6 maneras en que el ateísmo es un obstáculo para la ciencia

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is often claimed that Christianity is a hindrance to science. To justify this claim it is often said that many Christians just look at nature and satisfy their curiosity by saying “God made it,” without looking any further to discover how God made whatever it is that he made that is there. For many Christians, questions about the origin and how the natural world works end with that answer. However, for many others, while they acknowledge that God did make something, they diligently seek to discover how he did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or interest (not necessarily a bad thing if the person does not have that passion or pursue that goal) is what could stop science if there is not a Christian who possesses that curiosity. Each Christian can stop scientific discovery for themselves, but as scientific discovery continues to be developed by other Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, it is a fact that atheism stops science. Not because the atheist satisfies his curiosity by saying “evolution did it” and stops all exploratory research, but because it hinders science for a couple of reasons that the atheist cannot escape if his worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease only for the atheist whose curiosity and curiosity are satisfied by the answer “evolution did it,” but it ceases for everyone .

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your reasoning to the next level: think about how the discovery of the world around you would be understood. In today’s blog, I will present six different ways in which atheism and science are mutually exclusive and how atheism stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs Atheism

The laws of mathematics vs atheism

Much of the scientific research done today relies solely on mathematics in its most advanced forms. It is used to describe chemical reactions, model the formation history of the universe, and even predict the spread of viruses. The reason mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is built on/governed by mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to a certain extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there would be no reason for the universe to be bound by mathematics, and it would not be possible to describe, discover, or predict it.

This poses a serious problem for the atheist. Indeed, according to the atheist view, mathematics is a product of a particularity of the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not bound to be governed by anything it has produced. According to the atheist view, mathematics is not objective, so it is irrational to expect that the world around us is consistent with or explainable by what mathematics depicts. The present cannot be described, the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

From the atheistic point of view, without a supernatural cause (excluding this universe) that causes mathematics to limit the universe to its laws, this universe is meaningless, and all scientific endeavor is ultimately doomed to be nothing more than a guessing game and incapable of bringing knowledge about any point in time or space.

The principle of uniformity vs atheism

As in mathematics, the uniformity principle is key to conducting scientific research. This principle states that the past behaved much like the present, and that the future will develop much like the present. This principle limits the universe to a continuous connection through time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based on this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate current observations to the past and the future. Thanks to this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with methodical certainty and make predictions about future events in the natural world (this is how different models of natural phenomena are tested: predictions of future discoveries are made based on different interpretations of currently observable data).

But, just as with mathematics, this principle cannot simply emerge with the appearance of the human brain on the cosmic scene. If this principle is a product of a peculiarity of the universe, then the universe cannot be governed by such a principle. Because of this absolute lack of government, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Therefore, if we want to continue scientific discovery using this principle, and if we want to believe that anything discovered using it is true or makes sense, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the uniformity principle, like mathematics, has a transcendent (supernatural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. In this second respect, atheism renders scientific discoveries useless before they are published.

The laws of logic vs atheism

Mathematics and the principle of uniformity are joined by the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present with the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the initial events of creation itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by the transcendental laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and methodical certainty (mentioned above) necessarily depend on the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to investigate and connect events as if it were governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside the natural universe; this means that they must exist supernaturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists supernaturally, and the laws of logic are no exception. Therefore, according to atheism, the universe is not required to follow any of these laws nor can it be expected to do so. If we cannot rely on the universe to invariably follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make plausible theses about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or its future. Without laws of logic existing outside the universe, any scientific endeavor that attempts to extend our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment that we witness in our small space of action is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Since there is no room in atheism for the laws of logic to govern this universe, then it cannot claim that justified and reasonable scientific discovery lies within its worldview either.

The laws of physics vs atheism

Atheism, without the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, can no longer state or explain the laws of physics. That is just one of the many implications of a worldview devoid of a reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics is deeper than just discovery and exposition. For lack of discovery and/or exposition does not necessarily imply nonexistence. The lack of the laws of physics in the atheistic worldview is established independently of, but similar to, the absence of the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic.

If there really are no laws of physics governing this universe, which if there were would mean that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use such laws of physics in any reasoning (because that would be using non-existent laws of logic) from current observations of this universe to the past history (because that would be using a non-existent principle of uniformity) of the same universe. Again, without a foundation outside of this universe that makes the laws of physics govern the universe, this universe is not constrained to follow any specific trajectory (laws of physics). If atheism is true, this is another reason why science is useless before it makes itself known.

Our sensory organs and the brain vs atheism

Of course, the utility of the features of reality described above does not manifest itself in scientific discoveries until observations are made. While those features of reality are observer-independent, this latter property is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism lack the foundation for the observer-independent (and much needed for scientific work) features of reality described above, but the guidelines/criteria for observer-dependent scientific endeavor undermine the reliability of its own work.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the emergence of sensations in human organs and brains: they are changes that occur over time and are directed by the (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or simply “evolution” in many atheist circles. We must clearly differentiate between agent-guided and environmentally guided evolution. The “unguided” qualifier here refers to agent-guided evolution. Evolutionists firmly believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was directed by the environment and by the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation and behavior of the environment.

Given this, the process guided solely by non-existent physical laws results in the survival of the species, so traits that are useful for the survival of populations are passed on from generation to generation and will continually be present. From this point of view, one trait has an advantage over another because of the external factors that allow its propagation, regardless of how useful that ability is. How useful that ability is is a purely accidental trait, and there is no way to independently test the usefulness of such traits for their continued existence, especially since all the features of reality mentioned above, which could be used to independently test them, lack a solid foundation if atheism is true. This means that the sensations of our organs and our brain have survived, not because of how useful their abilities were, but because they helped our ancestors survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come along and say that we can scientifically and independently prove the sensations of our organs through logic, mathematics, the uniformity principle, or the laws of physics because none of these have any solid foundation if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then all of those “laws” are the product of our evolved brains, which, again, is the product of a process governed by non-existent laws of mathematics, logic, and physics.

Conclusion

If something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, it’s not a valid starting point for creating processes that gain knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot be based on the laws of mathematics.

…science cannot be based on the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot be based on the laws of logic.

…science cannot be based on the laws of physics.

…science cannot be based on our own observations.

…science cannot be based on our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends on the certainty and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no basis for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are not true and do not exist. They cannot therefore be starting points for any discipline of knowledge, including science. If atheism is true, then science (among other disciplines of knowledge) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with truths about our world. If atheism is true (in any of its forms), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs with objective reality.

Since atheism and science are mutually exclusive, atheism is no friend of science; and science is no friend of atheism. If you are a friend of science, you know that these six concepts are characteristics of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the naive scientific and philosophical worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for each of these six realities that you already know exist and upon which you already depend for your scientific discoveries.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/38XdTMC

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo