Science = Atheistic?

[Silver]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

 

[Father Heathen]

Science doesn't deal with the concept. It only deals with the observable and testable.

 

[PolyHedral]

Though if you can produce a falsifiable hypothesis of God, go ahead and test it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

Sort of....science excludes the supernatural in explanations/theories since it is untestable.
But science doesn't preclude it's existence, & for the very same reason of being not disprovable.
I'd say that science is agnostic.

 

[goodjewishboy]

I have never seen any contradiction between science and spirituality, it seems to me that those with only a superficial understanding of either perceive a divide between science and God. I have a sense that those who study the nature of reality tend to believe more in God rather than less. For an example I have a close friend who recently got his PHD as a physicist... part of his studies involved smashing particles at a supercollider. Recently his work involves manipulating the speed of particles of light. We met through Chabad, and he and his wife are both orthodox in their religious outlook.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science, no. Scientific knowledge, yes.

That is not due to any prejudice, however. It is simply impossible to develop falsifiable theories about how God behaves.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Science has no beliefs, so it is neither theistic nor atheistic.

 

[painted wolf]

I would say it's Agnostic... it makes no declarations about God.

That which can neither be proven nor disproved is outside of it's jurisdiction.

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

Science don't deal with the question of god's existence or non-existence.

The requirements to being science don't require a person to be either theistic or atheistic. Anyone with the brain to understand science, including religious or theistic people, as long as they don't allow theology or personal belief to interfere with science or with the scientific method.

Science don't equate with atheism, because atheism is not science.

The problem is stupid fundamentalist creationists who confuse theology with science.

 

[Sunstone]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

Nope. Science has nothing to say about whether it's naturalism is either ontological or methodological.

For to deny the existence of god, its naturalism would need to be ontological. For if its naturalism is merely methodological, it admits both options (god or no god) as possibilities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is simply impossible to develop falsifiable theories about how God behaves.

Well, but it is possible, isn't it? I could say God strikes down atheists with lightning and protects churches, and prayers bring healing and miracles. That's a falsifiable theory about how God behaves, but it's been falsified.

 

[joea]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

No..there is no mysticism in science. Science is rational and logic because when it cannot find the answer, it puts it down to "unknown" whereas in spiritualism, the quest is irrational....there is the "unknowable" that is there.

 

[painted wolf]

Well, but it is possible, isn't it? I could say God strikes down atheists with lightning and protects churches, and prayers bring healing and miracles. That's a falsifiable theory about how God behaves, but it's been falsified.

But how would you test for other behaviors... like a God that just doesn't care about atheists existence?

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

But how would you test for other behaviors... like a God that just doesn't care about atheists existence?

wa:do

I suppose all the world's atheists being simultaneously struck dead by lightening bolts would provide strong evidence against the existence of such a god.

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe god himself is an atheist?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Science is neither theistic nor atheistic!

Religion is entirely outside its domain, so it says nothing whatever about it--either pro or con!

Simple as that.

Bruce

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Religion is entirely outside its domain, so it says nothing whatever about it--either pro or con!

But doesn't this depend on which religion we are talking about? For example, if your religion says that seizures can be cured by an exorcist to remove the demons, or the handicapped can rise from their wheelchairs due to an infusion of the holy spirit, then your religion is not outside the domain of science.

 

[Skeptisch]

For the God Question, a Biological Perspective:

The God hypothesis is a scientific question, one that can, in principle at least, be answered empirically with a yes or no result. The existence of God is thus subject to legitimate scientific scrutiny, bringing to bear all we are learning in the research laboratory to a question that used to be considered one of opinion only. “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientifically question, even if it is not in practice—not yet—a decided one,” he writes. Did Jesus have a human father? Was his mother a virgin? Did Jesus come alive again, three days after being dead? “There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is strictly a scientific answer.”
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/for_the_god_question_a_biological_perspective/

 

[TashaN]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

Nope.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I further the agnostic approach. Science is based purely on what we can observe, test, and repeat. And if a God is controlling the universe, understanding how the universe functions wouldn't mean that this said God isn't controlling it, it just means we have found a way to estimate how God has set the universe to work.

Did Jesus have a human father? Was his mother a virgin? Did Jesus come alive again, three days after being dead? “There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is strictly a scientific answer.”

I think that the idea of "religion = Christianity" is where much of the debate comes from. We know that many of the Bible stories simply did not happen, yet much of the criticism of "religion" does not move any deeper than what the western world, mainly America, embraces.