whatsoever. The false association of one assuming the other, or equating with it, that Baha'i doctrine implicitly teaches is indefensible.

And so the question arises, If technological and intellectual progress is not evidence for spiritual advancement, then what evidence is there of any "new" spiritual truths that were absent from Jesus' teaching and that would indicate progressive spiritual evolution? The answer? There are none.

A popular adage often quoted from within Baha'u'llah's teachings says that, "What science and the mind of man cannot grasp religion should not accept. Religion and science walk hand in hand. Else it is superstition." When confronted with the obvious implications of this statement Baha'is will often respond that neither Baha'u'llah nor Abdu'l-Baha ever said that people should use science to determine the truth of religion. However, I am told, they did say that truth is one. Baha'i's will observe that elsewhere it is said that if Science and Religion disagree, "the interpretation of one or the other, or both, is wrong."

But this is certainly NOT what either Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha are really saying within the context of their teaching on the relationship of Science to Religion. All is not salvageable by resorting to the obfuscating tactic of whitewashing objective, fundamental problems as if they were only interpretational issues.The overwhelming predominance in their doctrinal stance is an outlook that prioritizes materialistic Science over religion as the true litmus test for truth. Abdul Baha, for instance, says on page 137 of Some Answered Questions that when religion and science are in conflict that "Science",

"...is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! ... To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence."

Now here we see that he says that "knowledge" and "science" are one and the same and that one who does not accept this verifier of truth is, "an animal without intelligence". He most definitely is NOT just saying that, "...if science and religion disagree in matters such as this, the interpretation of ONE OR THE OTHER, or both, is wrong." He definitively is saying that if the two are in conflict that religion MUST defer to Science as the final authority, lest we be "an animal without intelligence". His is a definite statement in support of Science as the validator of spiritual truth. It is a false standard where God's spiritual truths and power are concerned.

And let's look at the quote of Abdul Baha once again.

"Whatever the intelligence of Man cannot understand, religion should not accept. Religion and Science walk hand in hand and any religion contrary to Science is not the truth."

Now Abdul Baha does NOT say that when religion and Science are in conflict that "one or the other" must be wrong. And he does not say that when they are in conflict that Science must be considered wrong and that we must side with religious teaching. He specifically states that "any religion contrary to science is not the truth." Science is the validator of spiritual truth according to this objective statement. If Baha'is disagree with the concept this is good. But it is a definite position of authoritative Baha'i doctrine and it is a false doctrine with obviously major spiritual implications. It is a worldly standard for heavenly things.

Baha'i theology tells us that;

"Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone, he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. (Paris Talks: Addresses Given in Paris, p. 143).

But if we look beneath that poetic surface to really think through the implications of what it says, some really irresolvable problems become evident. The analogy begins,

"Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!"

This statement presumes that Religion and Science are domains that work in perfect harmony, and thus, always in mutual cooperation. But this is not only a wrong presumption in terms of the objective differences in outlook of true Science and true Religion. It is even a concept that stands in contention with other clearly stated Baha'i belief. The quote, for example, goes on to say, "Should a man try to fly with the wing of Religion alone, he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition..." Yet Baha'i theology (which uses a materialistically defined Science with which to refute Christian belief), also says it accepts the supernaturally miraculous. Baha'i proponents will certainly concede that Baha'i belief embraces the supernaturally prophetic. The kind of "Science" that Baha'i doctrine uses to reject Christian belief, must also consider such Baha'i beliefs as these a, "quagmire of superstition". And so we find that one wing of this Baha'i bird is hopelessly out of sync with the other one, and the same materialistic scientific outlook that Baha'i doctrine so often uses to dismiss literal Christian belief in Scripture comes back to haunt its own. It is observable that Baha'i doctrine uses two mutually contradictory versions of just what "Science" can do depending on what Baha'i theology wants to be true for the moment. Sometimes it speaks of an all encompassing definition of science, like that proposed by Baha'i apologist John Hatcher (whose outlook will shortly be considered). At other times it uses the traditional material definition of Science when it wants to refute the literal interpretation of another religion's mystical, supernatural beliefs. Thus, there is a basic and fundamental inconsistency within Baha'i doctrine over just what "Science" is, and what it can hope to do.

Science and Religion are two realms of knowledge that may at times converge (Romans 1:20), but are by nature opposed in what they consider to be the acceptable scope of knowledge (1Corinthians 2:40). In reality, Science, by definition, can never hope to (and does not care to) cross the threshold of faith, faith being the willingness to believe things revealed in the heart by God's Spirit beyond material proof. Science only accepts as verifiable what it can tangibly measure, and observe, and test within the material world. Where human spiritual enlightenment is concerned, it is a crippled wing at the outset. Worse than that it is even blind to the possibility of ever discovering such flight as would reveal God, or spirituality beyond the material world.

Paul clearly delineates the difference between God's Wisdom (true religion), and man's wisdom (the wisdom of the world that he specifically attributes to the Greeks, the forefathers of our whole intellectual/scientific outlook). He tells us that the cross of Christ is "foolishness" to those who chose the path of defining truth (and thus limiting truth) within the intellectual, scientific mind set. "The Greeks look for wisdom", Paul says. "But we preach Christ crucified. A stumbling block for the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks." He clearly sets the two apart as an "either or" basis for deciding what is to be the ultimate basis for deciding what is "true", the choice of which will lead in necessarily different directions. If we depend upon a theological basis for truth we will find God's truth in a faith that transcends our intellectual limitations. If we reason from the perspective of Science and intellect, as Baha'i doctrine does in its criticism of Christian belief, we will hit the wall of those limitations and NOT BE ABLE TO BELIEVE BEYOND THAT POINT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE. Paul observes that we must choose one or the other, not that they are two equal and complimentary wings to enlightenment. Science is a faithless outlook that believes only what it can observe within the worldly material realm. Theology is a faith that actively seeks to go beyond those limitations. Thus, rather than fundamentally being in harmony, they have, within their two different outlooks, some basic beliefs concerning truth and reality that are diametrically opposed.

This is true regardless of the fact that Science and intellect do indeed help us to realize certain truths from within their worldly scope. Rather than bring us to the conclusion, however, that "what Science and the mind of man cannot grasp religion must not accept", intellect and Science should themselves lead us to the truth of their own ultimate inadequacy in seeking the deep things of God. Thus Science and intellect should lead themselves to submit IN DEFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE BASED RELIGIOUS FAITH IN ALL THINGS OF SPIRITUALITY AND NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Baha'i theology definitely sets its final standard of acceptability according to a worldly, intellectual/scientific basis.

For example, on Pg 104 of Abdul Baha's Some Answered Questions we see how Abdul Baha limits the acceptable definition of Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension STRICTLY according to a gauge of discernment that is 100% dependent upon worldly intellect and materialistic science. It allows for no faith beyond what can be observed within the corporeal world and thus assumes a totally symbolic stand on these events that must distort the obvious intent of Scripture which portrays them in anything but symbolic terms. In the following line of reason there is, we observe, no acceptance of the supernatural as being possible. We also must observe that such an outlook boldly contradicts the supposed acceptance of the literal supernatural within Baha'i theology. We read,

" ... it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve. Therefore, (since Science is "proving" that it can't be literal) <My comment not Abdul Baha's>, we say that the meaning of Christ's Resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ... The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast... His religion found life...

...Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it."

But, on the contrary, according to this clearly stated perspective, Science, as he uses it, does not "affirm" the Baha'i symbolic interpretation of Scripture. It DEFINES it. And it does so from within the limits of materialistic acceptability. Abdul Baha speaks of what is "proved by science" as the determining basis for his interpretation and belief. He limits what we may allow ourselves to believe within the rigidly narrow confines (in terms of God's ability) of what might be perceived as being "contrary to the science of mathematics". This is as if the God of the universe, the Creator of all being, could be confined or limited within His own creation, left without the power to transcend or even utterly revoke the "science of mathematics" at His whim.

It is not that Science and intellect don't have their proper place. Basic laws of logic are powerful gifts through which we can discover much. They are, for instance, instrumental tools in discovering the very serious logical problems of basic internal consistency on major doctrines, (not trivial detail), within heretical theology. Internal contradictions on doctrine can indeed be discovered with logic and reason. The law of non contradiction ("A" cannot at the same time be "non-A") is a powerful tool with which to reveal wrong belief by way of logical impossibility. Such doctrinal "mistakes" as would promote concepts that are mutually contradictory do not bear the fingerprints of God's inspiration.

But here, we clearly see Abdul Baha depending, in the preceding quote, on Science and intellect beyond the scope of their ability, as a pre-filter or basic, overall gauge by which to discern and determine ALL spiritual belief. He reasons that if it does not fit into the limited, intellectual, scientific, and materialistic world of human reason, it must be interpreted symbolically. It is a wrong presumption when speaking of God, and thus a false presumption when speaking about Christ. Man's limited intellectual ability through Science or math must not limit his comprehension of and faith in God's power beyond it. There are intellectual limits in terms of the spiritual seeking of God that Baha'i teachings often lose sight of. What I observe is that the unveiling of many fundamental errors in Baha'i theology ARE able to be determined within the valid use of reason, even from within its worldly limitations. Baha'i use of intellect and Science, however, is so broad, and makes religious belief so universally dependent on it in quotes like what I cited of Abdul Baha above, that it becomes an invalid use of intellect used beyond its scope. Thus, to say that Jesus could not have literally risen from the dead or ascended into heaven, based on the singularly intellectual basis Abdul Baha uses, is a very different and invalid use of intellect compared to my application of the law of non contradiction with respect to Baha'i doctrines that break it. For example, if we believe in an omnipotent God, I think it is fair to say that He may rebuke the observable laws of Science and math, and yet still be observed to either be definitively monotheistic, or not monotheistic, one or the other, but never both at the same time. This is a very important point since it highlights again one of the basic inconsistencies within Baha'i theology. The various world religions that Baha'i doctrine tells us are all really the same thing, define the nature of God in various mutually contradictory fashions and they often do so in their original teachings, not later aberrations.


At this point I would like to share some reflections on the following revealing quotations taken from authoritative Baha'i leaders concerning the relation of Science to Religion;


"We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance - for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

...That which is in conformity with science is also in conformity with religion'. Whatever the intelligence of man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept. Religion and science walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to science is not the truth."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, pages 130-131)


"There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, pages 141)


"Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition. Religion must be reasonable. If it does not square with reason, it is superstition and without foundation. ...

... if religious belief, principle or creed is not in accordance with the intellect and the power of reason, it is surely superstition."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 63-64)


"Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance of man. If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 107)


"Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 175-176)


"Furthermore, religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the conclusions of science. For religion, reason and science are realities; therefore, these three, being realities, must conform and be reconciled. A question or principle which is religious in its nature must be sanctioned by science. Science must declare it to be valid, and reason must confirm it in order that it may inspire confidence. If religious teaching, however, be at variance with science and reason, it is unquestionably superstition. ...How then can man rightfully accept any proposition which is not in conformity with the processes of reason and the principles of science?"

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 394)


A wise spiritual perspective would value the authentic application of Science and agree that it is not at odds with religion in any basic way. What becomes corrupt and sets up a materialistically based world outlook that is counter to true spirituality is when Science tries to approach and give explanation to areas of knowledge that lie within the domain of religion and spiritual faith. When Science tries to move outside its inherent limitations, it's answers become what the Bible calls a "foolishness" of the worldly wise. Baha'i belief says that Science and Religion are two wings. But when we really look at what ends up happening when Science approaches religious territory we find that the Baha'i analogy is not so. For when Science delves into questions like the origins of life, it invariably ends up with explanations and theories limited within and defined according to a spiritual void of atheism which is the inevitable outcome of applying Science's hopelessly inadequate materialistic, naturalistic methodology to spiritual matters. We find Science ends up necessarily trying to build atheistic (naturalistic) models of what amounts to spontaneous generation of life from non living matter by way of random and purposeless material forces. For Science cannot deal with anything that lies outside of the material, tangible, naturalistic realm of the Creation itself. And furthermore it can't even allow itself the possibility of anything external to that Creation.

If we compare those theoretical or historical sciences to the applied sciences we can see, by contrast, exactly what I mean. Evolutionary biologists are busy seeking to build support for evolutionary models by descent that rest upon wholly material and unguided natural dynamics (no God Creator). Likewise, leading Cosmologists and theoretical physicists are also imaginatively engaged in constructing models for the universe that are devoid of any external supernatural Creator. Scientific studies of chemical evolution are anxiously in search for wholly naturalistic dynamics by which non living chemicals might combine through random chance to form life. They are all looking at matters of religion through the eyes of materialistically limited scientific methodology which can accept no concept of the supernatural. Their models are all atheistic as a result.

But consider how true, and wonderful, are the applied sciences. This is a kind of application of Science and scientific method that knows what its limitations are, and what its true strengths are. The applied sciences (like engineering and chemistry and medicine) work their wonders within the material world, manipulating it and understanding it with those same tools of materialistic naturalism that are so unsuited to spiritual understanding. When Science stays AWAY from religion it produces those technological marvels that give Science its mighty reputation and credibility. We create rockets that carry us into space with that Science and its glory mirrors in us that wonderful creative germ that God has infused within us, we who are made in His image.

When the same tools are applied to religion however, we find leading representatives of the outlook of Science (the Carl Sagans and Richard Dawkins, the Francis Cricks and the William Provines of the world of Science) conceiving out of such effort spiritual monstrosities devoid of the possibility of even considering a discrete personal Creator being "God", being, as they are, dependent upon world views grounded in materialistic naturalism. This is true by virtue of the very nature of Science. When Science is universally applied by those who fail to recognize its inherent limitations as a panacea of understanding for all "reality", when it thus becomes the standard and gauge by which even faith is determined (a "wing" that empowers the flight of our basic understanding of reality, even determining the course of what we may invest our other wing of spiritual Faith in), then atheism (or at best an impersonal pantheism) is the inevitable result. That's all Science can hope to do. Its application within Baha'i theology as the determining "wing" for belief intrudes as another basic internally irrational contradiction on fundamental ground. The formal Baha'i criticisms of Christian belief in literal supernatural events such as Jesus' Resurrection or Ascension are all grounded in assumptions that come out of this same materialistically limited Scientific worldview, defined by an underlying naturalistic mindset. Yet, aside from that set of issues, Baha'ism speaks in tones assuming the reality of transcendent spirituality as objective reality, and God the Creator as a personal, if unknowable, being.

Ironically, Baha'i doctrine wants to wed Science and religion despite the concrete negative spiritual evidence of what happens when when leading scientists like those I mentioned, and beyond that whole fields of Science that approach these issues, try to cross the line into spiritual territory. Baha'i doctrine may say that Science and Religion are two wings, but the conclusions of those leading minds in Science who delve into areas where we might test that idea, refute it as a false theory. They end up with atheistic models based upon the misapplication of "good" scientific method. `Abdu'l-Baha may wish to assert in his Promulgation of Universal Peace that, "Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition." But virtually all the leading exponents of that "established" scientific community, (such as those published leading figures in Science that I have mentioned who bring established "Science" to the public) propose materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic paradigms. World views based upon the limitations of Science. Philosophies presuming to encompass all of reality that are shaped, steered and guided by the blinders of the spiritually blind tool of Scientific method that was never meant to be a panacea of all knowledge. Scripture definitely tells us that some of the deepest spiritual realities that we are to lay hold of and cherish, (Christ crucified) will seem like foolishness to the limitations of such worldly wisdom.

Reflect again upon the litany of quotes I cited that reflect the Baha'i notion that Science and religion are in union. Notice that virtually all of the quotes insist, not that Science must defer to religion as the true gauge of spiritual realities, or that if there are divergent ideas, Science might need to relent authority over to religious concepts. What is clearly being promoted is that religion must always defer to Science (ie.must defer to materialistic naturalism whose methodology, by definition, must act in an atheistic fashion):

"...any religion contrary to Science is not the truth."

"...Every religion which is not in accordance with established Science is superstition."

"Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition..."

"Religious teaching which is at variance with Science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance..."

"Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof..."

"Furthermore, religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the conclusions of Science."


Now compare this materialistically shackled basis for spirituality with what Paul tells us in 1Corinthians 1:17,

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

...My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."


This is not the evidence of a "trivial" difference between world religions. It is a fundamental, absolute, and definitive difference of outlook between Baha'i doctrine and that of Scripture, the Bible.


The following commentary reflects upon an essay by William Hatcher, a Baha'i apologist, and is of revealing importance in the consideration of how Baha'i theology views the relationship of "Science" to "Religion". I will reflect upon the implications of Hatcher's assumptions and arguments from a Christian (and more specifically to the point, Scriptural) perspective.


The original essay is titled, "SCIENCE AND THE BAHA'I FAITH" and was written by William S. Hatcher, taken from "Logic and Logos" pp.95-121.


Hatcher's basic premise seems to be based on this excerpt from his article;

"Failure to appreciate the universality of scientific method has led some to feel that science is really only the study of material phenomena. This narrow philosophical outlook, plus the historical fact that physics was the first science to develop a high degree of mathematical objectivity, has led-to a common misconception that scientific knowledge is inherently limited only to physical reality...

...It should be stressed also that the scientific study even of material and concretely accessible phenomena involves a heavily theoretical and subjective component. Far from just 'reading the facts from the book of nature', the scientist must bring an essential aspect of creative hypothesis and imagination to his work. Science as a whole is under determined by experience, and there are often many different possible models to explain a given phenomenon. The scientist must therefore not only find out how things are but also imagine how things might be."


Nevertheless, it must be conceded that good "Science" immediately recognizes that its "real" goal is indeed to find out "how things are" and that its need to "imagine how things might be" is only a tool to try to move toward that absolute material reality which it always assumes is there, though undiscovered. Hatcher deceptively makes it seem as if the scientist's, as he says, "heavily theoretical and subjective component" (which, of course, is often the searching scientist's means), somehow opens the door for the legitimacy of Science having non materialistic ends. But the scientist groping for answers uses imagination and subjectivity only to present himself with hopeful ideas to test according to utterly materialistic experimentation, observation and analysis. The bottom line, the scientific "final court of arbitration" is absolutely according to materialistic naturalism. Imaginative and subjective speculation, are distinctly unscientific when they are allowed to conclude scientific fact. Hatcher definitely blurs the distinction between what "means" a scientist might take, with the "ends" he needs to reach to satisfy experimental conclusions using "scientific method".

Hatcher tells us,

"Another feature of scientific knowledge is its relativity. Because science is the self-conscious use of our faculties we become aware that man has no absolute measure of the truth. The conclusions of scientific investigations are always more or less probable. They are never absolute proofs. Of course, if a conclusion is highly probable and its negation highly improbable we may feel very confident in the results, especially if we have been very thorough in our investigation. But realization and acceptance of this essential uncertainty and relativity of our knowledge are important, for the exigencies of the human situation are often such that we are forced to act in some instances before we have had time to make such a thorough investigation. It therefore behooves us to remain constantly alert to the possibility that in fact we may be wrong."


Of course Science recognizes that, at best, on any given topic of study, it holds a "null hypothesis", a standing theory open to future expansion, development, or even utter change. But once again, the bottom line where any meeting of Science and Religion might be considered, is that Science only does so with the assumed understanding that a materialistic, naturalistic answer lies yet to be discovered. Supernatural explanations are NEVER allowed to be seen as even a potential endpoint of scientific discovery.The "relativity" of present scientific knowledge is not an open door to subjectivity or supernatural explanations. It is simply the scientist's concession of incomplete materialistic understanding. Scientists will gladly concede that they may be wrong at their present level of understanding of a phenomenon. What they cannot do, is to say that their present lack of understanding of a phenomenon might be supplanted at some point with a supernatural explanation arrived at by more experimentation and scientific method.

Hatcher says,

"Scientific method consists in the systematic and organized use of our various mental faculties in an effort to arrive at a coherent understanding of whatever phenomenon is being investigated...

...one systematically invokes certain types of experiences. This is experimentation (the conscious use of experience). Instead of relying on common-sense reasoning, one formalizes hypotheses explicitly and formalizes the reasoning leading from hypothesis to conclusion...(the conscious use of reason)."


The key phrase in this statement is, "effort to arrive at". For while the tools by which Science makes that effort ("means") may at times be creative, imaginative and subjectively speculative, the final goal ("ends") they intend to arrive at (scientific "truths") never are. Contrary to what Hatcher asserts, one does not "systematically invoke certain types of experiences" as anything more than a means to try to reach objective, materialistically reasonable answers that will conform to the perceived "reality" of naturalism. Hatcher says that one,"formalizes the reasoning leading from hypothesis to conclusion". What he fails to mention is that the "process", which may at times be subjective, only "leads" to final "conclusions" of "fact" which are never subjective.

I thought it might be informative to go to the current curriculum guide of the Jefferson County Public Schools System here in Kentucky (a state Baha'is would have to recognize as a considered leader in contemporary educational reform in the US) to get some descriptors from the science curriculum section of the manual. What I am speaking of here is an in depth look at "scientific method" from the perspective of an educational effort whose task it is to train young minds in all the possible legitimate subtleties of how the "scientific method" really works. Process skills and indicators include concepts such as classifying, interpreting data, observing, controlling variables, and designing experiments. One might argue that spiritual study could just as well utilize those skills, (until one looks at the content). Content includes topics such as matter, energy, motion forces, the universe, earth, planets, plants, ecology, animals, etc.. In fact, in the over twenty page long science section of this all inclusive curriculum guide it becomes quite obvious that Mr. Hatcher is wrong. Never in Science are the answers to theological, spiritual, or philosophical issues legitimately included as a demonstrable product of the expression of "scientific method". And, if Science discovers that subjective philosophical or theological presuppositions have biased an experiment's outcome, its formal response is to reject the experiment's conclusions as lacking the objectivity that defines good "Science". Ironically, this is true even though that rigid standard set in naturalism inevitably creates for "Science" an "orthodox" (even if not always formally professed) philosophical world view that is atheisitic (a philosophical conclusion).This reveals the pseudoscience within fields like evolutionary biology which often distorts or ignores the real historical evidence according to naturalistic presuppositions, much as Baha'i theology does Scripture's "evidences" for truth. Again, keep in mind the vast difference between the legitimate "applied" sciences that give us the technological marvels we stand in awe of, and the "theoretical/historical" sciences that often borrow (steal) a sense of the legitimacy from the former, with little or none of the true substance of genuine "scientific method".

Hatcher goes on to say,

"The practice of this (scientific) method is not linked to the study of any particular phenomenon. It can be applied to the study of unseen forces and mysterious phenomena as well as everyday, common occurrences. Failure to appreciate this universality of scientific method has led many people to feel that science is really only the study of matter and purely material phenomena. This...outlook....has led to a common misconception that scientific knowledge is inherently limited only to physical reality and material phenomena. Such a misconception naturally retards the unity of science and religion since religion definitely claims to have knowledge of non-material aspects of reality. Once we see that the basis of science is its method and not any particular object of study, we can discard this misconception."


If by this he means to use Science to corroborate and verify the validity of spiritual faith like Abdul Baha does, he is wrong for the same reasons it is wrong to suggest that "whatever science and the mind of man cannot grasp religion must not accept." As we have just seen, Hatcher is dead wrong when he speaks of the "universality of scientific method". Scientists who understand Science's limitations know the limits of its boundaries and do not use it as a means to approach issues outside those material, tangible boundaries. Science is the limited tool of a limited human intellect within the limited temporal realm. Religion deals with a search for God who cannot possibly be confined within that limited realm.

We are able to see that despite what Hatcher says about scientific method's openness to the "mysterious" aspects of religious, spiritual truth, Baha'i doctrine often clearly establishes its use of and definition of Science in exactly the way he says one should not. That is, within its true material limits (which cannot help us beyond those limits in terms of deepening spiritual faith). When Baha'i doctrine dismisses Christ's literal Resurrection or Ascension as "mere superstition" it does so with formal arguments that are grounded in good old materialistically based scientific method and reason. It bears mentioning again that Baha'i admonition that states,

"Whatever the intelligence of Man cannot understand, religion should not accept. Religion and Science walk hand in hand and any religion contrary to Science is not the truth."

Notice again please, that despite the fact that it says that religion and science "walk hand in hand" (are a harmonious "two wings"), that what it REALLY says is that religion must defer to Science and human intellectual reason at all times or else it is only superstitious nonsense. If we then look back at the way Abdul Baha used a materially/intellectually defined science to refute Christian belief, we discover yet another double standard within stated Baha'i doctrine. Baha'i religion wants to say that Science and Religion are in complete harmony. Hatcher tells us that Science and scientific method have no problem dealing with theological mystery. Baha'i doctrine openly concedes the miraculous. Yet when it comes to scriptural based Christian beliefs, the real, materially limited basis for true Science is unashamedly invoked to try to make that Christian faith look like naive superstition. When it comes to definitive argumentation within the Baha'i/ Christian dialogue, Baha'i doctrine assumes the mantle of traditional, materialistically limited Science with which to refute Christian belief. When it is off on its own, however, Baha'i theology wants to describe Science in terms that transcend those very limitations by which it defined Science when it judged and condemned those Christian beliefs on scientific/intellectual grounds. It is a terrible double standard.

Baha'i religion presumes to represent a consolidation of all world religions. But even within the limited context of the Christian Faith we can observe that this double standard in terms of Science and its relation to religion plays itself out in irrational contradiction. Baha'i doctrine, for example, concedes the miracle of Christ's virgin birth, as fully supernatural. But let's put that concession into the broader context of Baha'i theology concerning Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Baha'i teaching tells us that, "Whatever science and the mind of man cannot grasp religion should reject for religion and science walk hand in hand." Is it not odd then, how that Baha'i theology has no "scientific" problem at the inception of Christ's life with the literal acceptance of His virgin birth, while it criticizes those who would believe in His literal Resurrection at the other end of His mortal life amongst us! It is allegedly "against science" to believe in the literal Resurrection (according to established Baha'i teaching), but not the virgin birth? This, of course, is a bad double standard. It is also one that reveals that, much more than the virgin birth, it is the Literal Resurrection of Christ that both defines the preeminent role of the true scriptural Messiah Jesus Christ, and establishes the pinnacle of God's reaching out to us that Baha'u'llah would claim for himself.

We find that the virgin birth is literally acceptable, this miracle against scientific acceptability.Think about this from a strictly scientific perspective for a moment. An egg with no human sperm to fertilize it becomes a zygote, and eventually a completely developed human man, and this, two thousand years ago, before Science even understood the process of embryology (in as much as it now does). Is it acceptable to "Science and the mind of man" that the entire process of sperm fertilization could have been completely side stepped, (which it still cannot be even today), in the creation of a human life? But, you see, theologically speaking, the virgin birth of Jesus does not threaten Baha'u'llah's theology. The literal Resurrection of Christ, on the other hand, must be hypocritically branded as "against Science", only to be seen reasonably as a symbol. For its literal truth reveals the personal, singular and final authority of Jesus Christ and leaves no room for Baha'u'llah's assertion that he has a higher and mightier revelation. It assumes the infinitely continued personal existence and identity of Jesus of Nazareth as "The Christ" and thus negates the possibility of Baha'u'llah's claim to be Jesus' second coming. For if Jesus has been literally raised and is personally alive, then it becomes nonsensical to assert that some other person would come as His return. Christianity faithfully accepts the literal power of God in both miraculous events, the virgin birth of Jesus, and, of much greater spiritual significance, His literal Resurrection which automatically presumes His personal return.

Hatcher builds his case for the mutual compatibility of religion and intellectual scientific study saying,

"It is true of course that the subject matter of religion is more complex than that of, say, physics, because it includes more parameters. In the same way biology is more complex than physics, psychology more complex than either, and religion the most complex of all. In this sense religion is indeed more 'subjective', for the presence of many more parameters makes objectivity harder to obtain since the effort to make all parameters explicit is correspondingly much greater."


Now in this statement we find that Hatcher only distinguishes between scientific method as applied to physics or biology, or religion, as a question of degree, religion being at the high end of complexity. But in reality, the application of scientific method to attempt to give human understanding to a deific creation is simply an impossible attempt to understand things that lie beyond materialistic or intellectual "complexity", at any level.The difficulty of such a hopeless venture lies in the fact that such an understanding is utterly transcendent of such investigation. Thus, the deep spiritual truths of "revealed" theology (Revelation) are unapproachable by Science due to the utter difference in the quality and way of knowing they represent, distinctly apart from any application of "scientific method" to discover, fathom, or accept them. Hatcher mistakenly assumes that the difficulty Science faces as it attempts to delve into spiritual territory comes only from greater complexity. He fails to recognize that the difficulty with "Science" comes out of its basic inability to ever plum the depths of spiritual realities that its materialistic methodology doesn't even recognize as real. It is not greater complexity that makes the use of a saw for hammering nails difficult. It is by virtue of the fact that it is a wrong and inadequate tool that difficulty is greater. With respect to Science being able to use "scientific method" to study spirituality, that "difficulty" illustrated in my simple analogy leaps to an "impossibility". For the difficulty even in hammering nails with a saw is still only a question of degree, not like the utter difference in quality that lies between Science and Religion as separate ways of knowing. No matter how many "parameters" one might add they could never reconcile the altogether different qualitative basis of the transcendent supernatural from the naturalistic material (qualitative difference, not quantitative) that distinguishes religion and spirituality from Science and scientific method.

Attempting to show subjectivity in even objective areas of Science Hatcher says,

"Suppose, for example, that we try to eliminate the subjective -element of the notion 'red' by agreeing that the term shall be applied only to those objects which give a reading of thus and so on a spectroscope. Once this agreement is made we may still argue sometimes about whether or not the needle really is quite on thus and so, and the unbeliever will go away saying that the definition was all wrong in the first place."


But this does not make his case that subjectivity is a valid component of scientific knowledge. This only points to the fact that good Science and scientific method needs to carefully define terms as it sets goals for experimentation. If a group of scientists couldn't agree on just what defined "red" on the spectroscope it would only be due to a lack of defining terms. Terms defined, Science (and intellectual logic) INSISTS that there is one objective, material answer that is "true". Thus, although, as Hatcher says, "subjectivity is involved in science even on the most basic, observational level", the more important point that he fails to concede is that the goal is always an objective conclusion for any given experiment. Even if that objective conclusion is considered a stumbling step toward some future more definitive success toward an ultimate, ideal "objective" conclusion, the idea of subjectivity as a viable end, in and of itself, for scientific understanding is alien to scientific method. An endless series of tentative objective scientific conclusions, all reaching forward in the search for ever "truer" objective answers, would NEVER end in the acceptance of a subjective or supernatural explanation. The idea that such an end result could be possible is the mixing of scientific apples with theological oranges.

Speaking of the individual (whom he calls the existentialist) who rejects the possibility of a wedding of religion and science, valuing religion over science, Hatcher says,

"I feel that the existentialist position and its variants fall into their particular view of internal experience only by neglecting seriously the collective and social dimension of religion, in short, by considering religion as something which is purely internal to the individual."


One might ask Hatcher if he feels that when he dies he will stand before God to give account for his life as an individual, or "collectively"? For any who hold a Semitic based religious viewpoint (which would include Baha'is) the question is a rhetorical one. For, to one who adheres to such a basic spiritual outlook, the ultimate religious relationship and responsibility between a person and God is indeed utterly personal. Thus, "the collective and social dimension of religion", is ultimately an irrelevant red herring here since the true basis of spirituality lies in our individual relationship with God, and out of that relationship our spiritual destiny in eternity.

Justifying the Baha'i concept of the compatibility of subjective and objective reality, Hatcher tells us,

"The practicing scientist and the mystic, when confronted with the problem of building and communicating conceptual models of their experience, face essentially the same logical difficulty on their level of experience. For everyone, including the scientist, knows that no amount of explication, verbal or otherwise, can ever exhaust all of the subjective richness of the experience of 'red'."


But the scientist who appreciates the subjective beauty of "red" along with the mystic, only accepts its reality as definitive and absolute because he can, in fact, see and measure it in the spectroscope. God need have nothing to do with it. And despite the fact that there is the "potential" for spiritual truth to be seen objectively by way of its material effects, it is not such a concrete reality as the physical type of material phenomenon like a color. In this, Hatcher builds a faulty model. For the reality of religious, spiritual truth has no such independant, external, materialistic tool such as a spectroscope to give it absolute objectivity. Terms defined, one cannot deny the objective reality of red, scientist or mystic. It can be demonstrated and measured in observation by scientific method and technology. However, one can, and many often do, both personally and collectively, deny the objective reality as "evil" of almost any given transgression we could imagine. Objectivity in terms of moral/spiritual truth must come from God's Spirit as an inspiration given to the receptive soul, not a product of scientific method by way of intellectual deduction or induction. Such transcendent Truths will be believed to be "objective" by that soul by way of Faith, not worldly proofs.

Again, building the case for subjectivity in Science, Hatcher says,

"Science has ...[created]... a community of understanding. Each individual scientist must undergo training of a sort which enables him to participate in the validations of the subjective experience of other members of the scientific community when this experience falls within a certain range determined by the nature of the particular scientific discipline in question...

...No matter how far above the common lot of scientists an Einstein or Newton may be, he can function significantly only in the context of such a community of understanding. If these same individuals had been born in a desert or in a tropical rain forest, their subjective experience would have fallen within another framework of interpretation and would certainly not have had the same result (though it may have been just as illuminating in its own context)."


But both Science and intellectual logic would basically disagree. Regardless of desert, tundra, rain forest, or even Martian sand dune, both Science and intellectual reason would insist that one and all would, at whatever point circumstances allowed, discover the hydrogen atom, for example, to be one definitive thing and not many. Scientific observation that lacks such objective consistency as this could not be considered Science.

Finally, Hatcher offers the Baha'i link between Science and religion. He tells us,

"Of what is religious experience an experience? What is religion about? If scientific method can be applied to religion, then what is the datum of religion? How can we ascribe objective content to religion? The Baha'i Faith. The answer which the Baha'i Faith offers to this central question is, or so it seems to me, particularly cogent, clear, and direct. For Baha'is the datum of religion is the phenomenon of revelation. Religion is that branch of knowledge which takes this phenomenon as its special object of study. The objective content of religion derives from this external, phenomenal datum. Religious experience in this view is a response to the spirit and teachings of the revelator or Manifestation."


But when he couples the concept of "objective content" with "revelation" he creates an oxymoron. Here is the critical flaw and the basic breach of compatibility in his argument. Scientific method does not, and cannot accept the efficacy of "revelation" as an acceptable means of verifying reality or even gathering data. As "cogent, clear, and direct" as his answer might be, the fact is that "revelation" is ultimately accepted on faith, if it is at all, and has nothing to do with experimentation with or observation of the material tangible world of scientific study. One may "observe" red in the spectroscope, or simply enjoy it. One may only accept the truth and reality of "revelation" (or any other genuinely supernatural phenomenon, like the legitimacy of prophecy as a "supernatural" reality that truly exists within the "natural" world) on faith, and "Science" has nothing to do with it.

After listing the many world religions and their founders from across the ages, Hatcher tells us,

"All of the statements in the preceding paragraph have high empirical content and low theoretical content. These are a few facts of religious history. Of course they are based on records and observations of past generations. We can try to dispute these records if we choose, but we must be scientific in any approach we make."


But if we look at the specifics of these historic "facts" concerning the various "revelations" espoused by these diverse expositors of spiritual "truth", we see what I mean when I distinguish the scientifically objective reality of "red", from the faith borne nature of "revelation". For a Buddhist will look into the spectroscope and see the same wavelengths for red as a Christian. But his religious outlook will be agnostic, not monotheistic. Now we must understand that, according to Baha'i doctrine, Buddhists don't practice right religion or they WOULD be monotheistic. Baha'i doctrine would rationalize that they don't, in fact, practice Buddhism as it would have been taught by the Buddha. However, in defense of the genuine diversity of Buddhist belief in comparison to Semitic based monotheism, I would only propose the same argument against this Baha'i rationalized presumption that Hatcher himself offers to argue for it. That is, that Buddhist agnosticism is, in actuality, a,

"...fact of religious history. Of course it is based on records and observations of past generations. We can try to dispute these records if we choose, but we must be scientific in any approach we make."

Hatcher tells us,

"The only way we can judge Baha'u'llah's fascinating hypo-thesis that social evolution is due to the influence of the Manifestations is the way we judge any proposition: scientific. We must see if these assumptions are consistent with our knowledge of life as a whole."


So let us consider, according to Science and basic logic, if Buddhist agnosticism, Christian monotheism, and Zoroasterian duality of deities (polytheism) are rationally compatible definitions of the nature of God? No, of course they are not. We must ask ourselves, in scientific, logical terms, whether, as Scripture tells us that God specifically accused Moses of being a sinner (Deuteronomy 32:50, Numbers 20:12), and we say that the Bible is, in fact inspired, but Baha'u'llah considers Moses a "sinless" manifestation, how such observations must, by way of scientific reason and intellectual logic reveal great falsehood? For as we discover that, when left according to the original, historic intentions of their founders, the world religions are genuinely diverse on non trivial points of belief, and there exist historically verifiable contradictory concepts such as the wrongly alleged sinlessness of manifestations, Science and logic must then move us AWAY from acceptance of this religion's teachings, not toward it.


Some additional reflections on the essay;


Attempting to show subjectivity in even objective areas of physical science Hatcher had said,

"Suppose, for example, that we try to eliminate the subjective -element of the notion 'red' by agreeing that the term shall be applied only to those objects which give a reading of thus and so on a spectroscope. Once this agreement is made we may still argue sometimes about whether or not the needle really is quite on thus and so, and the unbeliever will go away saying that the definition was all wrong in the first place."


I observed that this does not make his case that subjectivity is a valid component of scientific knowledge. This, I said, only points to the fact that good Science and scientific method needs to carefully define terms as it sets goals for experimentation. If a group of scientists couldn't agree on just what defined "red" on the spectroscope it would only be due to a lack of defining terms. Terms defined, science (and intellectual logic) INSISTS that there is one objective, material answer that is "true". Also, in contrast to spiritual realities, "red", we observe, is, in fact, composed of tangible, objectively observable "stuff" that is verifiable by scientific means.

Hatcher went on to say,

"The practicing scientist and the mystic, when confronted with the problem of building and communicating conceptual models of their experience, face essentially the same logical difficulty on their level of experience. For everyone, including the scientist, knows that no amount of explication, verbal or otherwise, can ever exhaust all of the subjective richness of the experience of 'red'."


I responded that despite the importance of the "subjective richness" of red, that the bottom line when comparing the objective and tangible (scientific endeavor) to the intangible/ spiritual (religion) lay in the fact that "red", at its root level, can be materially perceived, spiritual "truths" cannot. One cannot deny the objective reality of red, scientist or mystic. One can, and many often do, the evil of a transgression.

Only later did I realize that Hatcher might try to use my observation to argue his own point. For Hatcher might attempt to say that, just as terms need to be defined in consensus to create objective reality for what defines "red" (material reality), so too, it is only by way of that same need to define terms that evil (or any religious/spiritual reality) can be established as an objective reality. In other words, he might want to argue that they are really both the same, subjective until and unless terms are defined in mutual agreement.

But let's consider for a moment what differences there might be between seeing "red" as a truly definitive, objective reality, and the spiritual reality of, say, "evil". One may argue over the exact definition of the wavelengths that comprise the color red, and to this extent call it a "subjective" reality. But one would never be able to deny that red exists, at all, as a true reality. One would not contend that the wavelengths themselves were subjective, only what pattern of them makes red. Within some range of variability we all agree there is a concept of "redness" that has objective reality, even if there is some dispute over the exact specific material composition. Within a certain range of interpretation there is something real we call "red" and its objective reality can be observed and measured with a spectroscope.

But if we look at the spiritual reality of evil, for example, especially in light of Baha'i doctrine, we find that its very existence as an "absolute" reality, is able to be refuted, altogether, on any level. We observe that Baha'i doctrine is able to define evil's "real" existence into oblivion, defining it as only being "the absence of good" (not an independent true "reality"). This is not a question of just what subtle differences in the range of wavelengths might comprise the color of evil. (In other words, what "quantity" of observed material reality defines it). Baha'i doctrine is able to refute evil's independent reality altogether precisely because such spiritual realities have no material indicators, such as waves, that can be observed and measured with instruments like spectroscopes. There is a fundamental difference between "red" (physical science) and "evil" (religious/spiritual realities). The defining of religious/spiritual realities is not a question of dispute over material quantity like scientists who can't agree on how to define what "red" is. "Red" and "evil" are of completely different qualities, one tangible-materially measurable (a color consisting of materially measurable waves), the other non tangible and materially unmeasurable (the spiritual). The nature of the Baha'i concept of evil, then, reveals the error in Hatcher's comparing religion (spirituality) as being something able to be studied under the same scrutiny of scientific verification as is "red" ("red" being a reality comprised of measurable, observable, material). We find then that religion does not, after all, fall under the verifying scrutiny of Science like "red" does as Hatcher contends.

We find that Abdul Baha tells us that, "Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 63) Yet, when we look at just what the leading representatives of that scientific establishment propose, we see that Science and Religion are anything but two equal wings of knowing. Considerations of the supernaturally intangible are specifically unscientific. Yet without such considerations who can speak of cosmological beginnings or origins of life, or study ANY of the spiritual realities whatsoever? Leading proponents of "established" Science all build atheistic (or at best pantheistic) models of the universe. They can do no less. For if the totality of acceptable reality is determined from within the constraints of true Science and scientific method, we may perceive the materialistic reality of the creation, but we will be necessarily blind to the spiritual reality of the Creator who is not limited within it. True Science is specifically limited to the testable and tangible; to the natural world. The "Establishment" of Science officially recognizes this. The applied sciences know and respect this limitation. They work within those limitations to create the marvels of modern medicine and technology. The theoretical and historical ones often do not and let materialistic limitations of the tools of Science wrongly confirm and conclude atheistic philosophical world views. But in their error, we can likewise see the error in Baha'i notions of Religion (spirituality) needing to "defer" to that limited way of knowing called "Science".

"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

(Carl Sagan, Cosmos, pg 4)


This is the inevitable anti spiritual manifesto of Science. For it sees the Creation, and is blind to the Creator. It's proud methodological atheism cannot help but become a philosophical one when it foolishly tries to approach things of the Spirit.

Where the spiritual is concerned, Science is analogously like a human eye which, never in and of itself being able to see the color "Xray", or "ultraviolet", then wrongly but necessarily excludes them from reality, concluding falsely that the reality of light only "exists" within its visible spectrum. Science, whose perception goes beyond the limitations of the human eye, sees the reality of shorter and longer wavelengths of light that lie outside the limited "reality" of the human eye. Likewise, Religion travels beyond the limitations of "Science" into realms of consideration that Science, by its very nature, must be blind to.

It needs to be recognized that even this dramatic analogy falls short. For at least those wavelengths of light that lie outside the perceivable "reality" of the human eye are still, in fact, material realities. The difference there is by degree, not quality. Not so with the difference between "Science" and "Religion". Righteousness and evil are not found as material realities yet to be discovered either by delving deeper into the micro universe, or the macro. One must transcend the physical altogether if one is to accept the Spiritual as "real". One must transcend "Science", not "defer" to it.

Hatcher might argue that magnetism, by example, escapes being pinned down as strictly a "material" reality. It is a mysterious but real "force". Thus he might argue that it is an example of a non material aspect of the universe accepted, assumed and even depended upon as a true "reality" by Science. Yet we find that Science simply ignores its mysteriousness specifically because it is an integral part of the MATERIAL universe. This, as opposed to "good" or "evil". A Scientist using scientific method MUST recognize and accept the absolute reality of magnetism as he observes that the material world could not exist with its observable physical dynamics without it. However, that same scientist, using the same scientific mind frame, would confidently tell us that Terra would continue to careen gracefully through the solar system in its orbit, with no need for "good" or "evil" as being anything more than man made illusory ideas. The true reality of those spiritual forces is distinctly of a different quality than material forces like magnetism or electricity or pure energy.

I will close with a revealing observation concerning Abdul Baha's assertion that religion must "defer" to "established" Science. If this is true of the applied sciences it nevertheless becomes an irrelevant statement. This is so because the applied sciences (like engineering or medicine) never attempt to confront and give explanation to theologically oriented problems. One can build rockets and computers and miracle drugs without ever considering how Science and Religion might relate. It is to the theoretical sciences that we must go if we want to really find out whether, as Baha'i doctrine alleges, true "established" Science and Religion are two wings that beat in harmony. For only the theoretical or historical sciences like evolutionary biology, or theoretical physics, or cosmology delve with their tools of scientific method into religious territory. What we find in these fields is an unswerving atheism that insists upon building strictly naturalistic explanations for everything. Richard Dawkins, a leader in the field of biology, tells us in his book The Blind Watchmaker that the world of biology only "appears" to have been created and that good Science now knows that random and unguided purposeless forces were capable of creating all we see, and all we are.

Francis Crick, co discoverer of the DNA molecule, tells us in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis,

"Why, then, should this basic concept of the soul be doubted?... The main reason... is the spectacular advance of modern science. ...A modern neurobiologist sees no need for the religious concept of a soul to explain the behavior of humans and other animals."


While the field of chemical evolution is busy trying to discover that mechanism by which lifeless chemicals might combine to form "life", evolutionary biology insists on demonstrating how, from such "uncreated" beginnings we evolved by stages into apes and eventually man. The entire paradigm of "established" modern Science, by its very nature, is necessarily atheistic when it considers the spiritual. Dr. Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, has an insightful outlook concerning such materialistic naturalism in "established" "Science". Hedging evolutionary biologists who, while attempting to patronizingly deflect his anti evolutionary stance, attempt to argue that "religion" is just a separate, possibly legitimate, domain, but that it exists outside the realm of Science. "What then", I have often heard him ask them, "is there left for God to actually do?" For, far short of being some unified "wing" with religion, "established" Science, even if it allows God to live in some out of the way corner called "religion", allows that this "God" may not be considered to have ever done anything! All acceptable explanations for reality must be within the material limits of the observable "Creation" to be valid data for "established" Science, and thus it remains blind to the reality of the transcendent Creator.

Now, of course, I am not saying that Aristotelian logic has NO place at all in our thinking. It is the degree of utter dependence as a governing standard, openly stated in the above Baha'i outlook, that is glaringly wrong. Ultimately, there must be a point beyond which one must utterly "leap" in faith beyond ANY need for intellectual, logical acceptability if one is to embrace the Cross of Christ, His death and Resurrection to our Salvation. However, it is the very intellectual ability within man that the Baha'i faith deifies,that, in and of itself, proves Baha'u'llah's own lack of, "knowledge that is equal to God's own", as he claims. For example (like with the double standard about the acceptability of literal miracles), Baha'is' argumentative strategy at points like this wherein extremely objective assertions carry fatal implications, is to typically seek out other contradictory statements where Baha'i theologians might be quoted to refute the definitive Baha'i doctrinal statements at issue. In this case we are at a point wherein we face definitive assertions about religion needing to be defined within scientific parameters. However, that there may exist mutually contradictory yet parallel running doctrinal statements that the Baha'i apologist might bring to bear to show us how Baha'i theology does not, for example here, deify materialistic Science (or in an attempt to rescue other definitve problematic teachings), is not surprising. It is by comparison of such statements in rebuttal with the very definitive statements from the Baha'i writings that establish the given problematic issue, that terrible and mutually exclusive doctrines do in fact reveal themselves within the belief system. The quotes I have cited DO objectively and definitively deify Science and man's intellect as a governing standard, a pre-filtering baseline for spiritual, religious belief. Of course, either side of a contradictory doctrinal coin can often be argued with "authoritative" quotes by the Baha'i defender, depending on which side of the contradiction is expedient for the moment. It is surprising that such blatant double standards don't ever seem to raise questions from adherents within. They certainly do from without for a person truly conducting an "independent search for truth." Such irrationality stands as a major revelation of the spiritual falsehood within this belief system. The Baha'i apologist is not going to be able to take the full weight of the implications of quotes such as have been revealed here without rationalizing this rank materialism away somehow. The fact of the matter, however, is that solidly definitive statements from authoritative Baha'i leaders wrongly tell us to gauge spiritual faith by materialistic standards. We recall such definitive statements as;


"...any religion contrary to Science is not the truth."

"...Every religion which is not in accordance with established Science is superstition."

"Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition..."

"Religious teaching which is at variance with Science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance..."

"Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof..."

"Furthermore, religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the conclusions of Science."


We have seen how and why such an outlook must be dangerously incorrect. Yet when confronted with the implications of this outlook, and expecting the Baha'i adherent to stand responsible for it, contradictory statements are often found by Baha'is from within the "writings" with which to refute this clearly espoused teaching as if it were not really legitimate Baha'i belief, but only my "misunderstanding". Such shifting to and fro between the dual sides of the internally contradictory doctrinal teachings of Baha'i religion only reemphasizes the reality of the web of objectively conflicting doctrines that comprise Baha'i theology. In the relation of Science to religion we find great and irrational error here preached by Abdul Baha, Baha'u'llah, Hatcher, etc., in clearly definitive terms that, under various theological circumstances, define Science in mutually contradictory ways.

Top of Page

Table of Contents

Home