The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[thedarkshade]

so you agree that being a Christian and also a Scientist is indeed an Arbitrary connection.

No, not at all. You can be a great scientist and a christian at the same time.

[YT2095]

So, I ask again, can you please point to any single post in this thread which has suggested, stated, or even implied that religious belief decreases ones scientific abilities?

 

I think This would qualify:

 

What I am fighting for is the maturation of our society, the people within it, and a more robust acceptance of the need for critical thinking. Religion is a cancer, as evidenced by the consistent and recurring stupidity which it not only inspires, but apparently reinforces.

 

as for "seeing your point" well sorry no, I don`t, would YOU reply to a question when someone in the same breath said they were going to ignore or had already made their mind up no matter what you said?

 

but Yes I can answer it!

 

for instance, when I discover something new, I not only get the same pleasure that everyone else gets, but I also feel closer to God, I see his hand in the beauty and purity of Science, and I can say "Thank You" silently in my head (or even out loud if it`s particularly cool!).

so yeah, I get a Double Happy-Hit

 

as for examples on your Other question,

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31313&page=2

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403636&postcount=31

as for This little Gem!

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403636&postcount=31 bad with the good... NO, it doesn`t work that way at all!

Nor (IMO) is the Bible to be taken Literally.

 

also IMO, if you take Nothing else at all out of the Bible, "Do as you would be done by" is really all you should ever need.

[gcol]

YT...."....if you take Nothing else at all out of the Bible, "Do as you would be done by" is really all you should ever need."

 

It is indeed a good and useful maxim, but I do so hope you are not claiming biblical copyright for it. It can be arrived at, and was, before the biblical era, (Greek Philosophy?) by a simple process of self-interested logic.

[iNow]

also IMO, if you take Nothing else at all out of the Bible, "Do as you would be done by" is really all you should ever need.

 

I quite welcome challenges to my beliefs and my mindset. They are, by no means whatsoever, off limits or taboo, so question away.

[PhDP]

No, not at all. You can be a great scientist and a christian at the same time.

 

yep, and you can believe in astrology and be a great scientist.

 

There's still, IMO, a contradiction. Science is all about not having faith. Religions require that someone believe in something with no evidences, most of the time simply because that person was born in this religion.

[YT2095]

There's still, IMO, a contradiction. Science is all about not having faith. Religions require that someone believe in something with no evidences, most of the time simply because that person was born in this religion.

 

you must lead either a Very charmed or Dull existence as a scientist then, Never being disappointed or wrong about something!

[ParanoiA]

yep, and you can believe in astrology and be a great scientist.

 

There's still, IMO, a contradiction. Science is all about not having faith. Religions require that someone believe in something with no evidences, most of the time simply because that person was born in this religion.

 

Science at the very least has faith that what has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future - and there's no proof of that.

[Phi for All]

There's still, IMO, a contradiction. Science is all about not having faith. Religions require that someone believe in something with no evidences, most of the time simply because that person was born in this religion.

I think science is all about reducing the need for faith, but not about eliminating it. If my hypothesis is that, when I die, my consciousness can exist on its own if I can keep my sanity (which may be hard without all the familiar sensational input I lost when my body died), there are few ways I can test it without actually dying. If I further believe that a collective consciousness might exist and that I could be a part of it if I'm deemed worthy (no one wants to share consciousness with a mass murderer, after all), then it goes a long way towards explaining why so many people mount whole religions around the concept of moral worthiness. And lastly, if my hypothesis is that a being of pure consciousness might have access to higher dimensions predicted in other theories, then why is my idea of religion so at odds with science? I'm just waiting, after all, for testability to draw some conclusions from my predictions.

[YT2095]

but in the MeanTime, he`s gunna have some Fun here! and explore all he can.

 

much like myself really

[Phi for All]

but in the MeanTime, he`s gunna have some Fun here! and explore all he can.

 

much like myself really

Yes, we should never forget that part. I think the concept of religion is sullied by the extremists who make it all about unworthiness and sin and worshiping perfection while denying our curiosity and intelligence.

[YT2095]

Amen to that dude!

 

Now... Having Finally established that Science and Religion CAN work perfectly well together (I`m living proof, And have over 13 thousands posts here).

 

WHY is Religion such a target all the time??????

why NOT Pizza or leather jackets or icecream flavors? it`s Just as arbitrary and nonsensical to draw a connection with.

this is the majority reason why I wanted the P&R section closed too, if we have that we should have one for Snowboarding and flower arranging also, as well as any Other nonsensical random stuff anyone cares to think of.

 

fact is (as evidenced in myself) there IS no connection!

 

so what`s all the fuss about Really?

[ParanoiA]

That's an invalid conclusion YT. Ice cream is perfect, and could never be a target. Particularly Dove brand. With that chocolate layer on the top...oh boy...I could get real religious on that stuff.

[Phi for All]

That's an invalid conclusion YT. Ice cream is perfect, and could never be a target. Particularly Dove brand. With that chocolate layer on the top...oh boy...I could get real religious on that stuff.

Yeah, and pretty soon you'd look just like Buddha...

[Mr Skeptic]

WHY is Religion such a target all the time??????

 

Perhaps because a few people in the religion vehemently attack science, most people in the religion pay significantly less attention to science because of their beleifs, and only a few religious people (yourself included) could be considered friends of science. Religion has historically, is currently, and will for the forseable future attack science to some degree, because occasionally science and religion overlap. Others who attack science, including people like global warming deniers and some politicians are also frequent targets from the scientific community, no surprise there either.

[thedarkshade]

WHY is Religion such a target all the time??????

I'm pretty sure that your opinion on what religion really is, and what is it about differs from a typical believer, no matter what religion. You cannot imagine how naive can people be when it come to God. I have been even physically attacked in such discussions. There is such a strong strong feeling, which is nothing but a feeling of fear, that makes then feel like they have the right to defend God instead of God defending him/her self. I don't want to start anything here, but the general point of view of what God is capable of doing or not, it just way way to naive for a rational person to grasp. Its like choosing the metaphysical instead of physical, choosing the irrational instead of rational.

 

I am sure that the way you believe is not quite ordinary, not as the 'conventional' method of believing. I have seen through you endless posts that you are a rational person, and that your beliefs are not as naive as the beliefs of a priest for example. You can draw a line between what is worth to be believed and not, and by this meaning I have nothing against (how could I?) your beliefs, nor I have the right. But I also am quite sure that you really do know why there is so much criticism toward religion, but don't think that anybody can draw reasonable lines between rational and irrational belief like you do. People can be very very naive!

[ParanoiA]

Perhaps because a few people in the religion vehemently attack science, most people in the religion pay significantly less attention to science because of their beleifs, and only a few religious people (yourself included) could be considered friends of science. Religion has historically, is currently, and will for the forseable future attack science to some degree, because occasionally science and religion overlap. Others who attack science, including people like global warming deniers and some politicians are also frequent targets from the scientific community, no surprise there either.

 

Yep. Just today Rush was talking about volcanoes and cooling - animal adaptation - and his comparison of ice cubes in a glass to melting glaciers.

 

I realize he's not exactly religious, but he does attack science religiously...

[PhDP]

YT,

 

I fail to see why my life would be dull simply because I'm not interested in the local mythologies.

 

fact is (as evidenced in myself) there IS no connection!

 

In fact, there is a very strong connection; both makes claims about the universe, based on a different approach.

 

this is the majority reason why I wanted the P&R section closed too, if we have that we should have one for Snowboarding and flower arranging also, as well as any Other nonsensical random stuff anyone cares to think of.

 

You think there's no link, but the fact that the P&R section was so active and full of references to science is living proof that many people here don't share your view.

 

I think science is all about reducing the need for faith, but not about eliminating it. If my hypothesis is that, when I die, my consciousness can exist on its own if I can keep my sanity (which may be hard without all the familiar sensational input I lost when my body died), there are few ways I can test it without actually dying. If I further believe that a collective consciousness might exist and that I could be a part of it if I'm deemed worthy (no one wants to share consciousness with a mass murderer, after all), then it goes a long way towards explaining why so many people mount whole religions around the concept of moral worthiness. And lastly, if my hypothesis is that a being of pure consciousness might have access to higher dimensions predicted in other theories, then why is my idea of religion so at odds with science? I'm just waiting, after all, for testability to draw some conclusions from my predictions.

 

IMHO, it's faith as its worst. You believe in an universe tailored for your needs, then wait for science to provide evidences. It's exactly what many creationists are doing; they wait to science to confirm their beliefs, even if they have all the reasons in the world to believe that science is doing in the exact opposite direction (the same thing could be said for life after death). Your idea of a religion is at odds with science for many reasons. #1 because you can't provide any evidences or rationale for your predictions. #2 because it does conflict with many of our modern theories, after all, asking consciousness to exist outside the body is like asking a broken computer to calculate. And worst of all, #3; because you ask science to get to a particular result.

 

Science should be driven by curiosity, by the profound and honest desire to understand how the universe work, even though we might not always like what we see, even when it doesn't serve our personal interests. Certainly, it should note be done to justify our own prejudices.

[foursixand2]

Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.

i disagree. Probably only with your particular word choice, not what you actually mean. There is no need to respect anyone elses illogical beliefs. I think i would be wise not to critisize certain peoples religions, within close physical proximity of fundamental adherents. But that goes no further than an issue of concern for my personal well being. For example, i would not go into the hood of any particular gang, flashing symbols of rival gangs, to make any sort of point. The reason for this decision is purely the desire to not be capped, it absolutely does not mean i have a shred of respect for that gang in my choice to refrain from threatening them.

 

What i do believe we should have respect for, is the psychology behind a fundamentalist. We need to come to the logical realization that religious indoctrination is a sort of developmental disorder. Only a negligible minority of extremists, consciously chose to follow the path they do. There is nothing essentially different from these people compared to a healthy human. Their parents drove these ideas into their innocent minds practically from birth. The same ideas their parents drove into their childhood. Indoctrination is incurable in most cases, and no one is to blame, except us for not having discovered a solution to the problem.

[Scientia]

WHY is Religion such a target all the time??????

why NOT Pizza or leather jackets or icecream flavors?

Religion is attacked because of it's demand to be believed as correct. (Varies with different religions.)

 

A preference of pepperoni over sausage does not mean that the sausage eaters are wrong, it's accepted as an opinion. Many religions on the other hand declare themselves to be true and all others to be false. They may even go as far as to damn those who chose another belief to spend eternity in hell, or reincarnate as a lesser being or object. Now, depending on how far the religion takes this, it can become a burden on others which is evident through war and crime done in the name of any particular religion.

 

There are many other reasons why religion is such a strong focus of dialectic such as it's claims on the origin of life and the universe. These are questions which we hope to one day answer through science. Many religions attempt to answer these but can not provide the evidence which a scientific approach requires. I recognize this as a difference between science and religion/faith however in a society where scientific amelioration has played a large role, it seems that more people are becoming dissatisfied with the reports given by some religions.

 

I could digress further and take up more of your time however I will attempt to end this post quickly. Science and religion do not easily get along, it comes down to science's role in society and religion's. As science begins to replace religion's accounts with it's own, the debates will only grow in number and ferocity. While I feel that religion could be eradicated or at least demoted to mythology and we would be better off, my lack of experiment/studies do not lend me the authority to make that claim officially with any real credence.

 

^--$0.02

[YT2095]

I could digress further and take up more of your time however I will attempt to end this post quickly.

 

not at all, I was interested in what you said

and saying "Science and religion do not easily get along" is very True for the most part, but they Can easily get along, or at least Could.

 

I know this to be the case as I have absolutely Zero conflict between the 2, in fact each enhances the other to my experience.

[pioneer]

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. Atheism is no more of a centralized grouping of principles or ideologies than a lack of belief in numerology is.

 

The problem with this statement is there are eastern religions, for example, in India that believe in the path of enlightenment which do not use a God per se, but are based on the power of the human mind transcending physical reality. Even without a God per se, they are still called religions. The atheists simply replace mental enlightenment with science enlightenment. Instead of trying to transcend physical reality, this religion goes in the other direction. Rather than be an individual quest it is more of a group or church affect like most western religions. It is sort of a motley mix of east and west.

 

Part of the problem is just as the religious specialist may not realize their limitations when it comes to talking about provable science, science may not realize its limitations when it comes to discussing religion. The result is atheists are a religion and don't have the knowledge to know. The analogy is some ID people think certain things are science, but don't know due to lack of science expertise. The science experts try to clarify this. We might need to call in religious expert advice, since they are much better qualified to shift through the misconceptions of this closet religion in denial. It is not ill intended just due to lack of exposure. It sort of closes its eyes to the reality of religion and using pseudo-religion says, "see I am not here". This may fool most atheists when they all blink at the same time during their church services. But if one is not part of that religion, you don't have to blink on cue and can see they have not disappeared. Atheism may be distinct from western religions but not as distinct from eastern religion.

 

An analogy is being brought up learning about the big bang theory. Maybe as you ponder this, it is doesn't sit well. One may never know there are other theories out there. We just lump all theory as being big bang and never realize our new set of values is very close to a theory already out there. But lack of exposure makes us think we are doing something new. But we deny we are theorizing an old thing, simply due to lack of knowledge. From that lack of exposure, one has the conviction this is cutting edge.

 

Maybe separation of church and state needs to take a harder look to make sure it is not favoring one religion, even if it is in the closet. We may not be able to depend on the testimony of this closet religion, since they are not experts in religion, but may have to call in religion experts to settle it. Personally I believe in religious freedom even those who practice within closets. I sort of sit in the middle between both worlds making it easier to see the strengths and weaknesses. Atheists may wish to study religion so they can expand their eastern religion foundation. This could have taught you about alternate universes and other dimensions hundreds of years ago. This could help get atheism out of the closet because they could see they have a long religious history, rich in traditions, to connect to.

[iNow]

Even without a God per se, they are still called religions. The atheists simply replace mental enlightenment with science enlightenment.

No, because you are equivocating atheism with science. Not all scientists are atheists, not all atheists are scientists. I am failing to understand how you continue to miss this simple point.

 

 

Instead of trying to transcend physical reality, this religion goes in the other direction. Rather than be an individual quest it is more of a group or church affect like most western religions. It is sort of a motley mix of east and west.

And here, you continue to posit some centralized grouping of principles and codes of conduct, calling it a religion, when, in fact, it is nothing more than a "lack of theism."

 

You'd be no more accurate if you said "all people who don't believe in astrology" blah blah blah...

 

 

 

Part of the problem is just as the religious specialist may not realize their limitations when it comes to talking about provable science, science may not realize its limitations when it comes to discussing religion. The result is atheists are a religion and don't have the knowledge to know.

Repeating yourself does not add any validity to an invalid point, pioneer.

 

 

Due to your own acceptance of religion, you seem completely unable to recognize that NOT ALL OTHER THINGS are religions. It's not a religion to disbelieve in unicorns, it's not a religion to not be a believer of leprechauns, and it's not a religion to not be theist.

 

 

The vast majority of your posts here (and at other sites under a different username) are completely inaccurate since you form so many conclusions rooted in abhorrently false premises.

 

 

No matter how much you repeat yourself, and no matter how much you wish it to be so, atheism is not a religion, unless you are making up your own brand new definition of religion that nobody else uses.

 

Your attempts to bucket all atheists into one bucket show just how much you struggle to argue with the merit of their approach, since you must attack the label instead of the perspective.

[ParanoiA]

Pioneer - Let's be clear on the definition of religion:

 

Religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

 

Yeah, there is certainly a religion of atheism to be found, however most atheists aren't part of it. I don't believe in god, but I also don't generate ethics from that, or any other pre-formed set of rules. There may be consequences to being an atheist (as in looking for ethical reference outside of a deity that filters behavior), but there's no ritualistic belief system generated from atheism. Theism, also isn't a religion.

 

When someone attempts to infer a moral code and ethics from a lack of belief in god, then you can call them religious. This has been done with theism ad nauseam. Myself anyway, I infer ethics and morality from a different source, it doesn't come from atheism itself.

[Mr Skeptic]

I've previously said that atheism is a religion. After thinking about that a bit, I feel that I should take that back and refine it some more. Atheism, in general, includes anyone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. As such, it encompasses several religions, such as Reincarnation, some Buddhists, some pagans, Jains, some Confucians, etc -- anyone that does not believe in a god or gods, including those of some religions. So the term atheist is too broad to call a religion. (Thanks to iNow for his various comparisons with the "non-believers in unicorns" for my new view.)

 

A more specific belief system, Strong Atheism (the belief that gods definitely don't exist), would still qualify as a religious belief in my opinion. It is a metaphysical belief that is founded on faith (after all, science cannot disprove gods in general). From definition #1 above, the belief implies that the cause of the universe was natural laws (possibly different from the ones in our own universe), the nature of the universe is that it follows the laws of physics, and the purpose of the universe that it has none. Of course, it can also be argued that Strong Atheism isn't a religion also.

 

The only belief about gods that I would consider unarguably not a religion is Weak Atheism or Weak Agnosticism, which basically says that they know of no evidence that a god exists, but could be convinced otherwise if there were some evidence. Most people who call themselves atheists would probably fall in this category.

 

Also, there are a few metaphysical beliefs that probably don't count as religion. The belief that there are parallel universes, or that the universe extends beyond the limit of observation, would both qualify for that.

[lucaspa]

I suppose you are equivocating with the word "faith."

 

I don't think so. I'm using Merriam-Webster's definition: "b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)"

 

I also have "faith" that gravity will prevent me from floating off my chair into the vacuum of space. I also have "faith" that the airplane will lift from the runway before the tarmac ends. These "faiths" are based in evidence.

 

According to Hume, that is exactly what you have. In fact, according to Hume, it is an irrational faith! You are relying on induction for your "faith", and you can't. We can discuss the problems with induction in more depth later. The Problem of Induction is quite amusing.

 

For you to suggest that my lack of acceptance in imaginary friends

 

Circular reasoning. How do you know that deity is "imaginary"? THat is the issue we are trying to decide! And you have already made up your mind. What was your proof? Please point to the peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows deity is "imaginary". Dawkins doesn't have one. He uses the same circular reasoning (and thus bad science) as you are using.

 

Think of the word "theory," and how it differs in science versus commom parlance. That's the same thing I'm driving at here with your use of the word "faith."

 

The way you are using "theory" is also common practice, not science. In science, theories and hypotheses are the same thing: statements about the physical universe. Being a "theory" does not impart any more certainty than being a hypothesis. Trying to justify atheism by using bad science is not going to work. You need to find a better way.

 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief. If people choose to act on that atheism and attempt to spread the concept of rational thinking and falsifiability, then that is seperate from their lack of belief.

 

1. That first sentence won't stand critical examination. It's semantic shell game. It either turns into agnosticism or strong atheism. Atheism, to be atheism, must have at least one positive statement of faith: natural = without deity. However, do a simple experiment for me to see if "lack of belief" is not "belief in the opposite". Walk into any sports bar in Boston and announce "I lack belief that the Red Sox will have a winning season." You are quickly going to find that this means "I believe the Red Sox willl not have a winning season." I hope the lesson isn't too violent.

 

2. Note that "falsifiability". Remember it when you see it thrown in your face below as you try to shift the burden of proof. Not everything in science is falsifiable. Sorry, but that criteria advanced by Popper to separate science from non-science doesn't work. There are too many scientific theories that are not falsifiable -- some even in principle. A famous example is Hawking's No Boundary. It's not falsifiable even in principle, but it is included as one of the theories about the origin of the universe at cosmological meetings.

 

They don't have to. They are not claiming that something is there, so the onus is not on them to prove anything.

 

Ah, the old Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Back to science: it is the onus of everyone -- including the person who proposes the theory, to falsify it. Remember "falsification"? So, it is the onus of atheism to falsify the existence of deity. When you find that scientific paper, please post it.

 

That's because it's not evidence, it's anecdote.

 

Sorry, but anecdote is evidence. Back to Hume again. ALL evidence is what we see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or feel emotionally. Personal experience. Science uses a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". That means that the personal experience is the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions. So, theists have evidence; it's not scientific evidence. But I never claimed it was scientific, did I? If you claim that only scientific evidence is valid, then you are into the faith of scientism. And it is an indefensible faith.

 

The onus is not on one who challenges the claim to provide evidence for it. The theists make the claim, and have no evidence.

 

Repeating fallacies doesn't make them true. Notice you didn't say "scientific evidence". You just said "no evidence". There you are wrong. You are also wrong on the burden of proof:

 

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden

"Burden of Proof refers to the sense you have, in any dispute, of how much each side needs to prove in order to win your agreement. Sometimes, this burden of proof is an established rule: in the United States, for example, the criminal court system operates on the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which means that the prosecution carries all of the burden of proof; if the defendant is not proven guilty, then he or she should not be convicted of a crime, even if the defense cannot or does not prove him or her innocent of that crime. "

"In most arguments, however, it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo--the current beliefs, practices, and information--which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the matter, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. "

"Intentionally shifting the burden of proof, in order to avoid offering support for one's premises, is a logical fallacy. "

 

Notice that the "current beliefs, practices" is theism. Therefore, by the rules of logic atheism has the burden of proof. However, since this is controversial, the "burden is shared by all sides"

 

This is why I speak of purple unicorns and leprechauns. They are just as easily inserted in the place of "god," and the dialog is unchanged.

 

As I pointed out, they are not inserted because purple unicorns can be, and are, falsified. Now, you can change "purple unicorn" so that it cannot be falsified. However, you can do that with any and every scientific theory also. We don't in science, because we realize that is no way to get to truth. If you take the route of making "purple unicorns" unfalsifiable, you forfeit any claim to be using science to back atheism.

 

Theists don't believe in Thor, they don't believe in Zeus, they don't believe in Apollo or Paseidon, they don't believe in 99.9% of all of the gods which have ever been invented by humans, so they are atheists too.

 

Originally, yes. However, definitions do change and now atheism means believing that deity in any form does not exist.

 

Now, what you should have thought about is that it has been theists who have decided that all those theories of deity are false (falsification). How did they do that? If theists were so willing to decide that nearly all theories of deity are wrong, why aren't they willing to decide that deity itself is wrong?

 

I'll help you find an answer by looking at evolution. Before and after Darwin there have been lots of theories about evolution. Scientists have been willing to falsify 99.9% of them but have not been willing to say evolution is falsified. Why not? (Hint: back to the evidence again)

 

I just choose to go one god further, and for whatever reason am inclined to show the weaknessness in the position of those who don't.

 

I'm fine with your choosing to belief that deity does not exist. But I too "am inclined to show the weaknesses in the position of those who do. This inclination has nothing to do with what I have chosen to believe and everything to do with the harm I see being done" to science and reason by those like you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, not really. God doesn't exist, so there's nothing really there with which I can have a problem at all. It's the people who use this fairy tale as social manipulation and acceptance of atrocity that I have a "beef" with. Additionally, to suggest that I am an immoral person because I don't believe the same things they believe is rather insulting, and has no basis in reality.

 

fact is (as evidenced in myself) there IS no connection!

 

There is a connection. Some theological statements can be tested by science. Many times this results because theists try to tie untestable statements about deity to testable statements. Creationism is a prime example. It ties the untestable statement "God created" to a set of very testable statements about how God created. Science can test the "how" statements. Has tested them, and shown them to be false.

 

The connection also comes because many atheists -- like creationists -- refuse to admit that their faith is a faith. They want science to "prove" their faith. Therefore they misrepresent science and reasoning as having "shown" that deity does not exist.

 

The "connection" is that we have a war between two faiths -- atheism and theism -- and the battleground is science.