Why do so many Atheists say they base their beliefs on science?

Question

No matter how advanced science gets, it could not instruct you in moral ways. Science is amoral. Saying you base your beliefs on science is like saying you base your beliefs on medicine isn't it? It could help you in the hospital but do nothing to make you a good person. Science simply cannot take the place of religion because religion is about morality, something irrelevant to science. Am I ignorant or is this a just point? People say that Science is factual but religion is not, but since Geometry is factual does that mean that Geometry makes religion obsolete? None of those academic fields makes religion obsolete.

Answer 1

Not a just point... since Atheists base the existance of God on scientific methods. Empirical evidence. They aren't replacing religion with science.... they don't worship science, they don't tell you that some form of punishment will happen if you don't believe in science (of course, they will make fun of you if you say you don't believe in science, but I think a lot of Theists would as well).

But, something I do find odd is how some Atheists stand up for Science the same way some Theists stand up for their Religion...... the odd thing is, there are fields in science that are looking into these matters (spiritual, etc....) yet the Atheists who are adamant about Science refuse to recognize those as scientific fields. So I guess they aren't any better off than the Theists who rely solely on Theological writings of their personal Religion and take no heed of other writings, etc....

Answer 2

1) Humans are born atheists. My scientific beliefs have nothing to do with not believing in god. I just find the concept of god absurd, repulsive, and detrimental to our progress as a species, therefore I don't subscribe to it.

2) Science studies the natural world, of which humans are a part. Ever hear of something called sociology?

3) Religion is not obsolete so much as it is unnecessary as a means for explaining how humans got here, how we acquired intelligence, why we behave the way we do, how the universe was formed, and so on. Religion can't even begin to approach the inroads science has made in answering these questions because the only answers religion offers are, "because god did it, or because god said it is so." These are insulting answers to an intelligent species.

4) Religion has NEVER provided a fair or practical doctrine of morals or ethics for all of mankind because it is PREJUDICED. Science is without prejudice, so any human, of any heritage, anywhere on earth, at any time, can accept scientific answers without feeling diminished in any way. Geometry is true for Arabs the same as it is true for Americans.

5) Science should be amoral, but that doesn't mean science can't observe the psycho-social causes behind unethical and amoral behavior (ex. mob mentality, addiction, etc), and offer explanations as to why people behave those ways. Those explanations can help us to avoid future mistakes, and become better people.

Answer 3

Not true. The more we learn about humans through biology, psychology, sociology and the other human sciences the more we can base our morality upon solid evidence and not superstition.

For instance, the bible really has it in for woman. All sorts of limitations on them. Hence the refusal of many to accept female priests. However the sciences have shown that in all aspects save for reproduction there is only 10% difference between mails and females on average. So now we have a moral base to reject the age old and church supported subjugation of woman.

It was also the work done by Fruid and co. which stopped those with psychological problems from being labiled as evil

Answer 4

Um .... I am not an atheist, but I'm also not a liar, and I can reason.

science and religion both have nothing to do with morality.

Want proof? 200 years ago slavery was regarded as morally acceptable virtually everywhere in the world. This was a moral position FULLY SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE and in all other Abramic scriptures. Today slavery is regarded as morally wrong virtually everywhere in the world (although it is STILL fully supported in the Bible and all other Abramic scriptures).

Want some more proof? In Biblical times genocide was considered completely morally correct if those you were killing were not of "the people" (another words if they were different). If you do the slightest bit of research you can find several genocides commanded by "God" (actually of course by priests using God as a foil) in the old testament of the Christian Bible (the Torah if you are Jewish). If you don't want to do the bit of research, go to the site I maintain (listed in my signature block) and read the three sections of text under "Bible" in the left hand menu. Today we consider the use of genocide an unimaginable abomination.

Want a third bit of proof? God accepts a human sacrifice in the Bible [Judges 11:30-39] --- something which evidently was thought of as completely moral, since God already asserted that he had a right to first born human children as sacrifices (For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. [Exodus 22:29]) -- but which is totally and rightfully repugnant to modern man.

I could go on with this, Biblical morality is a horrific construct that we have long outgrown, and good for us.

Morality is based on social normatives within a given society, no matter how much it would make you or others feel better to have it be "forever" based on the will of God.

I hope that is helpful.

Kind thoughts,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 5

Science is a better guide to moral reasoning than religion is.

Many and probably most of the major moral issues of the day have to do with people's knowledge of the world around them. Notice that the conservative religious stances on things like abortion, animal rights, and end-of-life issues tend to be grounded in claims about "souls". If the people holding those positions understood properly that there is no such thing as a "soul", they would lose the basis for their stance.

Similarly, many attitudes about crime and punishment assume that there simply are good people and bad people, and that crimes are committed by inherently bad people who freely chose to commit those crimes. If people understood the role of environment/situation in people's behaviors, we could behave more effectively - and morally - with respect to crime and punishment. Obviously that applies as well to the war in Iraq.

Conclusion: science has a lot to say about morality, and religion is simply getting in the way.

Even if science were not helpful in resolving moral disputes, religion doesn't seem to do anything either. Religion asserts morals, it doesn't help one to reason about morality. Frankly, I don't care at all what the Bible says about how to behave in a particular situation, even in the rare case in which it might make a clear statement, and I have never heard a good argument that I should care. Same with the Torah or the Koran.

If you choose to care about that, you have chosen a particular moral stance, but you haven't done anything to establish the morality of that stance. When, as is so often the case, you then fabricate supposed "scientific facts" to support that stance (e.g., that "science proves that it's a human being from conception") you haven't done anything more than assert your will and then lie in order to try to coerce others. That's not morality, in my book.

Answer 6

You are telling us that you are completely unaware of the field of cognitive and neuro-science. Though science may not be able to tell us in many cased what is most moral, I can certainly help us understand what would be more moral.

Think about what you're saying. If religion guided us to be moral, why would most cultures around the world (religious or not) have basically the same moral codes?

The answer lies in our Biology (a scientific subject).

If you wish to discuss this in greater detail, you may write to me.

Answer 7

I think you're misunderstanding. They just put a higher stock in science then religious texts, because science has been tested so many times. If a religion goes against science they most likely will feel it is illogical. They do not get their morality from science, morality is fairly common sense- even the Bible's version of it could be understood by a small child.

Answer 8

Because we love truth. Who says we get morals from science? That's a strawman argument. No, science and medicine are not the same at all.

Religion is already obsolete, though it's hanging in there. It's kind'a like a Pentium III processor in today's Core 2 world...

Answer 9

First, religion is NOT about morality per se. Religion is about "spirituality," which tends to inform our morality. Hence for the "Christian," morality is defined as "that behavior which gets us into heaven when we die." Hence the Christian cannot conceive of anybody being moral without this elaborate system of supernatural threats and rewards; hence they are the ones who are truly "amoral," since they have to justify morality with reference to irrelevant imaginary ideas.

Second, when (and if) atheists say they "base their beliefs on science," they probably mean their "beliefs" about the physical universe! That is, they believe (e.g.) that the universe is older than 6,000 years, based on the accumulated evidence of every branch of legitimate science. This as against the "religious" belief that Genesis is to be taken as literal history. The one represents an informed consideration of the facts at our disposal, accounting for every known source of error and accomodating new information as it comes; the other represents blind acceptance of tradition without condescending to think at all.

Answer 10

Morality comes from your social and biological evolution. Science doesn't make philosophy obsolete, but it sure has been disagreeing with the old texts a lot in the past 500 years or so. So it rather does mean that they aren't the word of God and that does make them obsolete.