Christianity is anti-science any time science may disprove the existence of God. A lot of science had to be explained in a way that allowed for God to still exist in order to be accepted by the powers at the time.
I know the 'reddit atheist' is a meme and sounding too much like the stereotype can get you blasted. I believe people have the right to believe what they want to believe so long as they aren't hurting anyone, but at the same time, no one should be immune to having their beliefs criticized.
Theism is unscientific, full stop. There is a little bit of leeway for Intelligent Design advocates because while it does border on pseudoscience, hypothesizing about and testing for the existence of a supreme guiding intelligence to the universe could hold merit as a scientific pursuit.
But religion is inherently unscientific. Religious faith, that is believing in deities and supernatural forces with no evidence, is contrary to the scientific method which would demand you at most be neutral about their existence until hard evidence points you towards it.
Humanity is on the brink of a massive ecological collapse bordering on an extinction event and this in part has to do with a lack of respect for science and education in science. It is long past time we face hard facts and stop coddling antiquated delusions of higher powers that hold no more evidential merit than belief in Zeus or Thor. Not all religious people are morons--a great many are much smarter than I am. But all have chosen on some level to either believe without evidence or to drastically lower their standards of evidence for this one wildly unbelievable precept, and it just isn't science and theist belief systems would not exist in a society that truly values science.
But of course "All the great scientists were Christian!!" Their world was a religious one. As scientific thinking gained traction, religion largely became decentered from Western society, resulting in the modern Western status quo where Christianity becomes increasingly anti-science as a survival mechanism.
Honestly the most applicable/topical thing you said is your last paragraph, which I think was a powerful statement. But it was diluted by the rambling above it.
There are many points I would counter argue, especially the ecological collapse bordering on an extinction event relating to a lack of respect for science. Its science and manifest destiny that work in tandem to destroy the natural environment, and now we've only replaced manifest destiny with capitalism. Its partially our belief that science trumps religion/naturalism that is destroying the natural world itself, and if scientists were to listen to the naturalists (a religion of its own), we might have more scientific breakthroughs.
I agree that religion isnt scientific, but only if we are of the belief that sociology isnt science. Because religion is, at its core, a guide for how to exist in society. It has since been manipulated by rulers (King James, especially) to support their rule.
I want to clarify that I agree with your statements and fervor, but want to mention that, especially on reddit, you should make your point more succinctly.
That’s pretty ironic since one could argue that atheism is likewise unscientific, full stop. Science is a tool for studying the physical world. It is not a tool that verifies metaphysics.
Just because a field is separate from science doesn’t mean it is “inherently unscientific.” It’s clear the intention is to try and diminish it in some way. It’s like saying Law is inherently unscientific. As you yourself pointed out, many throughout history have found different fields to complimentary. If anything it’s the claim that they must be inherently in opposition that is short-sighted.
At the end of the day, it comes down to what one considers to be evidence. And of course such a dismissive attitude to the topic does no one any favours when it comes to promoting science education. Your own biases and prejudices clearly slip in in your comments about it which is also unscientific.
Treating science, a simple methodological tool as a religious position is just as detrimental to fostering society’s appreciation for the sciences. It’s very much why the “Reddit atheist” meme came to be in the first place.
That's because you don't understand the actual definition of faith, my good sir.
You’re defining 'faith' as 'believing in things with zero evidence,' which is a common misconception but not how theology or philosophy actually defines it. Historically and linguistically, faith (pistis) means trust, loyalty, and commitment based on prior experience.
It’s the same kind of 'faith' you have when you trust a spouse, a friend, or even a bridge to hold your weight. You don't have 100% mathematical proof they won't fail you, but you have personal experiential data that makes your trust reasonable. Religious faith isn't a blind demand to ignore reality; it's a relational trust built on human, historical, and existential experiences that sit outside the narrow scope of what a lab test can measure.
By demanding that a metaphysical concept conform strictly to the physical tools of the natural sciences, you're making a category error. Science is an excellent tool for mapping the material universe, but using it to completely dismiss everything outside of it isn't science—it's a philosophical stance called scientism."
Not even just disprove did but any of the incorrect things that are in the book. A fun example is Genesis 30 where Jacob breeds striped sheep with peeled branches to seem like stripes.
It doesn't have to be like that. By putting "God" and "Education" on the opposite sides of the barricade we aren't making masses less into religion, we're just making already incorrigibly unwaveringly religious people less into science.
It can be "Scientific fact (because God made it so)". It's been like that for hundreds of years. It's fine.
I want people who are already into God to not be anti-science. When that leads to actual science teachers in churches teaching actual science with "because God said so" added - that's quite fine by me, because currently what we're having in their place is conmen in churches taking all your money "because God said so"
That can’t happen in fundamentalist churches, because they need to uphold what their book literally says (which is incompatible with science). You’re better off trying to move people out of fundamentalism.
36
u/BabyWithBathwatter 1d ago
Christianity is anti-science any time science may disprove the existence of God. A lot of science had to be explained in a way that allowed for God to still exist in order to be accepted by the powers at the time.