Is there a need for separation of science and state?

Thomas Jefferson was a champion of religious freedom, believing that state coercion of matters of belief was tyranny. This led him and most of the Founders to support a limited role of the state, especially the national government in matters such as religion, communication, education, assembly and political activity. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was an expression of this philosophy.

In world history the intervention of the state in matters of science has also created problems. Scientists who challenged the politically-approved viewpoint and policies were silenced or imprisoned. Today national governments push for policies that limit and punish choices by people around the world. Globalist social media corporations also use their power to censor opposing scientific data and viewpoints. All this is done in the name of compassion for the poor even though in reality it harms them.

Pagan religions often were connected to fear of environmental dangers and disasters and the state was employed to bring solutions by enforcing human sacrifice, etc. Such coercion, tyranny and abuse of power was done in the name of protecting people.

When God gave the Ten Commandments to Israel, it addressed such errors. Most Christians, even most pastors today, do not understand what the Ten Commandments were really for (see Democracy and the Ten Commandments by Robert Shinkoskey). They were given or spoken to the Elders of Israel (Ex 19:7). The Elders were not religious leaders but rather civic leaders; i.e. the government of the nation. When each commandment said “Thou shalt not” it primarily meant the Elders or governmental leaders were prohibited. Of course, each commandment effectively expressed a transcendent principle or value for the nation, and all citizens benefited from laws that aligned with the ten big ideas or values.

The second commandment prohibiting graven images was primarily to restrict the Elders (i.e. the state) from using religion and sexuality as a basis of its power (it was not primarily a statement about art). The pagan world often did this. Its state-favored religions or idols were often sexual or pornographic and fostered temple prostitution, etc, to strengthen those in power. The God of Israel told its government leaders that they were not allowed to mix religion and sexuality for state purposes. (Modern governments are now using sexuality and gender ideology for political power as ancients once did.)

The recent pandemic revealed the problems of a statist approach to medical care. When governments choose what science is acceptable and what is not, tyranny is the result. Of course, in medicine and in environmental matters, there is a legitimate state interest in the protection of human life. It can legislate to protect life but in doing so must also protect property and liberty as much as possible. Statism often does not.

Fear of environmental disaster is, strangely enough, often coupled with human arrogance. The belief that humans can control weather or nature is equally as problematic as inordinate fear of it. Both lead to errors in policy, whether in ancient pagan cultures or modern pagan statist societies.

The tenth commandment regarding covetousness was also primarily addressed to the Elders (i.e. the state) and in effect was a prohibition on government from interfering in the free choices of citizens in what is their own – their spouse, children, homes, property, etc. As long as no one violated the life (i.e. the 6^th commandment), marriage (7^th), property (8^th), and judicial rights (9^th) of others, then the state was to stay out of all other affairs of people. God told Israel’s government leaders to respect individual citizen sovereignty and maintain maximum freedom, and refrain from temptations to regulate private choices and behavior.

The idea of limited government is the supreme concept in the Bible that contrasts with pagan government philosophy. This is true whether it is statist socialism or statist capitalism. The Bible takes neither a left nor right stance. Maximum freedom of choice is God’s pattern for human governance, limited only by the transcendent rights to life, natural marriage, private property, and due process of justice in the courts.

When governments, even if well-intentioned, push policies coercing thought and choices in medicine or “climate change” or religion, they violate God’s pattern of blessing and end up hurting humans and especially the poor and most vulnerable.

Do not misunderstand me. Although a limited state and maximum citizen sovereignty is essential, Christians must still be good stewards of creation and work for free-market solutions in environmental preservation, creation care and medical care. There are great people with solid Biblical worldview and demonstrable compassion for the poor who are also experts in this field of climate change policy. The dividing line between the true prophets [i.e. social strategists] and the false is the role they give to the state. There are religious leaders who may have good intentions but they endorse unbiblical solutions.

The climate change document in the section that follows for paid subscribers is an excellent statement for your consideration.

Christian scientists and solid worldview theologians helped craft it and hundreds have endorsed it. Subscribe below to read more.

The content below was originally paywalled.

Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies

As governments consider far-reaching, costly policies to mitigate human contribution to global warming, Christian leaders need to become well informed of the scientific, economic, and ethical debates surrounding the issue.

Consistent with the findings of A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger, we believe:

1. As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Although Earth and its subsystems, including the climate system, are susceptible to some damage by ignorant or malicious human action, God’s wise design and faithful sustaining make these natural systems more likely—as confirmed by widespread scientific observation—to respond in ways that suppress and correct that damage than magnify it catastrophically.

2. Earth’s temperature naturally warms and cools cyclically throughout time, and warmer periods are typically more conducive to human thriving than colder periods.

3. While human addition of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂), to the atmosphere may slightly raise atmospheric temperatures, observational studies indicate that the climate system responds more in ways that suppress than in ways that amplify CO₂’s effect on temperature, implying a relatively small and benign rather than large and dangerous warming effect.

4. Empirical studies indicate that natural cycles outweigh human influences in producing the cycles of global warming and cooling, not only in the distant past but also recently.

5. Computer climate models, over 95% of which point toward greater warming than has been observed during the period of rapid CO₂ increase, do not justify belief that human influences have come to outweigh natural influences, or fears that human-caused warming will be large and dangerous.

6. Rising atmospheric CO₂ benefits all life on Earth by improving plant growth and crop yields, making food more abundant and affordable, helping the poor most of all.

7. Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, most of it now and in the foreseeable future provided by burning fossil fuels, which are the primary source of CO₂ emissions, is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty.

8. Mandatory reductions in CO₂ emissions, pursued to prevent dangerous global warming, would have little or no discernible impact on global temperatures, but would greatly increase the price of energy and therefore of everything else. Such policies would put more people at greater risk than the warming they are intended to prevent, because they would slow, stop, or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to adapt to all climates. They would also harm the poor more than the wealthy, and would harm them more than the small amount of warming they might prevent.

9. In developed countries, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy than others, so rising energy prices, driven by mandated shifts from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels to diffuse, expensive, intermittent “Green” energy, will in effect be regressive taxes—taxing the poor at higher rates than the rich.

10. In developing countries, billions of the poor desperately need to replace dirty, inefficient cooking and heating fuels, pollution from which causes hundreds of millions of illnesses and about 4 million premature deaths every year, mostly among women and young children. To demand that they forgo the use of inexpensive fossil fuels and depend on expensive wind, solar, and other “Green” fuels to meet that need is to condemn them to more generations of poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.

A Call to Action

In light of these facts,

1. We call on Christians to practice creation stewardship out of love for God and love for our neighbors—especially the poor.

2. We call on Christian leaders to study the issues and embrace sound scientific, economic, and ethical thinking on creation stewardship, particularly climate change.

3. We call on political leaders to abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.

For more information see www.CornwallAlliance.org