Being an Atheist DOES NOT Make You More Scientific!

By -
Atheists like Richard Dawkins keep claiming that to be truly scientific, one must become an atheist. To become truly free then one must become an atheist. The idea of a God ruling the Universe for them is repressive and dictatorial. They think that believing in God is disruptive to scientific progress and that they alone possess the keys to progress. But let's take a moment to think about what we can see through science.

Science shows us that there's nothing that was ever conceived by mere accident. Do you think it's just an accident that everything in science is so fantastically complex you need to have separate branches of science to study it? We have natural science, formal science, social science and applied science. Then under each science, there are still several branches of study. In natural science we have biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy and yet that doesn't cover anything. In the fields of science, there are several specialties. No one can truly and fully master all the fields of science. Science itself is such a broad spectrum of study that can only tell you that life is no accident.

The problem of becoming an atheist to become more "scientific" means one must deny the obvious. Atheists can go ahead and say that inventions weren't created by the wave of a magic wand in their quest to discredit the idea of creation. On the other hand, they fail to give a real explanation to why in the world does science have such order or like how even the most complex structures are so orderly done. Can unguided and random processes create order? There has to be someone involved. Besides, I think those theistic evolutionists are a little more intelligent than the atheistic evolutionists for acknowledging that a designer is needed in nature. Difference is theistic evolution isn't compatible with Christianity because it goes against God's character in Genesis.

The problem of becoming an atheist to become more scientific, one must also deny the contribution of scientists who weren't atheists. If they say no one can be a scientist unless one is an atheist then they must seek to disprove everything that non-atheists have contributed. It would be amusing to see them try to disprove Isaac Newton's physics to their own risk. It would be something if they tried to disprove every biologist who wasn't an atheist. In short, they're really going to make fools out of themselves as Romans 1:22 says that those who deny God profess themselves to be wise but are made fools instead.

See also: