Science is inherently atheistic

[Paleophyte]

Science is inherently secular. It does not attempt to address topics for which there is no quantifiable evidence.

It does not calculate the breadth of faith nor does it define the mass of piety. Science takes no position on belief. For this you should be grateful.

[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.

[GrandizerII]

It is mostly irrelevant to them that some religious people have also argued that what he says about infinity applies to God as well.

Unless the theist does not agree with the possibility of an actual infinity, in which case they would not agree that God is infinite.

[ignoramus]

Tack, I think with so much weird shit we see and postulate as far as cosmology, astro physics and atomic theory, I think it's fair to say that nothing is assumed about anything.
The quantum world alone is contradictory to "our" natural universe to start with, so I don't imagine any scientist worrying too much about natural/supernatural definitions when everything they hypothesize is beyond batshit crazy, beyond God, beyond anything I can imagine. Basically, The scientific method shouldn't and doesn't assume anything in case any underlying premise is false and they're just wasting their time

[tackattack]

science uses the tools at hand to form and test hypothesis. I mean we went from rotten air makes us sick to bacteria makes us sick because of microscopes. We call the miasma theory obsolete now, because it's been disproved and rejected and surpassed because of better tools. Science has always assumed that what it has to measure with (whether logic, math, telescopes or colliders) is sufficient to find an answer. That woks in physics, metaphysics, biolgy all of them. My point was that it assumes that there can be an answer, which is fine. Which is why science will never be able to qualify the super-natural, just reveal superstition in the natural.

[ignoramus]

True. Maybe only a god can know god? Agree? You know where I'm going next don't you

[Anomalocaris]

science uses the tools at hand to form and test hypothesis. I mean we went from rotten air makes us sick to bacteria makes us sick because of microscopes. We call the miasma theory obsolete now, because it's been disproved and rejected and surpassed because of better tools. Science has always assumed that what it has to measure with (whether logic, math, telescopes or colliders) is sufficient to find an answer. That woks in physics, metaphysics, biolgy all of them. My point was that it assumes that there can be an answer, which is fine. Which is why science will never be able to qualify the super-natural, just reveal superstition in the natural.

Ou, please, the supernature bullshit again.

[blue grey brain]

On the contrary, science continues to be an atheistic endeavour. 

I think you may be conflating atheistic with secular.   Many of the greatest scientists were deeply religious but their achievements meant being able to set aside magical thinking to investigate the actual evidence.  I'd be surprised if many weren't inspired by their god beliefs and concluded that what they found was evidence of their god's subtlety and wisdom.

If you read any of the references I left, you'd probably find out that the scientific revolution/age of enlightenment was both secular and atheistic in nature.

• I think the issue here, is that most people feel atheism stops at rejecting or lacking belief in God. A somewhat thorough read-through of Wikipedia/atheism will underline how incomplete that picture of atheism is.
  

Side-note: Being inspired to do science, doesn't generate any science. As you'll probably find out on Wikipedia/atheism, modern science came about by secular or atheistic means.

Side-note: It is also not surprising that most humans were theists, including scientists back then, especially because mankind did not always have modern science (so religion or archaic science/protoscience preceded it) or some of the modern tools which can be used to properly disregard religion. Also note persecution of the non-religious, as you'll see on Wikipedia/religious persecution.

[Belacqua]

I think you may be conflating atheistic with secular.   Many of the greatest scientists were deeply religious but their achievements meant being able to set aside magical thinking to investigate the actual evidence.  I'd be surprised if many weren't inspired by their god beliefs and concluded that what they found was evidence of their god's subtlety and wisdom.

If you read any of the references I left, you'd probably find out that the scientific revolution/age of enlightenment was both secular and atheistic in nature.

• I think the issue here, is that most people feel atheism stops at rejecting or lacking belief in God. A somewhat thorough read-through of Wikipedia/atheism will underline how incomplete that picture of atheism is.
  

Side-note: Being inspired to do science, doesn't generate any science. As you'll probably find out on Wikipedia/atheism, modern science came about by secular or atheistic means.

Side-note: It is also not surprising that most humans were theists, including scientists back then, especially because mankind did not always have modern science (so religion or archaic science/protoscience preceded it) or some of the modern tools which can be used to properly disregard religion. Also note persecution of the non-religious, as you'll see on Wikipedia/religious persecution.

Most historians of science today reject the conflict thesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

[blue grey brain]

If you read any of the references I left, you'd probably find out that the scientific revolution/age of enlightenment was both secular and atheistic in nature.

• I think the issue here, is that most people feel atheism stops at rejecting or lacking belief in God. A somewhat thorough read-through of Wikipedia/atheism will underline how incomplete that picture of atheism is.
  

Side-note: Being inspired to do science, doesn't generate any science. As you'll probably find out on Wikipedia/atheism, modern science came about by secular or atheistic means.

Side-note: It is also not surprising that most humans were theists, including scientists back then, especially because mankind did not always have modern science (so religion or archaic science/protoscience preceded it) or some of the modern tools which can be used to properly disregard religion. Also note persecution of the non-religious, as you'll see on Wikipedia/religious persecution.

Most historians of science today reject the conflict thesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Yes, I think I reject the conflict thesis too, and I garner the OP does as well.

The conflict thesis seems to propose that there was intrinsic conflict between science and religion as science developed in the days of antiquity.

• I tend to make the point that modern science emerged from religious endeavour, although religion had become obsolete. This means that modern science and archaic science or religion may share principles in the distant past, especially those concerned with evidence prioritization and experimentation. Religion however continued in a direction opposite to modern science, while failing to prioritize evidence.
  

In other words, archaic science was not atheistic, but modern science, or simply science as it is called today, is atheistic.

• A quick and easy example to verify this point, is that "astrology/archaic science/religion/protoscience", was literally dropped from "modern science/astronomy", as you'll see in "Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy".
  
• You'll notice that astrology concerns deities, while astronomy does not, and since science is atheistic, astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience, again as seen on "Wikpedia/astrology and astronomy".