Atheism and the ignorance of science

The “New Atheism” of the mid 2000s was known for criticisms of religion that relied much more forcefully on science than philosophy. This reliance on science persists among atheists today. As recently as 2021, a study of secular worldviews found that atheists strongly endorse an attitude which regards the natural sciences and the scientific method as the best or only way to make valid statements about the world and reality. 

And yet, there are times when atheists fail to apply scientific principles to their own criticisms of religion. To put matters simply, some atheists demonstrate a surprisingly poor grasp of scientific methodology. This statement may seem provocative, but it is, in fact, a laying out of significant scientific errors and omissions that can be found in atheist writings, sometimes committed by authors who are regarded as science communicators. 

These oversights may at times seem somewhat technical but understanding them is essential to counteracting a serious misappropriation of science: one that confers undue credibility to the atheist worldview. 

Read more:

How churches can embrace science?

How a microbiologist became an apologist

Why an astronomer believes the Bible is reliable

Are there limits to scientific explanations?

Associated observations

For example, some atheists seem to be unaware of the Bradford-Hill criteria, which are widely used to assess whether there is a causal relationship between two associated observations, such as smoking and lung cancer. A case in point is AC Grayling’s assertion that ignorance of science is contributing to “the continuance of religious belief in a world”. 

At first glance, statements like this appear to be supported by research showing an inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity, or low rates of belief in God among scientists. But it is easy for the unskilled to mistake an association between two observations for a causal relationship in which one factor brings about a change in the other. 

In 1965, the English epidemiologist and statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1897–1991) set out criteria to be considered before concluding that an association between two factors indicates the presence of a causal relationship and we can use these criteria to evaluate the claim that scientific knowledge causes people to reject God. 

Let us consider a well-known study by Edward Larson and Larry Witham which found that most US scientists either disbelieved or expressed doubt in the existence of God, a rate that was significantly higher than that found in the general US population. Do these results imply that scientific knowledge causes people to disbelieve?

When applying Bradford Hill’s methodology, the first criterion to consider is the strength of the association. The stronger the association between a risk factor and outcome, the more likely the relationship is causal. However, almost 40 per cent of the scientists surveyed believed in a God who “is in intellectual and affective communication with humankind”. The association can therefore only be considered weak.

Consistency of findings

Next to consider is the consistency of findings. Have the same findings been observed among different populations, in different study designs and at different times? Another study of US professors found the rates for belief in God to be highly variable in different groups of scientists, being highest among physical scientists and lowest for psychologists and sociologists. The relationship between scientific knowledge and disbelief is therefore inconsistent.

There should also be a one-to-one relationship between cause and outcome. However, similar surveys of levels of belief among other professions indicate that disbelief is not specific to scientists. For example, a survey by James Leuba in 1935 demonstrated that the rates of disbelief in God expressed by scientists were similar to those found among dramatists and playwrights.

Exposure to the causative factor should precede outcome. If scientific knowledge leads to disbelief, it should not be possible for scientists to become Christians. However, there are well-known cases where this has happened (see our archive of articles for some of these stories. 

Changes in the outcome should follow from corresponding changes in exposure. The amount of science taught in schools has increased significantly over time. Yet when Larson and Witham compared their results to an earlier study from 1918, they found no significant change in rates of disbelief among scientists.

The most robust criterion is experiment: Does the removal of the exposure alter the frequency of the outcome? Clearly, in this case, this test cannot be applied as it is impossible to remove scientific knowledge once gained.

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Testing assumptions

So, we can see that established criteria for determining the presence of a causal relationship do not support the idea that scientific knowledge causes people to reject belief in God. Conversely, there are reasons to expect better scientific knowledge to lead to a rejection of scientific atheism. 

Recent research has shown that when scientific knowledge is associated with a sense of awe, it can promote belief in God. Moreover, with a thorough understanding of science, it is possible to identify many other examples where atheist criticisms of religion entail a suspension of scientific principles and methods. 

For example, application of the Bradford-Hill criteria undermines the contention that there is a causal relationship between religious belief and violence. Value of information analysis challenges the atheist idea that belief in God is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. 

Scientific atheism discounts not only plausible biological explanations for unbelief but also recent scientific formulations of human reasoning which suggest that people adopt their beliefs not because they are true, but because it is easier to find arguments to support them. Despite the availability of scientific methods for including religious experiences within serious theorising, scientific atheism choses to exclude such data, preferring to ignore any insights they might hold about the cosmos and human life.  

Rather than apply the emerging scientific philosophy that regards observations which differ significantly from others as potentially informative and worthy of in-depth analysis, the possibility of one-off events such as the resurrection of Jesus is simply disregarded. The scientific principle of testing assumptions is ignored when it comes to atheism’s central assumption that only natural properties and causes exist.

Shaky foundations

The scientific oversights listed above say little about the truth or falsehood of atheism. Neither do they constitute an argument for the existence of God. But they do imply that an atheism grounded solely on science has shaky foundations and that the use of science to prop up an atheist worldview cannot be justified. 

For Christians, busting the myth of an in-built connection between science and atheism can empower them to explore science for God-given resources that can support a life of faith.

Trained in two medical specialties, Ken Miles is a clinical academic who is used to working at the interface of disciplines. Having previously published specialist textbooks in medical imaging, his latest book, From Billiard Balls to Bishops: A Scientist’s Introduction to Christian Worship, is written for a general readership and highlights his belief that science can support a commitment to God.