Does Science Support Atheism?

[Henry_Green]

I would say yes…science and atheism are like two peas in a pod trying to (“prove”) that God simply does not exist. Strangely though; I have found that the vast amount of mass argumentative energies used to make their hypothetical suppositions trying to convince themselves and the world that God does not exist only proves the opposite that God in reality does exist.

Check out: arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/07/23/does_science_promote_atheism

atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/Myths_About_Atheism_Science_Evolution.htm

I guess you need to define science . All experimental , operational science is based on the assumption that an orderly God , the God of the Bible. created the universe and rarely directly interferes with its day to day operation. Without that assumption no science is possible.
Atheism teaches the total lack of meaning or cause, the universe and the life on earth are self existence, a product of chance. What good is a laboratory if you don’t believe in cause?
Even atheist philosophers understand this.

Loren Eiseley stated:

The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its

methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe

controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had

set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that

science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act

of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is

sustained by that assumption.

Real science, operational science was founded by conservative Christians and all who practice it must borfow from that faith . The most scientific statement ever made is:
" In the Beginning God Created" . In the beginning matter is anti-logic and what is science if not logic?

 

[hecd2]

Listen to an interview with Freeman Dyson.

Just so.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

All experimental , operational science is based on the assumption that an orderly God , the God of the Bible. created the universe and rarely directly interferes with its day to day operation. Without that assumption no science is possible.

Not so. All science is based on the assumption that the world is an orderly place, operating according to principles that can be discovered and described. That does not necessarily imply that it was created by a deity, and in no way does it imply the God of the Bible. At most it supports deism rather than theism, as can be inferred from your “rare interference”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Most Leading Scientists still reject God:

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I find it odd that any study would find that science does not affect scientists. Do they just wake up one day and think, You know. I’ve just decided to not believe in God. For no particular reason. ?

In a Western media culture that is amoral and immoral and, in some cases, unapologetically anti-God and anti-Christian, it seems that scientists who go home at the end of the day and turn on their TVs are getting a lot of subtle and not so subtle encouragement to abandon religion.

Peace,
Ed

Those stats refer to scientists in one country - a country very productive in scientific work, granted, but just one of many. Unless the stats for the USA represent the stats for scientists & their attitudes world-wide, those stats don’t tell the reader about attitudes in any country except the US. Maybe the stats for the US are representative of attitudes world-wide; but if so, that needs to be shown by additional evidence.​

Even if the stats are representative of attitudes world-wide, that tells us precisely nothing about what “god” means in the questions asked: rejecting the god of Benny Hinn is perfectly compatible with accepting the god of Catholic-Orthodox dogma - in fact, to reject the one is essential, if one is to accept the other. Theism is many things, but it is not a synonym in all contexts for “acceptance of the Deity of mainstream Christianity”. Besides, acceptance of that Deity is compatible withj rejecting the morally revolting Deity of some Christians; when the Deity of mainstream Christianity functions as a theological abstraction in the service of which His adorers behave in a totally unchristian fashion, atheism may be nothing worse than the rejection of the blasphemous false god of such men as a protest against a theism recognised as the revolting travesty that it is; & to reject that, is hardly atheism in reality, even if it wears the appearance of it. Maybe some of the atheists in those stats are more truly Christian than some of those who claim to believe in God. If the word is not defined, it can mean almost anything - which makes the stats meaningless.

 

[liberalcatholic]

"Why did God take such great pains in hiding himself?"

So we can live… If truth exists, God exists, there is no escaping either of them. If we can live without God (truth), someone else must be paying for our mistakes (more than we can see or feel). If God revealed truth immediately after we disobeyed it, we would be destroyed. God hides himself so we can live while we are not in the truth. If God revealed himself to the world, all would perish, so instead he hid himself and sent his only son and to pay for our mistakes, whether we accept it or not. God’s mercy is greater than his wrath, and desires for none to perish for their sins.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I observed:

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

You responded:

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!)

Why accept Genesis 1-2, and not some other ANE creation myth ?​

And, the existence of a text is no evidence at all that it is more than human.

And: can you prove that some god or gods other than the Jewish one is responsible for creating things ? If Christians were natives of Delhi or Timbuktu, they would probably not be Christians, but Hindus or Muslims instead. IOW, which creation myth we accept as Divine in origin - if any - depends very largely on when & where we are born.

BTW, the logic of your objection can also be used against belief in Jesus - or, it can be answered by saying that modern science is being revealed by God (in some sense) “in the fullness of time”. If that can be true of Jesus (& for Paul, it was true of Jesus), why can the same notion not be applied to human learning ? It could be regarded as Providential, & as a reminder to Christians that the Christian Deity is concerned with all aspects of human life, & not just those which are “churchy”; & so on & so forth.

 

[JP2Admirer]

I guess you need to define science . All experimental , operational science is based on the assumption that an orderly God , the God of the Bible. created the universe and rarely directly interferes with its day to day operation. Without that assumption no science is possible.
Atheism teaches the total lack of meaning or cause, the universe and the life on earth are self existence, a product of chance. What good is a laboratory if you don’t believe in cause?
Even atheist philosophers understand this.

Loren Eiseley stated:

The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its

methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe

controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had

set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that

science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act

of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is

sustained by that assumption.

Real science, operational science was founded by conservative Christians and all who practice it must borfow from that faith . The most scientific statement ever made is:
" In the Beginning God Created" . In the beginning matter is anti-logic and what is science if not logic?

HG has this exactly right; I always find the term “atheist scientist” a laughable contradiction in terms. The fact is, as HG pointed out, science is the investigation of causes and order in the universe. If there are such things as essentially related causes (and the empirical evidence points to this and all science proceeds from it) then Aquinas’ five proofs for God’s existence are valid proofs.

If you’re a “scientist” you proceed from a notion of essentially related causes. Indeed, if reality really exists, as the realists Aquinas and Aristotle held, then the five ways are valid.

For there to be no First Cause, there has to be one of three things: 1) No external reality so causality is merely an invention of the human mind (i.e. idealism), 2) An external reality that is simply a haphazard becoming (Nietzsche’s position) so all causality is merely accidentally related, or 3) the human mind must be trapped in solipsism. At any rate, the external world must be unintelligible if the atheists are right.

This is why in Nietzsche’s later writings he adamantly denies science and calls it another form of Socratic optimism or the final expression of the ascetic ideal. He was a philosopher (not a scientist posing as a philosopher) and rightly recognized that if the world is intelligible, then there is a God. Since science proceeds from the intelligibility of the world, it affirms a First Cause.

This is also why Hume was such a proponent of induction; he also perceived that if causes are essentially related there is a First Cause. He wanted to say that we only assume that there is an essential relation between cause and effect, when really the relation is only accidental. This because accidental causes can proceed to infinity. Alas! There then is no God! Incidentally, I believe Hume is mislabeled an empiricist because his argument for induction cannot be tested. He should rather be called simply a materialist. Every time you test the speed of light it is the same, but look away and it could be different. How unempirical.

Long story short, there is a First Cause if the scientific method is valid. The problem with modern scientists is that they are scientists and not philosophers, otherwise they would recognize the inconsistency of their position of affirming sense realism but denying a First Cause.

 

[JDaniel]

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

Well, let’s take one example. Let’s take the example of the current science of stem cell research. Let’s wonder why the scientists that are doing adult stem cell work don’t out those who want to do embryonic stem cell work. They stand back quietly as the ESC scientists forge ahead with raised voices, to get funding for their diabolical playground.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Nebogipfel]

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.

Am I supposed to be impressed by argument from authority? I think not.

What Einstein, Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan or the guy who collects my garbage believe about the existence or otherwise of God is irrelevant, if you’re talking about whether science supports atheism or not. What matters is, when theism makes statements about the physical world, is there objective, empirical evidence to suggest that such statments are actually true.

The whole point of the scientifc method is to exclude from the equation (as far as humanly possible) what we would like to be true, what we might hope is true, and concentrate on what we can objectively demonstrate is true.

My view happens to be the same as Sagan’s. He just articulated it more eloquently than I could. My view is that there are no “footprints in the flour” that can reasonably be attributed to a God; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that no such entity exists, while keeping a mind open to the possibility of new data.

Do you have a comment on the content of Sagan’s essay? Pretend it’s me saying those words instead of him, if that helps.

 

[mlchance]

If Christians were natives of Delhi or Timbuktu, they would probably not be Christians, but Hindus or Muslims instead. IOW, which creation myth we accept as Divine in origin - if any - depends very largely on when & where we are born.

So from a “probably not” statement you arrive at a generalization about why people what they believe. That’s rather tenuous.

What matters is, when theism makes statements about the physical world, is there objective, empirical evidence to suggest that such statments are actually true.

Once again the artificial – indeed, self-serving – limitation of what constitutes evidence (backed up by vague buzzwords like “objective”) raises its ugly head. IOW, evidence derived via the scientific method isn’t the only sort of evidence there is. Demanding the science do what science cannot do and then claiming some sort of intellectual victory is at best rather silly.

And that’s true whether you or Carl Sagan does it.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Once again the artificial – indeed, self-serving –

I wondered how long it would be before someone started grinding that particular axe.

limitation of what constitutes evidence (backed up by vague buzzwords like “objective”) raises its ugly head.

What is vague or unclear about the phrase objective evidence?

IOW, evidence derived via the scientific method isn’t the only sort of evidence there is.

The topic under discussion is whether or not science supports atheism.

Demanding the science do what science cannot do and then claiming some sort of intellectual victory is at best rather silly.

I am puzzled by this statement. Charlemagne II asked a question. I have attempted to explain what I see as the answer to the question. I have not made any claims to victory, intellectual or otherwise.

And that’s true whether you or Carl Sagan does it.

I have no objection at all to being compared to Carl Sagan But again, I am puzzled as to what relevance that fact that I happen to be quoting Carl Sagan has to the discussion? If Aquinas had written that essay, I would still agree with it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Alec

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

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist." Albert einstein

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Now show me your quotes that show Einstein and Darwin to be atheists.

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

If you think Dawkins and Sagan are in the same class of scientific genius as Einstein and Darwin, I’d like to know where you got your academic degrees and what disciplines they are in. Obviously, a genius can go wrong. But I am only asking you to produce evidence of a great scientific genius who found in science something to make atheism credible.

If the best you can do is Sagan and Dawkins, you have made a truly pathetic case. Sagan was a lightweight and Dawkins is an atheistic mudslinger of the type that Einstein would have despised.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein

Looking forward to your quotes.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I’ll answer it anyway…

Now show me your quotes that show Einstein and Darwin to be atheists.

Appeal to authority is, and remains, a logical fallacy.

But if it were not, what should I make of this quote from Einstein:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

Charlemagne II;:

If you think Dawkins and Sagan are in the same class of scientific genius as Einstein and Darwin, I’d like to know where you got your academic degrees and what disciplines they are in. Obviously, a genius can go wrong. But I am only asking you to produce evidence of a great scientific genius who found in science something to make atheism credible.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I strive not to let anyone - not even Albert Einstein - do my thinking for me.

If the best you can do is Sagan and Dawkins, you have made a truly pathetic case. Sagan was a lightweight and Dawkins is an atheistic mudslinger of the type that Einstein would have despised.

Looking forward to your quotes.

Looking forward to your addressing the points I raised about the dragon in the garage with something other than ad hominems and logical fallacies.

 

[1holycatholic]

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

I’m always amazed at how many self-professed atheists believe in “dowsing”, “sending positive thoughts” etc… :whacky:

Many atheists support science, but science does not support atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I strive not to let anyone - not even Albert Einstein - do my thinking for me.

Well, I don’t see your point. You are appealing to authority … Carl Sagan. Apparently you are willing to let him do your thinking for you. If you are going to argue from authority, you should be willing to take Darwin and Einstein as the highest of authorities.

Now, back to the thread. Never mind authority at all. Never mind Einstein, Darwin, Sagan and Dawkins, from out of your own head (thinking for yourself) what discoveries in science can possibly lead us to believe there is no God?

 

[Nebogipfel]

I’m always amazed at how many self-professed atheists believe in “dowsing”, “sending positive thoughts” etc… :whacky:

Yes, that surprises me too.

Many atheists support science, but science does not support atheism.

There, for reasons I have tried to outline in this thread, I must respectfully disagree.
(I can, though, agree to disagree… )

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Many atheists support science, but science does not support atheism.

“An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.” Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

I would add that he has no visible means of support either, at least from science.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Everything in the world was made just so. The chances of such events happening by it’s self is practically impossible. If oxygen were to have just one more valence electron the bond with 2 hydrogen atoms would be not happen and life here would be impossible. The proton has just as much + charge as an electron has - charge. If the proton or electron’s charge was just 0.00000001 different than what they are now, we would not be here today. Looking at the smallest things on earth like this, I don’t know how one can say it just so happens by chance. There is just way to many complex variables to make the “life just happened by chance” theory mathematically possible.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I strive not to let anyone - not even Albert Einstein - do my thinking for me.

Well, I don’t see your point. You are appealing to authority … Carl Sagan. Apparently you are willing to let him do your thinking for you.

No, I am not. I am sorry if I have not made my point clear, although goodness knows, I’ve said it enough times; well, here it is again:

I do not agree with Sagan’s argument because he is Carl Sagan. I agree with Sagan’s arguments because I have considered them, and think they are right. I merely referred to that essay because it expresses in concise and accessible prose something which I had already worked out for myself, and could not express any better. I would still quote that essay, had it been written by Joe Sixpack.

And you have not made substantive comment or response to the argument presented in that essay, you have merely made ad hominem comments about its author. That’s not an indication of someone in a strong position.

If you are going to argue from authority, you should be willing to take Darwin and Einstein as the highest of authorities.

I am not arguing from authority. I believe I have made this point a number of times now. I struggling to think how else I can put it. I am not an atheist because Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan is an atheist. I am an atheist because I find the arguments in against the existence of God, a god or gods are compelling, and the arguments in favour of them are weak.

Arguing from authority is a logical fallacy. In fact, argument from authority is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

The persons of Darwin and Einstein have, of themselves, no authority. It is the hypotheses that they developed, and the experimental evidence which confirms them, that is the highest authority in science. Even this authority is constantly questioned, tested, scrutinised, revised and where necessary, discarded. Nothing in science is off-limits to doubt and questioning.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Now, back to the thread.

I have never been away from it.

Never mind authority at all. Never mind Einstein, Darwin, Sagan and Dawkins, from out of your own head (thinking for yourself) what discoveries in science can possibly lead us to believe there is no God?

As I said; the lack of footprints in the flour;

Here’s a concrete example; at the end of Mark’s gospel, Jesus promised his followers that they would be able to heal people by laying on of hands, perform miracles, and drink deadly poison without being harmed.

This is a scientifically testable statement (although testing the last one might prove problematical from an ethical point of view).

Where is the objective evidence that people who can heal with a touch, suspend the laws of physics, and consume lethal poison without being harmed actually exist? You would think that the medical profession might have found instances of people drinking a pint of battery acid and surviving curious enough to write up some articles about them in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine.

Why the people who can heal with a touch (if they exist), just go and work in hospitals, like the people who demonstrably can (usually) heal the sick? (and not least, give the stubborn arrogant skeptics such as myself something to really think about).

If no such people actually exist, what conclusions should I draw about what Jesus is reported to have said at the end of Mark?

If there is a God who intervenes in the physical world, why are there no traces of his intervention? Altering weather patterns, for instance, in order to punish or reward particular people. Or parting seas, transforming living flesh into sodium chloride crystals, stopping the earth from rotating for a day, and so on?

God was always doing this kind of thing in the Old Testament - where is the evidence that any of this stuff actually happened. Why doesn’t it happen today?

The simplest explanation that fits these observations is just that there is no God.

Lest you think I am just “bashing” one particular religion, I would ask exactly the same of any religion that made similiar claims. Not just religions, either: New Age crystal healers, spirit channelers, alien contactees… there’s no evidence that any of them can actually do what they say they can either.