Why do Atheists keep on repeating the lie that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive?

In fact some the greatest scientists in history were believers. Newton enough said.

Update:

Euler too damn it.

37 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    Any port in a storm. Anything to shore up their fantasy that there is no God.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    I also don't know 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    There is nothing scientific about a magic god fairy who hides somewhere in the universe. The Easter Bunny has the same problem.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Jake
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    A person can battle atheism and other sins using the rosary and fasting.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    I don't say it. It is irrelevant anyway. They still have no evidence for their god belief

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Paul
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Of course. It's a ridiculous claim. Many of the greatest scientists the world has known were Christian. Knowing one truth doesn't prevent anyone from knowing another truth.

    Catholic biologist

    • River Euphrates
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      And being intelligent and able to apply the scientific method in one aspect of their lives doesn't preclude them from accepting superstitious nonsense in another.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Let a renowned scientist answer. What you have asked is, basically, the theme of his book. He starts by clearing up a grave misunderstanding people have today, about science and religion being 'opposites'. The words "science and scientist have Latin origins in the verb 'scio' = 'I know'. Whether we know Latin or not, the complex associations built in our minds by language will have linked science implicitly with a claim to knowledge, even before we read that etymology points towards those connections. But 'scientists' were not always so called: we know that the word was coined around 1830 - probably by William Whewell, the polymathematical master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Before then if any collective expression were used for those who made it their business to examine the heavens or to explore the chemical properties of gases or the distribution of different rocks and the varieties of flora and fauna on the Earth, that expression would be 'natural philosopher'. The etymology could not be more different; the older name replaces the Latin 'scio' with the two Greek words, 'philia' and 'sophia', for love and wisdom. Ask yourself: what happens to our image of science if we replace in our minds its word-label, 'I know' with 'I love wisdom to do with natural things'? Instead of a triumphal knowledge-claim we have a rather humbler search, together with more than a hint of delight. We also have as a goal something deeper than pure knowledge, in the wisdom that surrounds and supports it." 

     

    He then goes on to show how the wisdom literature in the Bible has to do with delighting in discovering God's created order, and how to live in harmony with it. The Bible book of Job is plumbed, in depth, to discover what all the talk about chaos and suffering means, in light of how God designed our cosmos. This is the wisdom that God urged Job to discover - and which we, too can discover, when we take God into account when exploring what is nowadays called 'science'. Christians should be 'natural philosophers', just as scientists are. We have much in common. 

     

    Get the book, for it will open your eyes to the unity between scientific discovery and discoveries of faith! It is written by a scientist who is also a Christian, and who lays out the hypothesis of melding science and biblical faith to give to scientific endeavour a special significance in the larger narrative of humanity's experience of pain and hopes for the healing of a broken world. This is the wisdom of God as discovered through what once was called 'natural philosophy' but which is now called 'science'. 

     

    Source(s): Faith & Wisdom in Science by Tom McLeish, pp 25-6 (Oxford University Press, 2014)
    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • They are not mutually exclusive but science has not shown any evidence nor need for God. God appears to have created the universe without leaving any trace that he did so and therefore relies on believers to believe in him without any evidence for doing so.

    Many scientists in the past were believers because they were ignorant about the universe as we understand it today so it would have been natural for them to believe as was the dominant cultural norm in which they lived.  Very few scientists today are believers because they know better.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Being book smart doesn't mean you have common sense.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Lv 4
      1 month agoReport

      That's my point. It surely wasn't an insult directed towards scientists, in general.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Be fair -- not all atheists do that.  For those who do, apparently it makes them feel good.  Go figure.

    Source(s): Greek Orthodox Christian
    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.