paarsurrey
Veteran Member
If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does science support Atheism, positively?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
It's hard to confirm the absence of a claim. I would wager no.
However, none validate gods.
Oh, and it's "atheism". It's not a proper noun.
However, none validate gods.
Oh, and it's "atheism". It's not a proper noun.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I don't think that is possible.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
I assume its mentioned in a few history books here and there. As far as formal studies go, I can only guess... which I will now do!
theology
sociology
political science
philosophy
I would assume text books dealing with these subjects have a fair chance of mentioning atheism and drawing conclusions based on it.
theology
sociology
political science
philosophy
I would assume text books dealing with these subjects have a fair chance of mentioning atheism and drawing conclusions based on it.
Science supports atheism because it answers some questions formerly in the realm of religion.
But in no way does it prove atheism.
But in no way does it prove atheism.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Like what questions?
What celestial objects are, for one.
Of course, all answers will raise new questions.
Tis good to have new ones to pursue.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And were all the scientist who researched and answered those questions atheist?
Oh, no...many were fervent believers.
(But you already knew that, missy!)
Science isn't synonymous with atheism, so it shows it no light whatsoever, either positive or negative.
It is not possible for science to disprove the existence of deities.
It can - and does - however, explain things that were considered supernatural.
It can - and does - however, explain things that were considered supernatural.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So is it possible that some of those scientist held the belief that their work in science confirmed their faith?
Sure it could.
Another fine way to state my position....
I see science as removing some impediments to atheism.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Yes, at least science is incompatable with most concepts of deity.
Science is a worldview based on an assumption, I.e. that the behavior of the universe can be described and predicted by universal laws. These laws may or may not be completely understood presently. And various factors may require we modify our understanding.
To affirmatively accept science reqiers the rejection of anything that could be called a miracle, or super-nature. By definition science reqiers all explainations to be consistent with observable phenomena.
In other words, science is an affirmative rejection of any god that has knowlege unobtainable by man through mere observation.
Science does not say god does not or cannot exits. Science says there is nothing we can learn from god that we cannot learn on our own. Opinions to the contrary are fence-sitters.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
:no: Science is a process, not an entity. Science doesn't support things. It doesn't do anything at all. Science is a tool, used by people (as far as we know), to form hypotheses, process evidence and reach conclusions.
Science generally can't be used to prove a negative, which the non-existence of gods clearly is. It can be used to investigate positive claims regarding the existence of gods or aspects surrounding them, and sometimes has, though that requires specific definitions and criteria that believers are often unwilling or unable to provide.
It is certainly true that no god has been proven to exist using any accepted scientific method so, if we must anthropomorphise it at all, science remains agnostic on the question of gods (as it is about everything else for that matter).
Science generally can't be used to prove a negative, which the non-existence of gods clearly is. It can be used to investigate positive claims regarding the existence of gods or aspects surrounding them, and sometimes has, though that requires specific definitions and criteria that believers are often unwilling or unable to provide.
It is certainly true that no god has been proven to exist using any accepted scientific method so, if we must anthropomorphise it at all, science remains agnostic on the question of gods (as it is about everything else for that matter).
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No. Science is a philosophy. It is a standard of truth. It is the measure of things. You say science doesn't support things? Wrong, it supports the theory of gravity, it supports the theory of evolution, it supports the body of knowledge humans call facts. It is a tool, yes. Just like a tape measure is a tool, the standard by which we measure distance. A scale is a tool, the standard by which we measure weight. Science is the measure by which we distinguish the predictable from non-sense.
You may not explicitly accept the philosophy of science if you have not done your homewok, but every thing science does is based on an assumption that is inconsistent with 'unexplainable,' 'unknowable,' 'miracle,' or 'supernatural.'
This assumption is what some people erroneously refer to as the leap of faith of science; that the universe is basically as it appears to be and its behavior can be described by natural laws.
If there were a god that could modify how the universe behaved, then science would not work, its assumption would PROVEN to be wrong.
All it takes is one unexplainable miracle, all one has to do is assume the supernatural, and science goes down the tube.
You may not explicitly accept the philosophy of science if you have not done your homewok, but every thing science does is based on an assumption that is inconsistent with 'unexplainable,' 'unknowable,' 'miracle,' or 'supernatural.'
This assumption is what some people erroneously refer to as the leap of faith of science; that the universe is basically as it appears to be and its behavior can be described by natural laws.
If there were a god that could modify how the universe behaved, then science would not work, its assumption would PROVEN to be wrong.
All it takes is one unexplainable miracle, all one has to do is assume the supernatural, and science goes down the tube.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Science supports conclusions that are reached via scientific processes and methods.
Rationality supports atheism.
Rationality supports atheism.
Philosophically, science is rooted in naturalism. Methodological naturalism says nothing one way or the other about deity. Ontological or metaphysical naturalism assumes that nothing preternatural exists. The former does not support atheism. The latter demands it.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Basic assumptions of science
"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."
"Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes."
"There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world."
Basic assumptions of science
Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))
1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.
2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.
3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.
4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.
5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.
6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)
NOS Overview: Basic Assumptions & Limits of Science
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
1. The world is real. The physical universe exists apart from our sensory experiences.
2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe.
3. Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world.
4. Nature operates uniformly throughout the universe in space and time.
"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."
"Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes."
"There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world."
Basic assumptions of science
Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))
1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.
2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.
3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.
4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.
5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.
6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)
NOS Overview: Basic Assumptions & Limits of Science
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
1. The world is real. The physical universe exists apart from our sensory experiences.
2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe.
3. Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world.
4. Nature operates uniformly throughout the universe in space and time.