Does Science Support Atheism?

[yellowbicycle]

I don’t think science supports atheism or theism. I think science and theology ask different questions.
My husband is a micro-biologist, and, of course, works with other micro-biologists at University of Michigan. I have found that his co-workers are, if not religious, overall they are definitely believers in God. How could they not be? Every minute of their day is immersed in the complexities of life. They know they can’t figure everything out. They know that there is more going on than what they see, why wouldn’t they believe in God?
My husband used to be pro-choice. Then I asked him ‘When does human life begin?’ and he said ‘Oh, we don’t know’ and I said ‘Bull, you most certainly do. Tell me what is the starting point of a frog’s life. If I were to point out a frog to you and say tell me everything about it’s entire life, where would you start?’ and he said ‘With a fertilized egg’.
‘What about a monkey? Where would you start the explanation of a monkey’s life?’
‘With the fertilization of the egg’
‘And a human?’
‘I get it’
Done and done!
The nice thing about scientists, real scientists who are searching for Truth, is that they are willing, generally, to correct their beliefs based on new information.

 

[Luke65]

I observed:

“Actually, mainstream scientists have chosen to embrace methodological atheism.”

You responded:

Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them. Scientists depend on methodological naturalism for their work, a practice that while it cannot verify God, neither can it deny him. Because it is neutral with respect to God, this means that scientists can also be theists, as many of them are.

The truth matters. It should matter enough to you to find out why some fundamentalists would lie to you about it.

Let’s see:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - Richard Lewontin

(my emphases)

Is Lewontin a “fundamentalist”? A liar?

Yes, the truth matters. Especially the truth about how we got here, which is why God revealed that to us. But if you want to believe that God kept His own people in the dark about this all-important question, for thousands of years, and then decided to shine His light on atheistic scientists, well, that’s your free will. I choose to believe God. (Check the new sig!)

 

[wasmit]

It is often asked whether modern science supports religion. I’d like to know just the opposite:

Does science supports atheism? If so, on what basis?

My understanding is that science debunks a literal reading of the bible. For example:

-The dozens of impossibilities within the noah’s ark story
-The impossibility of a continuing population that has only 2 individuals(adam,eve)
-The 7-day creation story.
-The earth is roughly 6000 years old.
-etc.

There are also non-scientific reasons to not believe what the bible says, e.g. the hundreds of internal contradictions withinin the bible.

Of course, this is only one religion I am considering in this post - there are many others!

 

[JDaniel]

My understanding is that science debunks a literal reading of the bible. For example:

-The dozens of impossibilities within the noah’s ark story
-The impossibility of a continuing population that has only 2 individuals(adam,eve)
-The 7-day creation story.
-The earth is roughly 6000 years old.
-etc.

Silly wabbit. Science didn’t “debunk” any of these items. Not a single one. The “6000 year” deal, I’m not at all sure where you get that from. Would you mind pointing out the chapter and verse?

There are also non-scientific reasons to not believe what the bible says, e.g. the hundreds of internal contradictions withinin the bible.

I learned a neat thing, a long time ago from a very learned old man, he said,“The best way to refute an uncategorical assertion is with an uncategorical denial.” So, I deny your assertion and you are refuted.

Of course, this is only one religion I am considering in this post - there are many others!

Trembling. :bigyikes:

jd

 

[Squishy]

Science cannot support atheism. In the same way that it cannot support Theism. God is never used in scientific equations. Scientists try to explain the world without resorting to ‘God’ but that does not mean that god is never a possibility. Its just not a working hypothasies.

Are most modern scientists atheists. No. Mosts would be agnostics. The idea of atheism is not compatable with what we classify as good science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My understanding is that science debunks a literal reading of the bible. For example:

-The dozens of impossibilities within the noah’s ark story
-The impossibility of a continuing population that has only 2 individuals(adam,eve)
-The 7-day creation story.
-The earth is roughly 6000 years old.
-etc.

There are also non-scientific reasons to not believe what the bible says, e.g. the hundreds of internal contradictions withinin the bible.

Of course, this is only one religion I am considering in this post - there are many others!

then its a good deal that we arent protestants, that take a literal reading of the bible

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I notice that a few posters are talking only about how science does not support religion. I would ask those posters to step back and look at the thread’s title. The question is whether science supports atheism … either scientists themselves supporting it or the principles of science supporting it. This thread was not designed for using science to bash religion. Please start your own thread if that’s what you’re up to.

Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

Empirical science does not support atheism. It is when men reason the data it can. This is when science crosses over into philosophy.

 

[Nebogipfel]

There is nothing in the scientific view of the world from which you conclude “…therefore, God does not exist”.

But to my mind, the more science reveals about the way the Universe really is, the less probable it becomes that anything like a God actually exists.

So the answer to your question, is that the scientific method itself neither confirms nor refutes either atheism or theism. But the results of applying that method to observations of the natural world do, from where I’m standing at least, lend more support to atheism than to theism.

The best explanation I can give of why, based on a sceptical and empirical view of the world, I come to the conclusion that there is probably no God, is Carl Sagan’s essay, The Dragon in my Garage:

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

[mlchance]

Does science support atheism? Only the imaginations of many atheists.

Unless, of course, someone has come up with some way of applying the scientific method to questions of theology.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[crowonsnow]

There is nothing in the scientific view of the world from which you conclude “…therefore, God does not exist”.

But to my mind, the more science reveals about the way the Universe really is, the less probable it becomes that anything like a God actually exists.

So the answer to your question, is that the scientific method itself neither confirms nor refutes either atheism or theism. But the results of applying that method to observations of the natural world do, from where I’m standing at least, lend more support to atheism than to theism.

The best explanation I can give of why, based on a sceptical and empirical view of the world, I come to the conclusion that there is probably no God, is Carl Sagan’s essay, The Dragon in my Garage:

godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Excellent link. I’d never read that before but have heard about it.

What’s really cool is to read it with Carl Sagan’s voice. It’s like he’s right there talking again, much like in Cosmos.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Blade and Blood

Remember: There was a time when science was labeled as a form of witchcraft.

Yes, and now it’s many atheist scientists who think of religion as witchcraft, as was noted above by another poster.

Atheist scientists don’t believe in witchcraft any more than they believe in God.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, it does. Especially today. Take away the scientific arguments and what do atheists have left? Ask yourself.

Look at most of the issues atheists support, and how do they back their beliefs? With science.

Now I know people who are atheist and agnostic. I have a friend who had a brush with atheism. But, thank God, he’s an usher at his local Catholic Church now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nebogipfel Nebogipfel

The best explanation I can give of why, based on a sceptical and empirical view of the world, I come to the conclusion that there is probably no God, is Carl Sagan’s essay, The Dragon in my Garage.

Tell me what **you **think there is in science that brings us to an atheist point of view, when Einstein and Darwin saw no such thing. Are we supposed to be impressed with Carl Sagan, who was only an advertiser of scientific ideas, as opposed to a great scientist?

Ditto for Richard Dawkins.

 

[geometer]

Why don’t you hear from religious scientists? Because it would lead to the downfall of their standing in the science community. While a few have risked it, the adamantly secular wing of science has put the fear of death into the religious scientist. Outing the religious scientist is like what Cuban children, during the 60’s and 70’s, did to their parents. They were “turned in” by their own children for any talk overheard that sounded even the least anti-Castro.

Science has no choice, if scientists want to keep on earning money. For the religious, this may be a losing battle for a long time.

jd

Freeman Dyson

 

[hecd2]

Tell me what **you **think there is in science that brings us to an atheist point of view, when Einstein and Darwin saw no such thing.

If you think that Einstein and Darwin were theists then you really don’t know very much about them.

Are we supposed to be impressed with Carl Sagan, who was only an advertiser of scientific ideas, as opposed to a great scientist?

Ditto for Richard Dawkins.

And if you think that Richard Dawkins is only an advertiser of scientific ideas then you don’t know much about him.

But what is this? Do we conclude that you think that a scientist’s scientific eminence determines the validity of his philosophical and theological views, independent of how well his position is argued and supported? (Are we supposed to be impressed with Thomas Aquinas who wasn’t a scientist at all? You do see the fallacy in your argument now, don’t you? )

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Good question Charlemagne. I would say that science does not support metaphysical atheism. Science embraces methodological atheism, in other words, the scientist does not invoke God to explain the outcome of experiments. This does nothing to support the proposition that “No God exists”, which is a metaphysical claim. I would say science is compatible with atheism (as it is with theism), but does not support it.

Is it implied that the scientist ought to “invoke God to explain the outcome of experiments” ? Just wondering - because your post can be read so as to mean that, but needn’t be… ​

 

[hecd2]

Why don’t you hear from religious scientists? Because it would lead to the downfall of their standing in the science community. While a few have risked it, the adamantly secular wing of science has put the fear of death into the religious scientist. Outing the religious scientist is like what Cuban children, during the 60’s and 70’s, did to their parents. They were “turned in” by their own children for any talk overheard that sounded even the least anti-Castro.

I don’t think that’s so. There are many openly religious scientists working at all levels of science. In my experience, a scientist’s standing in the scientific community depends on the quality of the science he or she does and not at all on his or her religious beliefs. I have personally known many openly religious scientists whose standing filled the spectrum of eminence all the way from Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate. Scientists aren’t generally interested in one another’s religious beliefs but in the quality of their scientific work. Your inflammatory references to Cuban “outing” is neither accurate nor helpful.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[geometer]

I don’t think that’s so. There are many openly religious scientists working at all levels of science. In my experience, a scientist’s standing in the scientific community depends on the quality of the science he or she does and not at all on his or her religious beliefs. I have personally known many openly religious scientists whose standing filled the spectrum of eminence all the way from Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate. Scientists aren’t generally interested in one another’s religious beliefs but in the quality of their scientific work. Your inflammatory references to Cuban “outing” is neither accurate nor helpful.

Listen to an interview with Freeman Dyson.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You would think that if the percent of atheists among scientists is higher than the percent among the population at large, and if there were any scientific evidence for atheism, it would have been trotted out by now. In fact, we get no such reaction. Even Einstein repudiates the idea as follows:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion."

Science can’t prove the non-being of the god of Christians from scientific evidence - it does not need to. Believers in the god of Christians can’t prove that their god exists from scientific evidence - again, they don’t need to. To find fault with science for not doing what it is not intended to do is like finding fault with a hardware store for not being a pet shop or a kindergarten.​

A “mysterious force” is a very long way way from anything as specific as the Deity of Judaeo-Christian-RC dogmatic orthodoxy. The phrase could mean almost anything. The category of the mysterious is no threat to atheism - it’s compatible with convictions that no god of any kind, an infinite number of gods, or a single god, or the Deity of mainstream Christianity exists. It’s not even incompatible with materialism.