Y do theists claim science is atheistic?Isn't science neither atheistic or theistic bec it's neutral?

Question

--on the topic of the existence of God? Science does not have a god postulate or a no-god postulate. Only people with or without religious beliefs do.

A the Q and no attacking other participants--Please edit your A's accordingly. Q is intended to help everybody to think about the logic of YOUR position, not to criticize others!

This Q has been posed in the philosophy category--not the Religion & Spirituality category. I will post it there for comparison purposes.

"Why do atheists claim that science disproves theism?" This is not my Q and for the record, if asked, is not as neutral as my Q. (This bending of my Q is totally wrong!)

Spinning Q's is a bad habit and I won't tolerate it even if YA does.

tangential comment: Agnostics sit on the fence refusing to commit one way or the other, but given their doubts about the existence of a god, for purposes of this Q, let us say they lean toward athiesm who have a no-god postulate by definition. Science is "not weak atheism" nor is it a kind of religion or anti-religion. I reject the any attempt at spinnng my Q in that direction!.

Answer 1

I think this is right on target. People always assume that religious people don't believe in science and that atheists worship science in place of god.

Science is just science. It is used to test things that can be measured. Since god can not be measured it is left out of the equation. It's not like when they are explaining the way something works they are saying, this is how the universe became what is is now and god had nothing to do with it. People just don't seem to get that sometimes.

Answer 2

I think of religion as trying to answer and explain the big 'why?' question.

Science on the other hand is trying to answer and explain the big 'how?' question.

They are not in conflict with one another though they do influence each other.

To say science does not have a god postulate or a no-god postulate is to say sports doesn't have a good yeah or neh theory about the color or a rose.

They are totally different disciplines.

To me the basic argument is this:

"You scientists say God doesn't exist!"
"No, we said we don't know one way or the other but that evidence implies that if God exists, God doesn't operate according to literal interpretations of religious scripture."
"That's the same thing as saying God doesn't exist!"
"I think we are once again failing to communicate."
"You don't believe in creationism."
"Actually I do. I think that given the empirical evidence, the big bang and billions of years is a more accurate account of history than the 7 days account. Same idea, different details."
"Heretic!"

This from a scientist that does believe in a higher power of some kind. I call that higher power Nature. Some call it God and other call it The Universe. To me they are all synonymous words.

If God exists, wouldn't a single snap of the fingers in a very specific way, knowing the exact course of events over billions of years into the future be more amazing than correcting problems with miracles time and time again?

If God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, you wouldn't need to correct problems with miracles - there wouldn't be any problems in the first place.

Are theists that take the word literally not limiting God's presence, knowledge and power.

I guess I give God more credit than many theists do. Then again, I don't think God sees us as being as important as theists do either.

The word, to me, is an instruction manual on being a good human being that uses metaphor, analogy and allegory through story telling to make it easy to understand. When the metaphor is taken to literally, that's when arguments, wars, and other such bad things happen.

Look at history for my proof of this.

Answer 3

"The percentage of atheists in the world is less
than 5%"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c48a.htm

"Atheists are all scientists" ?

http://www.non-religious.com/statistics.html

Religion is not a blind following. It is a sub-consciously driven
group ritual. It calms the 'collective unconscious' mind. The
religious culture brings unity and belongedness among the followers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

" Are Atheists More Depressed than Religious People?

In recent years, the view that religious belief and
participation in religious acts of worship has a positive
effect upon the well-being of man..."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php

"Is a Belief in God Beneficial? Or, What's an Atheist to Do?

1) Religious attendance is correlated with longevity.
2) Religious belief has been associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms.
3) Religious beliefs may help with addiction.
4) Religious attendance is correlated with lower blood pressure.

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-belief-in-god-beneficial-or-whats.html

Answer 4

Science examines the world that it can touch and measure.
Religious beliefs are based upon faith, the exact opposite of science.

Any "scientist" who claims that there is or is not a God, does so without evidence. God, by definition, does not belong to the physical world and is outside the realm of science.

Equally, religious beliefs can relate only to the "spiritual" realms and cannot be used to describe the universe and it's contents. In any conflict of belief versus science, true science wins.

Atheists, having no scientific evidence to prove "no god" do so solely on faith, just as religious believers have only faith on which to base their beliefs.
I happen to strongly believe in God, but I have no evidence, no proof, only arguments given to me by others.

There need not be a collision between science and religious belief. Scientists and atheists may feel religious believers to be fools, but neither side can demonstrate conclusively whether they are, or not.

Answer 5

Science disembodied from the actions of individual scientists in a supposed vacuum of power? The questioner can remain oblivious of the foundation of the regime that protects him - it will not stop the vigorous competition for grants from public monies. A profane God is nonetheless a God, and HE does not fail to purchase the useful offerings of our beloved "neutral" scientists. Such sophistication!

Answer 6

Scientists are supposed to prove the existence of the earth and everything came from something that is in a physical state. Being created from cells and anything to do with science. When they go to create or discover something they have to prove where it came from and apparantly God is not enough proof for them. I am a beleiver 100% so my opinions are based directly on that, but hoped it helped.

Answer 7

Why do atheists claim that science disproves theism?

The answer to both questions is ignorance and bigotry

Those that oppose theism with no rationale are not merely strong explicit atheists (as per the definition cited by sauwelio)... but there is a stronger bigotry with ant-theists.

Answer 8

That is true. I have never heard of a scientist who went out to prove that there was no god. I have never heard of a scientist who went out to prove that there is a god. Scientists work from what they can measure. If it can't be measured, then it is not worth too much to them.

Answer 9

Science's atheism is explicit weak atheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

A person without religious beliefs does not have to have either a god postulate or a no-god postulate.

Answer 10

because the things science has proven disprove their beliefs