Is Science a Moral Imperative?

It seems that Atheists flock to science like millers to a porch light. The cry for defending science from religion sounds suspiciously like a cry for defending the faithful from religion. By faithful I mean the religiously Atheistic. For these, the use of science to promote Atheism is, well, natural. Not materialist, of course, but natural.

PZ Myers is now bragging that he publicly ripped up a Bible, and apparently his Atheist audience loved it. If he had any guts at all he would tear up a Q'ran. But PZ is happy to merely wart Christianity in his cowardly antics as a field leader of the Materialists. His religiously anti-ecclesiastical zealotry leads one to wonder when PZ will open his own compound in Texas. But the real question here is....

What is it about science that would make it a moral imperative? Is it in fact the one and only path to TRUTH? Considering that Atheism contains viewpoints that are all over the map on just about every subject, it seems reasonable to presume that it has no firm position on truth, just as it has no position on wisdom or knowledge or even information. This being the case, then the advocacy of science-only, above and beyond literacy, philosophy, and any of the arts, can only be attributed to the religiously, jealously held opinion that there is no other path to truth, that all truth is material, that all education should focus on Atheist, materialist, religiously held beliefs.

If science and its teaching is a MORAL IMPERATIVE, it is only because the religiously Atheists declare it to be so. There is no corresponding concern for the fall of American education in general. There is no corresponding concern for developing rational decision makers. The Atheo-scientismists are so convinced of their own infallibility that there is no room in their minds for non-materialist education...such as literature, history, philosophy and other non-Atheist (but also non-Christian) education. Why is it that Atheists endorse science whole-heartedly, and ignore other aspects of education? In fact Atheists defend science using the considerable treasury of the ACLU, yet there is no corresponding defense of other cirricula which are failing American youth miserably. Why are Atheists concerned with only one venue?

Science is a valid pursuit, no question about it. But science doesn't need Atheism. It is Atheism that needs the patina of legitimacy that is imbued by science. In other words, Atheism is a parasite on science. A religiously oriented and held parasite. And the parasite is claiming that the host is a MORAL IMPERATIVE, because it needs the host. It needs for the host to be considered impervious, immortal, the one and only necessary condition for the existence of anything that is true. It needs this for its own sustenance.

But in promoting science as its host, Atheism is forced to deny any and all non-material entities. And unfortunately for Atheism, this includes the first principles, which are the bedrock of logic and rational thought. And, in turn, the necessary result of that is the rejection of rationality in favor of Materialism. Atheism can't have it both ways.

The proof of this pudding is that Atheists will take the Materialist position, and deny the necessary result of having taken that postion: an irrational thought process, as was demonstrated by the only intellectually honest Atheist of the past 300 (or so) years... Friedrich Nietzsche. Most modern Atheists haven't read Nietzsche, it appears. They are not concerned with ideas, so much as facts. Scientific facts. And the use of these facts - which are really just current opinions of the scientific community - to prove the faith of Atheism.

Which only brings us back to this: Atheism is the religion of Materialism, rigorously held and promoted. Materialism is easily refuted, but Atheism claims SCIENCE to cover for its Materialist philosophy. The irrationality is dazzling, and the motivation of rejection and dependence on falseness is not obscure: It has been discussed in depth previously.

But back to the point: Is science and its teaching a moral imperative? Of course not, unless your entire worldview right down to self-image and self-worth depends on it. In other words, only for Atheists, and the parasitism of Atheism on the legitimate, voluntarily materialist pursuit of science.