Science = Atheistic?

[Noaidi]

Methinks Idea has been reading too much Michael Behe. Time to turn to the dark side, my friend. Embrace your inner Darwin.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Time to turn to the dark side, my friend. Embrace your inner Darwin.

Remember, Evolution isn't a religion. It's a relationship.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

What's with all the blue smurphs???

 

[Storm]

What's with all the blue smurphs???

At least they're not hot pink.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The only time science has anything to say on religion is when believers try to pretend mythology is science. YEC, for example.

As for the OP, science has nothing to say on the subject of religion, with the above exception noted. Since it takes no stance, it cannot be fairly described as atheistic. If one must attribute a religious opinion to it, it's agnostic.

I don't feel like digging through the whole thread to find the post/er, but someone brought up weak atheism as a defense for calling science atheistic. This is a semantic game at best. Atheism, weak or strong, has an opinion on the subject of God; science does not.

Science doesn't have an opinion about the ethereal God commonly believed in by people of a moderate/liberal bent today. I'll give that to you. But what about the God commonly worshiped in the 19th century or earlier, the God who actively intervenes in the world?

For example, as I've pointed out elsewhere, not long after the invention of the lightning rod the Harvard-educated Reverend Thomas Prince (after whom Princeton, Massachusetts is named) wrote a sermon entitled "Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of His Just Displeasure". He warned that use of the lightning rod would simply cause God to resort to more drastic forms of expressing his displeasure, like earthquakes. Here's part of the sermon:

"the more points of Iron are erected round the Earth, to draw the Electrical Substance out of the Air, the more the Earth must needs be charged The Reverend Thomas Prince with it. And therefore it seems worthy of Consideration whether any part of the Earth, being fuller of this terrible Substance, may not be exposed to more shocking Earthquakes. In Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England; and Boston seems to be more dreadfully Shaken, - 0, there is no getting out of the mighty Hand of God. If we still think to avoid it in the Air we cannot in the Earth; yea, it may grow more fatal."

​

(I believe he refers to the 1755 Boston earthquake).

Remember, back then electricity and magnetism were poorly understood, and the cause of earthquakes was completely unknown.

Is it fair to say that Reverend Prince's ideas about the causes of lightning and earthquakes are at odds with a scientific understanding of how the natural world works?
Is it fair to characterize Reverend Prince's ideas about God, lightning, and earthquakes as religious beliefs?

Look at Christianity, the largest (?) religion on Earth today. The central belief is that a man died and was resurrected from the dead 3 days later. Christians do not even deny that this position is scientifically unsupportable. Science does have something to say about the Gospels just like science has something to say about the Egyptian Book of the Dead: it's ancient mythology and the miracles described never occurred.

See what I mean? Science may or may not be in conflict with religion, it just depends on the religion.

 

[jonman122]

See what I mean? Science may or may not be in conflict with religion, it just depends on the religion.

exactly, thats why its dumb to say science is agnostic. it's disproved hundreds of different versions of gods, and every time it disproves one they come up with one that is just a bit different and say "see look?!? science is agnostic because it cant prove that god didnt create the big bang thus creating the universe." It's like being Agnostic towards leprechauns or cancer-curing ham sandwiches. Science has so far disproven 2/3rds of the theories on what god can/cannot do, and he cannot intervene in our day to day lives and never has and so there is no reason to assume that he ever will, so why all of a sudden is science agnostic to its core? Sure, my senses could all be wrong and we could be living in a helium cloud illusion but as far as i can perceive, i breath air and i eat food and there is no god. Science is based off of our perception and what we can perceive, and we can't perceive god. (according to the multitude of christians)

I'd go with god has been disproven so many times its stupid to even assume that such a being exists, and to claim that he doesn't interact with us because he is "beyond logic, beyond science, beyond human understanding" means that again science is atheistic towards the christian concept of god, because as far as we know there isn't anything that is completely and absolutely beyond logic. If it's beyond logic, we haven't ever seen it and never will because we can't comprehend it so there will never be a sighting/hearing/observation of it in any way, and it will never exist to us. The whole concept is just rediculous, but then what are you going to say? Well science is agnostic towards leprechauns, its agnostic towards invisible, undetectable pink unicorns, its agnostic towards the tooth fairy and santa, bla bla bla.

It's better to leave science unlabeled then to give it the title of agnostic, because there is literally no reason AT ALL to believe that a god exists, why should science say "well we aren't sure." just because someone walks in to a science hall and says "you can't disprove god." doesn't mean all of a sudden everyone has to say "well yeah we can't so we're going to say well it's possible because we don't know." The default position is "you're on drugs, please stay away from me with your fairy tale styled logic, why would i have to even consider theism as an option when we've already disproven different gods hundreds and thousands of times, and just because you storm in here with a different concept of what god is and say we cant disprove it because you say it's beyond human logic, you expect us to have the default position of "well it's possible?" i'm sorry you're a nutjob."

If there's a label for science, it's atheist.

I don't even think it's appropriate to label science, but to say it's 'agnostic' towards your fairytales is absolutely and unquestionably rediculous.

 

[painted wolf]

Like I said... naturalism is difficult for some people to grasp.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Like I said... naturalism is difficult for some people to grasp.

wa:do

Is this a response to my post or jonman122?

 

[painted wolf]

Is this a response to my post or jonman122?

More jonman than you..
But seriously... Science can not address the supernatural. God is unscientific for that very simple reason.

Such debates IMHO only cheapen Science and Religion... Religion is a complex psychological/cultural behavior that can be studied and understood... but ultimately says nothing about the existence/non existence of a deity.
Science is a difficult, rigorous intellectual system that is successful because it is so contrary to average thinking... because it doesn't allow for the unnatural to interfere. How does one test the untestable?

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Science is a difficult, rigorous intellectual system that is successful because it is so contrary to average thinking... because it doesn't allow for the unnatural to interfere. How does one test the untestable?

But the unnatural is not always untestable. If that were true, James Randi would have nothing to do. When millions and millions of people in India gather to adulate Sathya Sai Baba on his birthday, they have a religious belief that he performs miracles -- such as producing little gold objects, etc. from nothing. This miraculous ability is both unnatural, and testable.

Or, take another example. It was reported by some ancients that during a siege by Alexander the Great, a flying shield appeared which destroyed the enemy walls with a ray of light. Now, if we put on our scientist hats and use what we know about psychology and history, and also what we know about physics, are we really *agnostic* about whether or not the story is accurate? Is it really outside the domain of science to come to ANY conclusions about the accuracy of this story? Come on. Science *definitely* has something to say about the myths which were generated around Alexander the Great. Likewise, science has something to say about the myths surrounding the figure of Christ and other religious figures.

 

[painted wolf]

ut the unnatural is not always untestable. If that were true, James Randi would have nothing to do. When millions and millions of people in India gather to adulate Sathya Sai Baba on his birthday, they have a religious belief that he performs miracles -- such as producing little gold objects, etc. from nothing. This miraculous ability is both unnatural, and testable.

I adore James Randi...
But in these cases you are talking about testable things... regardless of the religious baggage they carry... you are not talking about untestable things outside of nature.

Or, take another example. It was reported by some ancients that during a siege by Alexander the Great, a flying shield appeared which destroyed the enemy walls with a ray of light. Now, if we put on our scientist hats and use what we know about psychology and history, and also what we know about physics, are we really *agnostic* about whether or not the story is accurate?

No, because nothing unnatural is proposed. Unusual yes.. but not unnatural.

Is it really outside the domain of science to come to ANY conclusions about the accuracy of this story? Come on. Science *definitely* has something to say about the myths which were generated around Alexander the Great. Likewise, science has something to say about the myths surrounding the figure of Christ and other religious figures.

I agree... again, you are not talking about that which is outside nature. All well within the real of science and thus naturalism.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I adore James Randi...
But in these cases you are talking about testable things... regardless of the religious baggage they carry... you are not talking about untestable things outside of nature.

No, because nothing unnatural is proposed. Unusual yes.. but not unnatural.

I agree... again, you are not talking about that which is outside nature. All well within the real of science and thus naturalism.

wa:do

I know you adore James Randi that's why I used him as an example.

Okay so you're saying that a flying shield, materialization from nothing, and resurrection of the dead are not "unnatural". At the end of the day, this is just semantics. The fact is, these are examples of religious beliefs and they are in conflict with science. Am I wrong to say that?

 

[jonman122]

I adore James Randi...
But in these cases you are talking about testable things... regardless of the religious baggage they carry... you are not talking about untestable things outside of nature.

No, because nothing unnatural is proposed. Unusual yes.. but not unnatural.

I agree... again, you are not talking about that which is outside nature. All well within the real of science and thus naturalism.

wa:do

If something is unnatural and untestable, we've never seen or heard of it before. And just because someone makes it up and says you can't test it, well... you can certainly test their sanity.

 

[painted wolf]

Okay so you're saying that a flying shield, materialization from nothing, and resurrection of the dead are not "unnatural". At the end of the day, this is just semantics. The fact is, these are examples of religious beliefs and they are in conflict with science. Am I wrong to say that?

I'm saying if it is something that can be tested then it is by nature natural.
Unless you have a way to test how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Like I said... you can test specific religious ideas that deal with the natural, at best you can rule out certain specific ideas. But how does one test the untestable?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

If something is unnatural and untestable, we've never seen or heard of it before. And just because someone makes it up and says you can't test it, well... you can certainly test their sanity.

I'm reasonably comfortable with my sanity... Anyone who claims to be totally without some insanity is lying.
It is biologically impossible to avoid any irrationality.

Like I said... naturalism has rules and they are often difficult to grasp. Which is why not everyone is a working scientist.... indeed science is a very difficult subject to master for this reason.

wa:do

 

[jonman122]

I'm reasonably comfortable with my sanity... Anyone who claims to be totally without some insanity is lying.
It is biologically impossible to avoid any irrationality.

Like I said... naturalism has rules and they are often difficult to grasp. Which is why not everyone is a working scientist.... indeed science is a very difficult subject to master for this reason.

wa:do

you're talking about methodological naturalism right? and not metaphysical naturalism? because you realize science only bases itself off of one type of naturalism.. It deals with the testable and natural, what we can perceive. You know about the scientific method?

 

[Storm]

You know about the scientific method?

One would hope so, seeing as she's a professional biologist.

 

[painted wolf]

you're talking about methodological naturalism right? and not metaphysical naturalism? because you realize science only bases itself off of one type of naturalism.. It deals with the testable and natural, what we can perceive. You know about the scientific method?

You're cute... :curtsy:
And someday you will be a real boy too...

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Like I said... you can test specific religious ideas that deal with the natural, at best you can rule out certain specific ideas. But how does one test the untestable?

You can't test the untestable of course, by definition. But many religious ideas are testable (or at least demonstrable). Ergo, a scientific perspective is often (but not always) in conflict with a religious perspective, which was my point in post # 105.

A scientist does have some things to say about the Gospels, for example, which are in conflict with the basic beliefs of Christianity.

 

[painted wolf]

You can't test the untestable of course, by definition. But many religious ideas are testable (or at least demonstrable). Ergo, a scientific perspective is often (but not always) in conflict with a religious perspective, which was my point in post # 105.

I've never argued against this. Just over applying it beyond the capabilities of scientific method.

A scientist does have some things to say about the Gospels, for example, which are in conflict with the basic beliefs of Christianity.

Some basic beliefs yes... but not the major ones. How would you put Jesus under a microscope? At some point you step beyond the scientific and into the realm of opinion.

I'm just arguing that people need to be aware of taking that step.

wa:do