Science is inherently atheistic

[Homeless Nutter]

I don't know, if science can be called "inherently atheistic". There are ways to conceive of potential beings- however far-fetched - that could be described as "gods", according to some of the multitude of available definitions of deities, and be theoretically compatible with scientific world-view. Like Aristotelian prime mover, non-intervening versions of god proposed by deists, or even some sci-fi concepts, like unimaginably powerful aliens and such. However...

In a world with an omnipotent, omnipresent, interventionist god, preoccupied with every minute detail of human existence, science would be impossible. That's because you can't control for miracles. And you can't read god's mind, know his "plan", or predict his "mysterious ways". Even if you can fool yourself into believing, that god would never, ever, ever interfere with human pursuit of knowledge - there's still Satan and other evil magical beings, whose sole purpose is f*cking with people. No wonder many theists, living in a world populated with such fantastic entities, don't trust scientists, especially whenever their findings contradict ideological beliefs.

You can have magic, or you can have science - you can't have both. That's why every properly conducted scientific experiment ever was founded on the presumption, that there aren't conscious beings, able to freely interfere with every particle and every force in the universe, on a whim and with no regard for the laws of physics.

No reasonable medical study accounts for miraculous recoveries due to prayers, or asks their participants, if perhaps they had done something, that might have caused god to want them to die. No scientific protocol includes enchantments against the "forces of darkness". No scientists are screened for witchcraft, or devil worship. No technology requires ritualistic slaughtering of an animal in order to work....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think 'inherently atheistic' may be too strong a term. It might be more accurate to say that scientific inquiry, properly speaking, is necessarily atheistic. 

Boru

[Angrboda]

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.

This depends on what you mean by the supernatural. Most who advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural and so it becomes an area inaccessible to science because it is not sufficiently defined, not because there is any methodological or other barrier. We can't study plortzgraf until we know what we mean by plortzgraf, either.

---

• 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".
  

Oh, bollocks. There are many reasons why astrology is considered pseudoscience, but hardly because in some forms it concerns deities. Astrology is rejected as science for a variety of reasons, including poor evidentiary support. Your attempt to ascribe the reason astrology is rejected is on account of its connections to religion is pure bullshit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oh, bollocks. There are many reasons why astrology is considered pseudoscience, but hardly because in some forms it concerns deities. Astrology is rejected as science for a variety of reasons, including poor evidentiary support. Your attempt to ascribe the reason astrology is rejected is on account of its connections to religion is pure bullshit.

Typical Capricorn.

Boru

[Brian37]

Scientific method is not a religion, it is a tool. Our species evolutionary ability to be curious and to seek patterns lead to the eventual manifestation of human language and the better ability to make discoveries. A scientist having a religious belief does not make the club/deity real. Religion is not a requirement in scientific method.

[unfogged]

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.

I do not consider Wikipedia articles to be authoritative sources so repeatedly quoting them does not change anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god but good science can be done by both atheists and theists so long as they are examining demonstrable evidence and following it where it leads. That is a secular process that has no relationship to the beliefs, preferences, or biases of the scientist. If Wikipedia authors want too term that "atheistic" then I think they are misusing that term.

[Angrboda]

Oh, bollocks. There are many reasons why astrology is considered pseudoscience, but hardly because in some forms it concerns deities. Astrology is rejected as science for a variety of reasons, including poor evidentiary support. Your attempt to ascribe the reason astrology is rejected is on account of its connections to religion is pure bullshit.

Typical Capricorn.

Boru

Wrong! You must be a Leo.

[tackattack]

Ou, please, the supernature bullshit again.

Dude, WTH are you so scared of a word... boogie boogie supernatural. By definition it's attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. I was just commenting that at one time getting sick was supernatural, then science ascribed it to bad smells, then to bacteria.

---

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.

This depends on what you mean by the supernatural. Most who advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural and so it becomes an area inaccessible to science because it is not sufficiently defined, not because there is any methodological or other barrier. We can't study plortzgraf until we know what we mean by plortzgraf, either.

---

Defined above. Science is a great tool for describe the natural world, but if a supernatural one exists, we would need a different tool. Which would then give us understanding about something, making it natural. That's the process science uses to debunk supernatural claims.

Does that mean attributing sickness to bad smells was wrong? No science would just claim it had a less complete method of analyzing the same data, and that it's an obsolete understanding, supplanted by bacteria as the cause. Tools change as our perspective changes. What if 2000 years from now they measure the poop of a demon is what creates bacteria? I'm digressing now to the point- Science does though assume that an answer can be had by available methods. As our understanding and tools change so can our understanding grow.

I agree 100% with Brian's post on 35. Excellent and succinct statement.

[Angrboda]

---

This depends on what you mean by the supernatural.  Most who advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural and so it becomes an area inaccessible to science because it is not sufficiently defined, not because there is any methodological or other barrier.  We can't study plortzgraf until we know what we mean by plortzgraf, either.

---

Defined above. Science is a great tool for describe the natural world, but if a supernatural one exists, we would need a different tool. Which would then give us understanding about something, making it natural. That's the process science uses to debunk supernatural claims.

Since you weren't quoting anyone, your post leads nowhere. Please link or post said definition. If it's the usual "supernatural is that which is not natural" then that doesn't wash. Apophatic definitions aren't real definitions. If I define the contents of my apartment as those things which are not outside my apartment, that doesn't tell you what those things are because the class involved is necessarily indeterminate.

[blue grey brain]

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

• You'll probably notice that modern science still excludes religious endeavour such as astrology.  Besides, as I explained before, modern science originated from principles related to religiosity, so this would be an obvious counter example to your claim.
  

You may want to revisit the definition of genetic fallacy, and perhaps observe the structure of modern science.

I might say the same for you.  You were entertaining the argument that because science emerged from a period and movement rooted in secularism that this is what it should remain.  It matters not that one can, tenuously link it to an even earlier movement that was non-secular.  The key for the genetic fallacy is the distinction between a time in the past and that of the present.  It does not mean linking it solely to its earliest origins.  You're just being disingenuous, and ignoring the relevance of the fallacy to your arguments.

You also ignored the point about the naturalistic fallacy, to wit, that what science is or has been does not inform us as to what it should be.  If you are arguing that it should be atheistic because it has been atheistic, then that would be a flawed argument.

I have to ask a point of clarification here.  By an atheistic endeavor, are you implying that it should not investigate theistic claims?  Because that would be stupid.

Regardless, science is neither atheistic or theistic because science doesn't, by its nature, possess beliefs.  It may propose hypotheses, and it may embody a consensus of opinions, but that's not exactly the same thing.  In as much as scientific consensus may be said to express a belief about the world, there is no principled objection to it embracing the opinion that a god or gods exist.  Its officially neutral.  It's neither pro-theist, or pro-atheist.

Genetic fallacy would still not apply. I made the point that science continues to be atheistic, and I provided wikipedia resources. It would be nice if you could provide some sources too.

Scientists whether theists or atheists, perform experiments in the lab with the expectations that Gods or angels won't derail experiments.

Your opinion regarding naturalistic fallacy is noted, but it doesn't hold up to reality. We know that so far science is mankind's best tool, especially compared to archaic science or religion. For example, Bibles/quarans lack physics/mathematical equations, and they can't be used to build technology, instead science books contain information that can enable technology's construction.

---

Oh, bollocks. There are many reasons why astrology is considered pseudoscience, but hardly because in some forms it concerns deities. Astrology is rejected as science for a variety of reasons, including poor evidentiary support. Your attempt to ascribe the reason astrology is rejected is on account of its connections to religion is pure bullshit.

Typical Capricorn.

Boru

Jörmungandr may have missed post 7 on page 1.
As we can see, natural philosophers in the early days intentionally tried to make conclusions, while avoiding god based premises.
This is one of the reasons why astrology which is god related, is no longer a part of modern science.

Another mistake Jörmungandr makes is that Jörmungandr feels that atheism merely stops at rejecting deities.
The scientific revolution concerned atheistic movements, both encompassing rejecting deities, but also secular activities.
People tend to place atheism in a little box, namely rejecting deities, and that's simply not where atheism ends, as seen on Wikipedia/atheism.

---

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.

I do not consider Wikipedia articles to be authoritative sources so repeatedly quoting them does not change anything.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a god but good science can be done by both atheists and theists so long as they are examining demonstrable evidence and following it where it leads.  That is a secular process that has no relationship to the beliefs, preferences, or biases of the scientist.  If Wikipedia authors want too term that "atheistic" then I think they are misusing that term.

Your opinion is noted regarding Wikipedia.

Regardless, Wikipedia is probably better than unevidenced opinions or expressions.

I made a post on page 1, reply 7. Wikipedia indicates that early scientists did things without invoking God. Anyway, as I mentioned above to Jörmungandr, atheism doesn't stop at rejecting God, as seen on Wikipedia/atheism.