Dan Barker Quotes

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith!'

The wonderful thing about science is that in science, faith is shakable.

In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Science makes no claim to infallibility; it leaves that claim to be made by theologians.

I don't want to believe. I want to know.

The whole point of faith, in fact, is to believe regardless of the evidence, which is the very antithesis of science.

Religion asks you to believe things without questioning, and technology and science always encourage you to ask hard questions and why it is important in science and technology. So I was always interested in science and technology.

Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term 'doubting Thomas' well illustrates the difference.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.

True science teaches, above all, to doubt

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.

Faith feels itself secure neither with universal consent, nor with tradition, nor with authority. It seeks support of its enemy, reason.

I do not want chemistry to degenerate into a religion; I do not want the chemist to believe in the existence of atoms as the Christian believes in the existence of Christ in the communion wafer.

The scientist insists on verification; the religious theologian does not; the philosopher sometimes does and sometimes does not

If there is any consistent enemy of science, it is not religion, but irrationalism.

The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.

The doubter is a true man of science: he doubts only himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science.

No amount of belief makes something a fact.

If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.

In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable.

I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe, but because I want to know. How can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.

...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.