Science and Atheism

Science and Atheism. Randall Niles responds to the critics, cynics, and skeptics who want the scientific world to exist exclusive of philosophical or theological inquiry.

Science is fact. Science has no motivation other than universal truth. Scientists share a common bond of unbiased examination and interpretation of the natural laws and factual evidence available to all of us. Science is immune from the philosophies, religions, politics, and presuppositions of those who call science their profession.

Yeah, right Actually, Ive found that science is no different than any other professional discipline, including my own law and jurisprudence. Like everything else in this world, science is affected by the doctrines and dogmas of the scientists within the culture of the day.

For example, the conflict between God and Science is not historical. Many great scientists of the past were believers in God (Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Pascal the list is huge). But what happened? Many practitioners of the 19th and 20th centuries started to view science and technology as their religion Everything was being explained by man and his tools, so God was no longer needed.

But now, many would argue that the trend to exclude God from science is reversing again. Since Einstein, we have established the finite nature of time and space. Scientific evidence for universal fine-tuning, order, and design is expanding rapidly. The purely naturalistic/materialistic theories of cosmic, stellar, planetary, chemical, inorganic, and biological origins are in question at the highest levels of academia. Since the COBE satellite and Hubble telescope observations of the 1990s, atheistic and agnostic scientists like Hawking, Turner and Frenk are reconsidering the existence of God like never before.

So why doesnt the mainstream press report on all of this? Why doesnt the public education system address the baseless claims and proven frauds in its textbooks? Hmmmm It seems to me that when science touches on things of life, origin, purpose, or meaning, scientists (like others) will entrench themselves in bad (yet somehow comfortable) theories.

Im not pointing to some hidden conspiracy here. But I will point out the entrenched presupposition that science must somehow explain everything through natural mechanisms only even when science itself is revealing this shortcoming. Why does science have to be defined as a discipline that cannot include supernatural questions and explanations?

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
-- Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, Jan. 1997, p. 31.

By definition, Science has declared itself biased because it wont look at all the possible evidence. Although there are exceptions, Science is not generally a search for truth, as we are taught to believe. Science is a high-stakes game, in which scientists try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the universe and all thats in it. The popular premise is that Science is unbiased fact with universal motivations for truth. Time and time again, I have discovered otherwise.

Visit http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm to further explore the philosophical implications of scientific discovery.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos exploring Science and Atheism.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Science
• Atheism
• Theology
• Philosophy
• Randall Niles
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Atheist
• God
• You Tube
• Video

[arizonaviking]

"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead." Aristole

[OMSMDO]

Similarily, one can demand answers for how God existed in the first place if your approach is 'everyone must have been created'...,however, science has proven the bible to be false several times therefore the foundation of that theory loses its credibility,, we can't fill scientific gaps and questions with an unreliable theory that's based on nothing but history

[ofosusam]

Pathetic. This clown needs to go back to high school. Your answers can be found by studying the subjects. Those that have not can be found by people conducting reseaerch, including yourself. By the way how do you prove your gods. What is the cause that caused god, and who caused that? a grand daddy god? So you see why we think you are stupid? Give us evidence. Period. if you dont have any say so.

[SpankThatTushy]

i really didn't like how you started your video, acting like a victim

I'm not sure why you regard life as being more special than non-life

there might be some god like creature doing all this. but then you have to explain where god came from and there you have whats known as an infinite regress which is a logical fallacy. if you've arrived at a fallacious conclusion you then must stop using that as an argument if intellectual honesty is something that you value.

[Rdchannels]

Saying 'everything just simply happens' and cataloging the functioning process does little to answer the origin of programmed information

[Rdchannels]

Change over time is not in question, rather the origin of information. The  effects of intelligence as well as the existence of human intelligence has not been proven to be result of mindlessness.

[Rdchannels]

Presupposing all phenomena occur 'naturally' or self assemble is concluding atheistic assumptions from the start.

[Rdchannels]

Naturalism hijacked science in the 17th century and 21st century science has moved beyond preassuming everything occurs and appears naturally

[SlykRyk666]

I guess you just can't rap your head around the idea that just because some questions are unanswered doesn't mean god exists. It doesn't mean anything more than we just do not know yet. And until we do we don't pretend to have a supernatural catch all answer. Simple as that...

[theclarinet1234]

No wonder you find that scientists are condescending to you. You are worthy of condescension! You assert so many things that are simply incorrect. Take a course or too in molecular biology! Read some books on evolution. The things you say are unanswered are fully answered! You simply don't know what you're talking about and your credibility is ZERO.

[apdiddle]

@GrifsRiffs The site is gotquestions . org and search for "What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus?". This site might change your view on the example you have provided. It def made me think because i never thought of what you said. Please feel free to let me know what you think no matter what it is. If it is another topic i do not know how to answer I will seek for one again! Good luck my friend!