The Myth of Atheism and Science

[Reg]

Starting another thread for discussion with our atheist friends......


The Myth of Atheism and Science

Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific.’ In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the world—that the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for example—came from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this. {17} Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of creation and the flood. {18} And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible. {19}

17} L. Eiseley, Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Man who Discovered it (New York: Doubleday, 1969), p. 62.

18} H.M. Morris, Men of Science, Men of God (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1982).

A. Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible, ( Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1995).

19} J. Ashton, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Sydney, Australia: New Holland Publishers, 1999).

Is It Science?

Science has given us many wonderful things: men on the moon, cheap food, modern medicine, electricity, computers, and so on. All these achievements involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and there is often little room for speculation. This type of science is called process, or operational, science, and has given us many valuable advances in knowledge that have benefitted mankind.

However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical, or origins, science. When it comes to working out what happened in the past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork. The farther in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions—factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist. So, what may be presented as ‘science’ regarding the past may be little more than the scientist’s own personal world view. The conflicts between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ occur in this historical science, not in operational science. Unfortunately, the respect earned by the successes of operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectural claims arising from origins science carry the same authority.

When it comes to historical science, it is not so much the evidence in the present that is debated, but the inferences about the past. Scientists who believe the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, {20} will come to different conclusions from those who ignore the Bible. Willful denial of God’s Word #2Pe 3:3-7 lies at the root of many disagreements over ‘historical science.’

20} Ps 78:5 2Ti 3:14-17 2Pe 1:19-21. God, who inspired the Bible, has always existed, is perfect and never lies. Tit 1:2 See also Ps 119 to understand the importance of God’s Word.

[Ameen]

Starting another thread for discussion with our atheist friends.......

Who are the others? The only one I see is nolongerchristian, and he or she has not posted since I joined.

I assume from your preface that you want me to give my opinion here, Reg. I do so with a trembling hand, as I have carefully avoided a lot of threads since I am not here to cause trouble; rather, I am here to take another step in recovering from abuse at the hands of Christians. Still... As I wrote in my OCD thread, I am willing to help people here in whatever way I can, so if a counter opinion will help I will gladly supply one.

Before I start, let me be a broken record and post for the umpteenth time that I am not looking to deconvert anyone or break anyone's faith. Again, I am posting in this thread only because of the invitation at its beginning.


The Myth of Atheism and Science

Many today think that science is anti-God.


I agree here. Scientists need not be atheists, although many are; others are not. I wish I could remember where I saw the chart I am about to refer to, but it seems that biologists are the most likely of all scientists to be atheists.


Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific.’

True. But let me point out that I was able to leave my cult because I learned to evaluate its beliefs scientifically and see how unscientific and manipulative it was. Granted, I did the same for all religion (along with studying comparative religion/mythology and history) and became an atheist--but there are many others who have used scientific thinking to get out of abusive religion yet remain believers in Christianity or other religions.

That being said, I personally say that religion is unscientific and thus false. Imagine, if you will, an ancient Egyptian from the New Kingdom transported to contemporary New York City. What would such a person think of us? We can fly in our wondrous machines. We can predict great storms. We can bring back the dead (well, only sometimes--and only if they have not been 'dead' for very long in their hospital beds or when we give them mouth to mouth). We no longer need fear leprosy or bubonic plague (at least in most countries) since our medicines defeat them. I believe such a person would see us as gods and bow down to us.

Now imagine a primitive hunter-gatherer from Egypt, long before the advent of farming or cities. Ancient Egyptians had domesticated animals, metalworks, chariots and other war machines (in the New Kingdom, at least), incredible pyramids that reached to the Heavens... That hunter-gatherer would have bowed down to that New Kingdom Egyptian as a god.

Do you see what I am getting at?

In only the past twenty years technology has changed our lives considerably, and here I am sitting on my couch in New York City writing to you on the Internet. You are in Canada, yet you can read my thoughts instantly. (To that ancient Egyptian or hunter-gatherer, I have conjured the winds and allowed my mystical message to enter your thoughts. What's more, I can read and write, so, to that Egyptian, I am a scribe and thus at least of a lower priestly order. I commune with gods.)

Now show him what my high priest did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Would he think it anything less than god-like power?

Now let us consider the distant future, by which time our current technology will be considered primitive and we might be thrown in with the Middle Ages. Right now, science is only in its infancy. Just because we could not explain something in the past (the New Kingdom Egyptian who cannot comprehend the science behind a nuclear weapon, for example), it does not mean it will never be explained. Similarly, just because we cannot explain something by science today (your seahorse argument in the other thread, for example), it does not mean it will never be explained.

Historically, when something could not be explained, people gave tend it a religious interpretation. The ancients looked up at the sun, experienced childbirth, underwent natural disasters, saw their numbers decimated by disease... And they attributed these things to deities. Or ghosts. Or witches. Or...

Science today cannot tell us much about the creation of the universe--or even explain every function of the human brain. Maybe it never will. And maybe one day it will all be so simple that elementary school children will understand it. I'll never know, as I will be long dead by then. But my not being able to explain it now does not mean a god is behind it all. Nor does it mean one is not. Maybe intelligent design theory is correct. Maybe it is not. Regardless of all that, the scientific method stands regardless of how little we know in the 21st century. Science and faith are two different things. Science is material and verifiable; faith is not.



In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence.

Actually, science took root in ancient Greece and predates Christianity. Christiandom was plunged into the Dark Ages because of Christian superstition and fear. When science began to blossom again in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, it drew its roots from the ancients. Even if those Medieval and Renaissance Europeans were Christians, the first Western scientists were not--and most of them did not believe in the Greek or Roman gods either.


Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of creation and the flood.

Fear of burning for eternity will make people believe the darndest things even when there is evidence to the contrary--as all of us abused by extremist religion know. So will the fear of losing social connections and one's place in a community, although thankfully there have always been scientists who did not care what others thought of them. Slowly, generation after generation, scientists began to creep out of their Christian cocoons and examine the physical world without incorporating the non-physical world into experiments and proofs.


The farther in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions—factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist. So, what may be presented as ‘science’ regarding the past may be little more than the scientist’s own personal world view. The conflicts between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ occur in this historical science, not in operational science. Unfortunately, the respect earned by the successes of operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectural claims arising from origins science carry the same authority.

I grant you this--and, like all human beings, scientists have their biases--but a scientific proof always begins as a logical hypothesis based on evidence and prior experimentation. Then further experiments are carried out to see if the hypothesis is good. In this early stage of scientific development, we have to work with what is available to us and do our best when information is painfully missing.

There was also a time when religion condemned the notion that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and scientists who postulated otherwise using logic and evidence found themselves in mortal danger. Now it's just the creation of the universe instead of the position of the earth, and the church is trying to silence science again. How many places even in the U.S. do not allow evolution to be taught in high school, and this at a time when the U.S. is falling behind other nations in science?

In reason,

Ameen

[Spiny Norman]

David Berlinski's latest book "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" is a rather amusing read. He is very polemical and has a wonderful turn of phrase. The title, presumably in response to Dawkins' recent "The God Delusion", is even amusing, given that Berlinski claims to be an agnostic and "a secular Jew". Anyway, if you're the sort of person that occasionally enjoys someone serving it up to the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens, well worth a read.

[Reg]

Just received this from one of my friends. Love the logic. It makes a very good argument.

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
Prof. 'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right.. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
' yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'
'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the s tudent in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed..
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. ' Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down. If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs Science'

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

[Jerry]

Hahahahaha,,,,,,,,good post Reg :D

[jimsmuse]

Fantabulous!! There it is!!!!!!

[Voyager]

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

I did a search to find out what Einstein's religious views were, and here is what Wikipedia says:

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." He is reported to have said in a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

:cool:

[JaniceB]

I agree it's a good story and I appreciate the logic--not that logic can bring us to faith. However, as Voyager points out the famous physicist Albert Einstein was not a Christian.

I just read his biography (something like 600 pages) and he would at times when required refer to himself as "Mosaic" simply because he didn't want to say he was of the Jewish faith. Not because of prejudice but because he didn't agree with Judaism.

He did indeed have faith in a god but it was an uninvolved God--not one that would give his son to save sinners. His faith was reinforced by order and the lack of miracles.

Maybe this was another guy named Albert Einstein.

[Reg]

I did a search to find out what Einstein's religious views were, and here is what Wikipedia says:

....."My position concerning God is that of an agnostic......

:cool:
This is common knowledge that he was an agnostic. He was also a pragmatist. That is why what he wrote was astounding in that light. He was not a full-blown atheist as they would have you believe.

Here is what he said about Jesus...

Jesus

The following comes from "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17. The questions are posed by Viereck; the reply to each is by Einstein. Since the interview was conducted in Berlin and both Viereck and Einstein had German as their mother tongue, the interview was likely conducted in German and then translated into English by Viereck.

Some portions of this interview might seem questionable, but this portion of the interview was explicitly confirmed by Einstein. When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe."

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

"Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets."

"No man," Einstein replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he."