Science does not support Atheism, does it?

[paarsurrey1]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

[otseng]

Does science support atheism? No.

Rather, it's more the other way around. Methodological naturalism supports science. Modern science makes the assumption that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable. However, it cannot prove that only naturalistic explanations exist. It says nothing about supernaturalism other than it cannot be offered as an explanation.

[Divine Insight]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

I would argue that science supports all three. However, this can depend on how a person defines their terms.

I define the above terms as follows:

Atheism - There is no credible rational reason to believe that any gods might exist.

Agnosticism - There is no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of a possible god.

Skepticism - There is no reason to believe anything that cannot be supported by evidence. (actually this is the very basis of science so I would say that science not only supports skepticism but relies upon it).

Keep in mind also that gods were invented by men to explain things like equates, storms, tsunamis, droughts, major floods, etc. Gods were also proposed to explain the workings of the "heavens" (i.e. the motion of the planets, stars, comets, etc. Gods, were also used to explain disease, plagues, birth defects, etc. (or demons were invented to explain these things as well.

The bottom line is that science has explained all of these things in natural terms with no gods required. Not only have these explanations worked very well, but they have also revealed how nature works enabling us to create technologies based on these principles. The fact that the technologies work are proof positive that science is true and correct. No gods required.

So while science cannot say there are no gods, science has shown that no gods are required to explain the natural world.

So the concept of gods is an ever-receding idea. Currently the only type of gods that are compatible with known scientific knowledge are gods that never intervene in the natural world and aren't required to make it run. This certainly does away with many religions especially the Abrahamic religions that claim to have a God who intervenes in human affairs all the time. That is precisely the kind of God that is no longer compatible with scientific knowledge.

[2ndRateMind]

Seems to me, science supports those hypotheses for which there is experimental evidence, and rejects those hypotheses which experimental evidence shows to be impossible.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet devised and implemented an objectively verifiable and repeatable experiment where the result either incontrovertably supports or contradicts either the hypothesis that God exists, or that He does not exist.

At this point of the state of the art, science just 'doesn't do God'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[paarsurrey1]

Does science support atheism? No.

Rather, it's more the other way around. Methodological naturalism supports science. Modern science makes the assumption that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable. However, it cannot prove that only naturalistic explanations exist. It says nothing about supernaturalism other than it cannot be offered as an explanation.

Does science support atheism? No.

Thanks for unequivocally agreeing with me that science does not support atheism (or Agnosticism/Ignosticism/Skepticism).
Science also does not challenge the core teachings of the truthful religion. Right, please?
No core teachings of the truthful religion interfere with science and no founder of any revealed religion has ever condemned science. Right, please?

Science does not define nature correct for all purposes, it is not its business to define anything. Science may make an expression that suits its domain for its own convenience to get things going but out of its domain these are not relevant.It is for this that the coin terms borrowing words from the languages that are not the property of science strictly speaking. The have dictionaries specific to the terms of a relevant science, that don't have much relevance to the language of ordinary persons.

Regards

[wiploc]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

Science is skepticism. Scientifically-minded people don't go around believing in things without logical justification. That's all that skepticism would ask of you.

---

Does science lead to agnosticism? A science-minded person considering the question of whether gods have been proven to exist would have to conclude that they have not been proven. If gods are not proven, then we don't know that they exist. We do not know; we are without knowledge; we are agnostic.

---

Does science support atheism? An atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Theists believe that gods do exist. Atheists don't have that belief.

Science is about not believing things promiscuously; it is about withholding belief unless there is logical support. If there were logical support for believing in gods, we would all know about it. Theists are so evangelical in their promotion of belief that they use any argument no matter how poor. And they are all poor.

Wiploc's law is that good arguments drive out bad. If theists had any good arguments, they would tell us what they were. They wouldn't be relying on terrible arguments if they had any good ones. The fact that theists rely exclusively on terrible arguments is compelling proof that they don't have any good ones.

Therefore, given that theists have no good arguments, no scientifically-minded person will adopt theistic belief.

It follows then that science--the idea that we should logically justify beliefs before adopting them--supports not being a theist. Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, so it is fair to say that science supports atheism.

---

Let me anticipate an objection to the above:

Many good scientists are theists. To accomplish this, they must compartmentalize. They work logically in their jobs as scientists, but logic fails them when they consider gods.

If they were scientific about religion, they would not be theists.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

So, I tend to agree, wiploc, that the correct attitude for a scientist, going about his or her science, is scepticism. Or at least, some happy medium between credulity on the one hand, and cynicism on the other. Nevertheless, such a consideration is not actually science, but meta-science, or the philosophy of science. I repeat my above contention that science itself doesn't (currently) do God, and so has nothing to contribute to this debate.

My own philosophical preference is to regard the idea that God exists as an axiom, somewhat in the nature of Euclid's mathematical axiom that parallel lines never cross. You can accept this idea, which Euclid thought unprovable, and end up with plane geometry, or reject it, and up with a spherical geometry. Similarly, you can accept the idea that God exists, which I think unprovable, and end up with one way of life and understanding of the world, or reject it, and end up with a different way of life, and understanding.

There is nothing illogical about either choice. Rather, they are base assumptions on which one can attempt to build, step by logical and rational step, a coherent, consistent and comprehensive world view.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[William]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.

It is not used to show the fact of existence, but to examine the fact of existence.

In this, science can be used to provide some evidence as to how things on earth came to be but cannot be used to determine whether these things happened through a mindless process or a mindful process.

Thus it cannot support theism or atheism because it cannot show conclusively that the process was or was not a mindful one.

The evidence which comes to light through the process of science can be interpreted either way. The atheist can interpret the evidence as being a mindless process... because the implication of an intelligent creator behind the process = "GOD" and atheism by default is not having any belief in "GODs" ... and the theist can interpret the same evidence as being a mindful process, because the theist by default has belief in "GOD(s)" - an intelligent designer or for that matter, a group of intelligent designers.

Science itself is just a process and thus is not something that has an opinion either way. Opinions either way derive from those who interpret the same evidence in a different way.

Science also is not capable of being used to determine what is or isn't 'the truthful religion', even if there actually was one.

[paarsurrey1]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.

It is not used to show the fact of existence, but to examine the fact of existence.

In this, science can be used to provide some evidence as to how things on earth came to be but cannot be used to determine whether these things happened through a mindless process or a mindful process.

Thus it cannot support theism or atheism because it cannot show conclusively that the process was or was not a mindful one.

The evidence which comes to light through the process of science can be interpreted either way. The atheist can interpret the evidence as being a mindless process... because the implication of an intelligent creator behind the process = "GOD" and atheism by default is not having any belief in "GODs" ... and the theist can interpret the same evidence as being a mindful process, because the theist by default has belief in "GOD(s)" - an intelligent designer or for that matter, a group of intelligent designers.

Science itself is just a process and thus is not something that has an opinion either way. Opinions either way derive from those who interpret the same evidence in a different way.

Science also is not capable of being used to determine what is or isn't 'the truthful religion', even if there actually was one.

Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.

Thanks for poising believers and non-believers equally.
As one agrees science does not provide a refuge to Atheism, and the like. Atheism is just a position of indecision having roots neither in Science nor in Religion. All the basics of the truthful Religion, the six Articles of faith* together with five pillars of observance are beyond the observable material science. The truthful founders of all revealed religions and particularly the founder of the Truthful Religion never spoke anything against Science, as a branch of knowledge, or the scientists. They did not want to hamper its progress so they left it open to be dealt with on material observation (belonging to the "seen" realm/s). Religions' stress is on the "unseen realm/s":

[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:4] Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
[2:5] And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come
[2:6] It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... r.php?ch=2

Regards
__________
*Six Articles of Faith
• Unity of God
• His Angels
• His Books
• His Prophets
• The Last Day
• Divine Decree
**Five Pillars of Islam (for its observance)
• Kalima
• Prayer
• Fasting
• Zakaat
• Hajj
https://www.alislam.org/

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by paarsurrey1]

Atheism is just a position of indecision

No. Atheism is a neutral position. It is the position one has in relation to ignorance, in that it holds no belief in GODs not that it has made a decision one way or the other about the existence of GODs. Agnosticism (which is regarded as being a subset of atheism) is more the position of not having made a decision, of being undecided.

Subgroups of atheism however, do involve decisive positions.

"Truthful Religion" has nothing to do with whether science does or does not support atheism, as per the OP.

I suggest that if you want to express your beliefs in what you consider to be "Truthful Religion" you can either create a thread in the Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies forum section (due to the obvious belief you have in regard to what the "Truthful Religion") or perhaps use your tokens to purchase a thread of your own which no one else can comment on, in the Members Notes section of the forum