There exists not any reason, why one shall select a model that is observed to likely contain failing|haphazard predictions, (i.e. belief ...) instead of one that is observed to likely contain empirical, testable sequences (i.e. science).

Quite the delicious food for thought

Scientifically scintillating "non-beliefism" book: Stop believing in everything" on Amazon.

Non-beliefism premise

Belief may constitute non-science.

Science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is non-scientific to believe.


To express that one must believe, is to express that there exists one moment for which science is not applicable, while one cannot avoid approaching that moment.

In simpler words, to express that one must believe in something, is to express that there must be some event where:

(i). Science is not applicable (i.e. merely belief is applicable)

(ii). Where (i) occurs, in which one has no choice but to apply belief.

Given that no data appears to demonstrate (ii) as valid, it is thereafter false that one cannot exist absent belief in something .


Regardless of the instance, that I had cognized of the paradigm, as described via non-beliefism, prior beings had engendered similar description:

Robert A. Wilson (1932-2007?): "Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (2013): "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" (source)

Jim Walker (1997-2015?): "History reveals that the consequences of beliefs have created mental barriers to understanding and has caused ignorance, misery, violence and war. Do humans need beliefs at all?" (source)

Notably, a system (that lacks high concern for evidence, i.e. belief), fundamentally opposes a system that has no such lacking. (i.e. scientific methodology)


  • Belief is a model, that permits that one believes in both science, and non-science.

  • However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.

  • A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.

  • Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.

/ Scientifically scrutinize yourself:

It is pertinent that you don’t forget to ask yourself: “Am I attempting to confirm some prior *feeling* on bias, especially without evidence? Am I distorting scientific data merely for my personal comfort, or am I objectively adjusting to scientific data?”

Recall: One need not be genius nor omniscient to do scientific thinking, as belief typically enables large evidence ignorance, in contrast to scientific theory or scientific hypotheses, for which genius is not required, and crucially, for which evidence is defined to be prioritized. (See scientific testability)

Conclusively, one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence.


Crucially, non-beliefism does not underline that we have to access all the evidence possible, to avoid belief.

Easily, we can see that there is a successful model that enables humans to prioritize evidence, without looking at all possible evidence. (Science is that model, Science is something that permits this everyday)

    So, non-beliefism is simply a way to underline what is already possible, scientific thinking. (By clearly identifying a popular and not typically scrutinized paradigm, i.e. belief, and showing why belief contrasts scientific thinking)

Considering that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence, but may also occur on evidence, why would you discard your beliefs that occur on evidence?

  • The answer is simple; those that fall on evidence are redundant/not required, because scientific-evidence persists, regardless of anybody's belief!