Labels in atheism, philosophy and science.

Have you ever noticed how in a debate we often direct the discussion by labeling the participants? For example in a intelligent design vs. evolution debate. Issue of atheism always seems to crawl to the service. An Atheist label says hardly anything about a person, but this looks to be the most effective way of discrediting any opponent amongst Christian fundamentalists. Labeling seems to have its advantages and disadvantages. It can be helpful to understand a person background, knowledge and authority on a matter. On the other hand it causes a them vs. us mentality

An Atheist does not believe in god because of the lack of evidence there is to support his existence. That does not mean atheists are completely unreasonable to not even consider the possibility of God. Here is one of the Ten Commandments “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” This is a commandment which an atheist is technically following, with the lack of evidence there is for God there is no reason to make a Idol out of any religious God because there book written thousands of year says so.
There is a great number of things we believe without evidence. We believe our senses give us accurate information about the world, that knowledge can only be acquired through evidence, that knowledge is even possible. We are all people of faith in a sense. Will my car explode if I start it? Is my food safe to eat? Atheists as much as theists base allot of their decisions on faith. All Humans carry the necessary philosophical presuppositions in order to be considered rational. Thus do we as atheists have the right to criticize other people for sticking to their belief based on faith? A preoccupation with an ideological label can mean that really important information is ignored.



It’s interesting how we are always so eager to point to a person bias, while we in fact come with biases of our own. The scientific process is there to try and sort out what’s true without being misled by our own and other people’s personal biases and beliefs. So often in a search for empirical evidence people use philosophical arguments to support their unscientific positions, such as intelligent design? Philosophical arguments play a central role in theology after all. Objective reality is what keeps science honest. But even objectivism gets abused when it gets sticker slapped onto reality. Philosophy and logic are used dishonestly when the discussion is just to justify our own preconceived positions, or to ’shoot down’ opponents arguments. Arguments are just ways of avoiding the real evidence. And there is always the way that words are used. Philosophical categories are usually not defined and very often participants will understand them differently. Without common meanings discussions become irrelevant.

How often do we hear science being criticized as ‘materialist’ where ‘matter’ is assumed to be only something with physical substance? Criticism is not relevant to modern science as any simple consideration of the history of science will show.