Orthodox Reflections

Orthodox Christianity is revelation.

The faith held by the Orthodox Church is that which was handed by Christ to the apostles. Nothing is added to or subtracted from that deposit of faith which was “handed once for all to the saints” (Jude 3).

No one “figured out” the Trinity. It was revealed to man that God eternally exists as three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. No chemical analysis of the Eucharist determined that it is the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, who though born of a woman was both God and man.  These things are mysteries to our rational minds. Nonetheless, Orthodox Christians accept them as true because they were revealed to the Church.

Because Orthodoxy is a revelation from God, Orthodoxy cannot change. The Deposit of the Faith cannot be altered. No matter how many new “gospels” are discovered from the early centuries of the Church. No matter how many academic papers are published. Even if all the Orthodox Bishops in the world gathered and pronounced that Christ was not God or that we do not expect the resurrection of the dead or that Mary is not the Mother of God or some other blasphemy – that would not change the Orthodox Faith. The bishops espousing heresy would simply cease to be bishops. No one has the power to change what has been dogmatically recognized by the Church in her wisdom based on God’s own self-revelation to man.

Not everything is dogma, but that which is dogma is not open to debate. You either believe the Faith Once Delivered to the Apostles, or you do not. There is really no in-between. But because dogma is revelation, it is necessarily narrow in scope. The Orthodox Church does not see the physical, natural, and technological sciences as enemies or competitors.  While the Church tells you the purpose of life, it leaves it up to the natural scientists to explain its mechanics.

Science is not revelation. Science is method. One writer provided the following helpful definition:

Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.

Science should be a contentious affair. Multiple thinkers and researchers all seeking answers, publishing papers, and poking holes in each others’ findings. Through that process of debate and refinement, we hope that scientifically-proven truths emerge that make our lives better.

An Orthodox MD published a great treatment of what could be called the classical scientific method. She listed the basic steps in the process and why a “theory” such as evolution cannot be established as a fact:

Six Steps of the Scientific Method:

1. Ask a Question about an Observation
2. Conduct Background Research to find out if your Question has already been answered
3. If not, propose a Hypothesis or Theory that might answer your question
4. Design and conduct an Experiment to test your Hypothesis
5. Record your new Observations and Analyze your Data
6. Draw your Conclusion and make further Iterations

Evolution falls short at step 4. Who can conduct an experiment to test the Theory of Evolution when millions of years are needed to do so? Or, who can go back in time to observe Evolution in progress as an observational study? The best any honest scientist can do is to stop at step 3 and admit that Evolution is a Theory and not a Scientific truth. Therefore, ‘believing’ in the Theory of Evolution is the same as adopting a type of religion because it does not satisfy the criteria of the scientific method. Please note that evolution of species and natural selection are very distinct from one another and the latter does not scientifically support the former.

Science should produce a result that is reproducible by other scientists. “Believe science,” as we often hear, is a strange thing to say. Belief has nothing to do with a scientifically established fact. Either a result can be reliably replicated or it cannot. If it can be, then it is true. If not, then it still might be true but it is not proven. The requirement to actually prove your point should keep scientists focused and somewhat humble in their outlooks.

Unfortunately, what most of the public think of as “science” is, in fact, in a mess. As researcher John P. A. Ioannidis demonstrated in his paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

Rather than designing good studies and following where the results lead, many researchers are manipulating methods to reach desired, predetermined conclusions. Or even just outright lying. There are many reasons why this is occurring, but money and policy bias have to be at the top of the list. Researchers need jobs, and those jobs are funded by people / organizations that often want specific sets of results to bolster their power, their profits, their funding, or all of the above.

The widespread misuse of “science” has given rise to what can only be described as a new religion – scientism.

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

Science facilitates the expansion of human knowledge. It is never settled, as each new discovery brings up new questions that must be answered. Knowledge moves forward in fits and starts with contentious arguments between very smart people. This process is complicated, and rarely lends itself to the kind of simplistic assertions of which politicians are so fond.

Scientism restricts human knowledge by establishing “orthodox” positions from which no deviation is allowed. Scientism is about belief, not evidence. It is about passion, not reason. It is, in fact, the antithesis of science. Rather than facilitating debate in the pursuit of truth, scientism is used to end all discussion in favor of officially sanctioned opinions.

When the “experts” speak ex cathedra, evidence is irrelevant as we must all “believe science.” There is one official answer, and all must conform to it or face excommunication.

• • The California wildfires are caused by man-made climate change, and not by decades of poor forest management combined with the El Nino effect.
  • “Green Energy” sources are essential to ward off climate change and are just as good as nuclear power or fossil fuels, even though they helped turn California into a Third World Country.
  • Death with Covid-19 is the same as death from Covid-19. The difference does not matter.
  • Trump is responsible for all deaths from Covid-19 due to his inaction and inept policies. For the first time in history, we actually believe that we can fight and defeat a virus.
  • Mass death from Covid-19 is just around the corner, as new projections (which must be believed) indicate millions of dead by year end globally. Never mind all the wrong projections in the past put out by experts claiming to be prophets. This time is real!
  • Mass testing for Corona Virus is essential and accurate, even though as many as 90% of positives should have been negative.
  • Lock downs are essential to stopping the spread of Covid-19, even if there is actually no evidence they work to do anything other than destroy societies.
  • Masks must be mandated to slow the spread of deadly Covid-19, even though there is much evidence to the contrary and dirty masks on people’s faces represent their own risks.
  • All vaccines are for the public good. No one is allowed to question a vaccine, even if there is evidence that some vaccines are dangerous to at least certain populations, and the flu vaccine may actually increase susceptibility to Corona Virus infection.
  • There are no reliable treatments for Covid-19. Even when doctors hold press conferences or publish papers about reliable, inexpensive therapies – just ignore them because they are liars who hate science.
  • We can never go back to normal, unless we have a vaccine for Covid-19, and even then only after a large number of the U.S. population takes it.
  • The common spoon or the common chalice in communion represent an unacceptable risk, even though there is no evidence of that. Just accept “science” you fundamentalists and change your religion to accommodate fear.

If you get into an argument over a “scientific” point of contention (like those in the above list or so many others), you frequently find that assertion of official opinion cannot be overcome by mere facts. True believers are not interested in your data or logic. They will simply repeat their mantras in an endless loop. Sometimes they will have some research to back up what they claim. However, if you question any of their evidence, you will often find that they don’t need it anyway. Any statement by an “expert” or a trusted politician is sufficient to establish the validity of any claim they wish to defend. Objective proof is not necessary. They will not read your scientific papers. They will not look at the flaws in their own. They are not interested in what doctors, scientists, other health officials, etc. have to say that contradicts their chosen oracles.

If you disagree, you must be a bad-faith, ignorant liar who wants to kill people / destroy the Earth / harm cute puppies. Just trust Fauci and we will all be saved!

It is perfectly acceptable to defend the Divinity of Jesus Christ as God without question. Christ’s Divinity is clearly a matter of revelation which cannot be falsified. We have Faith in Christ, or we do not.

But any claim based on any scientific discipline should be subjected to the most rigorous testing and examination possible. There can be no such thing as a topic that is “unquestionable” or “settled,” particularly if the conclusions about it will be the basis of public policy affecting hundreds of millions of lives. Debate and examination are essential in such situations, and all facts must be given a fair and unbiased hearing. That is “science.”

If belief is required, then you are not dealing with scientifically proven facts. You are dealing with a competing religion that emotionally and emphatically defends its own set of orthodox dogmas. Orthodoxy in revealed religion preserves us from error and leads us to salvation. Orthodoxy in science chains our intellect and endangers our future. One is good and beneficial, while the other is a dangerous, counterfeit religion that we must oppose.

Nicholas – member Greek Orthodox Archdiocese