Adapted with permission from this X-thread by Daniel (@darwintojesus).

Occasionally I interact with atheists. In these interactions I’m nearly always astonished at how completely ignorant they tend to be about the philosophical assumptions that science is based on. The vast majority of atheists have no idea whatsoever that science is based on assumptions. They hold science to be the way, the truth, and the only hope of eternal life. Any suggestion that their “holy grail” may not be unassailable seems to be nothing short of total, unthinkable, heresy to them.

But doing science actually assumes theistic beliefs, not atheist beliefs, so when atheists do science they are actually stealing from theism. Within their atheism they have no justification for doing science.

So let’s go slaughter a few sacred cows, shall we?

Firstly, let’s talk about about some of the philosophical presuppositions of science.

Uniformity of nature

Unless the future resembles the past you cannot conduct experiments that are meaningful and consistent. Science presupposes the uniformity of nature. Without the assumption that nature is and will continue to be uniform, we would could not do science.

Laws of logic

All science is logical, and therefore doing science presupposes that laws of logic exist and are universal (true in all places). Without assuming the existence of the laws of logic, we could not do science.

Accurate sense data

In order to do science we must have accurate sense data to set up the tests, and to observe the results. Without the assumption of accurate sense data, we could not do science.

Ability to reason

Without the ability to reason soundly we could not set up the tests or correctly understand/draw conclusions about the results. All science is based on the assumption that at least some human reasoning is sound. Without this assumption, we could not do science.

Other assumptions

Some of the other philosophical assumptions that exist that I’m not going to go through are:

• That the past is real.
• That the external world is real
• That knowledge is possible
• That truths of mathematics are objective and necessary
• That all observed phenomenon are caused by something a.k.a. “causality”.

For my purposes I will only be talking about the first four philosophical presuppositions of science and why atheism is incompatible with these assumptions.

Why atheism is not compatible with belief in “uniformity of nature”

Imagine that you and your friend are standing at a roulette wheel and the first number that comes up is a seven, and then another seven and another and eventually you watch 1,000 “7s” come up, in a row.

Now there are two possible reasons for this consistency, either chance (meaning this is just a total coincidence), or you believe the table is rigged and not actually random. But for the table to be rigged would entail a mind to rig it.

Now YOU have something I like to call “common sense” and you observe this phenomenon and you say “the table must be rigged.” Your friend isn’t so well endowed with common sense, so he thinks this is all a huge coincidence, there is no shenanigans. “Don’t be superstitious” he says.

So, based on your prior beliefs - you believing that the roulette wheel is rigged and him believing it’s just a coincidence - who is justified believing that the next roll on the wheel will be a 7?

You are.

Your friend has no justification to think that the next roll will be a 7 because this is just a coincidence, so the chance of 7 coming up next time is just as high as for any other number to come up.

So you friend’s prior belief that this is the result of chance undermines any justification for a belief that the next spin will be a 7.

In the same way, our atheist friends’ belief that everything is the result of non rational chance undermines any justification for belief that nature will continue to be uniform. (Or that the roulette wheel in our metaphor would end up with yet another 7 on the next spin.)

Why atheism is not compatible with belief in the “laws of logic”

There are three basic foundational laws of logic:

1. The law of identity (A is A)
2. The law of non contradiction (A is not/cannot be B in the same place and time)
3. The law of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false)

The laws of logic does not exist as temporal material objects, but are eternal and conceptual in nature. All concepts require a mind in order to exist, so because the laws of logic are conceptual in nature, an ereenal mind must exist to conceive them. Because atheists reject belief in an eternal mind, any worldview they have within their atheism will necessarily reject the grounding/foundation for the existence of the laws of logic.

Any worldview that does not believe in the existence of the very thing that is necessary (an eternal mind) in order for laws of logic to exist, should not be doing science.

Why atheism is not compatible with the belief that humans have accurate sense data

Believe it or not, it’s widely acknowledged within the philosophical world that we cannot actually justify thinking that what we see or feel or touch or hear, has anything to do with the external world. Any attempts to justify our belief that what we see in the external world actually has to do with the external world becomes immediately circular, because in order to verify that our senses are valid, we must first use our senses, which is like using the Bible to prove the Bible is true… it “begs the question.”

However we have to use our senses in order to do science, so why do atheists feel like their worldview can justify the belief that their senses are valid?

In a theistic worldview it makes perfect sense to believe that our senses would be giving us good reliable information because we were made by an intelligent mind for exactly that purpose, in order to be stewards of our world. We must be able to correctly perceive the world at least some of the time.

However on atheism, there is no reason to think that our senses would be giving us reliable information because our senses are just the result of a mindless process that didn’t have us or anything else in mind. Why would we think that a mindless non rational process would somehow enable three pounds of flesh within our skull, to accurately know stuff about what’s happening on the other side of that skull?

Now here many atheist will point to evolution, (which is also a mindless process) but the appeal to evolution is circular because in order to believe that evolution occurred, they already had to use their senses and believe that their senses were valid.

Not only that, but evolution is not aimed towards giving valid sense data, it’s not aimed towards anything… Evolution has no goals or aims.

So in a godless atheist worldview there is no good reason to believe we have accurate or reliable sense data, and so atheists should not be doing science.

Why atheism is not compatible with the belief that humans have the ability to soundly reason

The ability to reason soundly means m we can justify thinking that our brain and mind are functioning correctly.

How do we know we can actually reason soundly?

This is a huge problem for everyone, as the only way to justify this belief requires… Well it requires our reasoning, which is the very thing in question. All attempts to justify that our reasoning is valid will inevitably be circular and beg the question.

This means reasoning cannot be justified philosophically, yet we must assume it is true that we can reason validly in order to make sense of the world and do science.

In theistic worldviews humans are created by an intelligent mind for the purpose of reasoning and understanding our world… So given this prior belief it then makes sense to trust in our sound reasoning.

However on atheism, everything must be the result of non-rational causes, and so there is no reason to believe our reasoning is valid as it (all reasoning) is just the result of neurons that fire according to cause and effect and the mindless laws that govern the universe. All thoughts are determined by outside mindless forces.

So on atheism there is no justification for the belief that our reasoning is sound, and so atheists should not be doing science.

Conclusion

Science is based on the above four primary philosophical assumptions. Without belief in these assumptions we could not do science.

Atheism is incompatible with each and everyone one of these 4 primary philosophical beliefs, therefore atheism is incompatible with science.