Tuesday, March 10, 2015

When did science become a religion?

  If you hadn't noticed by now, I write quite a bit on the topic of fad Atheism.  I have been reading books on evolutionary biology since I was twelve, so calling me "Anti-Scientific" is a little confusing to my ears, since, whilst I may not know the ins and outs of ATP production, I am most certainly not Anti-Scientific.  But here's the thing, science can only deal with things that are observable.  In other words, science cannot explain whether or not there is a God because modern science has come to the conclusion (much like communists before them) that the only reality is material reality, they do not believe there is a rational way to explain the metaphysical, as they don't believe metaphysical exists.  No, science has become Scientism, a religion unto itself, a religion with as many adherents as reddit accounts.  Science cannot disprove the existence of God, no matter when certain 23 year old "former" Christians think.  I respect Atheists that honestly are searching for truth, but the ones that are Atheists because they read a summary of Richard Dawkins, or because they have a wifi connection, not so much.  No one converts to scientism on their death bed,  Trying to imagine how Sacraments would work in scientism.  Their Holy Texts seem to be anything written by Hitchens or Dawkins.  I am not angry at people for being Atheists, so people may be convinced there is no God, what I am angry at is how Anti-Scientific Atheism has gotten, whilst simultaneously accusing people (especially Christians) of being Anti science.  I also admit to a particular confusion as to why they lump all Christians together and seem to think we are all Fundamentalist Protestants.  Do understand, I am not making a pronouncement on all Atheists, but I fail to see why for something to be true I must be able to prove it with the scientific method.  What about the fact the modern Atheist hero, Richard Dawkins, has been "proven" (by the way, science doesn't work that way) wrong on his idea of the "selfish gene" (which, by the way, is where the word meme comes from)?  In other words, there's no scientific evidence such a gene exists, so why should I trust Richard Dawkins again?
By the way, does anyone know how to make it where I don't get pro-Atheist (Anti-Science at that)! video suggestions on youtube?  Thanks for your time.