Atheism: A Brave New World

Therefore, the only reason one has to behave ‘morally’ is because god, the bible or Jesus says you should. Moreover, the consequences of behaving in contradiction to Christian values or behaving ‘immorally’ involve punishment by god whether it be in this life or the after-life. This philosophy sheds some light on why atheism is feared, despised and misunderstood as well as why atheists are persecuted in America. If there is no god to answer to or no consequences for ‘bad behavior’, why then, would anyone behave in a good moral fashion? What is to prevent deviant behavior, if there is no god? These questions are the main basis for the Christian argument which maintains that atheists are untrustworthy, immoral or amoral, social deviants and therefore lesser human beings. Some have gone as far to say that atheists are unpatriotic, un-American and do not even have the right to be acknowledged as citizens of the United States.

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

Many critics of macroevolution offer an alternative theory to the origins of life, intelligent design, which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause not an undirected process such as natural selection. In order to ensure the students of public high schools are learning credible information effectively, we have examined macroevolution and intelligent design and assessed the validity of each.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, they reject religion as apart of not only a rejection of ignorance, but also a rejection of their religious family and association of religion itself, says Catherine L. and Caldwell-Harris who are published in the Department of Psychology for Boston University, Lesley College,University of Haifa, and Trinity College. This is a stark contrast to theism, which is the belief in god and is the case for many Americans. This demographic is about 83% of America’s population, according to the most recent census. About 16% of the population, or about 34,169,000 people are of an unaffiliated position, which would include Atheists,

Yes, I loved this book just because it was a really good and understandable read

Wow. How do you find your way out of bed in the morning? Well maybe you don't go to bed, because I know I couldn’t sleep if I were you or any of your cronies.

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Based on the results of your experiment, would you reject or accept the hypothesis that you produced in question 1? Explain how you determined this.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

Many believe God intended the Bible and science to be separate, but not divorced. I generally believe they do go together to an extent, that the Bible is not a science book, but a book with some scientific accuracy. Many scientific studies were founded upon the content of the Bible. The text of the Bible caused many scientists to try to verify or contradict what was mentioned in the Bible. Though the Bible and science do not perfectly line up on the creation of the world, there are many things that science and the Bible agree on. The biblical view of science is that science supports the natural-truth of the Bible. When there are numerous things that are contradicting in the Bible, science is typically defeated by people who believe the Bible to be entirely true, regardless of the scientifically facts shown with research.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

McCloskey proposes: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” Taking this into consideration, when a being exalts good, than it eliminates evil to a point of a greater good or to cause a worse evil. Good that can be brought out of peoples actions outweighs the evil. Atheists attempt to argue with Christians that if there is a God, then there should never be an instance where he cannot be reached. Nevertheless, it is becoming acknowledged that God cannot do what we think is logically impossible. As a Christian, I know that God can do the impossible. I also know that God did not bring evil into this world, but when Adam and Eve sinned is what caused the evil to even start. McCloskey’s statement is an invalid argument.

Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould (1983, p.256).

9. Hawking is a scientist and an atheist. So it is not the case that no scientist is an atheist.

As they say “SCIENCE IS GOD FOR THE SCIENTISTS” , so may it be god or science they exist , and rather glorify each others existence.