For a scientist to do science stuff, they have to believe in God's created order. Logic works without exception, such as the law of non-contradiction: something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. You can't have "A" and "not A" at the same time, in the same relationship. That is, I can't say that my car is parked in the first space across from me right now and also not parked in the first space across from me right now. Scientists need to rely on the constancy of natural laws, and to believe in them. For a scientific publication to say that scientists have beliefs built on "nothing" is ludicrous and self-refuting.
The recent cover of the April 4-10, 2015 issue of New Scientist magazine reads "Belief: They drive everything we do. But our beliefs are built on…nothing."1 This is an amazing statement by a magazine, supposedly dedicated to science, in that it presents its readers with a philosophical conundrum. How can scientists, who must depend on a strict belief in logic and order, make such a statement? More specifically, do the people who built an entire mythological edifice on the tenuous hypothesis of macroevolution really believe in nothing?Nope, to find out the definition and to understand what's going on, you'll have to read the rest of the article. All you have to do is click on "Scientific Suicide".
To better understand this we should first define "belief." What exactly is belief that it should be held in such derision by a subset of men and women? Merriam Webster defines belief as:
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!