History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Theistic/atheistic bias

June 29th, 2009 · No Comments

God and Science Don’t Mix

A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can’t act like one.


My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

UD responds

You can’t solve this issue by simple negation of theism, to ‘atheism’. What is that?
To be an ‘atheist’ is as biased as being a theist.
In fact, this kind of bias has thrown evolutionism completely out of whack. I am not advocating theism or atheism.
But i challenge the idea that an atheist is without bias. The study of physics instills indifference here, but the situation of the other sciences, e.g. cultural sciences, is not so clear.

J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a “god, angel, or devil” will interfere with one’s experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

Krauss ought to read Pharyngula blog for a while: this is without bias?
This is the new science bigot in action.

Tags: atheism · Science & Religion

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment