Science is inherently atheistic

[Anomalocaris]

You mistake an assessment of reality that science has made with what scientist do in their normal lives based on that assessment.  You also assumes once an assessment is made, science becomes like a religion and turns that assessment into dogma impervious to further assessment.

Science has hitherto found the god hypothesis to be without merit.  So that informs what scientists do in their roles as part of human society.   If tomorrow upon gathering of more information the god hypothesis becomes viable again, scientists will act accordingly in their social roles as well. Granted, if such a dramatic change were to occur, the process of verifying the validity of the change and digesting its effects would take a while. But that pertains to the pace of the practical operation of science, not the overall manner of its operation.

[blue grey brain]

You mistake an assessment of reality that science has made with what scientist do in their normal lives based on that assessment.  You also assumes once an assessment is made, science becomes like a religion and turns that assessment into dogma impervious to further assessment.

Science has hitherto found the god hypothesis to be without merit.  So that informs what scientists do in their roles as part of human society.   If tomorrow upon gathering of more information the god hypothesis becomes viable again, scientists will act accordingly in their social roles as well.  Granted, if such a dramatic change were to occur, the process of verifying the validity of the change and digesting its effects would take a while.  But that pertains to the pace of the practical operation of science, not the overall manner of its operation.

I don't recall making such a mistake, and you seem to be committing a straw man fallacy, by refuting a position I did not take.
I mentioned that Science is mankind's best tool, but I didn't say Science was infallible.

[polymath257]

Science isn't so much atheistic as it is anti-faith. ALL statements in science can and should be challenged. All require support from observations that can be made even by non-believers. Any statement that cannot be tested is discarded as being non-scientific (even if it might be true).

If the notion of deities were testable and passed observational tests, then it could be scientific. But that has simply not been the case in practice.

[tackattack]

---

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.

---

I was quoting someone, you. You stated "This depends on what you mean by the supernatural." and then blurbed on with your own straw man argumentum ad populum that most people who "advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural" and then I cited the common definition of supernatural as

---

supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
See more synonyms for supernatural on Thesaurus.com
adjective

of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

Bolding by me cite: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural

---

If you have problems with an Apophatic definitions, write to them. If you have a problem with a word being useful in description by claim the negative, then take it up with hard atheists. If you would like to clearly define what supernatural IS instead of ISN'T, we can press on with that. The contents of your apartment are the contents of your apartment. Anything not fitting in that definition is conversely NOT the contents of your apartment, unless you bring them into your apartment. That grows the definition of what's in your apartment.

If our universe contains everything that can be defined by natural law and phenomena, then supernatural phenomena are either outside our universe or as yet unexplainable by current methods available.

[Angrboda]

---

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.

---

I was quoting someone, you. You stated "This depends on what you mean by the supernatural."  and then blurbed on with your own straw man argumentum ad populum that most people who "advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural"  and then I cited the common definition of supernatural as

---

supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
See more synonyms for supernatural on Thesaurus.com
adjective

  of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
   of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
   of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

Bolding by me cite: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural

---

If you have problems with an Apophatic definitions, write to them. If you have a problem with a word being useful in description by claim the negative, then take it up with hard atheists. If you would like to clearly define what supernatural IS instead of ISN'T, we can press on with that. The contents of your apartment are the contents of your apartment. Anything not fitting in that definition is conversely NOT the contents of your apartment, unless you bring them into your apartment. That grows the definition of what's in your apartment.

If our universe contains everything that can be defined by natural law and phenomena, then supernatural phenomena are either outside our universe or as yet unexplainable by current methods available.

I don't have to write to them, both because your complaint is not cogent and because you have claimed the definition as your own. Apophatic definitions have many problems, and since I'm not the one using or claiming the term, I don't have to present any kind of definition about what it is. You do. I don't think you make much sense. We can have a positive definition of the contents of my apartment. If you had a positive definition of the contents of the class supernatural, the analogy would be appropriate. Since you don't have such a definition, your take on the analogy is just a false analogy, and so the rest of your post is irrelevant. As noted, the class of things that belong to such a negative definition is not is indeterminate, not just in practice, but in principle. As such, the term supernatural as you have defined it can never tell us what the supernatural is. If you can't tell me what the supernatural is, then the word has no definite meaning and suggesting that it exists is incoherent. If you actually have an argument that it is coherent based upon an apophatic definition, please make it. The one's you've just given do not fly.

PS. If you just want to take pointless swipes at hard atheists, knock yourself out. I'll note it on your character sheet.

[tackattack]

Jor,
It wasn't a pointless swipe. It's an example of an apophatic definition. Atheism (especially hard atheism) is used to describe a large group of people (here especially) that lack belief in God(s).
Supernatural defines beliefs beyond (or without being) what is natural. I could have just as easily said non-naturalistic because in this case they mean the same exact things. From my point of view I prefer super as opposed to non, because in revealing previously held supernatural definitions we add more modern collective knowledge that it is above/outside rather than doesn't exist.

If you truly believe that you can not be descriptive with a apophatic definition please describe what your dog will dig in the backyard to bury a bone in without using the word hole or it's synonym.

We've already stated that with relation to the OP, science isn't exclusively atheistic and rephrased it to science has no religious views and is just another tool like math and would be best described as secular. That it can be used to debunk supernatural claims and that it is only as good as it can test. If you have something to add or comment on that point have at it.

[polymath257]

Jor,
It wasn't a pointless swipe. It's an example of an apophatic definition. Atheism (especially hard atheism) is used to describe a large group of people (here especially) that lack belief in God(s).
Supernatural defines beliefs beyond (or without being) what is natural. I could have just as easily said non-naturalistic because in this case they mean the same exact things. From my point of view I prefer super as opposed to non, because in revealing previously held supernatural definitions we add more modern collective knowledge that it is above/outside rather than doesn't exist.

If you truly believe that you can not be descriptive with a apophatic definition please describe what your dog will dig in the backyard to bury a bone in without using the word hole or it's synonym.

We've already stated that with relation to the OP, science isn't exclusively atheistic and rephrased it to science has no religious views and is just another tool like math and would be best described as secular. That it can be used to debunk supernatural claims and that it is only as good as it can test. If you have something to add or comment on that point have at it.

Exactly how do you define the term 'natural'?

[Angrboda]

Jor,
It wasn't a pointless swipe. It's an example of an apophatic definition. Atheism (especially hard atheism) is used to describe a large group of people (here especially) that lack belief in God(s).
Supernatural defines beliefs beyond (or without being) what is natural. I could have just as easily said non-naturalistic because in this case they mean the same exact things. From my point of view I prefer super as opposed to non, because in revealing previously held supernatural definitions we add more modern collective knowledge that it is above/outside rather than doesn't exist.

If you truly believe that you can not be descriptive with a apophatic definition please describe what your dog will dig in the backyard to bury a bone in without using the word hole or it's synonym.

We've already stated that with relation to the OP, science isn't exclusively atheistic and rephrased it to science has no religious views and is just another tool like math and would be best described as secular. That it can be used to debunk supernatural claims and that it is only as good as it can test. If you have something to add or comment on that point have at it.

Nobody is claiming that holes exist. It is a description of an absence of something, whose absence can be described by other means. The supernatural is not simply the absence of something, it is something that is claimed to exist. And that requires a positive definition because it is a claim of something existing. If you want to say a hole doesn't exist, I don't have a problem with that. Holes don't exist. If you are saying the supernatural similarly doesn't exist, I don't have a problem with that either, but you do. I don't have the first clue what it means for something to be other than nature, just as I have no idea what color something is if they tell me it is not black. We know what items do not belong to the things that are not belief in a god because the class is well defined. We don't know what things belong to the class of not natural because we don't know what things belong to the class of natural. That is essentially the problem you have. Not nature doesn't point to anything specific. It's just a catchall for anything we can't identify as natural. Which makes all arguments in favor of it essentially arguments from ignorance. So even if there is such a thing as the supernatural, believing that there is is irrational. Are you trying to tell me your beliefs are irrational?

Let me ask you a related question. Are there supernatural causes that are not agents or other intentional subjects? Can dark matter be supernatural?

Addendum, theists often mistake atheism as containing items it doesn't contain. So from observation, theists commonly mistake class boundaries as definite when they aren't, and indefinite when they are. As a practical matter, we can identify beliefs that are not a belief in God, but we can't know what they believe based upon this apophatic definition, even if problematic. It would seem your example proves my point rather than the reverse. We don't know an atheist's positive beliefs that are not a lack of belief in gods, so that class is equally indeterminate if interpreted that way.

[tackattack]

polymath,
natural to me is the perception of or description of characteristics of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation, logic and experimentation. They don't necessarily have to be tangible, they can be forces or universal laws or logically sound constructs like gravity, entropy and math.

---

Jor,
It wasn't a pointless swipe. It's an example of an apophatic definition. Atheism (especially hard atheism) is used to describe a large group of people (here especially) that lack belief in God(s).
Supernatural defines beliefs beyond (or without being) what is natural. I could have just as easily said non-naturalistic because in this case they mean the same exact things. From my point of view I prefer super as opposed to non, because in revealing previously held supernatural definitions we add more modern collective knowledge that it is above/outside rather than doesn't exist.

If you truly believe that you can not be descriptive with a apophatic definition please describe what your dog will dig in the backyard to bury a bone in without using the word hole or it's synonym.

We've already stated that with relation to the OP, science isn't exclusively atheistic and rephrased it to science has no religious views and is just another tool like math and would be best described as secular. That it can be used to debunk supernatural claims and that it is only as good as it can test. If you have something to add or comment on that point have at it.

Nobody is claiming that holes exist.  It is a description of an absence of something, whose absence can be described by other means.  The supernatural is not simply the absence of something, it is something that is claimed to exist.  And that requires a positive definition because it is a claim of something existing.  If you want to say a hole doesn't exist,  I don't have a problem with that.  Holes don't exist.  If you are saying the supernatural similarly doesn't exist, I don't have a problem with that either, but you do.  I don't have the first clue what it means for something to be other than nature, just as I have no idea what color something is if they tell me it is not black.  We know what items do not belong to the things that are not belief in a god because the class is well defined.  We don't know what things belong to the class of not natural because we don't know what things belong to the class of natural.  That is essentially the problem you have.  Not nature doesn't point to anything specific.  It's just a catchall for anything we can't identify as natural.  Which makes all arguments in favor of it essentially arguments from ignorance.  So even if there is such a thing as the supernatural, believing that there is is irrational.  Are you trying to tell me your beliefs are irrational?

Let me ask you a related question.  Are there supernatural causes that are not agents or other intentional subjects?  Can dark matter be supernatural?

Addendum, theists often mistake atheism as containing items it doesn't contain.  So from observation, theists commonly mistake class boundaries as definite when they aren't, and indefinite when they are.  As a practical matter, we can identify beliefs that are not a belief in God, but we can't know what they believe based upon this apophatic definition, even if problematic.  It would seem your example proves my point rather than the reverse.  We don't know an atheist's positive beliefs that are not a lack of belief in gods, so that class is equally indeterminate if interpreted that way.

---

Yes by your definition my beliefs are irrational because they are objectively unjustifiable and based on a belief in supernatural causes. It isn't an argument from ignorance if I'm not presenting it as a false dichotomy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, without the tools and perspective to qualitatively evaluate. There have been things that were supernatural that aren't now. Does that mean that supernatural things don't exist? No. I believe the scientific method is great for testing the known natural physical world. It's great at falsifying superstition and bringing more understanding into our world.

Let me try and explain my perspective, At one point sickness was supernatural. It was demons and angels. Then science corrected that to be smelly things caused disease, thus making it a natural explanations for the supernatural. Then science corrected itself again to say it was bacteria and it was a different natural explanation. Supernatural can be a catch all for things we don't understand at the time, but that doesn't mean they can't be known. If everything in the universe can at one point be known, then everything in the universe would be natural. That would still leave things outside of the universal constraints and rules or eternal things as supernatural. Until we have a perspective or tool that could measure the eternal, or outside our universe there will still be supernatural. I think we are digressing tough and I'm sleepy. I'll pick this up later.

[Deesse23]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, without the tools and perspective to qualitatively evaluate.

It basically is, when there is evidence to be expected. The people who bring forward supernatural events argue that something supernatural has happened in our natural world. They are pointing to natural effects (of the supernatural), aka. the supernatural being in interaction with the natural world. With the scientific method we should have at least been able to confirm that effects have happened for which we had no natural explanation. I dont know of any event so far that couldnt have been explained by natural events (in absence of any evidece), and thus i feel compelled to stay with the most simple explanation with the least assumptions: So far nothing supernatural has happened, ever.

There have been things that were supernatural that aren't now. Does that mean that supernatural things don't exist? No.

These things never were supernatural in the first place, we just were ignorant of their naturalness. What i think about something has no infuence on that very thing. If my opinion on a thing changes, that doesnt change the thing per se.
Ergo, the fact that we were (and are) ignorant of things is not a good argument for the supernatural imho. Its a weak argument borderlining the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I believe the scientific method is great for testing the known natural physical world. It's great at falsifying superstition and bringing more understanding into our world.

Agreed. But its not only limited to this. Once we have falsifiable claims about the supernatural and once we have the tools to falsify, we can investigate the supernatural. Of course all-powerful beings, being consistent with anything (and thus any experiment, data or observation being possible evidence) will always stay outside the grasp of the scientific method, because they are unfalsifiable, and i am not going to change my standards for evaluating claims (about such beings) just because.

At one point sickness was supernatural. It was demons and angels.

It.never.was.

Then science corrected that to be smelly things caused disease, thus making it a natural explanations for the supernatural

No, it was looking for explanations for the unknown. You are stuck with the idea of "We dont know therefore.....", and that is fallacious thinking. It is never justified.

Supernatural can be a catch all for things we don't understand at the time, but that doesn't mean they can't be known

Q.E.D. with regard to my last comment above.
"We dont know" is the correct catch for everything we dont know. Calling it "supernatural" is sloppy thinking. Of course unknowns can be possibly known in the future, but calling them "supernatural" doesnt mean these unknowns will be revealed as "superatural" (as previously, ignorantly applied). Its sticking to sloppy thinking, shoehorning in what you want to be true into what may be true.