Sorry, but atheism doesn't automatically mean you believe and understand science

I've never really understood why people say they "believe in science," like that automatically means they're atheists. For a long time, I thought the same—if you're logical and evidence-based, you must not believe in God, right? But over time, I started digging into what science says—and maybe more importantly, what it doesn't. I found that a scientific mindset often points not to certainty but to restraint. It doesn't scream "there is no God"—it quietly admits, "we don't know." And that's the root of agnosticism, not atheism.

Science has changed everything about how we see the world, from atoms to galaxies. But it hits a wall when we ask questions about what might exist beyond space, time, and measurable energy. That's because science is designed to test and observe physical things, so if you're talking about something like God—a being or presence beyond the natural world—science isn't equipped to weigh in. Not because it's against the idea, but because it can't get there. And when science doesn't have access to something, the most honest answer it can give is: "We can't confirm or deny."

This isn't just a personal hunch—it's something Karl Popper, one of the most respected philosophers of science, made very clear. For anything to count as scientific, it has to be falsifiable. That means there has to be a way to prove it wrong through evidence. If something can't be tested that way, it's simply outside science's territory.

So when people say science disproves God, they're stepping outside the rules of science itself. That's where logic and humility come in. There's a principle in philosophy called epistemic humility. It's about knowing the limits of what you can know. When evidence is missing or inconclusive, the rational move isn't to jump to a conclusion—it's to pause. That pause? That's agnosticism. It's not about sitting on the fence out of fear. It's about being grounded enough to admit when we don't have the full picture.

There's also the burden of proof. If someone claims "God exists," the responsibility is on them to back that up with evidence. But the same is true for someone who says, "God doesn't exist." Both claims assert the truth, and both need a solid footing. Since neither side has been able to provide conclusive evidence, the logical place to land is somewhere in the middle—curious, open, but cautious.

A lot of people assume atheism is the "smart" or "scientific" position, but that's a misunderstanding. Atheism is still a belief—it's a belief that no gods exist. Some come to that view through personal reflection or frustration with organized religion, which is fair. But science doesn't automatically back that up. The absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. You can't measure God, so you can't scientifically rule out the possibility. That's a pretty big distinction.

Take dark matter and dark energy. We can't directly see them, but we believe they exist because of how they seem to affect what is visible. Science doesn't throw out those mysteries—it leans into them and keeps asking questions. That same approach should apply when we talk about God. Just because we haven't measured or understood something doesn't mean we shut the door on the possibility.

Even within science, some mysteries push up against the limits of what we can currently explain. Consciousness, for one. How physical brain matter produces thoughts, feelings, and experiences—science still can't fully explain it. Same with near-death experiences. Some people come back from clinical death with vivid memories or insights they couldn't have known otherwise. These don't prove anything spiritual beyond doubt, but they hint that reality might be layered in ways we don't fully grasp yet.

In the end, when I look at what science tells us—and how logic works—it seems obvious that agnosticism is the more intellectually honest position. It doesn't mean I'm lost or indecisive. It means I'm acknowledging the limits of knowledge while still staying open to possibility. Atheism, while valid for many, goes further than evidence currently allows. Agnosticism stays grounded. It invites curiosity, not conclusions. And that feels more aligned with how science operates: always exploring, always revising, always humble.

References

Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

Parnia, S., et al. (2014). AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation. Resuscitation, 85(12), 1799-1805.

Planck Collaboration. (2018). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.

Russell, B. (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian.

Sober, E. (2015). Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge University Press.