Friday, March 8, 2013

I don't believe in science!

I would like to start this post off by making a statement that you can all hold me to. I don’t believe in science but I believe in many of the findings of science based on the evidence they have presented. First I would like to start by defining science for you theists in the cheap seats.
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

The reason I bring this up is that I have heard theists accuse atheist of either “believing” in science in the same way that they believe in God, or worshiping science as if it were a god itself. There are many differences between science and religious beliefs or faith. The most significant difference is that science is belief in something based on evidence and faith is the opposite. Faith could be simply defined as belief in something as fact based on the hope that what you believe is true. In other words faith requires no evidence whatsoever just your acceptance of a belief or doctrine.

Other differences between faith and science is that science does not claim absolute certainty on most matters. Scientists are aware that in light of new evidence that many theories are subject to change, expand, or be discarded entirely. One of the best examples of this was the belief that the earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism) common in ancient Greece and other civilizations of the time. It was later discovered that the earth actually revolved around the sun and that the sun in fact was the center of our universe (heliocentrism). 

As I have demonstrated above science has never been afraid of change nor of being proven wrong on certain matters. It’s funny but I have had arguments with theists that actually saw this as a weakness of science! They would point out some of the times where science has had to change their views on some of the theories that they have proposed due to evidence to the contrary. But I personally find this to be one of sciences greatest attributes because it is willing to follow the evidence to wherever it may lead. Contrary to what many theists believe it was not easy for Darwin to publish his findings on evolution because they conflicted with the religious beliefs of the era. His wife was a devout Christian and his early discoveries were starting to show that maybe Christianity was wrong about the origin of species.

It’s ironic that Christianity as a whole makes claims of absolute truth based entirely on faith in the words of what they believe to be divinely inspired ancient texts. But it is because of these claims of certainty that their position is consistently weakened due to the advancement of undeniable scientific knowledge based on evidence. 

If anyone has ever taken the time to read some of the literature of say the ID proponents or even so called “biblical archaeology” the most glaring error that will stand out is the methodology used by its scientists. By the way I don’t consider so called science for the faith real science, its methodology reveals that it is more like pseudo-science than actual science. 

Pseudo-science: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

Most biblical archeologist based their research on the bible and begin their work not as an expedition of fact finding but in search of confirmation of what they already believe. This is known as confirmation bias and it is in my opinion one of the most obvious and greatest faults that Christian scientist (not the sect) struggle with. Their methodology is different from that of a true scientist; they seek to confirm what they already think to be true based on faith. This problem was also pointed out by the authors of ‘The Bible Unearthed’ Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

Young earth proponents and biblical archaeologists are not willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead; they seek to make the evidence fit their prescribed model of what they already believe to be true. 

Confirmation bias: is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

This is the major difference between science and pseudo-science; it is all in the methodology. Ironically, it is because of science that theism has had to change some of its doctrines to conform to the evidence. One example is the belief God created man ex-nihilo (from or out of nothing). The theory of evolution and the overwhelming evidence in its favor has led many otherwise orthodox sects of Christianity to accept evolution as a fact. But not willing to give in without a fight they now state that God used the process of evolution in creation! You just can’t win with theists they are the masters of reinterpretation and misrepresentation especially when it comes to the field of science. 

The last statement I have made in the previous paragraph can be proven by simply reading any of the books put out by creationist or ID proponents. Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology, genetics, etc. can easily see the glaring errors and misrepresentations of scientific findings within its pages.
This is my reply to the ridiculous accusations by theists regarding what atheist think or believe about science. We don’t worship science, we don’t believe in it as you believe in your God we take a look at the evidence and then come to our own conclusions. Also, not all atheists even agree on the same scientific evidence so we also tend to disagree amongst ourselves. But the one thing that all atheists do agree on is that we don’t believe in the existence of your God or gods in general.


  1. Dan Barker wrote that scientists don't hold hands every Sunday (or whatever day) and say "we believe in gravity! We believe that everything that goes up must come down!" and if they did we would think they were pretty silly. I don't know of anyone who prays to science or bows down to pictures of Carl Sagan or such. We don't kill people for not believing in evolution or that the Earth goes around the sun, we just make fun of them.

  2. If you were truly a Pentecostal Evangelist at one time then you would understand that Satan is the author of confusion. And as such you are rightfully confused. Now having said that if you had any sort or form of intelligence of the theistic nature or of just common sense in general you wouldn't lump all theists into one catagory by assuming that we all have the same view on science (granted those aren't your exact words but that is idea that you put forth) furthermore, understand that with God ALL things are possible. I will not go in to any further detail because if you have the knowledge of the holy Bible like you say you do then you can take these two phrases "Satan is the author of confusion" and "with God all things are possible" and really scrutinize them and apply them to your thoughts on science and how it subverts religion and realize the mistake you have made. Perhaps you will see the light, perhaps not.

    1. Okay, first off Satan, like your god does not exist so I don't waste my time trying to make myths a reality. "science and how it subverts religion" Science does not subvert religion it exposes it for what it is a lie and it does so inadvertently since that is not really the goal of science.

      I almost fell off my chair when I read this:"intelligence of the theistic nature" lol there is no such thing. If a theist such as yourself was intelligent he'd see the bullshit for what it is, one big lie. As far as me "seeing the light" goes I am sorry I have been there and done that and I find reality to be more educational and interesting.

  3. Except the Holey BuyBull is wrong and neither Satan, God nor the Big Jeez exist.

  4. for as long as there are sheeple there will be sheeple platitudes.
    "with god all things are possible", "Satan is the author of comfusion," "see the light" ... so trite and hackneyed. They are like a mantra that the faithfully unthinking repeat to fend off any possibility of reason breaking through, or serious thought being undertaken.

    But they are among my favs right up there with the childlike and never ending "they're in a better place now", and "god called little susie home", and "I'll pray for you", and "why are you angry at god", or my very favorite " If a Xtian hurt you at some time, I'm sorry."

    What I find fascinating is that because those platitudes are so ingrained in their drone like responses and so welcomed among their fellow sheeple they can't understand how vapid and medieval it makes them sound to normal people. One has to laugh.