No God, No Science
By: Laura Hollis
No God, no science is exactly right. This article is so right on about the relationship between God and science. It is the intolerant atheist and militant secularists who are truly anti science and closed minded. Their intolerance of those that believe that God exists and He’s the ultimate source of all knowledge and science is clearly visible in today’s society to our detriment and shame.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Researchers have noted a substantial decline in religious belief in the United States in recent years. By way of example, according to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who identified as Christian declined by 12% just between 2009 to 2019, and the number who identified as Protestant declined by 8%. Pew notes some similar trends playing out among American Jews. While large numbers identify with and/or participate in various aspects of Jewish culture , smaller numbers identify with Jewish religious belief . More than a quarter of adult Jews in the United States define their religious belief as “atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular’ rather than as Jewish.” In the 18-30 age group of American Jews, fully 40% describe themselves that way.
Across religious denominations, there is a strong correlation between higher levels of education and lower levels of religious belief. It is perhaps not mere coincidence, therefore, that there has been a growing cultural perception that faith in God is inconsistent with a society dedicated to intellectual rigor and scientific pursuit.
Such a perception is demonstrably false.
History is filled with great scientists who were also religious believers of one sort of another: Brahmagupta , Rhazes , Copernicus , Galileo , Isaac Newton , Gregor Mendel , Albert Einstein , Francis Collins . Nobel Physicists Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg wrote frequently in support of the complementarity of science and religious belief.
Belief that religious faith and scientific pursuit are incompatible is not only false; it is dangerous. When such a viewpoint is widespread, it leaves society vulnerable to deceit and manipulation.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a good example. For the past year-plus, we’ve heard the cry “Trust science!” Yet the “science” of COVID-19 has been inconsistent (e.g., the effectiveness of masks in preventing transmission of a virus that ranges from 50 nanometers to 140 nanometers ) or unknown (will there be long-term side effects from a vaccine used under emergency authorization ?). In some cases, scientific evidence has even been denied (the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19) when it ran afoul of certain people’s political objectives.
In fact, “Trust science!” is itself something of a mischaracterization. The scientific method is a process of inquiry . It includes hypotheses, experimentation, attempted explanations for failure, new hypotheses and so on. Researchers all over the world -- many with conflicting theories -- engage in these processes; publish and present their findings; and defend them before bodies of their peers and the world at large. Scientific “consensus” can take years to build -- and a single discovery can overturn it.
This method is a search for truth. It rests on the underlying assumption that truth exists and can be ascertained, and it depends upon constant engagement and vigorous challenges, including strong opposition.
Belief in ascertainable truth is completely compatible with belief in a Being that is the source of that truth. And while people can and do debate the identity and nature of that Being, the belief in a source of penultimate truth provides those who disagree on that point with a framework for argument -- and at some point, agreement.
Contrary to those who claim that faith in God is an anti-intellectual delusion, the refusal to acknowledge a source of absolute truth ultimately results in the abolition of belief in absolute truth. In other words, a world without God is not merely one where science can run rampant and unfettered by moral constraints; it is a world where science will ultimately hold no sway at all.
We have already seen this with abortion. Prior to the advent of ultrasound, it was easier for abortion advocates to argue that the child developing in utero was “just a clump of cells.” Other advancements in medical science have made it possible to surgically treat gestating children and aid in the survival of babies born pre-term. Science and modern technology have made the humanity and distinct individuality of the unborn child clear. And yet, abortion practitioners and activists continue to defend abortion -- even for viable, full-term unborn babies.
So, too, it is now with transgender issues. Human beings are biologically, genetically, chromosomally male or female from the moment of conception. Neither surgery nor pharmaceuticals can change that scientific fact. But today, when a man claims to be a woman or vice versa, science must give way to personal feelings, and evidence is jettisoned in favor of terms to describe a newly created portfolio of “genders.” The kind of dialectic associated with the scientific method is verboten . No questions, no arguments, no contrary displays of evidence are permitted. Anyone who attempts these -- including serious scholars -- will find themselves denounced, fired, banished, canceled.
It is not just the sciences that are threatened by a society that abandons God. Other valued societal principles such as representative democracy, equality, individual liberty, due process and freedom of conscience depend upon a belief in truth and falsity, right and wrong.
Without that belief, those principles, too, are expendable: Free speech doesn’t matter; democracy doesn’t matter; election integrity doesn’t matter; consistency doesn’t matter; hypocrisy doesn’t matter.
What matters is popularity. What matters is politics. What matters is power.
That’s why what’s proclaimed to be “true” today can change with the whims of the crowd, like swirling schools of fish. It’s why traditional media, academic publishers and big-tech megacorporations can swear up and down that they “believe science” and “support democracy” but simultaneously silence and ban anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, even when those people are asking serious questions, even when they have facts, evidence and -- yes -- science in support of their positions.
This isn’t truth, and it isn’t science.
We need not all be people of faith. But civilized society depends upon a critical mass of people -- whether intellectually secure believers, sincerely questioning agnostics or dispassionate atheists -- who defend the existence of truth and are open to its acquisition, even from sources that challenge our thinking.
Tags
Who is online
269 visitors
Since science cannot prove the existence of God, I would say the article is full of shyte.
Religion cannot compete with science, so what I see here is the religious folks trying to pull science onto their side. "If you cannot beat them, join them", attitude.
I think it more accurate to say that religion doesn't compete with science. Of course there are those out there who attempt to do so, but they are trying to use a wrench as a screwdriver, in my opinion.
Like the YECs and the Intelligent Design advocates and those who deny evolution and insist on creation.
I have something that touches on that a little.
First of all, nobody here that I see rules out the possibility of a sentient creator. Certainly not me since I routinely note that a sentient creator remains a possibility. This has been explained to you repeatedly; what is the problem comprehending this?
Second, the probability of a sentient creator is incalculable. Do you understand the difference between possibility and probability? Look it up.
In short, your comment is nonsensical.
It's anti science to rule out an established scientific theory like evolution in favor of ID based on nothing more than personal belief or feeling. It comes down to the evidence, for which there is none to support ID or a creator.
The evidence suggests that all of reality is a consequence of what appears to be random interactions of a high variety of particles and forces with very distinct properties. The reality that we know is an emergent property of these interactions.
These may have been all set into motion by a sentience. They may be simply unguided. Nobody knows.
However, the notion that everything starts with the most complex possible entity has zero supporting evidence and requires a major leap of faith. Never will the believer answer the question of how the most complex, powerful, sentient entity just happens to exist. It is simply stated as if true.
Until there is evidence to suggest some kind of purposeful design and needed intervention or manipulation to prevent unintended changes, then it is far more probable that "randomness" is the norm. Evolution, which does have supporting empirical evidence (unlike anti-science ideas such as ID or other creationist nonsense) clearly demonstrates this! No one thus far has been able to offer anything of substance or credibility to support ID, much less refute evolution.
You don’t need god to develop the scientific method, the fact that many scientists were religious is immaterial. One is not it any way contingent on the other.
That’s like saying if you don’t watch friends you won’t get a job promotion. The two are completely unconnected except by the farthest and most meaningless of stretches.
More bullshit...NOT ALL BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD OR ANY GOD SO THE GOD POINT IS MOOT.
And religious belief is consistent?
Yes, exactly, that's how we find truth in this universe instead of just listening to a religious zealot who claims to know everything already or claims some deity gave them a vision. I'd much prefer the rigorous experimentation and consensus from the scientific community over some Joseph Smith or some other ancient self-proclaimed prophets unfounded and unproven explanations.
I would agree and anyone who has looked at the evidence would accept that the possibility of some grand designer isn't zero, but they'd also have to admit that it's certainly not 100% either considering there is zero evidence for one either.
Now that's just pure bullshit. You can believe in truth and facts without having to believe in some magical or spiritual source of that truth.
Now they're getting off on a pure hyperbole religious opinion tack that has nothing to do with actual science or truth. Claiming science has given us better tools to see fertilized eggs, zygotes and fetuses has no bearing on a woman's constitutionally protected right to privacy and the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Personally, I think this also falls under the right to privacy protected by the constitution. As long as you're not harming others or infringing on their rights, why can't someone want to be called by whatever name they prefer? Why shouldn't they get whatever surgery they want? There are ugly people or flat chested women who "feel" beautiful inside or "feel" like they should have big breasts and go get surgery to help match that feeling. Why aren't these religious groups speaking out against the average plastic surgery if they are so against someone changing how they look or what pronoun they prefer? The reality is these religious folk just have a bug up their asses against the lgtbq community, they couldn't give two shits about a flat chested woman getting a boob job, but they get all worked up if the person getting the boob job was formerly a man, apparently that's totally unnatural.
Science does not need God to function at all, the entire premise of this seed is patently ridiculous.
No, they depend on subjectivity where humans are the subject and the arbiters of right and wrong. What hurts/harms humans is seen as bad, what helps/benefits humans is seen as good. No God needed, our laws and liberty and equality are built around humans, by humans, for humans.
The people being banned from social media aren't being banned because they're "asking serious questions", they have no "facts, evidence and -- yes -- science in support of their positions". They are being banned for being hateful, racist bigots who are violating the terms of service that they agreed to when they first started using social media. The ridiculous morons and bigots need to suck it up and stop whining and crying, they're not being silenced, we hear their whining and crying, they're just being ignored as the irrelevant whiners they are and they don't like it.
There you go again making claims that you cannot back up. How are atheists anti science?
As science learns and discovers more, god/s become less and less necessary. Science focuses on evidence and facts, things that are objective and concrete. Religion/god's just make assumptions (often based on nothing but subjective belief) to fill in the "gaps." That's readily seen and prevalent throughout human history and cultures. Those who rely on subjective things like beliefs and feelings and such are more likely to be "anti-science," (as well as irrational) as they are less likely to consider or accept anything (scientific) which challenges or outright contradicts one's beliefs or feelings. It's both intellectually cowardly and dishonest.
Hey God - you are a pussy. Let’s see you do something about it.
Don't say that!
God (Peace Be Upon Him) may strike you dead!