Atheist, A question about science?

Question

I have read many answers to questions where many atheist express that just because they are atheist does not mean they have to be an expert in science, even though they put their trust in it. They believe in scientific discoveries and theories, even if they really don't understand them...is this correct?

Answer 1

Atheism is the disbelief in any god. That is it. You don't have to know a thing about science to get there.

Answer 2

I don't think "believe" is the proper term to use in this case. It would usually be more accurate to say they accept the scientific explanations as the most likely explanation. I doubt that any atheist would somehow just decide that any scientific concept is somehow inherently and divinely correct. Most atheists would probably like to at least know some basic information about a given theory before declaring any sort of personal "dedication" to it.

In general, most atheists are not going to be terribly concerned about the validity of any scientific concept unless it somehow has a direct impact on them somehow. If a scientific concept does become important to them, they will probably go read up on it and take a look at the evidence that has been accumulated that supports or refutes the idea.

Atheists tend not to be foolish enough to just take things on faith if those things become somehow important in their lives.

Answer 3

I do not believe in god and carry this choice with me each day of my life. I believe in the world around me and those who manipulate it to different ends. When it comes to science I have to accept the fact that it is quite unreachable to the layperson. This is just the way it is. I trust those involved in the sciences because they occupy the same space and time I do. I can also see the results of their work in everyday life - from the car I drive to work, to the technology I see around me, to the innovations in cancer and other medical research.

Even though I do not understand what many scientists are doing at the theoretic level, I can at least make an attempt to grasp what they are doing. Unlike god whom appears to be nowhere all the time, I cannot grasp a single thing. Therefore I will concentrate on what is here, what is now, and what is going on. I trust those who have been endowed with the mental and intelligent abilities to do what they do in the sciences. I only hope they do it well and for our benefit as a whole.

As a side note, I don't know any Christian who is an "expert" in their bible. That is, one who knows written and spoken Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. As well, I cannot find any Christian who is completely versed in the setting of which their bible was written and all the redactical nuances of their inspired book. Furthermore, I know of no Christian who has actually met Jesus face-to-face to verify his savior status for all mankind. Yet people still choose to be Christians. With this in mind I suppose you can be rather ignorant as a believer but still get by.

Answer 4

It may be correct in part. A scientific theory is, usually by the time it gets to public dissemination, well documented by several scientists and backed at least in part by hard facts. Religion - creationism as an example, is nothing more than "I believe this" with virtually nothing to back it up. And as far as the bible as support, the bible has been proven to have been written by people some 325 years after the fact writing about what they have no knowledge of. Also, is has been proven that the bible was a political tool to consolodate an empire. Yet the "I believe" people continue to say that it is the word of god regardless of facts, which may be why they refuse to accept scientific facts.

Answer 5

The difference between science and religion is that science can be shown to be correct, time and time again, in controlled circumstances. You do not need to understand the machinations of e=mc2 to know that it is correct. Religion, on the other hand, is little more than medieval claptrap concocted by illiterate primitives which has been hijacked by the self-righteous, the cynical and the downright evil in order to control the uneducated masses and to further their own nefarious agendas. It has no logical bearing and not even the slightest bit of it can be shown to be remotely true. Anybody who believes in a religious doctrine because a priest/iman/rabbi or evangelical tv preacher has told them so is not only a fool, but is a dangerous liability to the advancement of the human race per se.

Answer 6

One doesn't have to be an expert in science to believe in Science. If you've ever ridden on an airplane, I rather suspect that you believe that the science (Bernouilli's law) that keeps the airplane aloft is accurate--I don't think even you believe the plane is kept aloft by the hand of god. Science is accepted because the methodology of Science tells us that discoveries and theories are born of observation--and can be reproduced by any other indendent scientist. Science is a search for truth. Lies and false hypothesis rarely last long in the Sciences--that dreaded indendant researcher that's unable to reproduce the same results assures that. There is less dishonesty in the Sciences than in religion.

Answer 7

Yes, because science (when it's done right) is self-correcting. If a scientist makes a discovery based on his experiments, he submits his study for peer review. Other experts in the field might see errors in how the study was done (maybe the sample population wasn't big enough, for example).

If it was done right, the results are published, and more experts get to review it. Some will conduct the experiments themselves. If they don't get the same results, they will try to figure out why.

Answer 8

Whenever I answers these questions I always end up like the 58th person to answer, so I doubt anyone is reading this at this point, but nonetheless, scientists don't just sit around making up theories because they feel like it, or they sound neat. Although I may not be an expert in science, I do know the process in which scientists use to test their hypothesis, being the scientific method. I put my trust in that.

Answer 9

Atheists don't believe in any deity. Basic atheism has nothing to do with science. However, it is not uncommon for atheists to have more faith in science than religion. After all, the proof of scientific theories are clearly observable every day. God is not.

I still believe, however, that any lack of belief in God beyond agnosticism (IOW, not saying "I don't know," but saying "There is no God), takes faith. This really isn't something that theists can impugn, for obvious reasons. Especially in consideration of the fact that atheism relies on tangibles and observable evidence (or lack thereof), even if some atheism requires that final push of faith.

~atheist~

Answer 10

For most of us that is true.
If I had the brain power to understand most of the sciences I would be very busy collecting Nobel prizes.

However I do understand how the scientific process works and what controls are in place to eliminate the charlatans.

Science is not a faith or religion if that is where you are trying to go with your question.
Science is the antithesis of faith.

Science does not claim to have the final answer to anything. It claims only to have better questions and improved explanations for them.

Science vs Faith, by Wellington Grey
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

Answer 11

Yes. And I agree this is a problem---using scientific "results", without understanding where they came from, why they're thought to be true, and the experimental limitations on their veracity, is not a good thing. But everyone who cares enough can learn these things---they are available in the scientific literature.

To accept the word of scientists is just an "argument from authority". Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the argument is wrong---most scientists have a high degree of integrity.