What is the best way to make people understand that atheism basically has nothing to do with science?

Question

Out of the last 50 questions, at least 10 were something like "Atheist/Athiests/Athesists?!?!?! How did the universe come to existence?"

Sigh. Like all atheists are interested in science.

My basic question to all theists and atheists out there is this one: Does your absolute, complete, utter lack of knowledge on how the universe came to existence, have anything to do with your beliefs on/in/about god, gods or no gods?

Answer 1

Theists sometimes aren't able to be satisfied with, "I don't know." Some just can't seem to accept that, "I don't know," IS the answer... at least for now.

They ask science questions in an attempt to say, "Aha! You don't know, so there's a god!" When in fact, we never claimed to know.

Answer 2

Atheistic arguments for not believing in god:

To answer the question, we must concede that there are three ways to search for a truth:

1) Revelation: Truth "revealed" to us through religion (i.e. the bible)

2) Observation: Truth found through the scientific method. It stresses belief only in observable, testable theories that can never be Proven, only disproven.

3) Reasoning: the way of philosophy. It stresses logic in coming to rational conclusions from sound premises.

Now, using the three methods in relation to the question of god:

Revelation: I personally feel that I can't prescribe to the bible as an infallible power because someone said so, without any evidence or reasoning. I just don't buy it.

Observation: well, from a scientific and academic perspective, I would need testable, observable evidence for a god. Theists will point to our universe as evidence, but the problem is that there is no TESTABLE hypothesis, so the default position from a scientific method is false until repeatedly shown true (eventually becoming at least a theory).

Reasoning: From a philosophical perspective, I feel that logic has defeated the idea of an "Abrahamic" god (the god of Muslims, Jews, Christians), but this method still leaves open the door for a higher power (that I really wouldn't feel comfortable calling God) of some kind, beyond our current understanding. Unlike our scientific method, we don't have to say something doesn't exist because we can't prove it logically exists (that would be a false dichotomy, no?)

So, if atheists prescribed to the scientific method, they would be, due to lack of a testable hypothesis, forced to believe in the default position of atheism.

Science is a beautiful thing, but it is rigid tool for an equally rigid world, not designed for fluid concepts like god.

Answer 3

The two are related but science is not the defining reason why I'm an atheist. Science has supported my belief that there is no god because it offers logical and alternative theories to the "god did it" theory of religion. But religion and how crazy it is to me, is in itself a good reason to be an atheist. But yes I understand what you are saying, some people think all atheists are scientists and that we know everything about the world or even care about how such and such came into existence. So yes, science plays a big role in my atheism, but certainly not the defining factor and I'm certainly not a scientist nor do I have any plans to become one. I did like some science classes in school though.

Answer 4

First this is a rant and should be reported. Second, while the funding of scientific research can be political, the results do not have to be. That is why the system of peer review, and replicable, verifiable, and falsifiable experimentation is critical to good science. As to Evolution, you can keep ranting all the time, but you aren't changing the facts. The idea of life evolving predates Darwin. Darwin came up with natural mechanisms for evolution which pretty hold true. Yes, there has been tweaking of the mechanisms proposed by Darwin. But that doesnt challenging Darwin in the least. For more than 150 years, theist threatened by the idea of natural mechanisms for evolution have been trying to disprove it, but they have to to provide any credible evidence of something other than "Darwins Evolution". You may not like the idea that you share common descent with other primates , and humans are primates. But it is still a fact. The fact that our DNA is so similar is one piece of evidence of common descent. Our DNA should be similar wo other mammals, because we are mammals. It should be less similar to birds, reptiles, insects, amphibians, or fish. Dawkins does not represent all evolutionary biologists. So he has a political agenda. So do other people. Look at the christian fundamentalist, David Barton. He has forced undocumented changes into american history test used in public schools to make it more "christian". This is a planned movement by fundamentalists to use revisionist history to try and change the culture of the united states in the next 20 or so years so that the fundamentalists will have more control and power in government. I am much more worried about the changes Barton has made to textbooks than I am about one biologist's anti theist tracts. You should be too.

Answer 5

Atheism has a lot to do with science, since believing "Because a god did it" brings science to a halt. The two are related as well because science has disproven the bible's claims about the origins of the universe. Also, atheists do not believe that science can answer all questions about life. Anyone who says that doesn't know many atheists.

Answer 6

Yes, atheism is a philosophy, and as such, it cannot be scientifically tested. Philosophy and science are two different things; however, it can be said that atheists and agnostics are more open to science than theists. This is because we don't pretend to know what exists and what doesn't exist, so we want to find out. Simple enough, eh? It's a simple correlation; that's all. Science cannot prove atheists claims, just as it cannot prove any other philosophy's claim. Well... Any philosophy that deals with the supernatural.

Answer 7

Ouch... too many words.... and too many negatives... I'm going to have to guess...

I'd say about 60% or possibly red.


I am interested in science tho :) but I only pull out it when I'm faced with "goddidit" argumentation, it's not really the reason why I'm an atheist... I think I basically just don't have belief, and science appears to be more plausable answer to questions than an invisible sky-daddy.

That help any?

Answer 8

The problem here is that theists believe in something that they feel provides a satisfactory explanation of how the universe came into existence. The magical poof seems like an acceptable cause of the universe to them, and they seek to use the inability of atheists to explain such a massively complex subject with a pithy story as a weapon.

Answer 9

Science tells us what agents operate in nature, not what, if any, operate outside of it. Atheists have a proclivity to science because it seems to them to be a firm form of knowledge. This is not a mistake, but (to me) it seems to be limiting one's form of knowledge to strict empiricism. As a catholic I hold to science but also believe in that which is beyond the scope of the scientific and has been revealed. In this way I see science and faith/religion as completely compatible. I have good reasons to believe in God which are not scientific ones (nor could they be), but alas, that is a different matter altogether, and I have tackled it elsewhere numerous times.

There are many scientists and many intelligent people who are not atheists. So, I do agree, science does not automatically necessitate the position of atheism. No, not in the least.

Answer 10

See, atheists turn to science because its the answer to the question of: What do you think created the universe?

and honestly, some people just dont believe in anything