Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[robvalue]

Naturally! He gives me the free will to choose, and beats the shit out of me if I choose wrong.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

Science has nothing to do with atheism and atheism has nothing to do with science. People arrive at an atheist conclusion mainly due to the absurdities of the Bible or the results of the conclusions of the "scientific method".

Most atheists (I believe) are rational and the many religious beliefs are somewhat short on rationality.  

[AAA]

AAA you never responded to my suggestion.  When we speak of "design" we are talking about things manmade.  The reason we don't look for evidence of design in nature is that its the exact opposite of manmade.  Naturally occurring vs manmade is the distinction you're mixing up.  Why do you wish to throw out that distinction and replace it with "everything is designed".

I assume that is your position, that absolutely every speck of every single thing is designed with a purpose in mind by the cosmic watchmaker?  If that is so, I have a couple of follow up questions.

If everything is designed, does that extend to the laws of physics as well?  Does anything at all have an intrinsic nature which God didn't give it?  In other words, were there any constraints whatsoever in God's designs or would absolutely any result have been divinely possible?  If there were no restraints imposed by the nature of the materials themselves, was His creation "skillful"?

If you don't want to use the word design that's fine. You can say "product of intelligence", but I'm not trying to confuse manmade with naturally occurring. I'm trying to say that the only analogs to the types of features we see in biological systems are the features that we intentionally have put in our own designs. And don't assume that I have that position, because I don't. Yes I think that the laws of physics were set up by an intelligence with a purpose in mind. I also believe that biological systems were designed by an intelligence with a purpose in mind. Do I think that every carbon atom was placed exactly where it was with a specific purpose for it in mind? No

---

While atheism itself has nothing whatsoever to do with science, atheism and scientific understanding do tend to go hand-in-hand.  First, though, atheism has no connection whatsoever to science.  Atheists can be vaccine deniers, climate change deniers, even evolution deniers.  Atheism is not, itself, scientific.  No stance on the supernatural is because science is the study of the natural.  The supernatural, by definition, is that which we have no data on; that which is not part of the natural world.

That being said, there is a direct correlation between education and atheism.  More educated people tend to be more liberal and less religious.  There has been study after study showing this.  I have several articles bookmarked on the subject.  Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, Liberals and atheists smarter?, How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God, there's even a Wikipedia page on Religiosity and intelligence.

So atheists tend to be smarter, or smarter people tend to be atheists, however you want to look at it.  Atheists tend to accept the scientific view more.  We have no views, after all, which are particularly negatively affected by scientific discoveries.  While it is possible for an atheist to be an evolution denier, it is far, far less likely than, say, a fundamentalist Christian.  So it's not that atheism is inherently "scientific" so much as it is that smarter people, people with an interest in science, tend to be atheists.

And this perhaps wouldn't be so obvious in our society if there were no Christian agenda to get religion into the schools, something which infuriates most serious atheists.  Intelligent design seeks to do this by masking their religious teachings as science.  And thus the idea is born that religion is anti-science (even the Catholic Church, which accepts most science, has, in my lifetime, denied condom science when Pope Satan was in charge).  So of course atheists take the opposite stance when religious organizations try to hijack science.  Of course we cling to real science like it is important to us, not to mention that for many of us, it is.

I haven't looked into the history of atheism and science at all, and I wasn't even an atheist (at least not a serious atheist) when intelligent design first began its assault on the intelligence of America, but it seems to me like religion masquerading as science to teach my kids stupid shit, like we all just "poofed" into existence one literal day, would be a very good reason for me to side with real science, to cling to it, to defend it.  I really have no idea, but it seems to me like it's at least possible that this connection between atheism and science may actually be the result of young earth creationist attempts to hijack science.  It is very possible this connection we have with science is a result of the ineptly named Discovery Institute attempting to render science completely useless and fling us into a new dark age where "magic" is the answer to tough problems.  To me, that's a very good reason to learn all I can about science in general, to defend it, to trust it and to make it part of who I am.

I've always had an interest in science, but it wasn't until I started hearing logical arguments and scientifically ignorant people misusing what little they know to "prove" their magical ideas that I really got an interest in science, specifically in understanding the sciences they tell me are wrong.  Let's face it, Christians lie, all the time.  They usually don't know it, or at least don't let themselves know it (except for Jehovah's Witness printed materials.  There is no possible way they don't KNOW they are being purposely deceitful), but they tell me things which are blatantly false all the time.  My JW friend tells me constantly that the science isn't settled on evolution, that there's a huge debate among scientists right now over whether it's real or not, that many, many scientists want to speak out against it, but there's a huge conspiracy to silence them.  If they speak up they will be drummed out of science.  None of that is true.  I have proved it to him repeatedly.  He still keeps telling me it's true.  I feel that I need to know a lot about science to even talk to most Christians I know because they are going to be lying to me about science and I need to know enough about it to spot the lies.

So, for me anyway, Christianity made me cling to science and, yes, I do tend to kind of relate it to atheism in my head.  "There are no gods" is certainly the more scientific view.  There is no evidence to suggest it's true, there is no data to be collected, that is likely because there is nothing to the claims.  But it is the supernatural and, thus, inherently not within the realm of scientific inquiry.  There are religious scientists.  There are religious biologists who wholeheartedly support evolution and there are surely atheists who do not.  So while my religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with science the two have become intertwined, not because scientific understanding made me atheist or atheism is the scientific stance, but because I need to know a lot about science to defend my religious views against those who would give me false information in order to confuse me into accepting their religious views.  I also tend to look for an ulterior motive whenever a Christian asks me to agree with something which seems innocent enough, because it's usually a trick.  An example my JW friend gave me when trying to convince me that we were in the end times, "Wouldn't you agree that the weapons we have today are more powerful than anything throughout history?"  The year was, I think, 2014 and my answer was "Yes", but then I thought about it.  If the year had been 1702 my answer would have been "Yes".  If the year had been 1287 my answer would have been "Yes".  If the year had been 973 my answer would have been "Yes".  If the year had been 2115 BC my answer would have been "Yes".  The answer to that question is ALWAYS "Yes".  It will be "Yes" in the year 2525, and again in the year 3712, and again in the year 6314.

The point is, I have to think and think hard when talking to a Christian, especially those of particularly deceptive religions such as the Jehovah's Witness religion.  I have to know a lot of things.  They are actually trained in deception and psychology, not that they realize that.  They think they're just being trained to "answer questions" when in reality they are being trained to trick and deceive.  They will ask you on the spot to name a transitional fossil, and you had better have an answer right then and there or an entire lecture starts about how you "put your faith in science", thus beginning the conversation with the evil villain which starts out, "We're not so different, you and I" as he tries to talk you into joining the dark side.  If I don't know something when he brings it up then he sounds reasonable because they are trained deceivers who are, themselves, deceived.  You can't spot a lie when the liar doesn't know he's lying unless you know the truth already.

To to answer the OP directly, atheism and science really have no correlation, but if I, as an atheist, don't know a LOT about science when talking with the general Christian who is trying to convert me I am going to "learn" things which aren't true and possibly be deceived into abandoning reality for fantasy.  So I learn science and I love science.  It's not that science is in any way related to atheism, it's that Christianity is synonymous with "bad science" which Christians actively push, doing real damage to the intelligence of our society.  Science and atheism aren't the same thing, but without a single exception I can think of right now, belief systems (whether they be religious, economic or political) and bad science are very much the same thing.  If I relate belief to bad science it's only natural that I would relate lack of belief to "real" science.

Do you think that the reason that more educated people tend to be atheists is because the materialistic worldview is the only view taught in schools? More educated = more exposure to materialistic perspective= less religious. 

I also resent the assertion that it is the Christians who are trying to deceive. Did you read the opening question? It is the atheists who have been successful in promoting their worldview as the position of science. I have not heard anyone yet say that atheism and science are directly related, yet that is exactly what many atheists are doing. Also, don't tell me that Christianity is synonymous with "bad science". Young Earth creationism is bad science because they must fit all the evidence into a predetermined worldview, but materialism is guilty of the same charge. Other christian scientists have made highly significant contributions of the world of science.

You are trying to convey the idea that Christians are the ones who are more susceptible to delusion, deception, and immorality, but in you hostility you have made a strong case that you are the one who has been overcome by all three. Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but your comment seemed to be basically implying that Christians are destroyers of reason.

---

As it happens, I only eat plants anyway. I think it can indeed be a very healthy diet. But to say it's as simple as "plants is best" is ridiculous. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with thinking we're designed. If you're suggesting everyone else thinks parts of the body float around independently...

Take me for example. If I'm designed, it was a terrible job. I just had to have an operation just so I can eat things with a consistency above the level of baby food. Epic fail God.

If I drove a brand new car through your front window and charged you 50,000 dollars for my time, what would you say?

I'm confused on the car example. Also, I think that the plant-based diet is consistently shown to be better. The larger point would be that natural foods are better. You don't want to eat things sprayed with pesticides or infused with many preservatives.  

And once again, an apparent flaw in the design can be explained by a degradation or loss of function. Maybe you had a great grandparent who smoked. The carcinogens could have caused several mutations in the genes that code for your jaw structure (or whatever the problem was). You then have a flaw and blame it on poor design. It would be like me smashing your computer with a bat. You wouldn't complain of poor design when it broke.

[robvalue]

Sure, a natural diet is good. Again, this is nothing to do with humans being designed.

If the designer of my computer was magic and could have made it resistant to being smashed with hammers, then yes I blame him. Or if he was watching it being smashed and could instantly repair it for no effort, then yes I blame him. Making analogies between humans and Gods are always flawed because of our limited power and resources.

Notice you're trying to credit God with one hand and remove all responsibility with the other. We get this a lot.

[Ravenshire]

Trip-A, your confirmation bias is showing but you're the only one who can't see it.

Maybe you should transfer to a secular school instead of one where they teach the bias along with the coursework.

[Mister Agenda]

NOPE

Why not? What do you think about cells?

This is why religion is a concern for science educators. Some religious folks want the reputation of being scientific without doing the work, so they try to insert their religion into 'science stuff'. Then when people make videos about how they're wrong, they wonder why.

Cells are neat. We have a pretty complete understanding of why they look designed to the casual observer, yet are actually probably the result of a mindless process...multi-celled organisms certainly are; but 150 years of observation and evidence confirming that understanding doesn't stop amateurs (and a few professionals) from exclaiming 'hey, that looks designed to me!' and stopping there like they've just solved the secrets of biology.

Abiogenesis is unproven. Their are multiple plausible hypotheses, but we may never know exactly how life started. It's remotely possible that some deity poofed the first cell into existence for some reason, but natural selection and variation apply as soon as life appears, however it got here. That's the best understanding that science has been able to achieve so far. That's what should be taught by science educators. If you don't like it, come up with a theory that explains the observations, fossils, genetic record, and math better and more fruitfully.

[Jesster]

[Mister Agenda]

AAA, I want to say I appreciate you not being a 'one post wonder' and engaging in your thread, while not also starting half-a-dozen new threads. We see that behavior enough from visiting theists that I think it's worth noting when someone is an exception. I hope you like it here, and remember to pace yourself. You're outnumbered, but you don't have to answer every single post. I advise picking representative posts or focusing on the ones that bring up the best points. I think you have the potential to be an interesting long-term contributor here. If someone becomes frustrated with your posts, I hope you'll understand that we each deserve to be taken on an individual basis, as do you.

[Whateverist]

AAA, I want to say I appreciate you not being a 'one post wonder' and engaging in your thread, while not also starting half-a-dozen new threads. We see that behavior enough from visiting theists that I think it's worth noting when someone is an exception. I hope you like it here, and remember to pace yourself. You're outnumbered, but you don't have to answer every single post. I advise picking representative posts or focusing on the ones that bring up the best points. I think you have the potential to be an interesting long-term contributor here. If someone becomes frustrated with your posts, I hope you'll understand that we each deserve to be taken on an individual basis, as do you.

He is kind of the opposite of that.  As LadyC has pointed out, this poster seems to come by every few months to have exactly the same conversation again.  Guess everything old is new again eventually.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Ok... I agree.  Admittedly, I wasn't following much prior to my entry into the thread, so I cannot comment, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.


Ok... but I don't think that given something which we have not seen, that we cannot make an inference as to a cause sufficient to produce the effect.   Given that an intelligent cause more closely resembles what is seen, rather than an unguided cause, I do think that it is more reasonable move towards an intelligent cause (albeit with capabilities beyond our experience) rather than the other way.

How does it more closely resemble it?  That's the $64,000 question that ID theorists have been attempting to answer and so far they've come up bankrupt.  The concept of specified complexity is mathematically vacuous.  Many ID advocates mouth the words specified complexity as if it referred to a real thing.  This is based on Dembski's work in the field which has been repeatedly shown to be without merit.  If you can't quantify in what way human design efforts resemble the putative design embodied in a cell, and you can't, then you have no basis for asserting that an intelligent cause "more closely resembles" what we see than an unguided cause.  You're left with the uninformative "It looks designed."

 
I do think that you are confusing falsification of the theory of I.D. with relying on the inadequacy of evolution and abiogenesis.  Falsification does rely on the things that can falsify the claim; to not be true.  It is part of the nature and power of the ideology.  However the claims of intelligent design are not just about the inadequacy of those other things you mentioned.   Showing those mechanisms to be false, does not mean that it is intelligently designed (according to the theory).  And contrary to your prior claim, the theory of intelligent design does look to pinpoint characteristics, which are evident of design.

It looks to pinpoint such characteristics but it has yet to find them.  "That is specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and fine tuning."  And this is bollocks.  Specified complexity is an empty term with no meaning; irreducible complexity isn't; and fine tuning has its own problems.  And no, I haven't said a word about falsification.  

  See this link for more:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#tautol  Natural forces produce effects that are highly specified, but not very complex.   Chance produces, results that may be complex, but are not specified.  To achieve something which is complex and specified with a large enough search space, requires choice especially within a restricted time frame.

I found your link totally irrelevant.  You're just mouthing empty words whenever you talk about specified complexity; there is no such valid concept for detecting design.

There is a reason why many biologist and astronomers mention the appearance of design in nature...   Why is it so crazy, to think that among these many divergent examples, that they likely are designed?

If it's just a belief not grounded ijn reason, then, knock yourself out.  However Hume has noted that where an analogy departs from the target, the less reliable the analogy becomes.  Likening what we find in nature to what we find in human design is so far removed from one another that the analogy is useless.  What you have are subjective impressions, and they're as likely to be wrong at inferring design as they are to be right.  To make an inference to design requires a reliable method for separating the one from the other because false positives are plentiful.   So far no one has found such a method.

  I.D. looks to put a mathematical model and testable system in place to this instinct of design.

And so far it has failed to do so.

  I think that those who oppose need to make some positive claims, to why we should ignore that which appears evident.

Appearances are deceptive.  We have plenty of examples of things that look designed but aren't.  If the instinct is unreliable, why should I be pulled to task to try to disprove it?  And we have the positive claim, in evolution.  That you dissent from the majority of science is no skin off my nose.

If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).

---

You really gave me nothing to work with here in terms of any discussion.  If you are going to casually just dismiss everything, without giving reason or thought, then I don't see why I should put much work into a response.  There are some issues with I.D. that I am happy to discuss, but you have to work with me, and we need to be consistent in application.  We can't hold one view to extremely high standards and give another a free pass.  

Perhaps I'll try to start simpler..... if you do not think, that we can infer design, then would you also agree, that the consequent of not designed is also unknowable?