The Impotence Of Atheism

Many of the people who reject religion do so by asserting that science is grounded in observable fact and therefore superior. Such people often tout scientific accomplishments in the fields of medicine, labor-saving devices, or astronomy to illustrate all the good that science has done for us.

But here's the problem. There is nothing scientific to suggest that a pacemaker is superior to thumbscrews, or that a nuclear power plant is superior to a nuclear bomb, or even that preserving life is superior to ending it. These distinctions are not based on science, which has nothing to say about them. These are judgments based on what is NOT observable, namely sentiment and ideals. Indeed, one can survey any number of the beliefs so strongly held by today's proud atheists and conclude that there is nothing scientific to support them:

• It is a fact that different races of people display marked differences in intelligence, athleticism, and any number of other measurable traits. There is nothing scientific about smothering this information or attacking people who bring it up, yet this is what atheists are often the first ones to do. 

• It is a fact that all manner of animals and plants go extinct on a regular basis, irrespective of human activity. More than 90% of all creatures who ever inhabited the Earth are already gone, most of them long before we arrived. There is nothing scientific about trying to prevent more species from going extinct, yet once again it is the atheists who often insist upon doing this.

• It is a fact the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels are constantly shifting, and that the Earth will eventually fry as the Sun continues to grow larger and hotter. There is nothing scientific about demanding that human activity be compelled toward preserving the Earth in a given state, yet once again it is the atheists who often insist upon doing this.

• It is a fact that governments espousing atheism and "scientific" governance -- e.g., Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea -- have caused far and away more deaths during the 20th century alone than religion can claim throughout all recorded history. There is nothing scientific to recommend an atheistic government over a religious one, yet once again it is the atheists who insist upon doing this.

These examples are actually quite humble. If one embraces science and rejects all supernatural authority, he has no basis whatsoever to criticize rape, robbery, torture, murder, or even the Holocaust. To argue that these things are "bad" is not a scientific conclusion; we witness merciless behavior among the beasts of the jungle, but we do not judge them for it. The only basis for judging man is if one asserts that man is above and apart from nature -- which is a supernatural conclusion.

So at the end of the day, self-proclaimed atheists are theists but just won't admit it. (As I've argued before, though, there are no atheists.)