Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

Ingersoll always brings a tear to my eye. *sniff*

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Atheism isn't a prerequisite to science. In fact, someone can embrace atheism as a religious experience without any regard to what is happening on an academic or professional level within the various fields of scientific study.

Over the years I've known people who were atheists and they were just that way because they felt that was the way to be and they didn't feel any necessity to believe in anything beyond what was perceivable in their existence.

This doesn't mean you can't embrace science in a number of fields as an atheist, but it isn't any less true any other major ideology, religion, or worldview.

[Angrboda]

I'm still waiting for clarity on just what the OP is claiming here. If it's that one needs to assume that no god exists to do good science, then it's patently false. If it's that science cannot consider the hypothesis that God or some other associated thing cannot be scientifically investigated, then that too is false. (The simple counter-example is intercessory prayer. Science does not have to establish a mechanism for an effect to establish that an effect exists, so that supernatural causes cannot be demonstrated to be causes does not imply that supernatural effects are therefore not scientific and not real effects.)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I'm still waiting for clarity on just what the OP is claiming here.  If it's that one needs to assume that no god exists to do good science, then it's patently false.  If it's that science cannot consider the hypothesis that God or some other associated thing cannot be scientifically investigated, then that too is false.  (The simple counter-example is intercessory prayer.  Science does not have to establish a mechanism for an effect to establish that an effect exists, so that supernatural causes cannot be demonstrated to be causes does not imply that supernatural effects are therefore not scientific and not real effects.)

I think you're on the right path with what you're saying.  The "sciences" generally focus on what is observable in the natural world. We use controls to test things in the present to gain knowledge about how the world currently, or at some point, existed.  The reason we don't include supernatural is because if it was something that could be demonstrated, it couldn't logically be studied in a controlled environment, since we can't predicts the behavior through naturals means.

I'll try to use a neutral example.  If we believe ghosts like to hang out in a mansion, but in a specific room.  We could set up cameras and various other equipment in that room, but what if suddenly they started floating through walls to avoid the cameras?  What if they had powers that could manipulate the cameras or even not appear at all.  What if they had mind controlling powers that could make you believe they weren't there?  

I know that's kind of a silly example and I'm not saying you should believe in ghosts. What I am trying to say is that our ability to study these creatures in the natural world would be very difficult because we wouldn't know to control them.  They are not bound by our laws, but rather whatever else it is that drives them.

For the record, I don't believe in vampires that turn into bats, Frankenstein monsters, or people turning into werewolves when the moon is full.

[The Grand Nudger]

-but do you believe in ghosts that conveniently defy any way that they might be verifiably observed? How would that be different, in principle, from vampires that turn into bats (see..metabolism and other issues of biology and physics don't constrain them) or werewolves (same, again).

[T0 Th3 M4X]

-but do you believe in ghosts that conveniently defy any way that they might be verifiably observed?  How would that be different, in principle, from vampires that turn into bats (see..metabolism and other issues of biology and physics don't constrain them) or werewolves (same, again).

I don't worry about "ghosts" and if they are real and I met one, hopefully his name is Casper and he won't try to kill me.  In regards to science, it would be nothing more than an observation.  In fact, if I said, "I saw a ghost", more than likely people would challenge the notion.

You use the word "defy", but to defy something you have to have a set of rules or at least one rule that was ignored.  Maybe it's just assumed even.  If not, what is being defied? What you hope happens?  I suppose that's all fine and dandy for those who can read minds.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, that's a "I'm not telling you" and an "I don't actually know what the difference of principle would be between a ghost and a vampire that turns into a bat and a werewolf".

Noted.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So, that's a "I'm not telling you" and an "I don't actually know what the difference of principle would be between a ghost and a vampire that turns into a bat and a werewolf".

Noted.

I tell ya what.  If I find a vampire that turns into a bat, werewolf, or Frankenstein I'll mail then to you.  Enjoy.

[The Grand Nudger]

No need. They'd just mind control me into believing you'd never mailed them.

I'm only noting that if the idea of ghosts that defied such investigation because the were some how able to defy whatever constraints might be referenced made some semblance of sense..to you......then there's no obvious reason for you to to reject vampires that turn into bat or werewolves because they...too..can defy whatever constraints you sought to evade and made that semblance of sense in the case of ghosts.

[Minimalist]

Science deals in facts.  Religion requires anything but facts.

Seems to me there is no common ground whatsoever.