Does science support Atheism, positively?

[methylatedghosts]

I don't think science has all that much to say about God, gods, or the lack of such. Science is science, and that's all there is to it

 

[methylatedghosts]

Some scientists, however, do seem to have a lot to say about the subject...

 

[Milton Platt]

Some scientists, however, do seem to have a lot to say about the subject...

Scientists, perhaps...science, no.
Why would a scientist be prohibited from talking about religion, especially if they were a theist or deist?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think science has all that much to say about God, gods, or the lack of such. Science is science, and that's all there is to it

What is your opinion about such "scientists" who talk about G-d negatively; are they scientists? Please
Regards

 

[methylatedghosts]

Scientists, perhaps...science, no.
Why would a scientist be prohibited from talking about religion, especially if they were a theist or deist?

That's pretty much what I said

 

[methylatedghosts]

What is your opinion about such "scientists" who talk about G-d negatively; are they scientists? Please
Regards

science and gods are two subjects that don't really have much to say about each other. A scientist is a scientist, whether she believes in God or not

 

[leibowde84]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

No. Science doesn't make any claims about the supernatural beyond a lack of empirical evidence.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is your opinion about such "scientists" who talk about G-d negatively; are they scientists? Please
Regards

What their personal viewpoint on the supernatural will have no effect on their practice of the scientific process in their field if they are a good scientist. They are free to think whatever they wish.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

No it does not. Science cannot answer fundamental childlike questions like, Why are we here.

Prominant atheists like Dawkins will claim otherwise however, but still not true.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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."

God might also be ''natural''

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.

which begs the question, Why is it?

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.

no it doesn't

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

rubbish

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

So God is proved then!

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)

clearly. Does that mean there is no God? No! It might mean an atheist is ignorant, and in fact, does.

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.

why can it?

3. Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world.
4. Nature operates uniformly throughout the universe in space and time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Science supports atheism because it answers some questions formerly in the realm of religion.
But in no way does it prove atheism.

Science also supports some theology

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Prominant atheists like Dawkins will claim otherwise however, but still not true.

Saint Dawkins can answer all questions.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is not possible for science to disprove the existence of deities.

It can - and does - however, explain things that were considered supernatural.

That would depend on what you define as supernatural

 

[Robert.Evans]

science and gods are two subjects that don't really have much to say about each other. A scientist is a scientist, whether she believes in God or not

"she"?

 

[Milton Platt]

So is it possible that some of those scientist held the belief that their work in science confirmed their faith?

So is it possible that some of those scientist held the belief that their work in science confirmed their faith?

What their personal beliefs were is not relevant

Meh, it doesn't explain why. A lot of (my) religious questions are why, not how - which science explains way better than any "sacred" book will ever do.

Imo, it doesn't support theism nor atheism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

What science supports is empirical evidence to make claims. A claim isn't taken seriously or really even considered to be fact if there is no evidence for the claim.

Atheism, if based upon the need of empirical evidence for religion, would follow that notion of thought. That type of thinking goes hand in hand with each other. However you can be a scientist and still hold your beliefs in god. You can also be an atheist and not respect science. There is no smoking gun in science that ever says "there is no god and here is why".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

science and gods are two subjects that don't really have much to say about each other.

... which says a lot about gods, IMO, since science's chief concern is figuring out the factors at play in the natural world.

If science doesn't have much to say about gods, then this means that gods aren't that relevant to what we see around us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no smoking gun in science that ever says "there is no god and here is why".

No... just a conspicuous absence.

Science's response to god-claims isn't some "there is no god" smoking gun; it's Laplace's response ("I have no need for that hypothesis") repeated countless times.

 

[methylatedghosts]

"she"?

Yeah, why not. I was about to write "he" , but then thought "hey, most people would write that, too, but scientists can be women!" My little way of challenging the assuming way a lot of us speak. I like to be inclusive, y'know. Sexism ain't cool.

 

[methylatedghosts]

... which says a lot about gods, IMO, since science's chief concern is figuring out the factors at play in the natural world.

If science doesn't have much to say about gods, then this means that gods aren't that relevant to what we see around us.

Gods are, by many definitions, existent outside of the natural world. So it's no surprise to not find it or them within the natural world using a method to explore the natural world.