Science has been unfairly hijacked by atheism

[deiscovery]

It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs.

 

It is our belief based on scientific method and empirical evidence; atheism cannot state that there is no God. It can only state “at this present time in human history we cannot prove with existing instruments of measurement and detection that there is or is not a God or a spiritual realm where he is suppose to exist.”

[swansont]

I don't think "atheism" is saying anything. Certain atheists might be, just as certain theists think they have proof of God's existence.

 

To what "atheistic beliefs" do you refer, that science has been hijacked to support? Since science does not depend on the supernatural, by definition, there may be overlap without explicit support. Is "F=ma" an atheistic belief?

[deiscovery]

My comments are based on the common idea that "To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..."

I think this is unfair to science.

[YT2095]

I think "extremist" from Either side are not good for anything, Science or otherwise.

[ecoli]

My comments are based on the common idea that "To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..."

I think this is unfair to science.

 

The common idea that this is a common idea is false.

 

Science does not try to prove that God doesn't exist. Any person who attempts this is not a legitimate scientist, IMO. Similarly, any scientist who attempts to prove that God exists is equally illegitimate.

[iNow]

Well, to be fair, ecoli, many scientists probe the brain and show which parts are activated when the concept of god is brought to one's awareness. So this group uses science to show, not that god exists, but instead the concept and how bringing that concept to attentional awareness impacts us physiologically.

 

Further, social scientists study cult phenomena and group behaviors resulting from parallel belief systems, and many other of this type of study.

 

However, to the root of your point, I agree that any attempts to prove or disprove god (beyond being a mere psychological concept or "first parent" figure across geological time) are not themselves science, and they are akin to someone trying to prove what color urine comes out of purple unicorns.

 

 

To the OP, I don't see why you equivocate science with atheism, and then why you use a few anecdotal examples to generalize about science as a whole. Your approach seems rather lacking.

[Realitycheck]

My comments are based on the common idea that "To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..."

I think this is unfair to science.

What about all of those who try to prove that there is no God by turning to magic, or music, or drugs, or atheist debate teams?

[ecoli]

Well, to be fair, ecoli, many scientists probe the brain and show which parts are activated when the concept of god is brought to one's awareness. So this group uses science to show, not that god exists, but instead the concept and how bringing that concept to attentional awareness impacts us physiologically.

 

That's a psychological effect, however, and can be explained scientifically without the presence of God or religiously.

 

It's still science because, humans might psychologically respond to prayer or ideas about God... but that doesn't prove or disprove God exist. Its a test of human behavior.

 

Further, social scientists study cult phenomena and group behaviors resulting from parallel belief systems, and many other of this type of study.

Same as above.

 

However, to the root of your point, I agree that any attempts to prove or disprove god (beyond being a mere psychological concept or "first parent" figure across geological time) are not themselves science, and they are akin to someone trying to prove what color urine comes out of purple unicorns.

Quite right

[SkepticLance]

As of right now, science cannot prove or disprove God.

However, we cannot predict the future. Maybe some time in the future, some bright spark might design a suitable predictive test.

[thedarkshade]

Oooooh nooooo! Please people, this is a science forum, purely science forum! I've had a very good time here since I became a member here, and one of the things I liked most here is the fact the The Religion sections are *LOCKED*.

 

You will always end up having huge quarrels in these kind of threads. Please have some mercy for the forum and make these threads stay out of this forum. It is purely a personal thing to believe or not that there is a God. If this was rational we would still have the Religion sector open! And there will always be a dose of offense in discussions atheist-believer! Let us respect everyones beliefs or disbeliefs because science cannot confirm or contradict the existence of a divine creature. Protect this forum from these kinds of infections!

[Phi for All]

deiscovery, it has been our experience that scientific method can't be applied to the supernatural. Further, we have also determined that theistic arguments can't rely solely on a deity which can transcend Its own physical laws. Both lead to circular arguments requiring non-existent proof on the one hand, and omnipotent guesswork on the other.

 

While there is no real reason science and religion can't get along, neither has the tools to meaningfully assess the other.

[thedarkshade]

You can do all the science without the concept of religion and without the concept of atheism! The including of each one would simply produce quarrels that do not go for the good of science!

[swansont]

Oooooh nooooo! Please people, this is a science forum, purely science forum! I've had a very good time here since I became a member here, and one of the things I liked most here is the fact the The Religion sections are *LOCKED*.

 

You will always end up having huge quarrels in these kind of threads. Please have some mercy for the forum and make these threads stay out of this forum. It is purely a personal thing to believe or not that there is a God. If this was rational we would still have the Religion sector open! And there will always be a dose of offense in discussions atheist-believer! Let us respect everyones beliefs or disbeliefs because science cannot confirm or contradict the existence of a divine creature. Protect this forum from these kinds of infections!

 

But the premise or question of this thread is whether science has been hijacked. Not the actual existence or nonexistence of god, or the promotion/discussion of the virtues of atheism and/or religion. If it goes in that direction it will indeed be locked.

 

I reiterate: Is "F=ma" an atheistic belief? (if not, is it a theistic belief?)

 

To me, the answer to that (and perhaps the followups, depending on which way it goes) is important to the question at hand.

[Sisyphus]

Any assertions about the existence or nonexistence of god are not scientific statements, because it is not a scientific question. It has no testable consequences.

 

Certain specific religious beliefs do and are proven false, but even they are not "targeted." For example, vast amounts of scientific data unambiguously contradict the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old, but those data were not collected for the purpose of refuting that particular claim or any other. Rather, the refutation is merely incidental. There is a large amount of religiously motivated pseudoscience floating around, which certainly is contradicted by legitimate science. So in that sense there is a "war," but it is being waged on science, not by science.

 

There are, of course, legitimate scientific questions that would seem to assume the nonexistence of "god" as a prerequisite. But they only seem so. I can, for example, legitimately ask what the evolutionary advantage of religious belief is. This would probably offend a lot of people, who see it as an "atheist" question. However, it is no such thing. You might, at best, be able to say that people would believe as they do even if those beliefs were completely false. Such a statement would not be in a scientific paper, it would just be something that might logically follow. But basic logic can also tell you that that has no bearing on whether those beliefs are true or false. If it contradicts somebody's personal argument for the existence of god, that is entirely their problem.

[ydoaPs]

It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs.

There are a few points I would like to address about this statement. The first is about the phrase "atheistic beliefs." What does that mean? I think it may stem from either the ever common assumption that the only form atheism takes is Strong Atheism or a complete ignorance as to what atheism even is. We have two belief sets here. The first set, theism, has one term-the belief in the existence of at least one deity. The second, atheism, is a null set-it says nothing about the existence of any deities. When it comes down to the core, atheism is just as the etymology suggests; it is a lack of theism.

 

From here, just as with theism, we can branch out into different classifications of atheism. There are two general types of atheism. The first type is the baseline of atheism; it is basically being unconvinced. If a theist were to approach this type of atheist and say "At least one deity exists", the response of the atheist would be "I don't believe you." This type of atheism is typically referred to as "Weak Atheism." The other general type of atheism is an extreme(and relatively uncommon) form of atheism; it is basically being convinced the opposite of theism is true. If a theist were to approach this type of atheist and say "At least one deity exists", the response of the atheist would be "You are wrong; no deities exist." This type of atheism is called "Strong Atheism." A weak atheist is open to the idea whereas the strong atheist is firm in his or her convictions about the nonexistence of deities. It is similar to the difference between a skeptic and a denialist.

 

The second point I would like to address is about the word "we." Who is this "we"? Are you part of some sort of movement?

 

The third point I would like to address is that this statement seems to imply that it is morally wrong to use science to prove one's view. Would it be morally wrong to "hijack" science and use it to support theistic beliefs? Is it morally wrong to "hijack science and use it to support anti-smoking beliefs?

 

The last(for now) point I would like to address is about the phrase "hijack science." What do you mean by that?

 

It is our belief based on scientific method and empirical evidence; atheism cannot state that there is no God.

Atheism doesn't state that there are no gods. Strong Atheism, however, does state there are no gods.

 

It can only state “at this present time in human history we cannot prove with existing instruments of measurement and detection that there is or is not a God or a spiritual realm where he is suppose to exist.”

Indeed, and that is what it does. As Carl Sagan once put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Since evidence for this particular extraordinary claim has yet to publicly surface, science is forced to assume nothing about the existence of deities and is therefore atheistic by definition.

 

My comments are based on the common idea that "To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..."

I think this is unfair to science.

Even if, as you incorrectly claim, this idea is so common, what is wrong about using science to prove something? Is it wrong to use science to attempt to prove anything or just things not consistent with your belief set?

 

I don't think "atheism" is saying anything.

Indeed, it doesn't. Atheism doesn't say anything-it is silence. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities, whereas atheism is simply the lack of this belief.

 

Is "F=ma" an atheistic belief?

Does it assume the existence of one or more deities?

 

deiscovery, it has been our experience that scientific method can't be applied to the supernatural.

Not only by our experience, but by definition.

[Daecon]

Maybe we should replace "religion" with "superscience". Would that appease the theists?

 

Science deals with the natural Universe and superscience deals with the supernatural Universe.

 

Plus it has the word "super" in it should that appeal to their egos, since that's pretty much all they have to go on in the first place.

[iNow]

But it's still not science, so it doesn't really fit. It would be like saying, "Empirically-based faith." Both are contradictions of terms.

[Severian]

I reiterate: Is "F=ma" an atheistic belief? (if not, is it a theistic belief?)

 

Funnily enough, if you regard it as fundamental, then it is a theistic belief. That may sound silly, since it is a law which comes about through empirical testing - that is, we measure the force, mass and acceleration and find that they always obey F=ma.

 

However, we have no assurance that future events will obey F=ma. After all the law could be F=ma for t<t₀, F=2ma for t>t₀. The only reason we have for accepting universal F=ma over the above is aesthetic, since they both describe the data perfectly well. Choosing F=ma universally is of course an application of the modern form of Ockham's razor, which some people have elevated to the a position of godhead, despite many many instances of it being violated.

 

Taking this further, F=ma is also a statement about the lack of our knowledge. If we regard it as fundamental, then we are suggesting that there is some onmipresent omnipotent (since it can't be changed) rule that governs the universe. That sounds very much like a god to me. In science, we want to remove equations, not add to them - we want to describe the universe in as few equations as possible. But we will always be left with at least one equation or principle at the end, and that will be something that just is and cannot be derived. If that is what governs the physics of the universe, it is as much 'God' as any personal god (perhaps more so).

[deiscovery]

I think the knee jerk reaction is to come back at religion. I am trying not to include religion (Christian) in the statement. My belief is that Atheism

 

claims scientific arguments or the lack of them for there stance that there is no God.

 

I think they should leave science out of their arguments. We do not have any evidence, measurement or detection of "spiritual" entities or claimed

 

places (angels, Holy Spirit, the anointing, heaven, hell) at this current time in history to prove or disprove God. Atheism should just state that and

 

leave science out of it's arguments.

 

I would like to stay on topic if possible...

[swansont]

Funnily enough, if you regard it as fundamental, then it is a theistic belief. That may sound silly, since it is a law which comes about through empirical testing - that is, we measure the force, mass and acceleration and find that they always obey F=ma.

 

However, we have no assurance that future events will obey F=ma. After all the law could be F=ma for t<t₀, F=2ma for t>t₀. The only reason we have for accepting universal F=ma over the above is aesthetic, since they both describe the data perfectly well. Choosing F=ma universally is of course an application of the modern form of Ockham's razor, which some people have elevated to the a position of godhead, despite many many instances of it being violated.

 

Taking this further, F=ma is also a statement about the lack of our knowledge. If we regard it as fundamental, then we are suggesting that there is some onmipresent omnipotent (since it can't be changed) rule that governs the universe. That sounds very much like a god to me. In science, we want to remove equations, not add to them - we want to describe the universe in as few equations as possible. But we will always be left with at least one equation or principle at the end, and that will be something that just is and cannot be derived. If that is what governs the physics of the universe, it is as much 'God' as any personal god (perhaps more so).

 

I don't think I agree that something that is fixed is omnipotent. It means that is incapable of changing, and that is a limit on it.

 

I also think the implication of the OP is that we're discussing the existence of a personal God, as opposed to Spinoza's. Otherwise we fall prey to the trap of equivocation and can define whatever we wish to be God. (My Dewar flask is God. It keep hot things hot and cold things cold. How does it know? Therefore, God exists.)

 

I think the knee jerk reaction is to come back at religion. I am trying not to include religion (Christian) in the statement. My belief is that Atheism

 

claims scientific arguments or the lack of them for there stance that there is no God.

 

I think they should leave science out of their arguments. We do not have any evidence, measurement or detection of "spiritual" entities or claimed

 

places (angels, Holy Spirit, the anointing, heaven, hell) at this current time in history to prove or disprove God. Atheism should just state that and

 

leave science out of it's arguments.

 

I would like to stay on topic if possible...

 

 

Then answer my question.

 

Do you consider "F=ma" to be an atheistic belief, or a theistic belief?

[Phi for All]

I would like to stay on topic if possible...

Then let's narrow the field.

 

Does anyone think arguments relating to the supernatural should include natural scientific measurements?

 

Remember that Creationism is a special case; it attempts to invalidate accepted science and replace it with a variable physics manipulated by God.

[iNow]

Does anyone think arguments relating to the supernatural should include natural scientific measurements?

 

We could use the DSM-IV...

[Phi for All]

We could use the DSM-IV...

Remember that atheistic arguments are part of this topic too.

[YT2095]

Do you consider "F=ma" to be an atheistic belief, or a theistic belief?

 

I personally would have to say that it`s Neither, it`s just a Belief, that So far has demonstrated itself to be true more often than not.

 

interestingly enough, Belief Implies Faith also!

[bascule]

It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by X and used to support Y beliefs.

 

A lot of people believe that science has been hijacked by some sort of special interest group who are trying to use it to push an agenda, however science isn't a gestalt entity that can be hijacked in such a manner, and by its very nature remains impartial and empirical. The scientific method removes personal opinion from the process, and generates knowledge which is repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

 

10 different quantum physicists may have 10 completely different, contradictory ideas about how the universe works, but that doesn't get in the way of them collaborating on scientific research, because in the end the math they're doing is the same and they can all comprehend each other's work. That's the beauty of the scientific process.