A belief in science

By Kelly O'Neil - February 8, 2010

atheist
Members of the Dalhousie Atheist Community. (Bruce Bottomley Photo)

Derek Rodgers’ sense of wonder about things is palpable. The second-year biology student scrolls through his cell phone images to display photographs taken by the Hubble telescope. He enthusiastically talks about the enormity of space while pointing to the pictures of tiny lights containing galaxies upon galaxies.

“Science gives us a kind of perspective that is completely awe-inspiring,” he says. 

He’s one of the founding members of the Dalhousie Atheist Community, now in its second year on campus. He helped establish the group because “there wasn’t a group for atheists, humanists, secularists—those people coming under the umbrella of free thinkers.” He wanted to provide a meeting place and a social environment for non-religious people to talk about the issues they are interested in. The community, which includes students from kinesiology, biology, Canadian studies and law, meets monthly and is hoping to have short talks by members and movie showings as part of the occasion. The group is also interested in community activism “where we feel the need to advocate around issues.”

The group opted for the word “atheist” instead of “free thinker” because it is unambiguous. “It’s difficult to organize non-believers,” says Mr. Rodgers, “it’s like herding cats. We are very different people. Our only commonality is non-belief. The closest thing to a common position is anti-dogmatism,” although all members place a high value on “empirically verifiable scientific data.”

He became involved in the Free Thought movement in high school. A formative moment came for him when a visiting Christian speaker addressing the school community made statements about evolution that he describes as “a stack of logical fallacies.”

“Being a science nerd... I thought, ‘there has to be a response to this’.” He prepared a rebuttal in which he invited like-minded students to join him in developing a Free Thought Society, apparently the first of its kind for a high school in North America.

“I call myself an atheist. I consider myself a skeptic,” says Mr. Rodgers. “A skeptic places a high value on evidence to be convinced of something. I haven’t heard convincing reasons why I should be a theist.”

He maintains that humanist values “emphasize the inherent moral worth of people” And argues that traditional monotheistic religions tend to denigrate human beings with concepts like original sin or over-emphasize the importance of humanity in the grand scheme of things.

“Science helps us to understand our place in the universe; it shatters the idea that humans are imbued with importance.”

“Religion is not a prerequisite to being a moral person” he adds, pointing out that the search for meaning is a question taken up by non-believers and believers alike. “The most profound questions we can ask are, ‘is there meaning in life?’ ‘What is our place?’ For free thinkers, the tools and methods of science are the best ways of knowing” the answers to these questions. 

Readers Say

On the issue of nomenclature, I agree with the brights (the-brights.net) who argue for a self-descriptor that does not involve a negation. However, unlike the brights, I prefer an explicit phrase: "I'm a scientist working from a naturalistic working hypothesis". Certainly a mouthful, but I find that people are more curious for elaboration when I use the phrase than when I use the more easily stereotyped term "atheist". It also minimizes unnecessarily animosity in that it suggests that, as a scientist beholden to evidence, it is possible to conceive of evidence that would persuade me to abandon the naturalistic working hypothesis (sun starts blinking the bible in morse code, etc.). This in turn provides a wedge with which to help super-naturalists realize that the difference between their position and mine is a matter of degree; most employ the necessity of evidence throughout their daily lives, I'm simply applying it more broadly to a larger set of beliefs.
"Our only commonality is non-belief."

=> Or maybe, it's your mutual belief in the non-existence of God. The title, "belief in Science" is a bit more accurate in what you all believe. The problem is, Science, unlike religion, isn't supposed to be "believed in". Science determines things, it's based on logic. Religion isn't, it is based on faith, and religion isn't preoccupied with explaining things either, because that's not its purpose...Science, however, NEEDS to prove things, not make stories that you should "believe in".


"A skeptic places a high value on evidence to be convinced of something. I haven’t heard convincing reasons why I should be a theist."

=> And you never will.... Faith is about believing...if faith was proven, it would no longer be faith but a fact. And can you honestly say that you have been really skeptical when it comes to the theory of evolution? Being a Science student, you would know that it includes "beliefs" rather than scientific facts in it, right? I don't view the theory of evolution as Science at all. Isaac Newton once said that the law of gravity explains the movement of planets, but it cannot explain who put them into movement. Now that's a real scientist.
Great news and a great initiative! All the very best!
I like that they call themselves atheists. Nonbelievers, nontheists and free-thinkers are all less recognizable descriptions of the same thing. Atheists should be proud to be atheists.

Given that there is no scientific evidence to support the god hypothesis and plenty of scientific evidence to support atheistic hypotheses, to declare oneself as "a scientist working from a naturalistic working hypothesis" is the same thing as calling oneself an atheist... the difference is that the former is less clear.
Contact information for the Dalhousie Atheist Community, as well as details of any upcoming events or meetings, would be useful.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
I can relate to almost everything Derek talks about in this article... but the funny thing is, I am a Christian! I am a science nerd who is constantly fascinated by the new things we are learning about the universe we inhabit. I guess the only difference is that I credit it to God - not a punishing, vengeful God, but a loving one. I know this is something difficult to be convinced of, but it's just something I feel in my bones. Believe me, Bible tracts are not the way people find God. I have never understood the frightening 'you will burn in Hell' approach of many evangelists. Obviously in Christianity sin plays a large role, but it is eclipsed by redemption and love. Unfortunately this is not always evident, depending on who you talk to.

Anyhow, I'm glad there are so many diverse faith groups on campus so people can get the kind of stimulation and discussion they are looking for! It would be cool to have a bigger discussion and friendly debate group with people from all different faiths.
I find it disheartening when I hear people talk of science and religion as if they are mutually exclusive spheres of life. I think if we remind ourselves the fundamental basis of science and religion, we can at least acknowledge that these categories can be complimentary.

Science is the study of our world. It is a study of how the world works. In this sense, science is descriptive, it is the process of describing what exists. Science can help answer our questions about the world such as: how does the brain work? or does caffeine increase reaction time? etc. We use science to understand HOW things are.

Religions can be seen as systems which help provide us guidance on why the world is the way it is, what is right, what is wrong, what is the purpose of life? Religion, essentially, provides us answers to normative inquiries.

Bearing this in mind, it puzzles me to hear people say that they want to find answers to the purpose of life through scientific tools and methods. This strikes me as odd because all the scientific tools and methods in the world will not tell you if an action is moral or not, nor will it tell you WHY something is the way it is. It may tell you what action is most productive or gives the best results for a certain criteria, but it does not per se provide you with normative guidance. It provides you with possible solutions but the morality or the appropriateness of these solutions is subject to interpretion! Do you see here how this can lead to the very dogmatism which you were concerned about with pursuing religious beliefs?? Where we have people dictating what's right or wrong based on their own whims or reasoning.

What I am trying to say is that science is descriptive by nature and by itself, can not be used as a means to dictate what is right or wrong. It can show us how effective each solution is, but the morality of decisions is where we turn to our personal belief systems/ethical guidelines/ legal systems.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author.

It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.

In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God.
The phrase 'belief in science' is pretty-much meaningless. Many words have subtle context-based differences in nuance of meaning... and 'belief' is such a word. The problem is that few people actually know how to think properly, and as a consequence, the are totally oblivious to such nuances.

'Belief' in science... a high degree of confidence that science provides us with the most reliable methodology for understanding our existence and reality... is not even remotely similar to the sort of 'belief' that causes one to accept that were were created and are watched-over by an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy (god). In the latter case, 'belief' is the ILLUSION of knowledge... a lame and pathetic substitute for ACTUAL knowledge.

As a further example... 'believing' in evolution is not even remotely similar to 'believing' in god/Jesus or the bible or creation. When somebody ACCEPTS the Theory of Evolution, it means something that is best expressed like: "I have a high degree of confidence that the Theory of Evolution provides the very best explanatory framework for the diversity of life on earth, based upon the facts and evidence that we have available to us and with respect to the remarkable success with which it has continuously accommodated new evidence... and so it would perverse of me not to provisionally accept it, until such time as compelling evidence to the contrary requires me to do otherwise."

On the other hand, 'belief' in god can be expressed as the internalized certainty that we, the world, and the universe were poofed into existence by some magical entity which is personally and intimately concerned with our individual sex-lives.

People should not go around saying things like "I believe in science" or "I believe in evolution;" it confuses people who do not know how to think properly, which... unfortunately... represents over 90% of the population.
To quote the 'Theology' student.

"The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author."

It is unfortunate that you have no sufficient grounding for such a claim. Please do not argue from emotional dispositions, or promote ad hominem attacks.
"To another religion, your God is the Devil."

I'm glad that Derek felt comfortable enough to discuss his views on the importance of evidence, as a requirement to believing in something. It's far too often that I meet people who are willing to accept whatever they are told. University students should value their free thinking capacity; many people around the world live in countries that don't have a separation of church and state.

I think it is vital for all of us to keep in mind that religion is an old form of government: monarchs (kings and queens), for example, would impose a single religion on their subjects -- bringing unity (and giving much power to the monarch). Unfortunately, a foreign kindgom, under the belief of a different religion, could easily justify a holy war by claiming: you are the devil.

It's unfortunate to see people still holding true to this 'witch hunt' mentality.
Sometimes I debate with myself whether or not it's important to live a "good Christian life", simply because I want to, or because I have to. I have learned that I have no obligation to anyone to behave, but to myself, which seems very spiritual and freeing to me. All religion is worth understanding, but in practice seems irrelevant. What astounds me the most is the anonymity behind the comments made by those who proclaim themselves as a theist. Is this censorship, or is this a self-aware embarrassment of their blind faith? I can sleep well at night knowing I'm a good person who does not believe in God. I put my only true possession behind that, my name. It appears to me that the people who insult my good nature with the consequence of infidelity are the ones who remain anonymous.
The reason I do not write my full name is because this type of conversation (in the comment section) is not how I want people who may not know me well to learn about my faith. It's too divisive, with extreme views from both ends being written. I don't want to be lumped into any category. I'm not embarrassed by my faith at all - if people ask me I am happy to talk with them. As for it being blind faith, yes it is to a degree in that I have never 'seen' God or Jesus physically... but utterly blind? No. I see God at work in my everyday life, I just had to develop a relationship with him and accept him. That's the whole basis of faith though, isn't it? Taking that first leap.

Also, there is such a huge difference between religion and faith. Jesus didn't preach about religion, he preached about faith... he spoke against the religion of the times because he could see it for what it was - sets of rules and laws.

I think this is a topic where everyone will have to agree to disagree. I have never put down any other faith (or atheism) because I am impressed by anyone who has faith in these times - whether it's in Christ, Allah, science, or what have you. This society can be so anti-faith and ridicules people who dare to believe. Additionally, I am not the Christian who believes any non-believer will be punished... this is something I wrestle with constantly as I can't believe the God I love would punish non-believers because to be honest, our current world does not give much reason to believe at all.

Anyway, I guess the point of this comment is just to show that we (Christians) aren't all crazy. The end.
The real ignorant people are on both extremes.
To say God doesn't exist is foolish.
There is no conclusive evidence to prove that.
To say that God surely does exist is foolish.
There is no conclusive evidence to prove that.

As a Scientist, (or at least as a good scientist)you should know that proof of one thing does not neccessarily disprove another.

Sounds to me like you disbelieve just for the sake of it..... Which is as bad (or worse) then being a devout.
Just a comment on Faith.

Faith is actually a state of being, not a simple action, like belief. In fact, it is "the state of being ultimately concerned." For theists, it is usually an afterlife of sorts that lies at the end. For non-theists, it is the prospect of knowledge, discovery, innovation, etc.

It is also the frame of mind that causes people, secular, religious, etc. to lash out, to be spiteful, to be ill at ease with the mere mention of something that conflicts with the 'world' within which the person of faith 'dwells'.

Ease up, people - it doesn't matter whose ducks are/n't in a row. Nothing will happen either way. Non-theists - there is no punishment; Theism - you will be judged later, so do your best while you're here; just remember you're not the one to judge - that's someone else's job.
As a student of theology, you would think A.D. would understand atheism a little bit better than that. What he has demonstrated in his comment is absolute ignorance of everything save what is written in his Bible and preached at his church. I feel no need to counter any of his foolish, irrelevant and delusional points.

To Jared Thompson: You are right, there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of God. It is impossible to be absolutely sure whether or not a God exists. There is, however, plenty of evidence suggesting that God does not exist, and no evidence supporting his existence. For example, Darwinism (the theory of natural selection) presents us with a scientific, comprehensible and infinitely more probable explanation as to why species appear to be 'designed'. Something that creationists often forget is that for a designer to have designed a world as complex as ours, the designer himself would have to be much much more complex himself. Then we have to wonder, who designed the designer?

My point is, although we can technically never be 100% sure God does not exist, the probability that he does not exist far exceeds the probability that he does. A good scientist must draw conclusions from the evidence he/she has (and there is plenty), and conclude that God very probably does not exist. I recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if anyone religious or not, wants to learn a little bit more about the reasons for nonbelief.

As for faith, or leaps of faith, or believing because "you feel it in your bones", or because you're hearing God or Jesus (who are the same person?) speaking to you in your head... these things cannot be counted as evidence. Our brains are complex and can play tricks on us.

Something I read the other day amused me greatly: "We are all atheists for most of the gods of humanity. Some of us just go one god further."
Haha! People believe in the bible!
@J.X.
Although I agree with the spirit of your post, you've got your facts wrong.

"Something that creationists often forget is that for a designer to have designed a world as complex as ours, the designer himself would have to be much much more complex himself. Then we have to wonder, who designed the designer?"

Actually, this has been mathematically demonstrated to be false. See e.g. Von Newman Machines. There are systems capable of generating things more complex (or at least as complex) than themselves. In fact, this seems pretty obvious if you think about it for a minute. Quines (self-replicating computer programs) are another example, but in my research I create programs that write more complicated, longer, and more useful programs fairly frequently.
I felt the need to comment on this.
Let's say you wholeheartedly believe in "science", which I guess means you subscribe to a world view based wholly on empiric knowledge. If this is the case, it would seem to follow that your every action, your every thought, is nothing but the manifestation of chemical reactions and whatnot. So, in a sense, they're all predetermined (well, not in a sense; they just are). "Science" doesn't seem to be consistent with free will. So your argument, the view itself; they're all determined. You don't actually have any real choice in the matter. So what's the point in arguing?
But then, you're going to do it anyways, if it's all determined, aren't you?
Yet, I feel like I have a choice even in writing this. I could stop now, but I'm choosing to go on.
So maybe I do have free will. I exist as something-or-another that somehow presides over all these chemical processes that generate my thoughts and actions. But what exactly is it that I believe myself to be? How is it that I interact with the world?
Free will - the ability to choose - requires some sort of mind that transcends the chain of cause and effect. We don't seem to have any reason for believing in such a thing, and it seems inconsistent with a "scientific" world view (quantum physics might argued as an example of science getting past the causal model, but I'm not wholly convinced of that yet; the randomness of it doesn't seem a good fit for free-will). But free-will seems quite intuitive; although I can't present a good argument for the freedom of my own mind, it just seems right. In fact, it seems to be the way most of us think; it's quite apparent in the language of most of these posts on either side of the issue. But why should we think that? Don't we all just take it on faith?
Hm.

And on a last point, a skeptic isn't just someone who values evidence. A skeptic is someone who thinks that "truth" (whatever the hell that is) is inaccessible, through faith or science.
Ahh nothing beats bunch of atheists gathering together in their unchurch , reading their unprayers and enjoying unconformity.

they're like bunch of teenagers
Interesting that so few Theists posting here are actually using their full name and rather are sticking with their initials.

I agree with the commenter (M.) who doesn't see science and faith as being mutually exclusive.

This discussion reminds me of the Galileo quote:

"Scripture teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Its also interesting to note that the science-versus-faith debate is virtually nil within the eastern religions. The idea of evolution sits quite nicely with the concept of reincarnation and the eastern concept (or non-concept) of god.

End Transmission.

Join the conversation, but keep it clean, stay on the topic and be brief. Read comments policy.

Characters remaining: 2000

(optional)