The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

You understand just fine, you simply insist on arguing counterfactually.

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I like it - there actually is a difference between religious beliefs and the body of superstition that a given religion might accrue which surround those beliefs.

Dude. A theist will use fine-tuning as a reason to say that the universe is intelligently designed. A theist will also say that God was the prime mover.
Both answers, answer something which science can’t prove but science is used in our case to make an educated guess.
Philosophers use other scientific facts based on quantum mechanics to say that we live in a multiverse or a simulation.

Why are you so confused about this?

---

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

At a fundamental level, “why” is a nonsensical question.   At fundamental level there can only be how, there can be no why.   if you think why is fundamental, you are not really very inquisitive. 

Anyone can use science, no one should get a pass on borrowing science’s good name to advocate nonsense.

Understood. You’re a true atheist and don’t allow yourself to ask “why”. Some other people like to ask “why”.