Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Monday, May 19, 2014

New Atheists Abandon Science

Recently, I came across an insightful quote sure to inflame many secularists who are priggishly superior to many Christian believers whom they regard as morons from the medieval ages.

¨The New Atheism is locked into a similar kind of literalism. It parasitically lives off its enemy. Just as evangelical Christianity is characterized by scriptural literalism and an uncomplicated belief in a ¨personal God,¨ so the New Atheism often seems engaged only in doing battle with scriptural literalism. The God of the New Atheism and the God of religious fundamentalism turn out to be remarkably similar entities.¨

The source of this quote is not from some C.S. Lewis style apologist, rather it is from James Wood, a Harvard professor and editor for The New Republic, pretty good credentials for a leftist viewpoint, but one that is unexpectedly honest.

Secularists would have you believe that you can accept science or you can accept religion, but you can't do both. They want to claim the position of science and reason as exclusively their own and spread the belief that anyone who believes in God is a kook because it goes against the findings of science.

Actually, what goes against the findings of science is closing off debate. Science should be after the quest for truth, but New Atheist secularists don't want to debate scientific findings that point to the possibility of a creator. This explains why they refuse to respond to challenges regarding intelligent design. Instead, they wrongly label intelligent design as creationism, or they say intelligent design is not science. What they don't do is respond to disturbing questions raised by ID proponents who have factually observed multiple weaknesses in the theory of evolution. (These questions are presented in an entertaining way in my play Inherit the Wind: Overturned by Design, also available on Nook and IBooks).

If science was really the secularist response to religion, than you would expect the overwhelming majority of scientist to reject religion because science has lead them to atheism. This is not the case.  Elaine Howard Ecklund's 2010 book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think documents that nearly 20 percent of scientists attend church on a regular basis. Moreover, most scientists did not become irreligious based on their scientific findings, rather they were irreligious for nonscientific reasons.

In other words, people who are already atheists are attracted to careers in science and it is not science that made them atheists.

Secularists are not interested in using science to find the truth. Rather, too many of them are afraid of using science to learn that the existence of God may be possible.

Blaise Pascal, the seventeenth century French scientist who formulated the theory of probability, is famously known for Pascal's Wager. His position is that it is more logical to believe in God than to reject him. This is because if you believe in God and you are wrong, you lose nothing from following God's commandments. However, if you reject God and his commandments and then find out that he does exist, then you end up eternally damned. Secularists are making a bad bet when they refuse to use science to probe for the existence of God.

Science and religion can be compatible. It makes sense that God would use the laws of science and that the more we advance science the more we will see the hand and mind of God.

For an interesting examination of the fallacies of the New Atheists, I recommend reading Why Science Does Not Disprove God, by Amir D. Aczel, an open-minded scientist who does not believe the New Atheists should get away with their secular agenda based misuse of science.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  


  1. Pascal Wager is a fallacy and is impossible to work. A horrible use of Theory of Probability. So no, we do not give up science, that theory is just idiotic in its own and I can easily prove it with a simple sentence.

  2. I was thinking the exact same thing Collin.

  3. Pascal's Wager is stupid because it assumes there is only one deity, one religion, one belief system from which to choose, instead of thousands upon thousands of deities and religions. From which of these am I supposed to choose to ensure that I live eternally in some blissful Never-Never Land in the sky? http://www.godchecker.com/ What if I choose the wrong god and some other god gets jealous and upset?

  4. Accepting the probability of God is not to arrive at the destination. It is the gateway to exploring and testing in the search for truth outside the little box of materialism. It is the beginning of the use of reason to examine truth claims in the numinous that parallels the use of reason to examine science in the physical world accessible to our 5 senses. Science can answer questions of what and how. but has no answers to the questions of why. The "why" questions are the deeper ones.