Science as a Force for Progress Part 1: From Superstition to Evidence

The Shackles of Superstition

Science doesn’t hunt for miracles, it digs for the hard, stubborn truth of facts, making science the true force for progress in our world. For thousands of years, people lived scared, crushed by a world they couldn’t figure out, turning to gods, signs, and old stories to make sense of the mess. Plagues tore through towns like a punishment from above, blamed on sin or an angry deity, not the rats or dirty water we’d spot today. Storms ripped houses apart, their roars called the work of sky gods like Thor smashing his hammer or some heavenly fury, not the wind and heat we now track with our scientific instruments. The stars sparkled up in the sky, a giant puzzle, read like a fortune teller’s map, not the blazing balls of fire we know they are. Superstition was our first home, a cozy blanket of tales that felt good but did nothing. They provided no way to guess the next disaster, no cure for the sick, no chance to push back against nature’s chaos or the rules of priests who acted like they owned the truth.

This wasn’t just not knowing; it was a whole setup, a way of seeing the world built on fear and held up by power. In places like ancient Mesopotamia, priests cut open animals to guess what was coming, staring at guts like they held secrets. In medieval Europe, monks scribbled prayers to stop the Black Death, half the people died anyway, and all they got was more smoke from church candles. The Church, that huge machine of crosses and control, called the shots, its leaders trading comfort for loyalty. A comet lit up the sky in 1066, and they said it was God warning of war, not just a rock flying by. An earthquake smashed Lisbon in 1755, and preachers pointed at bad behavior, not the ground shifting under their feet. Answers were rare, twisted through holy books and old habits, while life stayed short, tough, and dim. Superstition didn’t just explain things, it kept folks down, hands folded, waiting for a rescue that never showed up.

The shackles of religious superstition

The Fight Begins

Then came a slow, tough shift: science as a force for progress began watching, testing, and daring to ask why to the established belief systems. Science didn’t burst onto the scene all at once, it scratched and clawed its way up, like a fighter in the dirt, breaking free from the old rules bit by bit. This wasn’t a quick happy ending; it was a long scrap, stretching over hundreds of years, usually against loud pushback from folks glued to the past. Picture Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, a quiet church guy in a cold Polish tower, scratching numbers by candlelight, bold enough to say Earth wasn’t the center of everything, no matter what the Church growled. His star maps and sums didn’t just draw a new sky, they showed science as a force for progress when they chipped away at a holy wall that had stood forever. Or think of Louis Pasteur in 1865, squinting through a microscope in a messy lab, showing tiny germs, not God’s bad mood, killed people, tossing out old ideas of bad air and prayers.

Every win was a struggle, a shove against the stuck ways. William Harvey cut up bodies in 1628, seeing blood move through valves, not float on magic breezes, while Oxford doctors hugged their leeches and laughed. Edward Jenner, in 1796, poked a kid with cowpox, stopping smallpox with a farm girl’s trick, not a preacher’s words. Charles Darwin, sailing the Beagle in the 1830s, jotted down notes on birds and bones, building a story of life that went back millions of years, not a quick six-day job despite what the Bible claims. These weren’t battles fought with swords or speeches, but with proof: telescopes spotting planets, knives mapping the body, shots beating diseases, wires lighting the night. Little by little, science pulled us from shaky wonder into a light that was bright, even if it stung, a place where asking beat obeying, and facts buried fairy tales.

Galileo Galilei explaining his revolutionary astronomical theories, particularly his support for the heliocentric model, to a friar at the University of Padua
Galileo Galilei explaining his revolutionary astronomical theories, particularly his support for the heliocentric model, to a friar at the University of Padua

The pushback was loud, and no surprise, the Church had power to protect. Galileo Galilei stared down the Church’s court in 1633, made to say he was wrong about what his telescope showed: Jupiter’s moons didn’t circle Earth, and neither did the Sun. Church leaders fumed at Darwin’s ideas, gripping a young Earth like it was their last coin, while Pasteur’s germs knocked their “bad air” nonsense flat. This wasn’t just about different thoughts, it was a big shake-up, pitting a giant system, full of its own importance, against lone brains with tools and grit. Science didn’t charm its way in; it proved its point, stacking evidence until the old walls broke and fell.

Why It Matters in 2025

science as a force for progress

In 2025, science as a force for progress has the potential to shine brighter than a power plant’s glow, and we need it more than ever. We’re at a turning point, holding technology our great-grandparents couldn’t imagine: machines buzzing toward endless energy, gene editing healing what prayers missed, and satellites watching a heating planet’s heartbeat. Climate change may be the biggest challenge of the 21st century with seas climbing higher, storms hitting harder, but science doesn’t back off, it measures, plans, builds walls and traps carbon. This isn’t just hope; it’s what we got from years of trading belief for facts, begging for knowing. Energy tests in 2025, chasing clean power, build on Michael Faraday’s spinning magnets. Shots hunting cancer lean on Jenner and Pasteur. Floating farms near Jakarta beat hunger with know-how, not wishes. We’re not unbeatable, climate’s tricky, tech can flop, but we’ve got a grip, not just guesses, because science, not Jesus, gave us the wheel.

How did this change happen, one hard step at a time? It kicked off with folks who looked past the sky to what was right there, Copernicus with his star tools, Harvey with his bloody hands, Darwin with his scribbles. Each took on a system that loved being sure more than being curious, a Church that thought truth was its toy, not everyone’s right. They didn’t just tweak ideas; they moved power, from church steps to workbenches, from God’s say-so to human brains guided by facts. Why does it count now, in a year of danger and chance? Because 2025 isn’t paradise, it’s a test. Energy could save us or stall; gene work could cure or mess up; climate fixes could win or wait. Science isn’t a hero, it’s a tool, shaped by those who picked proof over orders, and it’s our best map through the mud.

This series follows that road, from superstition’s hold to evidence’s edge. It begins with Copernicus, kicking the cosmos off its holy spot, and rolls through Harvey, Galileo, Newton, and more, each a piece in a fight against the dark. In 2025, as we tackle a world’s worth of trouble, their story isn’t old news, it’s a guide. Science doesn’t dodge tough stuff; it cuts it open, builds on it. Superstition kept us calm once, but it’s facts that kept us going, lifting us from praying to figuring things out. That’s what’s coming: not perfect, not easy, but real and still growing.

Continue reading Part 2 of Science as a Force for Progress.

The Baloney Detection Kit for US Political Discourse

In an era of Fake News, the Big Lie, and endless misinformation, we must channel Carl Sagan’s scientific thinking in political discourse to wield a baloney detection kit and uncover truths amid the falsehoods. We need to think about politics scientifically. Indeed, a healthy dose of skepticism is required to navigate the US political landscape and those with a leaning to the scientific worldview will naturally be better equipped that those with a leaning towards the religious worldview.

Donald Trump The Big Liar
Donald Trump: The Big Liar

Those with the religious worldview have been conditioned from childhood to believe in “faith”, resulting in the unquestioning belief in biological absurdities such as a virgin birth and a death and resurrection. Neither of those events ever happened, clearly. And just because a few fanatics living 2000 years ago claimed that it happened is not very good evidence. Consider this: eyewitness testimony in our modern judiciary system is considered flimsy evidence at best because we know how unreliable human memory is and we know common human fallibility is. So one would think that secondary accounts of events that were recorded decades after the event would be considered suspect at best, but to the religious folks, not so much…

In any case, it’s no wonder that these folks are the leading proponents of some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in the current US political discourse. If you find a conspiracy nut, it’s a good chance they are a Jesus lover. For those of us who haven’t tumbled down the religious rabbit hole, scientific thinking in political discourse offers a toolkit to sort truth from fiction and expose outright lies. It is imperative that we apply these to the US political landscape because democracy is currently under attack.

The Baloney Detection Kit: Using Scientific Thinking in Political Discourse

Everyone needs a baloney detection kit rooted in scientific thinking for today’s political discourse. Many of these tactics have personally saved me from believing things that may have felt right to me or that I have wanted to believe is the truth, but have ultimately turned out to be false. To keep things simple, I have four rules to always follow when trying to decide fact from fiction from US politicians.

  1. Bayes’ Theorem – The Bayesian system of thinking is: Initial belief + new evidence = new and improved belief. It is a form of probabilistic thinking used under conditions of uncertainty (which basically applies to every situation you will encounter). The mathematics behind Bayes’ Theorem basically says that if you have an extraordinary hypothesis, it should require extraordinary evidence to convince you that it’s true.
  2. Occam’s Razor – This is a rule of thumb that when trying to figure out what happened in a situation, the simplest explanation is usually right. Another way of thinking about this is the explanation that requires the *least* amount of coincidences – or special explanations – is usually the right one.
  3. Debate – Debate is a good thing. Anyone trying to discourage you from debating a topic is probably lying. Science fears no questions. The truth fears no questions. Those who fear questions also fear science and the truth.
  4. Do not become emotionally attached to an idea or ideology – Be open to the possibility that you might be wrong. Evidence should change your opinion (see Rule #1) If you decide ahead of time that what you believe to be true must be right then you aren’t thinking scientifically, you’re just a religious fundamentalist.

The Improved Baloney Detection Kit

Carl Sagan
Carl Sagan; author of Science as a Candle in the Dark
(Credit: National Geographic)

These four rules will serve anyone pretty well most of the time, but of course not 100% of the time. Nothing can reduce uncertainty to zero percent but of course we can always get closer and closer to the truth. In order to take things to the next level I recommend reading Carl Sagan’s classic book Science as a Candle in the Dark. In particular, pay close attention to Chapter 12: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.

Carl Sagan was a remarkable person who wanted to use science to improve the human condition. May his spirit of skepticism live on.

The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

Carl Sagan

Further reading: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan

Reasons to be an Atheist #1: Science Works

Wondering about the reasons to be an atheist? Today, more people are turning away from religion for compelling, evidence-based reasons – starting with science. This article will be the first in a series of articles outlining the many reasons to be an atheist. The first reason to be discussed acknowledges that we have a better system of explaining the world than a religious one. The world is big, complex, and many times confusing. This is one of the reasons people turn to religion, because they feel that religion will provide answers to some of life’s biggest questions. However, there is a more accurate system of thought out there that provides these answers and unlike religion, it actually works. It’s called science.

Science vs Faith
Quote by Tim Minchin

Civilizations have invented thousands of religions over the centuries in an attempt to explain the world around them.  After centuries of debate the results of religion are inconclusive on most topics and it’s been a spectacular failure on the rest. 

As for one popular example, in the early 17th century the Catholic Church forbid Galileo Galilei from teaching the Copernican view of the Solar System that placed the Sun at the center of the system with the Earth and the other planets orbiting around it. According to the church at the time this view was in conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Clearly, the Bible got this basic fact wrong. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that science works very well as a system of thought for explaining the world around us.  By adapting a scientific worldview, we have no reason to be religious.

Science works because of its method and its commitment to the principles of scientific objectivity. Religion relies on blind faith to reveled prophecy. The two systems of thought for attempting to understand the world couldn’t be more polar opposites. Let’s take a look at why science works by looking at the five steps of the scientific method and the five principles of scientific objectivity.

The Scientific Method – Supporting Reasons to Be an Atheist

The scientific method consists of five steps.

  1. Making an observation – this involves observing some phenomena that requires an explanation of the phenomena
  2. Asking a question – the purpose here is to identify a specific problem and to narrow the focus of the inquiry
  3. Formulating a hypothesis – the hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested
  4. Testing the prediction in an experiment – this is the investigation to see if the real world behaves as the hypothesis predicts
  5. Analyzing the result – here is where the conclusion is drawn on whether the evidence supports or rejects the hypothesis
Diagram of The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process - a key reason to be an atheist
The Scientific Method
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Why Scientific Objectivity is a Key Reason to Be an Atheist

The scientific method works because it is objective. While it is true that scientists are people, and people’s perceptions of the world are subjective, that doesn’t mean that science hasn’t figured a way around that problem to become objective in practice. Scientific objectivity also consists of five principles.

  1. Observability – for something to be scientifically objective it must be observable. This includes things that our senses cannot observe directly but we can observe the effects through equipment such as infrared radiation.
  2. Universality – for something to be scientifically objective it must consider and account for all relevant data.
  3. Self-consistency – all of the observable data must fit into a self-consistent pattern to produces accurate results.
  4. Reproducibility – the data must be reproducible by other people.
  5. Debatability – the results must be debatable. The is the error-correcting process in science since individual people make strong emotional attachments to their idea’s or sometimes make mistakes.

The Difference Between Science and Religion in Explaining how the World Works

The scientific method along with its adherence to scientific objectivity provides the strongest tools we have to answering questions about the world around us. The universe works how it works and its up to us to discover how it works. That’s what science does, it discovers how the world works through observation and experimentation. Inventing superstitious religious stories and institutionalizing them over the generations doesn’t prove they must be correct, especially when observation and experimentation say otherwise.

There is an enormous wealth of observable evidence that fits into a self-consistent pattern that we call the theory of evolution by natural selection and which explains how humans, and all other species, evolved on this planet. There is absolutely no observable evidence for the creation myth of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis from the Bible.

As the body of scientific knowledge has grown over time it has replaced religious explanations with scientific explanations – offering clear reasons to be an atheist. Religion still thinks it can provide answers to questions that science can’t yet answer, but that doesn’t mean that science won’t ever answer them. The remarkable progress of scientific knowledge over the past few centuries is one of the strongest reasons to abandon your religion and become an atheist.

These are just the first of many reasons to be an atheist we’ll explore in this series. Stay tuned for more.

Further Reading: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan; The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins; The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; A Devil’s Chaplain by Richard Dawkins; Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris; God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion by Victor Stenger

A Spirited Attack on the Holy Spirit

holy-spirit-unterlinden-14th

The Holy Spirit is an elusive enigma. The Holy Spirit – one of three different yet same incarnations of the one true God (dwell on that paradoxical nonsense for a moment) – is a central figure in the Christian Holy Trinity; it is an entity which all Christians are said to possess.  Yet, it’s presence and physical properties conveniently and mysteriously escape the detection of modern scientific methods and instruments.  It reminds me of the dragon story in Carl Sagan’s classic, The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark.  To paraphrase the story:

Imagine I say to you that I have a real live dragon in my garage – surely you’d want to see it for yourself. What an opportunity, you think, to see a dragon, of which have been the stories of legends over the centuries, but has left no evidence.

“Show me,” you say, and I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see some bags of sand, cans of spray paint, some interesting goggles, and other items in my garage, but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Right here.” I reply, waving vaguely.  “I neglected to mention the dragon is invisible.”

Hmm, you think.  You propose spreading some sand on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea.” I say, “but this is also a floating dragon.”

Well then you’ll use those infrared sensor googles over there to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

Ok, so you’ll spray paint the dragon to make it visible.

“Good idea, but it’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.  And so on.  And so on. And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now let me ask you this.  What is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my dragon proposition, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Maybe, the only thing that you have really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that there is something funny going on inside my head. Maybe you’d also wonder, if there are no physical tests that apply – nothing to show its mass, nothing to show its heat, nothing to show its chemistry – then what convinced me of the dragon’s existence in the first place?

The analogy between my dragon and the Holy Spirit should be clear at this point.  If the Holy Spirit resides within us, then we should be able to test for it.  We should, for example, be able to turn to the index of any biology textbook and reference the Holy Spirit just like we can for proteins, enzymes, neurotransmitters, DNA, ATP, lipids, the biochemistry of muscle fibers, the chemistry and structure of cells, the mechanisms of the nervous system, and on and on and on.

Until we can have any verifiable evidence of its existence it is safe to say that the Holy Spirit is imaginary.

Further reading: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan