Judeo-Christian isn’t.

“Judeo-Christian,” there’s a bullshit phrase. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Yes Christianity branched out of Judaism, but there is a very important separation: Jesus and the New Testament. What irks me the most about this term is the implied alliance of Jews and Christians. Christian love for Jews (finally after centuries of persecution, torture, and systematic mass genocide) is disingenuous to the extreme.

The only reason why Christians claim to suddenly love Jews so much is simply because they think they need them in order for Jesus to return, at which point all the Jews will be killed and sent to hell, along with everybody else. Jews, wake up! They’re using you! They’re not really your friends!

On second thought, perhaps this mendacious relationship is beneficial to the Jews. They know the Christians are full of it, but hey!, at least they aren’t putting us in gas chambers and instead are giving us weapons with which to oppress and murder Palestinians!

Which brings me to my other point of contention with the term “Judeo-Christian,”: Islam.

What about Islam? Islam is the corrective of Christianity, just as Christianity is the corrective of Judaism. All three of them are similar in that they are the “Abrahamic faiths.” A more correct term would be the “Judaic-Christian-Islamic” religion. (And if that sounds absurd to you, that’s exactly how I feel about “Judeo-Christian”)

Why cut Islam out of a family it has just as much right to claim to be part of? Simple: Christianity is threatened by Islam in a way it is not threatened by Judaism (because they’ve exterminated most of the Jews), and the Jews that are left are concentrated in a state that they can flood with weapons and cash in order to fight a proxy war with Islam. Simple as that. Jews don’t mind because they get weapons to shoot Muslims, and Christians don’t mind because the Jews will help keep the holy land safe for them until Jesus comes back and kills them all. It’s win win!

The difference between science and religion

There is a fundamental difference in the ways science and religion operate. For religion, something just is. That’s it. Either you believe X and the religion or you do not. There is no testing or experimenting with the religion or it’s claims. Now sure there are doctrinal debates and the theologians who have them, but in the end it’s still just another flavor of X which the believe must accept to be part of the faith.

Science, on the otherhand, works in the opposite way. Every statement about how something is must be backed up with evidence, evidence that is testable over and over again.

Religion and science both try and provide answers about existence. I think there is an issue with the way science and religion give these answers. Religion gives answers with an attitude of smug, absolute certainty. The answers, whatever they are, are definite and unchanging.

Science gives answers that have an asterisk on the end with a note saying “subject to change if new and compelling evidence is found.” This makes science very fluid, open to revision. Scientists in no way claim they have all the answers. Unlike religion, science welcomes questions. If a scientist has their hypothesis proved wrong, it is just as exciting for them as if it had been proved correct. To them and advance in either direction is still an advance.

But I think this upsets people who are looking for absolute answers. They see science and they see uncertainty, where as when they look at religion they see absolute certainty. A lot of people don’t like uncertainty in their lives. They like to know what is going to happen. Yet it is a false certainty that they have. People have been certain about a great many things since the dawn of time, but that never made them correct in those certainties.

Look at the track records of science and religion. Religion’s entire history is a history of making “matter of fact” statements on just about everything, only to have science come along (relatively recently) and slowly, but steadily, prove many of religion’s “certainties” wrong. The first example of this was when Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the solar system as the bible said. (He was later convicted of heresy and imprisoned under house arrest for the rest of his life and his works banned by the church)

Given these track records, which one would you rather put your “faith” in? Religion and it’s smug (and misplaced) sense of superiority and absolute certainty? Or science, and its humble skepticism, where ideas are open to debate and experimentation in an atmosphere of free inquiry?