- Oct 2019
Yes you are, in K-12 education you (or at least others) are taught it, you/they didn't independently discover or invent the theories yourself, like Newton or Einstein did.No one is indoctrinated into science.
And if you had been born in the Middle Ages, you'd have been "taught" geocentrism, or whatever the science of the day and age was. (And most likely denouncing Newton as a "heretic" since he disagreed with what you had been "taught").
Seeing the world around me, and inventing the theories about it, which are constructed from mathematics - isn't the same thing.You see the world around you and see how mathematical descriptions and scientific principles explain the whys and wherefores of all that.
People saw apples falling from trees since the dawn of time, it was Newton who actually used this information to invent his theory of Gravity, the average person may have seen apples falling from trees, but they were not a mathematical genuis who created a grand theory out of it.
Mathematics and theories "can't be seen", they're inventions or contents of the mind.Not indoctrination, the need to believe what you can't see, but an explanation of what you can see around you.
So believing in mathematical theories, or mental concepts is "believing in something you can't see".
A lack of belief in science is a default, that's what babies have until an influencer, usually, a parent indoctrinates them.As to your source, a totally specious argument is being presented. Atheism is a default. It is no belief. That's what babies have until an influencer, usually a parent indoctrinates them.
The average person has an IQ of 100 - he isn't a Newton, or an Einstein, who invented and discovered the scientific theories himself - he was indoctrinated into them by parents, schoolteachers, and so forth, and merely repeating them because an authority figure "told him" it was true. Just like he'd be repeating geocentrism if he had been born in the Middle Ages, and it was what was taught in that day and age.
That's an argument from authority fallacy, since their argument is based on God not "being within the scope of science".You like so many others want to believe that atheists say there is no god. That is not true. Atheists say there is insufficient reason to believe there is a god.
By the same logic then, the existence of Charles Darwin "isn't within the scope of sciencel his existence is not testable, repeatable, or demonstrable by the scientific method" - so, therefore, Charles Darwin doesn't exist.
Or human thoughts "cannot be seen", human thoughts, therefore "do not exist".
Obviously, if this argument was applied literally, it would lead to absurd conclusions, which is why the scientific method is very limited in scope, and in practice, no one uses it as an approximation for all phenomena in existence to begin with. (HIstory is totally outside the scope of the scientific method, for example - but that doesn't mean "history doesn't exist).