“God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.” —Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)
It takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist.
It's odd to think they deny it.
To be an atheist, one must dutifully ignore logic, history, science and mathematics. In short, reality itself.
I don't doubt that a small number of atheists have contributed modestly to the continuing development of science at some time but no one who has even a limited understanding of the history and philosophy of science would suggest atheists have contributed more to modern science and technology than Catholics. (See here and here, for instance.) If such a claim were true, it's odd that no one has committed themselves to writing it down and defending it with citations of actual books. It's one thing to whine. It's altogether a completely different thing altogether to cite.
To be sure, the atheist's faith is a fragile thing. This is not to say they won't defend their belief in a magical universe starting on its own, abiosis (the generation of life from inanimate matter), the “illusion” of free will and the non-concept of “consciousness.”
This denialism requires a great deal of mental energy from fundamentalist atheists to convince themselves that reality isn't really reality. And their anger, combativeness and contrarianism, both collective and individual is a result of their own cognitive dissonance.
In addition to their cognitive dissonance is their stifling pride. It takes a staggering amount of pride to pretend to be an expert in any and all subjects and resolutely refuse to read books on those very subjects.
Imagine what this must be like for them―the only way to pretend to be intellectually superior is to actively avoid reading books. And then, when pressed, to flat-out lie about having down so, and, when the cat is out of the bag, to unleash their rage upon the Christian who has outed them as ignorant braggarts.
I don't say this to single out atheists―even fundamentalist atheists, specially. Rather, all people who regard themselves as wonderful, or perfect or “highly intelligent” are on the wrong road to personal enlightenment and maturity.
This goes a long way in explaining why it is that ignorant atheists are keen to point out that many scientists are supposedly atheists. It could legitimately be asked why, if atheists only make up 2.5 percent of Americans, are they so over-represented in among the sciences. However, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we should consider a few other points:
1. Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t make them logical, good or generous. This is equivocation and both illogical and irrational.
2. There are more than enough scientists who are morally corrupt fabricating data, misleading non-professionals and their own atheistic colleagues. There are even more who slide on the ice and don’t produce anything important for science like Richard Dawkins, Patricia Churchland and the Hwang Woo-suk―of the recent Korean Cloning Fraud.
3. To be clear, there were no Catholic priests or popes who were involved in the creation of the atomic bomb or non-biodegradable plastic, GMOs or the construction of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. If what atheists insist is correct, the blame for these errors lies squarely on the shoulders of atheists.
4. If critical thinking was so important to atheists and scientists, why have so few of their group ever studied logic? More telling, why are so many members of those groups eager to lie about having down so? Paul Z. Myers―the atheists who desecrated the Eucharist in a public stunt―lied to me repeatedly about having studied logic but when it became apparent to him that I was onto his lies, he became furious and insisted that one doesn’t need to be logical to be rational. If nothing else, I’m grateful at not being an atheist for this, the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard from a fundamentalist atheist. Being logical is quintessential for being a successful scientist. Anything else makes an atheist into a failed scientastor―an inept scientist.
5. Science is not the personal purview of atheists and atheism. There is no legitimate science book printed anywhere that says, one can only be an atheist to be a scientist. If it was, the author of that book never once considered the list of famous Catholics who were scientists and who contributed mightily to their respective fields.
6. Just because someone isn’t a scientist doesn’t mean they are stupid. There are artistic, culinary, musical and literary geniuses and great craftsmen and artisans who aren’t trained scientists. The same goes for people in commerce, philosophy and other academic fields such as history. Max Tegmark, a mediocre physicist, told me Giordano Bruno was executed by the Catholic Church in order to punish him for his ideas that aliens exist on other planets. He assured me he had 30 physicist colleagues that agreed with him. I told him I had access to 30 books that proved him and his colleagues incorrect. Does Tegmark’s refusal to read history books make him intentionally ignorant? Of course it does―it hardly makes him out to be an intelligent man despite his advanced degree.
7. When we consider mathematicians, we find them by far better represented among scholars than are scientists. Among those polled in a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences to indicate if they believe, disbelieve or are agnostic regarding the existence of God and Heaven, the highest percentage of believers was found among mathematicians (14.3 percent) and the lowest was found among biological scientists (5.5 percent). Among physicists and astronomers, 7.5 percent profess belief in God.
Maybe mathematicians know something scientists don’t.
8. When one considers that most people who work in the sciences or use the sciences or mathematics in their professional lives such as doctors, surgeons, nurses, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, accountants, architects, logicians, technicians and the like, we can reasonable expect to see more theists among their numbers.
9. If scientists represent the pinnacle of human intellect and intelligence to fundamentalist atheists, then how do they account for any scientist who believes in God? Are these scientists “not as smart” as the average atheist who has never studied science? What of atheists who’ve never studied science, are they as stupid? Fundamentalist atheists can’t have it both ways. If scientists are smart and those who don’t study science are dumb, then it follows the vast majority of fundamentalist atheists are stupid for not having a degree in the sciences. In addition, all of those scientists who believe in God are obviously very intelligent. But, if they are intelligent, why won’t fundamentalist atheists agree with them?
10. Are scientists now required to agree with each other? If so, there are no scientists in the world as there are very few ideas in the sciences that are universally agreed upon.
11. To be clear, the main reason why there are so many atheists in the world is because of communist atheist dictators refused to allow their fellow citizens into university or to work for the government unless they signed a “Vow of Apostasy.” Otherwise, we’d be up to our necks in scientists who believe in God.
12. More importantly, if most, if any, scientists are atheists, why are there so few atheist humanitarians, heroes and saints? Perhaps, for atheists, there is a disconnect between being “smart” and being good. Fundamentalist atheists will have to explain this bit of cognitive dissonance among themselves before we can take them seriously.
13. In essence, polling men and women in the scientists now and asking them if they believe in God is no more valid than polling scientists 500 years ago. Perhaps we are living in a momentary atheistic blip in the sociology of the sciences where they are in the ascendancy―but it won’t last long. If we enter a new period in 10 years when society concentrates on spirituality and most scientists become theists, will this mean that God actually does exist? (Spoiler Alert: He already does.)
14. Faith in God will never vanish from the earth. A nuclear war or other global disaster can easily wipe out all scientists. And, as Jack Kerouac, the famous hipster author and journalist said in defense of his Catholic faith, “Let's meet back here in 10,000 years and see how our respective philosophies fare.”
15. I don’t doubt that if one polls mathematicians, scientists, engineers, logicians and the like as to whether they are fond of desserts, many would say that they dutifully avoid them. Does that mean that scholars who enjoy a good tiramisu are stupid or bad scientists? All we know for certain is that the fundamentalist atheist who thinks that theism and science are somehow opposed have yet to make their point.
16. The most obnoxious scientists in my estimate have been atheists such as Paul Z. Meyers, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. None of these people would want themselves as neighbors.
17. Further, as is typical of atheists, you’ll find an inordinate number of non-believers who pretend to be scientists as if to legitimatize themselves such as Patricia Churchland, Michael Shermer and James Randi.
18. Why should this matter? If more scientists were found to be theists would atheists lay their arms down and crawl to the nearest Catholic church begging to be baptized? Doubtful. If most mathematicians and scientists were found to be theists, fundamentalist atheists would then they say those people were all stupid and crazy as they have already judged the vast majority of humanity. Fundamentalist atheist narcissists would then claim themselves even smarter than the smartest scientists and mathematicians. A fundamentalist atheist’s opinions are designed to bolster their egos and not meant to ascertain the truth. If it was the later, more of them would have studied logic.
19. Argumentum ad populorum.
20. And if the majority of scientists are atheist, what does this prove to the fundamentalist atheist? Richard Errett Smalley (1943-2005), the scientist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work with a new form of carbon called buckminsterfullerene, also known as “buckyballs,” had been an atheist but then came to accept Christ as the Savior of the Universe (i.e., Pancrator) and Reason Itself. (i.e., the Logos.) Does this make him “stupid?” If so, this stupid man has a Nobel Prize in Chemistry while the average fundamentalist atheist refuses to read books. I’ll take the Christian scientist over an atheist who only pretends to read books and “master” subjects through “osmosis” any day.
21. If it was found that most scientists commit adultery, suicide, murder, misappropriation of government funds or grand theft auto, would the average fundamentalist atheist applaud those behaviors also? Fundamentalist atheist shouldn’t equivocate “smart” with “good” or even “wise.”
22. In fact, When atheists incorrectly insist that most scientists are atheists, they must then take responsibility for the great number of disasters, crimes and peccadilloes of the average scientists for example atheist Josef Mengele and the scientists involved in the Japanese Unit 731 live human experiments both during World War II―a war started by Hitler, who was also an atheist.
23. It’s a tiresome meme that insists atheists are “running scared” and refuse to admit they don’t believe in God is a two-edged sword. If it’s true that there are an inordinate number of atheists among scientists, engineers, mathematicians and technicians, then it follows that there is possibly an inordinate number of crypto-Catholics who refuse to admit their belief in God for fear of retaliation. Considering how rude and obnoxious fundamentalist atheists such as Paul Z Myers, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer (not a real scientist) and Patricia Churchland, (again, not a real scientist) are, it supports my theory.
24. If being represented or not being represented by a group is important to atheists, it’s a valid question to ask why other groups aren’t well-represented amongst atheists. For instance, why are there so few women atheists? Why so few African-American atheists? Why so few Hispanic atheists? Atheists are also reticent to follow their own logic but it’s a huge gorilla in the atheist living room they are ignoring here. Are the above groups less likely to be atheists because they “not as smart” as the average white male atheist? I’d like to sell tickets and popcorn to the public event at which a fundamentalist atheist addresses that question.
25. Though it can’t be said that logicians―those who study logic and are pretty smart cookies in their own right―aren’t necessary scientists, their field of study falls under the discipline of mathematics. And, as it is illogical to suggest that God doesn’t exist, most logicians who have dedicated themselves to the rules of logic are either theists or agnostics.
26. Why should we expect scientists with no training in either logic or theology to suddenly come to the conclusion that God exists? Should we poll anti-science boosters as to the legitimacy of science? I doubt atheists would care what they had to say.
27. Atheists shouldn’t worry themselves as to the number of atheists who are scientists but rather at why so few atheists become scientists at all. James Randi pretends to be a scientist but doesn’t have a high school diploma. Most of the atheists of my acquaintance similarly didn’t finish high school or did so at the bottom of their respective classes. Several of them have insisted they are more scientifically minded than I am despite the fact that I have several graduate degrees in the sciences and they failed high school biology class. Why? Because, so they insist, atheists are smarter than theists. Humorous. This is a classic fundamentalist atheist mistake called “circular reasoning” as depicted in the following classic exchange:
A: Gentlemen prefer blondes
B: How do you know?
A: A gentleman told me.
B: How do you know he was a gentleman?
A: He preferred blondes.
I love it when fundamentalist atheist hang themselves on their own bad logic without any help from me.
28. For those in the know, the formula for estimating the number of mathematicians who believe in God is:
T = 100 × (x-y)/x - a
Where X represents the total number of mathematicians in the world and Y represent the number of atheists who are mathematicians. A represents the number of agnostics as they fall into neither group.