Yes, I totally get your point! But you’re still wrong!
the world round; we didn’t
give light a velocity of 186,000 mph; we didn’t
invent gravity out of whole cloth.
We are subject to nature
(whose whims we call “laws”, even though they’re not the same kind of laws we teach in law school!); because nature
made these laws (not man), we are not
by any means subject to man-made
rules! That is why your idea of only atheists “submitting” to nature doesn’t fly at all – it applies to all
of us equally!
And what of “man-made” scientific discoveries? Atheists don’t “worship” or “submit” to those either.
("Holding something as more important than all other things does not constitute 'worship' by any meaningful definition of the word."
Much less do we use them as a “substitute” for what you perceive as God. Any science-literate atheist will tell you that any scientific discovery is provisional
– it’s temporarily correct until
better evidence comes along.
The science writer Isaac Asimov might say
, “[Jonga], living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
“What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.
Scientists win Nobel Prizes for trashing
established theories. The ethologist Richard Dawkins once wrote
, “Far from being over-confident, many scientists believe that science advances only by disproof of its hypotheses.
Konrad Lorenz said he hoped to disprove at least one of his own hypotheses every day before breakfast.”
Huling hirit ni Austin Cline
: “[There are] reasons to think highly of science and to try to protect it from possible threats. None, however, are reasons to think that people in any way "worship" science or treat it as a religion. It is even arguable that science is less a belief system than a methodology:
a method and means for understanding what reality is rather than a set of doctrines and dogmas which we are morally obligated to believe upon threat of punishment.”