Science is inherently atheistic

[tackattack]

---

• Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
  

• Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment. See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy.
  

• This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
  

Here's an example from math, rather than science, but I think it's relevant.

George Cantor was a mathematician who made important contributions to his field, particularly in how we think about infinity. He was also a devoted Christian all his life, and felt strongly that his discoveries came from divine revelation. For him, mathematics was far from atheistic.

The people who checked his math, though, did so from an entirely mathematical viewpoint. To them, the discoveries' divine nature was not something they could address. His math stood or fell in the non-revelatory world of pure logic. Mathematicians since have generally adopted his view. It is mostly irrelevant to them that some religious people have also argued that what he says about infinity applies to God as well.

---

I would agree with parts of some statements. I believe science is secular in that it is not based on religious belief and belief is irrelevant to consensus (while it can be integral to the perspective of the observers). This is because of evidentiary standards and/or sound logical conclusions.

I believe the OP was, as I believe Jor pointed out, about whether it should or shouldn't have a stance on theism.

Personally, I believe that to close off a possibility is part of the method of defining a hypothesis. Does modern science usually start with there being a "real" or "natural" explanation for things? Yes usually, I can see where some might see that as anti theist. Should science allows for all hypothesis, I believe my answer would be yes? How else would we have gotten from supernatural explanations of things to natural evidence.