Why do atheists believe that science is truth, when it can't even answer basic simple questions?

Question

Yes, if you place the authority of your beliefs on the scientific method (as most atheists do) then you are claiming that science is truth. How can science answer the questions of origins or of God's existence, when it can't even answer basic simple questions like these?

Question 1: What will be the outcome of rolling a pair of dice?

This simple physics problem is so complex that it cannot be predicted, beyond making a guess that would be equal to the guess of a small child.

Question 2: What did I eat for breakfast last Tuesday?

All perceivable evidence for this question has been completely dissolved at a molecular level. In this instance, if a small child watched me eat breakfast last Tuesday, then his testimony is completely superior to the whole of modern science.

No, I am not a particularly religious person, and I have no problem with agnosticism, but I do find atheism (the belief that science is truth and the supernatural cannot exist) to be absurd.

Answer 1

Question 1: 2 <= result <= 12
Question 2: Food or nothing at all

Therefore science is truth.

Answer 2

I'd love to answer your question, I just hope you read it.

First, Science is NOT truth. Science is a discipline that seeks to explain observations using theories that are useful. I say "useful" instead of "true", because we probably will never know what is true. But if a theory explains many things, and does not contradict any observations, it is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the truth. But as soon as we find a contradiction, we then know it to be false. You may feel that your faith hands you the truth, but science can not afford to put its trust in the supernatural. Because, how could you ever test it? What if God decides to cheat? How could we tell?

As for putting one's faith in the scientific method: personally, I don't need 100% truth. I'm content with useful theories. I know that many theories may change during my lifetime; I'm sure the theory of Relativity will change soon.

As for your two questions:
Q1. The best we could hope for is a statistical probability. Typically, any outcome has a probability of 1/12. It's not a physics problem, it's a math problem. Physics can neither simulate the entire universe nor predict the future.
Q2. I'm sure a C.S.I. team could find out a thing or two about your breakfast. Also, don't forget that a child remembering a week-old incident is not a perfect witness.

Answer 3

Atheism does not necessarily believe that science explains everything. It just means no belief in a god. Besides, science may find explanations, but the breakthroughs may not have happened yet. For instance, a thousand years ago, we had no theories involving electricity, but later, they were discovered.

Answer #1:
If each side weighs the same and has the same shape, the answer is a 1/6 chance for each die.

Answer #2:
Does the Bible tell you? If not, then why should science?

Answer 4

Science is something that can help us find the truth. We haven't found the truth about everything (and neither have religions), but science is in my opinon the most reliable "tool" that we can use in order to find the truth. Science keeps evolving, because with each scientific discovery this "tool" improves and brings us closer to the truth and makes it possible to find out even more.

And just for the record, not all atheists believe that science is the ultimate truth. Atheists don't believe in the existence of god but have different reasons for that and don't have anything else than this disbelief in god in common.

Answer 5

Atheists do not believe that science knows everything. I should know, I'm an atheist.

And your examples are just dumb. The first one obviously can't be explained by science; the best you can do is use statistics. Otherwise, casinos would have been closed by now. And the second one... I'm not sure I quite follow your logic. Sorry, learn about science, and get information on atheists (I mean, from an encyclopedia, for example), then maybe you'll be able to talk about it in a constructive way.

Answer 6

The problem with science being the sole arbier iof truth is not that science disproves God existence, but that science can say nothing about God's existence. Science is about making observations, forming hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, and then forming conclusions based on the tests. This type of truth finding is inherently bound to the physical world. Because science is bound to the physical world, it is nonsense to talk about God using science in the sense that I have described it. Science can make no statements about the supernatural world, for or against it.

When one starts to talk about God in regards to science, it is then that person steps outside the scope of science and into the scope of something else that is not science, namely theology. Theology is study of God, whether it is the study of God's existence or the denial thereof. Saying "God does not exist" or saying "There is no reason to believe God exists" are both theological statements. Science cannot make such a statement. If an atheist claims that there is no evidence for God's existence based on science, he or she is speaking nonsense in the realm of science.

If atheists want to exalt science as the sole arbiter of truth, then fine, do that. But if atheists want to start attacking religion then they are really committing to something else other than the pursuit of truth through science.

Answer 7

I am a full gospel christian, and can only say you have just touched the surface on what science cant do. 1 Tim 6:20 tells of false science (knowledge ) that opposes God and is false, to be rejected. Idont know why anyone believs all of scinece. Some is good, some is outright silly.
Its all only theory and supposition. they say that about religion. BUt there are so many things happening , Bible prophecies being rullfilled, and miracles,and many unexplainable things, except in the supernatural realm of God,that no scientist can explain. I put no weight at all in their beliefs, unless they match up with God.
If you start thinking of all science cant answer, you will write books. they say a unborn baby is not a baby. Really? if you test inside the womb before birth, you see its growing and has human dna, there fore it isnt dead. nor is it anything other than human. and they say being gay is normal,they cant help it. God says way differently and many have changed. SOme dont, cuz they dont really want it. If only one changed, that would say science is wrong. There are whole ministries devoted to just this. SO we better learn to question science or be led astray.
Good questions, keep on asking, even if you are an agnostic. If you keep asking, you will find truth. I pray that for you.

Answer 8

I am not an athiest....but I get into discussions like these. I don't think that some questions are answered by any religion. There is no way to prove anything that is told to us. There is also no way to re-create the science foundations. Which one is right? Who is right and who is wrong? It is all about belief. Don't knock someone else just because they have a different opinion than you. We are not authorized to judge people or to say who is right or wrong. Worry about your life and you might get where you are trying to go.

Answer 9

You confuse computational feasability with computability.

Given sufficient processing power and sufficient information of the starting conditions, yes, physics COULD answer both of these questions.

Whether the processing power exists to actually do so or not is another matter entirely.

----------

In fact, this is exactly how modern public-key cryptography works. It is easy to determine if a number is prime, it is much, MUCH harder, to determine the factors of any given number.

For example, let's randomly pick 39. We perform a basic seive operation on it and find 3 is a factor. It's not prime.

Now let's factor it. Square root of 39 between 6 or 7, so seven's as far as we have to go. we skip 1. 2, no. 3, yes (so divide it by 3 to get 13). We know thirteen is prime, so we pair that with three. 5, 7, no. So we now know that 39 is 1, 3, 13, 39.

Notice how many many more steps that took.

So if I take two HUGE numbers, check that they're prime (easy), then multiply them together and use that as part of my key, you'll have to factor that doubly HUGE number (computationally unfeasible).

In short, modern cryptography works by the setup being computationally easy, but the method for cracking it being computationally unfeasible.

If your argument held water -- cryptography wouldn't exist.

Answer 10

Atheism doesn't give satisfactory answers to questions like: Why are we here ? Why do we grow old and die, when there are living thing with less intelligence that live much longer. (Trees, Turtles..)
Why is the so much suffering? Is there any hope for the future?
Why is there so much order in the Universe outside human existence? Is there any purpose to life? What causes the beginning? The attemped answers are empty they don't satisfy this vast brain that we don't live long enough to full use.