Science does not support Atheism, does it?

[paarsurrey1]

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

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

I am saying there is no proper faculty of science dealing with God because science does not involve itself with studying fictions.

So you mean, stories which are attached to ideas of GOD which cannot be scientifically examined, but can be assumed to be fiction?

So the statement;

"The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it. "

...is branching away from the OP topic that "Science does not support Atheism"?

Because it seems to me that the statement in green is also implying that "Science does not support Theism" (on account of what you said about fiction).

Which, all in all, suggests that science does not support theism or atheism.

Said another way, science does not support the belief or lack of belief in GOD(s).

To clarify;

Agnostics do not believe GOD is necessarily fictional because they do not know one way of the other, but they are still atheists.

Other types of atheists do believe that GOD is fictional.

No type of theist believes that GOD is fictional. All types of theists seem unable to agree on exactly what the nature and character of GOD is, and all opinions regarding this can be understood as being anything within the range of potentially true to obviously fictional.

But what device is there to measure with?

[marco]

So the statement;

"The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it. "

...is branching away from the OP topic that "Science does not support Atheism"?

Because it seems to me that the statement in green is also implying that "Science does not support Theism" (on account of what you said about fiction).

I am not sure what the cause of your apparent disagreement is. To say that God-Allah is above science is an erroneous view. Science does not trouble itself with such tales.

The green statement is a pious expression of belief in the "one, true deity" removing it from the analysis of science. It fancifully supposes that belief in God-Allah transcends the analysis of science.

Science doesn't trouble itself over astrology or theology. It is above such concerns. It is not the case that Allah or any other God is above the reach of science any more than Scorpio is, or Leo or Capricorn.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

Science doesn't trouble itself over astrology or theology. It is above such concerns. It is not the case that Allah or any other God is above the reach of science...

Specifically this implies that science CAN be used as a process in which to examine ideas of GOD, but is not used for this, because such ideas are 'beneath' the 'lofty' purpose of the process of science.

This can be regarded as an atheist opinion about science.

In relation to the idea that 'Science does not support Atheism', such a view as you have expressed can then be used imply that atheism is a loftier position that theism, because some atheists use scientific theory to argue against theism.

Even that ordinarily, 'science doesn't trouble itself over theology.' (Some atheists most obviously do)

I think your argument veers away from the OP question.

The answer to the OP question is obviously "No, science does not support atheism."

Indeed, I would even go so far as to use you own argument here, with minor adjustment...

..."Science doesn't trouble itself over atheism. It is above such concerns."

[marco]

In relation to the idea that 'Science does not support Atheism', such a view as you have expressed can then be used imply that atheism is a loftier position that theism, because some atheists use scientific theory to argue against theism.

May I remind you that I was responding to the statement that the One-True God is above the reaches of Science. We would not use Science to dismiss the One-True God; we would use simple reasoning.

You confuse "some atheists" with science. What atheists do or don't do is not an indication of what science does. Theists can use science in their arguments as well.

I think your argument veers away from the OP question.

The answer to the OP question is obviously "No, science does not support atheism."

Indeed, I would even go so far as to use you own argument here, with minor adjustment...

..."Science doesn't trouble itself over atheism. It is above such concerns."

I've no idea why you're telling me this. I was not examining the statement in the OP but a statement based on the OP, to which I was giving my answer. I don't believe questions about God concern Science and atheism is such a question.

Of course we can use our science knowledge when we are arguing one way or another; for example probability theory. But the statement I was responding to involved the possibility of a faculty of science analysing Allah. That would be preposterous. It would examine Harry Potter with as much justification.

Science is above the concerns of theism and atheism alike except in theocracies, perhaps, where Holy Books are found to be science text books.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

Science is above the concerns of theism and atheism alike ...

Okay thanks for you clarification - it appears that what has happened is that the introduction of argument related to theist gods (specifically the Abrahamic idea of GOD) is that which is veering away from the OP.
It also appears that where the OP uses the word 'support' you use the phrase "is above the concerns of"...

The OP would be better stated as;

"Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism does it?"

In that the question is more a statement of fact - rhetorical for that.

Stated another way.

"Science is above the concerns of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism"

Stated in the most accurate way;

"Science is not a useful process for using in relation to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism"

(I think the scientific process requires skepticism related to itself so assume the skepticism mentioned is in relation to the other positions in the list.)

[Tcg]

Stated in the most accurate way;

"Science is not a useful process for using in relation to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism"

If one claims that god is non-physical and yet interacts with the physical world, then science would be useful in determining whether or not there is evidence of this interaction. Of course if science found that the physical interaction claimed to be taking place was in fact taking place, this wouldn't be evidence for god as science only deals with physical reality, you know, things that we know actually exist.

So, yes, science can evaluate specific claims about a mythological being's interaction with the real world, but can never support the existence of these mythological beings if they are claimed to be non-physical.

If a god is claimed to be physical, then science has the potential to examine this thing directly, but of course there would be no reason to call this thing god in that case. It would simply be part of the natural world.

[William]

Stated in the most accurate way;

"Science is not a useful process for using in relation to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism"

If one claims that god is non-physical and yet interacts with the physical world, then science would be useful in determining whether or not there is evidence of this interaction.

Theism interprets the physical world as evidence of GOD and makes the claim.

Science only works with the physical world and makes no claims either way.

If there is an example of a claim that GOD interacts with the physical world that you can point to which science would be useful in determining whether or not there is evidence of this interaction, that would be interesting.

Of course if science found that the physical interaction claimed to be taking place was in fact taking place, this wouldn't be evidence for god as science only deals with physical reality, you know, things that we know actually exist.

Which is the same as saying;

"Science is not a useful process for using in relation to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Theism"

So, yes, science can evaluate specific claims about a mythological being's interaction with the real world, but can never support the existence of these mythological beings if they are claimed to be non-physical.

Please give an example as to how science processes could "evaluate specific claims about a mythological being's interaction with the real world"

When;

"[Science process] can never support the existence of these mythological beings if they are claimed to be non-physical."

Isn't that the crux of the OP?

If a god is claimed to be physical, then science has the potential to examine this thing directly, but of course there would be no reason to call this thing god in that case. It would simply be part of the natural world.

If the claim was that the [physical] planet Earth was hosting a [non physical] conscious self aware intelligent creative entity and that entity uses the planet itself as a means of creating biological life forms which it then divests an aspect of its consciousness into in order to animate those forms and experience through those forms, would there still be 'no reason to call this Earth Entity a GOD' because it is interacting with the physical world in this manner?

Also. would it be science which would say there is no reason to call such an Entity 'GOD' or would that be more the department of Atheism's job top make such claims?

(which of course circles back to the OP question/statement.)