Does science lead to atheism? Not really 2 Jul 2009 Occasionally one’s sole impact on things is the ability to get other people to do good work by threatening to do it badly. I was set to do a review of survey’s on scientists and religious belief, but the literature got out of hand rather quickly, so I emailed Matt Young, who with John Lynch had written a piece on religious belief among scientists for a book. This got Matt rushing to head me off before I made a complete arse of myself, and the result is this piece at The Panda’s Thumb. The short answer is: Paul Strode and I tried to show that science is not necessarily incompatible with religion, though it certainly falsifies the specific claims of some religions. Nevertheless, both atheists and creationists (some of them, anyway) want to think that science necessarily leads toward atheism or agnosticism. It is hard to say, but it seems more likely that skeptics or freethinkers, who may be already inclined toward disbelief in God, are more likely to become scientists or, perhaps, science teachers. The claim that social scientists are less likely to believe than are physical scientists may not stand up to scrutiny. Creationism and Intelligent Design Epistemology General Science Philosophy Religion Science Social evolution
Education What is “secular”? 13 May 200918 Sep 2017 In keeping with the last post on humanities, I thought I’d ruminate with no effort or knowledge to back it up on what the term “secular” means. If the fundamentalists are to be believed, it is a synonym of “humanist” and also “Satanist”, “infidel” and “homosexual”. But somewhat more seriously,… Read More
Rant My feet, my neck, my head 20 Aug 201120 Aug 2011 No, this isn’t a list of my better features or my autapomorphies. It is a list of the things that really, really, hurt. For those who do not know, I am without employment, and so I have taken up a factory job that involves me walking for eight hours a… Read More
Humor Buffy is my personal saviour 28 Oct 2009 As always, the Onion has the scoop. I really like this new religion of Fictionology. One gets to choose a fictional character as your messiah, deity or general moral teacher. Who better than Buffy? Look good, kick evil doers, and have time for a social life. “Unlike Scientology, which is… Read More
The way I see it, every world view since the rise of science is a modern discipline has tried to get it on their side. The error, I think, is in the notion that science has a “side”. If it turfs your most beloved beliefs, then that’s just too bad. In the case of atheism, it’s just as unsupportable, to the extent that it makes any claim that one could try to support, as any religion. It certainly has a lot smaller body of claims to put through the ringer (well, it only has one claim, really). As to why so many scientists seem to lean towards atheism or agnosticism, I suspect it’s many because scientists are disciplined to think in very rational terms. Religions tend to rely upon one form of ecstatic experience or another, so no matter how many times the Pope insists it’s all very reasoned and rational, well, it isn’t.
Atheism says, “There is no good scientific evidence supporting the existence of a god.” That is what atheists mean when they say that science supports atheism, and the truth of that statement is why it is correct to say so. So how, exactly, is that “just as unsupportable” as any religion? The only way that it could be “just as unsupportable” is if theists could produce good scientific evidence supporting the existence of a god. But the issue is precisely that they cannot do so, so it is simply wrong to say that atheism is “just as unsupportable” as believing in the existence of some god.
Atheism says, “There is no good scientific evidence supporting the existence of a god.” That is what atheists mean when they say that science supports atheism, and the truth of that statement is why it is correct to say so. So how, exactly, is that “just as unsupportable” as any religion? The only way that it could be “just as unsupportable” is if theists could produce good scientific evidence supporting the existence of a god. But the issue is precisely that they cannot do so, so it is simply wrong to say that atheism is “just as unsupportable” as believing in the existence of some god. If that is what an atheist claims, then the atheist is off base. Since an (alleged) supernatural being is fundamenetally beyond science’s capacity to create any kind of a theory for, the statement you make is fundamentally flawed. Equating atheism with science, or claiming that atheism is a natural derivative of science is false. Perhaps it makes some atheists feel superior to imagine that their position is scientific, but clearly it is not. And, before you ask, I am an atheist. As I’ve said many times over the years, I feel my atheism is rational, I do not pretend that it is scientific. God is quite beyond the realm of science.