Science vs. Religion

Each of the following links leads to further reports on the related issue

For additional information see also the sections "Israel & ME" and "New World Order" in the Main Navigation

In The Beginning...


The Origins Of Man


Astronomy & Astrology


The Origins Of Religion


The Bible - Word Of God Or Ecclesiastical Dogma?


Life After Death?


Religious Fundamentalism - Faith Or Dangerous Heresy?

Related Links


Religious Tolerance.Org

The International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS)

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

Science vs Religion

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index
Important note: Images and videos posted on this website are very graphic. Viewers discretion is strongly advised!

Science vs. Religion

(Also see Where Is God? for a history of science vs. religion)

Step by step, from contest to ultimate conquest, in every single conflict of Fact with Faith, the Church has been defeated and has retreated -- put to shaming rout. It has been a slow and tortuous progress,--

"For faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last"!

But fantastic Faith has wondrous powers of "accommodation" and specious tenacity of false pretense of being forever inspiredly right. The process of adjustment throughout a thousand instances has been the same: Faith is confronted with a discrediting Fact; it curses it and denies it. When the fact is crammed down its throat and it is forced to recognize it, it lyingly denies that it had ever denied it. Then when all mankind has united in joyful acceptance of the new fact, the arch hypocrite declares that it is entirely in accord with its "sacred science," and tries to steal all credit for it as one of its very own grand contributions to "Christian civilization," and sanctimoniously wheezes, "How much grander a concept it gives of the infinite knowledge and glory of Gawd in His wonderful process of Nature"! Oh, Hypocrisy! Thou art the Church of God! "Semper eadem" (always the same) -- lying and shameless! [1]

The Catholic Church now admits the "Galileo Incident" was a "mistake". According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the Church is only infallible in matters of religious dogma, and its current definition of religious dogma extends only to matters of faith and morals. Thus the Catholic Church made a "mistake" with Galileo because the Church confused religious dogma with a matter of science. However the Church's claim of papal infallibility is still intact because the pope never invoked his infallibility and explicitly claimed that the universe was geocentric, and even if he did it wouldn't count because according to the Church the pope's infallibility only extends to matters of religious dogma and not to matters of science.

However it is quite clear that at the time of Galileo the Church's infallible religious dogma did extend to all matters of science including astronomy, biology, geology, geography, and archaeology. Even today religious fundamentalists still insist the Bible is the literal infallible Word of God, inerrant, without contradiction, correct in all matters of Faith and all matters of science. They force the Bible to fit in with today's knowledge of science, like forcing a square peg into a round hole, or they attack any science they can not yet force the Bible to conform to.

The priestly principle of the subordination of scientific fact to dogmatic faith is thus naīvely posed by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself which I quote, "When a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be revised." A more palpable and ridiculous untruth has never been uttered by those who still insist on Biblical literalness. No single scientific fact ever discovered and proclaimed, in all the struggling history of Science in defiance of Church, has ever been "revised," altered or withdrawn in deference to religious Dogma. Every fact of science has proudly and triumphantly defied and refuted Dogma and Church, and made them both cheap and ridiculous. Faith hates facts; they are forever divorced on grounds of congenital incompatibility. The Church, True Church, and Protestant, has screamed and reviled at every truth of Science which was ever discovered; with high priestly anathema, the curse of God, with prison, rack, and stake, it has sought to suppress and kill every thought of the human mind, every bold thinker, whose truths for the benefit of mankind have contradicted and ridiculed it and its holy dogmas. [2]

Even today there are those trying to prevent the teaching of Evolution in our schools, not for any scientific reason, but simply because Darwin's theory of Evolution conflicts with their current religious dogma. But I do not believe the science of Evolution will be the last nail in the coffin of Biblical literalness, just as the undeniable proof of a heliocentric universe did not end it hundreds of years ago.

When it was finally accepted that the Catholic Church was wrong about the structure of our solar system the Catholic Church changed its religious dogma to not include science, claimed that its infallibility never extended to matters of science and therefore is still intact, and now claims the Bible all along agreed with everything science has now proven.


  1. Joseph Wheless Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion (Kessinger Publishing)
  2. ibid.


By common sense, why should science be incompatible with religion?

Our early ancestors worshipped the sun as a god for they knew without the sun there would be no life. They lived in balance with nature.

Today, thanks to science we know that the sun -though an existential necessity for every form of life on our planet- is only a tiny particle in a perfectly balanced universe far beyond our imagination in age and size. We know from science that our planet is about 4-5 billion years old and the more we learn, the more we can sense the perfection, the wonder of life in all its varieties, each born out of one cell and perfectly adapted to the enviroment.

We humans need to believe in something superior to us -best shown when we plead for help in times of need- so what more would a true religion need to point to a power that created all this, a God we all should worship. Isn't the aknowlegdement of the wonders that surround us compared to our own inadequacy something like true faith - even atheists cannot completely deny that there must be "something"........

However, today's reality is quite the opposite:

Our religion is based on a book that dates the creation of the earth as the center of the universe back less than 6000 years, created by a God who also created us in his image, thus not only making mankind the crown jewel of His creation but on top of that declaring the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob His chosen people.

Today we know that the story told in the bible is historically incorrect at least until aprox. 800 BC - "a brilliant product of the human imagination." Archeology contradicts the bible, but nevertheless we stick to it, some of us even by the letter, calling it God's Word.

If we believe that God created the universe - a perfect creation - then God also has to be not only faultless but He is the absolute perfection, but the bible gives a somehow different picture: by limiting the creation to 6 days plus a day of rest and creating us in His own image it reduces God to something human-like, a sort of "superhuman being" with human attributes like jealousy, anger, or scorn, a God with preferences, demanding not only absolute obedience but also sacrifices. All these attributes are negative thus making God a God not to be loved but feared greatly. A very human policy to rule a people by a religion within the limits of human imagination, therefore no need to question or doubt any part of it.

Now lets look at the Ten Commandments: 10 distinct rules to grant a peaceful life if followed by all. According to the bible, God gave them to Moses and He also gave Moses 613 mitzvot (commandments), rules for every condition of daily life, yet some of those mitzvot are in strange contradiction to the 10 commandments, for example "Thou shalt not kill". A distinct command to never kill, at least not by purpose. Yet at the same time God gave orders to kill by introducing the death penalty - a revengeful God. Imagine somebody living strictly according to the 10 commandment has to execute another human being - an inner conflict, except if the order was given by God.

Apparently, we have been given a free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil and an imagination that enables us to anticipate the consequences of our behavior - why then would God restrict His chosen people to a life ruled by detailed mitzvot or better dogmas? Faith means to believe in something that cannot be proven - isn't this sort of faith in God worth much more than to follow or worship the Lord according to rules like sheeple? Why deny free will given in the first place?

to be continued.....

Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

Š Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"

Want to get in touch? You can send email at:


Disclaimer And Fair Use