Science = Atheistic?

[skydivephil]

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.

The fact that you have one friends who is a scientist does not outweigh the fact that polls of top scientisst show they overwhelmingly reject notions of a personal god.
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

 

[sandandfoam]

polls of top scientisst show they overwhelmingly reject notions of a personal god.
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

So what?
What the group 'scientists' do or do not believe about God is no more relevant to the existence of God than what the Irish Farmers Association believe about God.

 

[Tiapan]

It depends which aspect of each you look at. I can argue empirically using physics that the "creator" god does not exist, however since there is the physical universe and whilst we now know much of its mechanism there still remains an ocean of the unknown. If God = the "unknown" then its just a matter of semantics.

Cheers

 

[sandandfoam]

its just a matter of semantics.

That's my feeling too.

 

[blackout]

Apart from "religious things",
MOST everything is "atheistic" by nature.

Unless of course you ask a Pantheist.

Then, yes, even science is inherently theistic by nature.

 

[brbubba]

Since science makes no provable stance as to the existence of God, one way or the other, then we can only assume that science is ignorant of the topic and neither inherently theistic or atheistic.

 

[David M]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

No. Atheism is a position that deities do not exist.

Science makes no statement about whether deities do or do not exist per se, it limits itself to natural phenomena.

Science is agnostic.

 

[jonman122]

It almost makes me sad to see people say science is agnostic, because it is Atheistic in it's very nature. I don't believe a god doesn't exist because there is evidence against, i believe they don't exist because there has never been any evidence FOR a god, scientifically. Agnostic isn't supposing well there may or may not be, Agnostic is more leaning towards well lets be spiritual and there are still supernatural things that i believe in but have been falsified and so on.

Science is Atheistic, it doesn't deal with even the concept of god, let alone whether or not he exists. This doesn't make it "Agnostic" this makes it literally Atheistic.

 

[brbubba]

It almost makes me sad to see people say science is agnostic, because it is Atheistic in it's very nature. I don't believe a god doesn't exist because there is evidence against, i believe they don't exist because there has never been any evidence FOR a god, scientifically. Agnostic isn't supposing well there may or may not be, Agnostic is more leaning towards well lets be spiritual and there are still supernatural things that i believe in but have been falsified and so on.

Science is Atheistic, it doesn't deal with even the concept of god, let alone whether or not he exists. This doesn't make it "Agnostic" this makes it literally Atheistic.

That is not what Agnostic means. It means that there can be no determination made about the unknown or unknowable.

To be Atheistic means to deny the existence, which means you have to first contemplate the existence. So whether you are contemplating the existence or denying it, you are doing something that is contrary to science.

 

[jonman122]

That is not what Agnostic means. It means that there can be no determination made about the unknown or unknowable.

To be Atheistic means to deny the existence, which means you have to first contemplate the existence. So whether you are contemplating the existence or denying it, you are doing something that is contrary to science.

Atheistic doesn't mean you deny there is a god, it means you know there has never been evidence shown for a god, so why believe in it? That is where science stands.

Actually, Science would be Pearlist, Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic - ist. because that is what science essentially is. Because really, there is absolutely no reason for people to believe in a god except they were told to, because there is literally no evidence for his existance. No reason, logical or rational, to insist that he exists. Thats why i really don't understand how otherwise logical thinking human beings can believe in something so mundane and absolutely useless to their everyday lives.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually, Science would be Pearlist, Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic - ist. because that is what science essentially is. Because really, there is absolutely no reason for people to believe in a god except they were told to, because there is literally no evidence for his existance. No reason, logical or rational, to insist that he exists. Thats why i really don't understand how otherwise logical thinking human beings can believe in something so mundane and absolutely useless to their everyday lives.

Compartmentalization. Oh, and "otherwise logical thinking human beings" are rarely so regarding most things.

 

[brbubba]

Atheistic doesn't mean you deny there is a god, it means you know there has never been evidence shown for a god, so why believe in it? That is where science stands.

Actually, Science would be Pearlist, Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic - ist. because that is what science essentially is. Because really, there is absolutely no reason for people to believe in a god except they were told to, because there is literally no evidence for his existance. No reason, logical or rational, to insist that he exists. Thats why i really don't understand how otherwise logical thinking human beings can believe in something so mundane and absolutely useless to their everyday lives.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Not even Wikipedia makes that claim. I think you might be agnostic.

 

[jonman122]

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Not even Wikipedia makes that claim. I think you might be agnostic.

there is no need to not believe in something that obviously does not exist.

 

[brbubba]

there is no need to not believe in something that obviously does not exist.

That's the basis of not believing. In order to not believe something you must postulate a form or idea first. You can't escape the language used to describe the term.

Also science makes no conclusion about the existence of God. Saying God does not exist is non scientific because we have no evidence either way. In other words, the hypothesis that God does not exist cannot be proven true. You're simply saying that the hypothesis is absurd because there is no evidence for God in the first place.

 

[jonman122]

That's the basis of not believing. In order to not believe something you must postulate a form or idea first. You can't escape the language used to describe the term.

Also science makes no conclusion about the existence of God. Saying God does not exist is non scientific because we have no evidence either way. In other words, the hypothesis that God does not exist cannot be proven true. You're simply saying that the hypothesis is absurd because there is no evidence for God in the first place.

are you agnostic to the belief that there are leprechauns that come to you in your sleep, pull out all of your teeth and put them back in to your mouth before you wake up? but they are also invisible, they instantaneously replace your real tooth with a fake tooth before they steal your real teeth, and they are absolutely and completely undetectable. Are you implying that science wouldn't laugh away my claim as completely and absolutely rediculous, that it has to take the stance that "well its possible so we'll say we're agnostic towards it." Absolutely not. How rational or logical is that?

 

[brbubba]

are you agnostic to the belief that there are leprechauns that come to you in your sleep, pull out all of your teeth and put them back in to your mouth before you wake up? but they are also invisible, they instantaneously replace your real tooth with a fake tooth before they steal your real teeth, and they are absolutely and completely undetectable. Are you implying that science wouldn't laugh away my claim as completely and absolutely rediculous, that it has to take the stance that "well its possible so we'll say we're agnostic towards it." Absolutely not. How rational or logical is that?

Let's simplify your argument to just leprechauns. You can postulate that leprechauns exist or don't exist, but without proof you can't definitively say one way or the other. Science would be agnostic because there is no proof either way. If someone claimed they had proof for leprechauns, ideally someone should review the evidence and make an assessment. So science isn't against the notion of leprechauns existing.

Atheists on the other hand very specifically reject a theistic God.

 

[painted wolf]

Once you postulate the untestable you step outside science. "Science" has no beliefs, but it does have a simple guideline (that somehow isn't that simple)... you can't include the untestable.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

Science is Agnostic. Without the destruction of the anti-agnostic dieties, it would not be science...it would be dogma. Agnosticism is the essence of the Scientific spirit.

 

[budha3]

My plea in defending atheist lay in the fact that an atheist is actually “pure in heart.” An atheist sincerely believes that there is no God. When an atheist does a good deed, he does it from the goodness of his or her heart. An atheist does not have any type of hope of some future reward in heaven because he doesn't believe that there is a heaven (except for the one that he can see). A scientist is usually a person that deals in pure reality. If they cannot feel, taste, touch, or see it, then it doesn’t exist. On the plus side for scientist, they do experiments and try to find answers to things. The bible says, “seek and ye shall find.” Since scientists actually look for things, they will probably find God before most Christians do. Even Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists in history, believed that telepathy was possible.
In the Beatitudes Matthew, 5: 8 states: “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” A person that is pure in heart is a person that is serious. An Atheist sincerely believes that there is no God.
I understand when Thomas had to actually put his hand into the side of Jesus to believe. I understand that when an atheist looks at the world that this physical world is all that he sees. I understand that an atheist does not “know where he came from, or where he is going.” I understand because I once had the same type of attitude. It was this same attitude that eventually led me to God. It was this attitude that caused me to speak out and ask God where are you?. I asked God where were you when six million Jews were slaughtered like animals? Where were you when millions of Africans that were brought to America, were murdered and used as slaves? I finally asked God that if he truly exists, then show himself to me, and he did. I know I may sound like I'm off my rocker, because some believe that it's impossible to see God and live. But my point here is that I was serious, just as an atheist seriously believes that there is no God. My intentions had to be absolutely sincere in order for this to happen,
The reason that an atheist does not come to God is because they do not diligently seek him. They do not seek him because they see no reason to seek out someone that they believe does not exist.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

People keep saying that "Science" has no beliefs. But what is a hypothesis? Before a hypothesis is tested, isn't it just a guess, a belief if you will? When it is sufficiently proven as true or false, there is no more "belief." But what of that in between time? What would happen if science never ventured into the unknown? Would we even have atomic theory? Cell theory? Would we understand the forces of gravity and electricity? I think the scientific method is inherently belief or faith based.

Is science atheistic by nature? No. It has no stance on the subject. And I think it will remain that way for a long time to come. God does not lend himself to experimentation. I mean, an omnipotent being would have no problem setting things in motion in a way that things would turn out how he wanted, without ever showing himself where he didn't want to be seen. He can foresee any possibility of his being detected and avoid any that don't suit his purposes. If he wanted to give the world incontrovertible proof of his existence, he would have already done so. If he doesn't, we aren't going to outwit him, are we? (Unless he is a completely different kind of being than we generally make him out to be.)