The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

The atheistic faith is based on three assumptions that are either false or unprovable.  And yes, it is a faith because it is an ideal that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs.  The idea that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Call it a nonbelief is like calling it a non-idea.  Just some more nonsense.

Let’s look at their assumptions.  The first is that there is no God.  No one can prove that there is no God[1] for in order to do so they would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and also outside of the universe at the same time for the very place that they were not, might be the very place that the Uncreated one is present.  They would also have to know everything in the universe; for if there was one thing that they didn’t know, it might be that there’s a God.  In essence, they would have to be God in order to say with certitude that there’s not a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that there might be a God, which the possibility in itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption that I have found in most atheists is the belief that they are smarter than those that believe in God.  I have found this trait even in those who seem to be friendly towards religion.  Of course, this is an assumption that has no scientific basis.  In fact, recent polling of scientists indicates that the split is about 50-50 as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power[2].

When it comes to IQ some believe that The American philosopher,  psychologist and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times and of course he was a believer.  I have read estimates that his IQ was twice that of Einstein’s. The most intelligent living person is Christopher Langan.  He is considered by many to be the world’s smartest living person with an IQ of over 200 and he is a believer.

Of course, this doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists’ second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is not a scientific view and seems to be wrong.

The third assumption is that science has proven that there is no God.  This assumption is one of the most common ones among atheists and borders on ridiculous.  The following quotations speak directly to this assumption.

“Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.” Science Dept — University of California at Berkeley

“Explanations employing nonmaterialistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science …. all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.” National Association of Biology Teachers

“no aspect of science can address supernatural questions …. supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation” — American Association for the Advancement of Science”

Some atheists, to justify their unbelief, will say that there are no scientific proofs for God, which may be true, but it raises the question as to why some of the same people believe in aliens and a universe that has a multitude of dimensions.  Where is the scientific evidence and proof of the existence of these things?  Moreover, where is the scientific evidence that the only proofs have to come from science?

[1] “Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” David Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion”

[2] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted in May and June 2009


Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than evidence[i]. The story is told, and the facts are made to fit the story. No one has ever been able to tell the story better than Charles Darwin. He truly had a great imagination and a skillful pen. He even admitted that his theory didn’t have any scientific evidence. Yet, the scientific community gobbled it up like little children listening to a fairytale.

The reason for his great acceptance among scientists was that science needs an explanation based on a materialistic world view. A worldview that leaves the deity out of its creation story. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided a new creation myth. The theory came more out of necessity then it did research and observation. Of course, any thinking person understands that no one can observe the kind of Evolution that Darwin wrote about for such observation would require one to observe something coming from nothing and changing into something else. Until these observations are made evolution will remain a theory and not a fact.

I have a book in my office written by a Harvard professor[ii] which attempts to answer the question, is the theory of evolution a social construct. In the first few chapters, I thought that he was actually going to charge the theory with being a social construct. However, in the last few chapters he saved his academic credentials by proclaiming it a fact. His evidence was a study done on fruit flies where it was observed that the fruit flies changed from having two wings to four wings and had different shaped eyes. He didn’t seem to notice the problem with his conclusion. The problem is that at the end of the experiment the fruit flies were still fruit flies. Fruit flies with too many wings and too many eyes. Yes, the scientist witnesses a change, but the problem is that the Darwinian evolution requires much more than a change in a species.  It requires not only a change in species but also family and other taxonomic categories as well. It requires that something changes into something else.

The truth seems to be that we don’t know much about the history of the earth or of life. Henry Gee[iii] in his book “Deep Time”. Points out just how ignorant we are of the past and shows that anyone should think twice about making grandiose statements about ancient history, which science is continuously doing and constantly changing.

Why do people believe in evolution? Simply because they have been taught to and they have nothing else to believe in. All societies have a creation myth which seems to indicate that human beings need an explanation for their origin. The evidence of this can be seen in the fact that there are fewer people that claim to be agnostics, than those that claim to be atheists.  Though agnostic is a superior view than atheism it lacks the scientific myth of evolution to support it. The scientific materialist or atheist community needed a myth to match their unbelief. Darwin was the mythmaker that provided them with a myth that they could dress up as science.

I personally find Darwin’s theory of evolution and the worldview that it created interesting and challenging but not compelling any more than I do the fundamentalist view of creation. However, the evolutionist which believes that evolution is the theory of everything is a greater error then the fundamentalist. My advice to them is to get over their ignorance and watch their dogma

[i] The story has been told so often that many people accept it as fact. When in actuality there is little evidence to support it.

[ii] “Mystery of Mysteries” with a subtitle Is Evolution A Social Construction? By Michael Ruse.

[iii] Deep Time by Henry Gee. At the writing of the book, Henry Gee was a Senior Editor at Nature with a Ph.D. from ‘Cambridge in Zoology.