TWO APPROACHES AMONG MODERN ATHEISTS: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE AND HOSTILITY TOWARD RELIGION
Among contemporary atheist scientists, we observe an attitude that can be described as “scientism.” What this means is the following: they approach everything as if it were within the domain of science. They also argue that science should be the ultimate authority in every matter. By “science,” they refer to the positive sciences based on experiment and observation (such as geography, chemistry, physics, archaeology).
However, those engaged in the positive sciences commonly state that if something is subject to experiment and observation, then it falls within the scope of science. If it is not subject to experiment and observation, then it lies outside the boundaries of science. In other words, science has limits. Science does not determine whether lying or killing a human being or an animal is morally good or bad. Ethics belongs to philosophy and theology. For instance, constitutions or laws are not written by physicists, chemists, or biologists. The discipline of law largely rests upon morality, culture, logic, and universal human values.
Therefore, a consistent scientist cannot say, “God does not exist because science has not proven God’s existence.” Moreover, it must not be overlooked that science has not proven God’s non-existence either. Why? Because God is not an object of experiment and observation. There is no scientific discipline called “the science of God,” nor is there likely to be one. This issue belongs to metaphysics and philosophy. Thus, what a consistent scientist (if non-believing) should say is: “From the perspective of science, I cannot know whether God exists or not.” That is, one may adopt an agnostic stance. Or one may say: “I am a scientist. God is not the subject of science. Therefore, since it does not fall within the scope of science, I cannot make a scientific claim about God’s existence or non-existence; I can only have personal convictions or beliefs.”
Some of the so-called “new atheist” scientists, however, harbor serious hostility toward religion and therefore do not adopt an agnostic stance. Unfortunately, they develop a radical hostility toward believers. For example, those who do not believe in Santa Claus do not take a hostile stance toward those who do. Nor do they use radical expressions attacking or humiliating them. Yet the individuals we are discussing use language in their speeches and writings that belittles believers and religions. Let us consider a few examples:
Richard Dawkins (Biologist):
“I think all religions are very similar to epidemics of viruses of the mind. Religion is a remarkably well-constructed cultural structure. But that does not make it true or interesting to me. The smallpox virus is a superb virus; it does its job extremely well. But that does not mean it is good or that I would not want it eradicated.”
“AIDS, mad cow disease, and similar illnesses are fashionable subjects for apocalyptic commentary. But one might say that faith is comparable to the smallpox virus—one of the greatest devils in the world—yet harder to eradicate.”
“Belief in God is a mind virus that spreads in childhood.”
Steven Weinberg (1933–2021, Theoretical Physicist):
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can do good things and bad people can do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion.”
Stephen Hawking (1942–2018, Theoretical Physicist):
“Heaven or life after death is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark.”
Peter Atkins (Chemist):
He adopts a tone that openly belittles believers and theologians:
“Theology is entirely empty; it has not produced a single genuine piece of knowledge. Science, on the other hand, is the only honorable path to explaining everything.”
Sir Julian Huxley (1887–1975, Biologist and Humanist):
“God, as a hypothesis, has ceased to be useful. He is merely a shadow to which human ignorance retreats.”
Other atheists also label believers as insufficiently intelligent, unthinking, backward, outdated, and hostile to science. In doing so, they attempt to justify themselves through a prejudiced conclusion: “Religion is dogmatic; it is based on unquestioning belief. Science, on the other hand, is inquiry and research. Therefore, since these two attitudes (dogma and inquiry) are opposed to one another, religion and science are opposites.” With arguments such as “If there is science, there cannot be religion; if there is religion, there cannot be science,” they position religion and science as mutually exclusive.
The modern secular narrative tends to frame scientific method (inquiry) and religious belief (dogma) as two opposing poles. However, when the history of science is examined carefully, it becomes clear that theological assumptions were not an “obstacle” in the development of the positive sciences; on the contrary, they functioned as a “driving force” behind the rational conception of the universe.
In the late 19th century, figures such as John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White popularized the “Conflict Between Science and Religion” thesis, portraying scientific progress as a story of liberation from the oppression of the Church or religious institutions. Yet this perspective ignores the roots of the assumption underlying the methodological naturalism of science: the belief that “the universe is rational and intelligible.” The concept of “Logos” (order/reason), emphasized by monotheistic religions, formed the ontological foundation of modern science.
In conclusion, the claim that science and religion are opposing poles loses its validity in light of historical evidence. Throughout history, religious scientists have seen their faith not as an obstacle to inquiry, but rather as a source of legitimacy for curiosity about the unknown.
Dogmatism exists not only among those who misinterpret religious texts, but also within the movement known as “scientism,” which regards science as an absolute and unchanging monopoly on truth. Genuine scientific progress is possible through a sense of awe before the vastness of the universe and an unending passion for inquiry—qualities that are also at the heart of the historical heritage of religious traditions.