The role of science in my life – one atheist’s perspective.

I often find it to be a ridiculous argument when someone says to me that science can’t tell us the why of things, it can’t offer any lessons on morality, or that it can’t offer emotional peace – which is supposed to, somehow, make it inferior to religion.

I think the problem with this is that a lot of religious people fail to recognize that atheists aren’t just running around obsessed with science, applying it to every facet of our lives the way that so many do with religion. Science doesn’t feel, it doesn’t care what you think, it only provides us with a way to test things and understand the world. Atheists do not rely solely on science for the basis of all of all of our decisions, which is what a lot of people that I encounter seem to think.

Morality is taught through society, none of the moral teachings we often run into in religion are unique to religion. A person’s morality is determined individually, regardless of what you believe, having a religion or not having a religion will not necessarily make a person be good or bad. You still have the free will to act upon you situations as they relate to your beliefs, whether you act in a positive or negative manner is still up to you though, no matter how much you love Jesus, or Muhammad, or whoever else, or not.

There is no reason why science would need to be analogous to religion, to think so is unreasonable. I never needed science (or could even try to use it this way) to find inner peace, or to figure out how to define morality, the obvious trend that so many theists see my opposing views this way makes me think that they don’t realize that atheists do not rely solely upon science to define ourselves (or at least, myself). Science only does so much, but what it does do is conflict with religious teachings, and it provides proof to back it up. It doesn’t care what the outcome is, it just is. I am not cold, harsh, or unfeeling – I am not science, not in the way so many people seem to define themselves synonymously with their religion. Morality and ethics are separate fields on their own, that can commingle with religion, but are not exclusive to it. You can easily teach anyone morals that are included within religious teachings without attaching a concept of God to it. You can find inner peace through many methods and experiences, not just religion.

Advertisements

About thatcatkatie
I came to this site to discuss my beliefs, and yours too, and hopefully learn some things from my fellow human beings.

7 Responses to The role of science in my life – one atheist’s perspective.

  1. chicagoja says:

    Well said. You shouldn’t have to apologize for your position. Just remember though that science, like religion, has its own dogma that it’s in love with. Theories come and theories go, but the current theory is always said to have proof. As science pushes deeper into the unknown, and by definition the unobservable, science will be scribbling formulas on blackboards and calling it proof.

    • thatcatkatie says:

      Science has its own dogma? Please explain what you mean.

      • chicagoja says:

        What passes for mainstream science is sometimes motivated by either a political agenda(since so much funding comes from government) or man’s ego or the need to be right or the need to play God. In other words, scientists have human failings just like the rest of us. That’s how we got the world is flat theory, followed by the sun revolves around the earth theory etc. New theory, such as a Multiverse which I happen to like a lot, is based on mostly assumptions and on virtually no observation. Yet, some scientists will discuss it as if there’s proof for such a theory. I’m positive that some day science will have a new theory to replace the Multiverse.
        Caveat emptor.

        • thatcatkatie says:

          No, we got the world is flat theory because we only had a limited amount of information. It was discarded later on when new information proved that the theory was wrong. Science doesn’t really change so much as we just are constantly gathering information that we didn’t have before. Theories are modified or discarded, but the science never does.
          There are people who want things to be true, and say that they are without proof, but the actual scientific processes to back it up aren’t there.
          There are a multitude of theories aside from the multiverse theory, it is one of many, and it’s isn’t technically an official scientific theory since there is no ample evidence to back it up. It is a theory, but not a scientific theory – meaning there is no absolute evidence for it, only small pieces that may eventually point to it being true. This word is changed drastically when you put the word scientific in front of it, people seem to fail to acknowledge this a lot. You can call it science, but is it really? Because what I refer to is actual science.

  2. Hi there,
    I don’t think science is inferior to religion, because I don’t think you’d be using the same marking scheme. Science does a very different thing to religion. Science investigates the material world. Religion teaches about things beyond the material world, including ethics, value, morality, and the nature of God. Therefore you can’t evaluate the two as they are about different things.
    I’ve just posted to our previous chat about this (I’d not been notified of your response, sorry!). The difficulty with the concept of morality without God is, ‘who says’? You may have good judgements, but on what basis do you say they’re good, and how do you justify that basis? Atheistic philosophers acknowledge that without the concept of God, it is very difficult to have an objective morality. And as there is an objective morality (we all agree the Holocaust was abominable, for example), that suggests there is a God. Otherwise how can you argue that your own judgements are any superior to someone who thinks differently?

    • thatcatkatie says:

      You would not admit to me before that there is a definite objective morality, at least not in such a direct way. So if there is an objective morality, and because my friend here has done an excellent job of explaining that morality DID exist before all of the judeo-christian and similar religions, that you could more than reasonably assume that this morality has NOTHING to do with a god or not. It is intrinsic.

  3. It’s nearly impossible to find educated people about this topic, however, you seem like you know what you’re talking about!
    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: