Why do angry atheists assume that believers don't believe in Science?

Question

I believe in evolution, cause and effect and I accept most of the mainstream theories of theoretical physics just as much as any scientist. I also believe that intelligent design is a possibility. How does evolution disprove God?
Most of the out spoken atheist have a knee jerk reaction to that theory. They also claim they believe in science but most physists actually believe in God or are agnostics. The angry atheist also claim science uses verifiable facts. That's wrong. Parallel universe, multiple dimension and most of quantum physics theories haven't been proven except through reason. There is also reason behind intelligent design. The big one is 'we're here'. I'm tired of the Angry atheist kindergarten arguments for why they don’t believe in the possibility of God. Grow up. Comparing leprechauns and Santa clause to a god that created the universe?

peter k. You have hair growing out of your ears because of genes and hormones. Maybe it's also why you dont think.

why do character in movies do so many stupid thinks and get themselves into such crazy situations? Because the writer wanted it that way.

madhukar maybe Einstein and Newton didn't fight because Einstein was born about a hundred years after Newton died.

entropy-rythm. Suspension of reason (faith) is another assumption atheists make. I have never given up on reason. I never would have finished college or been able to do my jobs in science if I had. Also, Everyone has faith. Everytime you get in your car you are having faith that your brakes wont give out.

every scientist has faith that their collegues results are corrects. They wouldn't be able to continue their research if they were checking all the thousands of others research.

Answer 1

I think that it is just a condescending way of implying that only stupid and uneducated people believe in a god of some sort.

It appears that some atheists think that science disproves or debunks religion, and for them, science becomes a religion substitute, as it were. At least some atheists can be just as dogmatic and stubborn about their assertions concerning religion and human nature as any hard headed religious person, but being stubborn, they cannot see that.

Science and religion are really two different spheres; science investigates the creation, while religion ponders the creator. In most Western religions, at least, God and the material universe are two different things, so the study of one does not imply anything directly about the study of the other.

Many Christian scientists and philosophers have noted that it is impossible to have had any kind of science without an implicit assumption that the universe COULD be understood. We forget how big a leap of logic that was. Why should nature follow mathematical laws? We assumed that nature was designed by a rational mind that just so happened to think similar to the way that we do, so we assumed that nature COULD be understood by mere mortals and went to work on discovering nature's laws. Those who say that Greek rationalism alone gave rise to modern science ignore the obvious historical fact that it did not. Hero developed the first steam engine, but it did not give rise to an ancient industrial revolution, for example. Modern science and technology developed in the West only after Christian and Classical Greek though mingled in the Renaissance. People who claim that science could exist apart from the Christian world view, or that Christianity is harmful to science, must explain the fact that modern science and technology emerged in the Christian west first, not somewhere else in the world (even though we borrowed bits and pieces pf knowledge from other places, Europeans put it all together).

"How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture" by Francis A. Schaeffer

Answer 2

The best answer I can give is quoted by Richard Feynman. Its not verbatim but please understand the message.
Consider that you are watching a game of chess for the first time and you dont know the rules. What do u do? how do u try and understand the game?
The answer is that you observe. then you find patterns in the game. for instance you observe that each time the bishop moves diagonally and hence you conclude that the bishop has a property of moving diagonally.
The universe and physics is just like watching a giant game of chess or football (for that matter) without knowing the rules. the best anyone can do is to observe and deduce using logic and mathematics.
beliving in God is a bit more direct. the principle of beliving in God is to have faith suspending logic and this somehow offends the followers of science. Faith somehow implies non thinking and therefore a complete negation of a logical theory.
But you are right if science has not proved that God exists then it has not proved that God dosnt exist as well. :)

Answer 3

I am also a Christian who believes in God. I also believe in evolution to an extent. Note that evolution does not answer questions about the origin of the universe. I agree that the design of the universe was by an Intelligent being, but "intelligent design" is not science. That's the main problem scientists have with it. And the proponents of intelligent design are wasting their time trying to prove that it is a valid scientific theory. It is not. But it does not have to be scientific to be true. Science does not deal with truth, only observable facts. And even those observations are subject to interpretation.

Answer 4

In addition to what "Lisa S" said above, the only real argument against the philosophy of "intelligent design" is that the universe is imperfect, and could be better, so it could not have been purposefully designed. If you think about that for a minute, you can see why that is a flawed rebuttal. Your car is not perfect, but it was purposefully designed by an intelligent person none-the-less.

Answer 5

Because anger makes man insane whether atheists or believers. Your statement qpplies equally to all angry men.

However, I would like to add a few points in favour of atheists who believe in science.

Scientists are always open to anyone proving them wrong and will sportingly accept. Has anyone heard that the followers of Newton and of Einstein fought a battle on an issue? But unfortunately followers of different religions fight in the name of God. Can anyone explain this difference ?

Newton's laws are accepted by all scientists, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Budhhists.

Answer 6

Those "Atheists" that you refer to are not "true" Atheist; more likely they are pragmatists.
This is a "True Atheist" argument:
The evolution neither prove or disprove that God existed
Quantum theories always presume that if one reality is possible, another reality must also be possible
Therefore, if you can believe that God need no creator, surely you can also believe that the Universe need no creator. If you insist that the Universe MUST have a creator then you should also insist that God MUST have a creator.

Answer 7

Because atheist scientists make Science their god. Also alot of them are materialistic.
It's the very nature of "atheism" that's the cause and effect:their opposers to god.

Answer 8

I'm an engineer doing HVAC research. I've discovered that the more 'science' I learn, the more there must be a God. I've also discovered in my personal life that the more firmly I believe and trust in God, the better my life has become.

Answer 9

Why do other Christians think that I am not a good Christian, just because I am a scientist?

I can sing in the chior, visit the elderly, give to the poor, attend services, and more and still work to help out God's world and teach.

Answer 10

Intelligent design is an oxymoron. Look around you, do you really think you, me, us, them, the universe was designed intelligently?

People who espouse intelligent design are unable to go beyond the intuition stage of reason. That is, they hold science up to proving it (whatever it is), but do not hold themselves up to the same standard. And it's this double standard that makes thinking people skeptical...not angry, but skeptical.

God was invented to explain gaps in science, the stuff mankind cannot explain on its own. As those gaps get fewer, the need for a god force does not diminish commensurately because the gaps that remain are the deeper ones in mankind's inability to explain them. That is, the remaining gaps are those we are unlikely to ever fill in with science.

PS: To Randy, there was intelligent design in building your car, but by a less than perfect set of beings. God is supposed to be perfect in every way; yet the universe she designed, using your own logic, is less than perfect.