Science as the New Mythology: Debunking the Myth of Belief in God and Gods

Introduction: Breaking the Stereotype

Atheist rationalists, or in the terminology of our project, the Flat Mind, often claim that belief in God today is merely a continuation of belief in ancient gods like Zeus, Osiris, or Jupiter, and that it contradicts rational thinking. This argument is mistaken. Belief in God in the modern world is not analogous to ancient myths, but rather a personal choice that often stands in opposition to the dominant ideology. In contrast, the modern scientific consensus—held up by atheists as the pinnacle of rationality—actually performs the same functions as ancient mythological systems: it explains the world, sets moral boundaries, legitimizes power, and suppresses alternatives. In this article, we will examine why belief in God today is not equivalent to belief in the gods of the past, and why scientific consensus is the new mythology—one that refuses to recognize its own limitations.

Ancient Myths: The Official Doctrine of Their Time

In ancient societies, myths about gods were not just stories or personal beliefs. They constituted the official narrative, maintained by state institutions:

• Greece: Myths about the Olympian gods were part of the state religion of the city-states. Temples, festivals (like the Panathenaia), educational practices, and architecture all reflected faith in Zeus, Athena, and other gods. This was a system that imposed social order.
• Rome: The cults of Jupiter, Mars, and deified emperors like Augustus served as tools for legitimizing authority. The Romans incorporated foreign deities into their pantheon to strengthen the empire.
• Egypt: The pharaoh was considered a living god, and myths about Osiris, Isis, and Ra were enshrined in temple texts, rituals, and laws.

These myths served the same purpose as today’s scientific consensus: they created a unified worldview, excluded alternatives, legitimized power, and regulated thinking. Instead of words like “science” or “objectivity,” terms like “sacred” or “divine” were used—but the essence was the same: this was the official truth, backed by the authority of priests and temples. To challenge it was to challenge society itself: “Who are you to question the priests?”—much like today’s refrain: “You’re not a scientist, so you can’t argue with scientific consensus.”

Belief in God Today: The Personal vs. the Institutional

Modern belief in God (especially in secular societies) has nothing in common with ancient myths in terms of its social role:

• Personal and Subjective: Faith in God is an individual choice, not supported by state institutions, educational systems, or the media. In most countries, it does not influence laws, science, or culture.
• Marginalized: In secular societies, belief in God is seen as a private opinion, not objective knowledge. It is often mocked as “irrational” or “obsolete.”
• Outside the System: Unlike the ancient gods, who defined social order, belief in God today exists outside of institutional reality.

Thus, belief in God is not a continuation of belief in ancient gods, but rather an act of resistance against the dominant worldview. Scientific consensus, on the other hand, has taken the place of ancient myths, serving the same functions: explaining the world, establishing moral norms, and legitimizing authority.

Scientific Consensus: New Mythology Without Admitting It

Modern scientific consensus is presented as the height of rationality, but in its social function, it is strikingly similar to ancient myths. Consider these key parallels:

Ancient World	Modern World
Belief in gods = official doctrine transmitted through temples, schools, rituals	Belief in scientific consensus = official doctrine transmitted through universities, scientific journals, media
To question myths = to be a heretic, subject to exile or execution	To question science = to be a “charlatan” or “conspiracy theorist,” subject to ostracism
Priests as keepers of truth	Scientists, experts, Nobel laureates as modern priests
Pantheon of gods explained the structure of the world and order of things	Theories of the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness explain the structure of the world
Dissenters faced punishment	Dissenters face censorship, loss of funding, or reputational damage

The scientific consensus imposes a worldview that includes ideas like the randomness of the universe’s emergence, blind evolution, materialist explanations of consciousness, and determinism. These concepts are presented as unassailable truths, but their foundations often rest on unproven assumptions. For example, theories about the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness require complex hypotheses that are not confirmed by direct observation and raise questions science does not yet answer. A detailed analysis of these dogmas deserves a separate discussion, which we will address in future articles.

The key point: scientific consensus, like ancient myths, fulfills social functions:

• Explaining the world: It creates a unified picture that excludes alternatives.
• Setting moral boundaries: It defines ethical guidelines, such as environmentalism or progressivism.
• Legitimizing authority: It is used to justify political decisions—from climate initiatives to medical mandates.
• Suppressing dissent: Critics of the consensus are labeled “unscientific” or “conspiratorial,” echoing the excommunication of heretics in the past.

Unlike ancient myths, scientific consensus does not recognize its own mythological nature, making it even more dogmatic.

The Evolution of the Priest: From Temple to Academy

The role of truth-keeper has transformed, but its function remains unchanged:

1. Priest (Ancient world): Mediator between gods and people, keeper of sacred knowledge.
2. Philosopher (Antiquity): Asked questions about the nature of reality, but often remained within tradition.
3. Academic (Middle Ages – Modern era): Shifted knowledge into the rational domain, but retained authority status.
4. Nobel laureate (Modernity): Symbol of scientific truth, whose words are accepted without question.
5. System gatekeeper (Today): Scientists, media, grant systems, and corporations that determine what counts as “scientific.”

This evolution shows that knowledge remains under the control of an elite that sets the boundaries of what is acceptable and suppresses dissent.

Belief Without Belief: How Consensus Works

There is a common misconception that in ancient times, people “believed in gods” in the same way we talk today about personal faith or religious feeling. In reality, for most ancient people, it was not a matter of inner faith—it was simply a social fact, an accepted given:

• The priest didn’t ask, “Do you believe?”—he simply declared, “The gods exist.”
  This knowledge was transmitted as something self-evident—like a law of nature, not requiring any proof.
• People lived in a system with no real alternative:
  The question “Do gods exist?” would have sounded as strange as asking today, “Does the electromagnetic field exist?” It was not a topic for debate, but a cultural baseline.
• No inner faith was required—only behavior.
  Rituals, festivals, cultic actions—these were all part of a collective agreement, not of personal mystical experience.

The same thing happens today in science:

• Most people do not “believe” in the existence of black holes or quarks—they simply accept that “scientists say so.”
• Scientific consensus becomes a “fact” that requires no personal experience or verification.
  No one asks if you’ve seen a galaxy yourself—the important thing is that you know it “exists,” and do not publicly doubt it.

In the end: both in ancient times and today, collective “knowledge” is not a matter of personal belief, but of following authority and accepted rules.

Why This Matters

• This completely changes our understanding of what “belief” is in mass culture:
  Belief as form is always an agreement, not an inner experience.
• This exposes the main paradox:
  Everything we consider “knowledge” in mass consciousness, functions as an uncritically accepted ritual.

Conclusion: Belief in God vs. Belief in Science

Belief in God today is not a continuation of ancient beliefs, but a challenge to the dominant worldview. It is individual, subjective, and unsupported by institutions. In contrast, scientific consensus has assumed the role of ancient myth, serving the same functions:

• Transmitted through institutions (universities, media, journals)
• Suppresses alternatives, labeling them “unscientific”
• Legitimizes authority and sets the boundaries of thought

Modern scientific theories, such as those about the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness, are often accepted as dogma despite their hypothetical character. In future articles, we will examine these concepts in greater detail, exploring their weaknesses and philosophical underpinnings. For future generations, today’s scientific consensus may well look like a mythology based on the cult of matter, chance, and progress. The real question is: are we ready, even today, to recognize the mythological nature of science and begin an honest dialogue about what truth really is?