Odd. I always heard that the truth was fully revealed in the Bible and it was only for man to accept or reject them and that the only correction to be had was the forcible acceptance of previously rejected Biblical truths. That’s not the kind of correction which science works.
And yes, science is based on faith. We call them axioms, and we state them outright. If you can manage to shine light on the foundations of a scientific axiom, you have truly worked a great piece of science. Another article of scientific faith is that the Scientific Method is indeed the best means we have for probing the universe and understanding its wonders. If someone were to come along and prove that there is another way that is superior, which results in better predictions of future events in the universe, the scientific community will dump the Scientific Method and embrace this new system with aplomb.
Magic, religion, and wishful thinking have all been proposed as possibilities for supplanting the Scientific Method and all have failed to prove themselves better.
 November 25, 2015 at 1:26pm
Not everything that is done in the name of science is science. Just as not everything done in the name of a god can be deemed religion. The difference between science and religion is that science has a built-in self-correction mechanism in the Scientific Method. Scientists today can afford to get things wrong, because they can expect the scientists of tomorrow will be able to correct them. Religion holds itself up as correct yesterday, today, and for all time, and if you disagree with any religious authority, we have a lovely rack or burning stake for you.
I prefer science to advance in a largely secular society where scientists glean nothing from their religions except perhaps a desire to truthfully probe the wonders of the universe.
 November 25, 2015 at 1:18pm
“Also, no one wants to hear that past oppression against you is a legitimate excuse for current oppression of others.”
Wow. Ironic much? You do understand how applicable that is to Christianity today, right? Religious oppression is never okay, historic oppression be damned.
LOL…a lesbian who’s so insecure that she has to proclaim her sexuality and her surrogate penis (guns) to attempt to validate herself. And in a fit of rage and frustration lashes out at christians for daring to question her kind’s delusions about their sexuality. Wow..ironic much?
You are a genius, aren't you?
To coin hiLIARly infamous quote "At this point what does it matter." We should stop trying to pick each other apart and fight the REAL threat. ISLAM.
Tell me which is the greater oppression:
1. Saying you should not do it and if you do, I won’t be a party to it or recognized it.
2. Forcing everyone, whether they agree or not, to participate in your lifestyle choices and destroying their livelihoods if they disagree.
Christians regularly employ 1 above and that torques you off, I get it. I don’t know why you value our approval so much when you could just go your own way and live as you choose.
The LGBT crowd uses 2, though, which utterly destroys freedom. We don’t get to go our own way and live as we choose because you hunt us down and force us to choose between our livelihoods and our convictions.
 November 25, 2015 at 1:16pm
F) I’ve always been blessed (by nature, not a benevolent deity) with a hyper-literal mind. In my high school English classes (this was before they had been re”christ”ened, “Language Arts”), I was always asking for the iron-clad rules for how this construction or that construction was to be spelled and punctuated, but frequently, my teachers had no ultimate authority on the English language to offer. There is no International Authority on Standard English to appeal to. Human language is a communal construct. We write and speak to be understood, and, so long as understanding is to be had, the rules around which those communiques are constructed can be fluid.
I understand the child-like demand that every question, no matter how esoteric or detailed, must have an immediate answer, and that any delay in the provision of said answer must be a failing in the answerer and/or their systems of philosophy and thought. It’s quiet adorable, but adults understand that just because we can formulate a question does not mean that it has an answer, that the answer has meaning, or that the meaning is satisfactory to one’s immediate needs.
@lespacking..I like hydro shock. this article is flawed from the start, there is no new atheism there is only the same old people who do not believe. THere are only small radical groups as with the Freedom from Religion Crowd whose numbers could not fill a stadium.I say the splitting of the church from one to 38000 denominations is what is killing Christianity
 November 25, 2015 at 12:43pm
“The professor, who holds three doctoral degrees, said that he was once an atheist as a young man, but later realized that reason simply wasn’t enough for him — and he believes that atheism’s inability to answer important questions is entirely too problematic.”
A) Appeal to Authority much?
B) So this is the zeal of the convert. He’s not lecturing about science, he’s proselytizing about his religion.
C) Scientific discovery advances at the pace society allows it to. If society wants answers to great questions, they need to promote the investigatory sciences and wait patiently, not hamstring them by insisting the fictional answers drummed up by religion be taught to the next crop of scientists as if the religion was science itself.
D) If you want more, there are any number of highly capable post-secondary institutions of higher learning, though admittedly not as many as there are churches across America.
E) Fewer still, there are many fine television networks dedicated to covering the great scientific mysteries of the universe: The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Smithsonian Channel, The National Geographic Channel, The Science Channel, as well as many fine programs on channels like The American Heroes Channel and PBS. Try turning off MTV and E! and watching those offerings from time to time.
Hollow Point Girl (sorry, but I just feel weird addressing someone by their sexual preferences, even if they wear them on their sleeve),
Good post. Well written, and starting it with the comment on the fallacy was a nice touch.
i glean from such programs but when I hear that the earth was born out of chaos but is so fragile that if we lose a species we are doomed to lose it all never mind the new species being found constantly. The animal kingdom is still pretty hostile.
Would you prefer science to advance in an extreme radical Islamic society or a not perfect Christian society
Your fragility and insecurity are showing again Lezzie.
Feel free to mention some male appendages again in your reply to me…you fixate on those a lot. More of your insecurity I imagine.
F) I've always been blessed (by nature, not a benevolent deity) with a hyper-literal mind. In my high school English classes (this was before they had been re"christ"ened, "Language Arts"), I was always asking for the iron-clad rules for how this construction or that construction was to be spelled and punctuated, but frequently, my teachers had no ultimate authority on the English language to offer. There is no International Authority on Standard English to appeal to. Human language is a communal construct. We write and speak to be understood, and, so long as understanding is to be had, the rules around which those communiques are constructed can be fluid.
I understand the child-like demand that every question, no matter how esoteric or detailed, must have an immediate answer, and that any delay in the provision of said answer must be a failing in the answerer and/or their systems of philosophy and thought. It's quiet adorable, but adults understand that just because we can formulate a question does not mean that it has an answer, that the answer has meaning, or that the meaning is satisfactory to one's immediate needs.
I took much the same route as the professor. I also came to the conclusion that my atheistic faith, while professing a high degree of reason, did not always provide good answers.
Atheism seemed good in my youth but life experiences demanded some answers.
For better context...Lezzie has a grudge against christians because they mostly don't buy into her homosexual delusions. She's merely lashing out...it's a temper tantrum from an insecure and angry little woman.
A) McGrath has been around for a long time and the author of over 20 books. He's actually an evolutionist which doesn't stop him from being critical of the atheist prophet Dawkins. He is well known and well regarded in apologetics circles by both theist and secularists. He is well studied and well educated which by any measure makes him a credible authority.
B) You should avail yourself of some of his written works before making such an ignorant comment.
C) No, science is limited to what is, what exits, the natural universe, but has no use in answering esoteric concerns like, "why is there something instead of nothing" and why are flowers pretty.
D) Yes and in many of those institutions of higher learning subjects like philosophy and theology things science cannot explore.
E) Sure Hoke Coleburn, Mr. Spock and Niel Degrasse Tyson don't have agendas. Talk about proselytizing. I'm sure Ancient Aliens provided you with enough of a worldview too.
I stopped watching the science channel when they had a reality tv series about antiques. Also, they gave too much attention to untrue weird science theories. When one knows science, the science channel has nothing to offer.
 November 24, 2015 at 6:12pm
You call them true facts. That means you are making a claim that they have been proven true. Okay. Show me. Show me the scientific proof you claim makes them true facts.
 November 24, 2015 at 6:07pm
Yea, Jim and Tammy Faye were very humble in their mansions and finery provided by their supplicants.
I’m an Atheist and I’m the humblest person who’s ever lived. /sarcasm
The Bakers are in no way representative of Christians at large
Did they act Christ-like? That's the one question to be asked.
Humility in Christ does not mean we are to live as paupers, either. God does bless His children with material wealth. We are after all the children of the King of Kings.
November 24, 2015 at 8:52am
Well then, I guess I’m just stupid. (Though, I do know how to properly use the contraction of “you are”.)
You attempted to impute some shame to me. Why don’t you use your words, such as they are, to be explicit about what it is that you believe I should be ashamed.
 November 24, 2015 at 8:47am
@ watchman48: I do not have doubts about the existence of god. I know there are no gods which exist. I know this with just as much devoutness as you know they do. I have answered the question “Does god exist?” with a firm “No.” You answered it with a firm “Yes.” Who is right? How can you prove your answer to the question? You say because, Bible. But the Bible is not the only holy book on planet Earth. There are many other religions, each with their own holy scriptures describing the only gods that religion recognizes, and they’re largely mutually exclusive.
You dismiss all of the other holy books with, “But those books aren’t correct.” As easily as you dismiss the correctness of those holy books is the ease with which I dismiss the Bible, the Talmud, and the Quran. No book which claims to explain the universe through magic and revelation rather than the scientific method and experimentation is of any worth or value to me.
Unless it’s an RPG rule book, because role playing games are just good social fun.
[-1] November 24, 2015 at 8:33am
Wow. Where to begin.
You are correct that just because something uses the word “science” doesn’t make it a science. This goes in spades for “Creation Science”. It’s science if it uses the Scientific Method, which Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, and Genetics all do.
You decry evolution as not science, but then you use its scientific precepts as a defense against homosexuality. And just because a trait cannot be directly passed down by people who exhibit it does not make it geneticly based. Perhaps you need to read a basic genetics text and pay close attention to dominant vs. recessive traits. There are still millions of people walking around with blue eyes and blonde hair, even though they are recessive. According to you, the brown eyed and brown haired people should have taken over, since their genetics are dominant. Wherefore, then, the Swedish Bikini Team?
Using evolution to explain the origin and diversity of life in no way impinges on anyone’s right to believe that their particular deity had a hand in it. Why should we teach only the Christian creation myth? Why couldn’t the Navajo creation myth or the Hindu creation myth have just as strong a claim on public school science classrooms. I mean, if we’re gonna start teaching mythology in public schools, where does it end? You are perfectly free to believe that your god did it. Evolution is HOW he did it. Millions of Christians already believe this very thing.
November 23, 2015 at 9:39pm
Some are not ashamed of their religion. Some are not ashamed of not having a religion.
 November 23, 2015 at 9:35pm
@ FundamentalistChristian: Then do that, but silently. Don’t tell the person who just told you that they’re Atheist that you’re going to pray to your magical sky daddy. It doesn’t promote your purpose in praying for them.
 November 23, 2015 at 4:19pm
Praying in your own religious tradition for people who do not follow your religious tradition to come to your religious tradition is for the benefit of your religious tradition and a fine, fine thing.
TELLING people who do not follow your religious tradition that you’re going to pray for them in your religious tradition to come to your religious tradition is for YOU and YOUR EGO and to aggravate the person who does not follow your religious tradition and is unlikely to engender in them warm and fuzzy feelings toward or about your religious tradition.
 November 23, 2015 at 4:03pm
As they say, as long as there is high-stakes, standardized testing in public schools, there will be prayer in public schools. As long as that prayer is not the teachers exhorting the students to pray for the teacher’s careers after the numbers are in, that prayer is just fine.
 November 23, 2015 at 3:53pm
If “God’s Not Dead 2″ is a “wake up call for America”, does that mean that America “hit the snooze button” on the original “God’s Not Dead” movie?
And if so, what makes the producers of “God’s Not Dead 2″ think it will fare any better?
LMAO... perhaps you were too busy at the range (unlikely). Gods not dead was produced at a cost of $2 million dollars, in its first few months, it brought over $64 million. Unlike "Steve Jobs" which brought in approx $14 million with a cost of $30 million. Or there's "Our Brand Is Crisis" which cost approx $28 million and brought in around $5 million. More people watched Gods Not Dead then both those Big Brand Made Movies combined. But keep thinking no ones watching. It works for us.
Every time the alarm rings it's a 'wake up call'
some PEOPLE in America ^^^^ "hit the snooze button."
 November 23, 2015 at 12:52pm
Evolution is fact. Facts are statements which can be proven true or false. This is what evolution is. This is what all of science is. Evolution is taught as science. It is the best science we have to date to explain the diversity of life we observe as well as the fossil record we discover.
Homosexuality is found in nature. That makes it natural. This is not a judgement call. This is a fact. If you want to make judgements upon homosexuality in your homes and churches, knock yo’se’f out. Just keep your judgements out of my schools.
I am a proponent of abstinence-only sex ed, but sex ed that teaches everything, all the techniques of self-pleasure, all the diseases in all their gory detail, all the economics and expense of birth and raising a child. Just teach that until they reach a point in their lives where they can actually support a sprog of their own, they should keep it in their own pants. This includes the gay kids because they catch expensive diseases too.
Proceeding from an assumption of a mechanistic, materialistic universe is called an axiom. It’s a statement that can be proven neither true nor false, but which represents the simplest essence of the problem space. To proceed from an assumption of a divinity complicates scientific research immensely. If you can prove that there is a divinity as well as the basic qualities said divinity does, actually have, scientists the world over will be waiting with bated breath to factor him into their calculations.
 November 23, 2015 at 12:36pm
I happily admit that that was my snark setting pegged to 11.
 November 23, 2015 at 12:33pm
@ Atrum_Angelus: At this point, all you can do is let utopiabuster do his thing. He’s got inertia on his side, like a boulder rolling downhill. It’s like he’s trolling himself at this point. A perpetual trolling machine.
All we need to do is make sure we’re not caught under him as he goes.
 November 23, 2015 at 9:42am
Could you point out an instance of one of these private college campuses where students’ religious rights are being suppressed by Atheists?
And every right is both a right to and a right to abstain. The right to free speech is also the right to be silent. The right to a free press is also the right to refuse to print. And the right to religious practice is also the right to refuse to worship, but that right of refusal is undermined when the government confiscates (taxes) our money from us and then used a portion of it to worship in our names.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” — Constitution for the United States of America, Art. III, § 2, Cl. 1 (in part)
 November 23, 2015 at 9:16am
Would you kindly point out where a public school is teaching Islam as fact? I understand there are schools teaching ABOUT Islam, and that alone has some low-information voter parents’ knickers in a twist. Some are even forbidding the schools to teach their children about “Arabic numerals”.
And it’s funny how we can begin at such disparate starting points, yet both arrive at the same destination. The Department of Education should be disbanded.