In a Nutshell: It is incorrect to claim science leads to atheism or the denial of God as the issue is a meta-physical one beyond the scope of science. For this reason it is explored in philosophy and theology.
Does science lead to atheism?
2 Answers
In a Nutshell: It is incorrect to claim science leads to atheism or the denial of God as the issue is a meta-physical one beyond the scope of science. For this reason it is explored in philosophy and theology.
It is not possible to draw conclusions about metaphysical issues using science.
There are some scientists who are at war with God but this is not the same as science being at war with God.
"Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true... For example, the assertions by Atkins and Dawkins, with which we began, fall into that category. They are not statements of science but rather expressions of personal belief, indeed, of faith - fundamentally no different from (though noticeably less tolerant than) much expression of the kind of faith Dawkins expressly wishes to eradicate." (John C. Lennox)
Misconceptions
The reason some attempt to do so is based on a number of erroneous assumptions:
1. Science is the only criteria to determine the truth.
This assumes if science cannot deal with metaphysics; therefore God doesn't exist.
2. Science works therefore it must be true.
Science works through observations and God is not observable; therefore God does not exist.
3. Science leads to certainty.
Scientific facts are unchangeable. Given science does not address metaphysical notions like God or a creator, God does not exist as only science provides certain results.
4. People adopt philosophical naturalism believing it to be methodological naturalism.
Analysis
The first assumption is false, because it's self-defeating, you cannot prove such a statement scientifically.
Our observations are always going to be limited & facts can change, from that point of view. Pro. Elliott Sober states in his essay called Empiricism; any moment in time scientist are limited to the observations they have at hand. You can't observe necessary logical truth.
Science is morally neutral, i.e., it is amoral. In meta-ethics there are objective moral truth, that is neither subjective nor relative. It's outside of the limited human mind & away, & outside of limited emotions. Therefore it requires some type of grounding. Science has no say in this issue. Natural selection gives you the ability to formulate ethical rules, but it does not give you the foundation to justify or take to account objective moral truth, because these morals are subject to inevitable biological changes. Therefore; morals lose any meaning under biology, because they're arbitrary; a result of accidental rearing of certain biological condition.
Science cannot delve into the personal. It cannot deal with the hard problem of consciousness. Inner subjective conscious state. Neuroscience is a study of correlations so you won't know what it's like for someone to have a strawberry or any experience. You can only describe it using language, but you can't experience it. what is it like to be a bat? Science is a 3rd person fact, how can it deal with a 1st person fact?
Science can't answer why things happen. It can only tell you how things happened. Science is limited, it can't tell you the purpose of things.
Science is not the yardstick for truth, because there are other sources of knowledge. People are not even bothered to read a basic philosophy book on epistemology. One of them is Testimony. Even atheist follow such concept. They never did the science themselves but they believe the words told to them. If you haven't repeated it yourself, it's still the say so of others. Not empirical. Testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge as stated in the book Testimony: A Philosophical Study by C. A. J. Coady. However; both empirical & testimonial knowledge could be wrong, but testimony is a source of knowledge regardless.
Science cannot prove necessary truths, & these necessary truths are required before you do any science. For example, logic.
Secondly science working does not mean its conclusions are true given there were theories that were working that provided things called facts which turned out to be false.
Thirdly science does not lead to certainty. Many people think the Darwinian mechanism is a scientific fact; which actually means in scientific language a world confirmed theory that can change. It means it's well confirmed but may change in the future. Some are unlikely to change, though. They both have a likely-hood to change in someway. So you can't claim certainty.
Science relies heavily on induction. You have a limited set of observations and data. as a result you conclude for the next observation that you haven't observed or the entire set of observations that you haven't observed. There can always be a new observation that can be at odds with our conclusions based on our previous limited data. That's why in the book by Pro. Gillian Barker & Philip Kitcher; Philosophy Of Science: A New Introduction, they say, Science is revisable, hence to talk of scientific proof is dangerous, because the term fosters the idea of conclusions that are graved in stone.
The final assumption behind the assertion science leads to atheism is based on philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. People who believe science leads to atheism, they really hold a non-scientific assumption: the philosophical worldview of philosophical naturalism. It's not scientific and based on three things:
1. The belief/assertion that there is no divine
2. The assertion that all phenomena can be explained by physical processes.
3. There is no afterlife/hereafter.
If these are the lenses you're going to put on to see the world, then you're going to see the denial of the Divine, because these are your lenses. Michael Ruse states that philosophical naturalism is an act of faith.
The next part is methodological naturalism; which is for any conclusion or theory for it to be scientific, it cannot refer to the divine power or creativity. That's all it says, it does not say God does not exist. For scientific conclusions to be scientific just don't refer to God. This is no problem for the Muslim, because the Muslim believes that the whole universe is made of physical causes.
Methodological Naturalism has nothing to do with Philosophical Naturalism. Scott C. Todd states:
Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. (Methodological Naturalism)
Helpful
Unhelpful
In a Nutshell: It is incorrect to claim science leads to atheism or the denial of God as the issue is a meta-physical one beyond the scope of science. For this reason it is explored in philosophy and theology.
It is not possible to draw conclusions about metaphysical issues using science.
There are some scientists who are at war with God but this is not the same as science being at war with God.
"Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true... For example, the assertions by Atkins and Dawkins, with which we began, fall into that category. They are not statements of science but rather expressions of personal belief, indeed, of faith - fundamentally no different from (though noticeably less tolerant than) much expression of the kind of faith Dawkins expressly wishes to eradicate." (John C. Lennox)
Misconceptions
The reason some attempt to do so is based on a number of erroneous assumptions:
1. Science is the only criteria to determine the truth.
This assumes if science cannot deal with metaphysics; therefore God doesn't exist.
2. Science works therefore it must be true.
Science works through observations and God is not observable; therefore God does not exist.
3. Science leads to certainty.
Scientific facts are unchangeable. Given science does not address metaphysical notions like God or a creator, God does not exist as only science provides certain results.
4. People adopt philosophical naturalism believing it to be methodological naturalism.
Analysis
The first assumption is false, because it's self-defeating, you cannot prove such a statement scientifically.
Our observations are always going to be limited & facts can change, from that point of view. Pro. Elliott Sober states in his essay called Empiricism; any moment in time scientist are limited to the observations they have at hand. You can't observe necessary logical truth.
Science is morally neutral, i.e., it is amoral. In meta-ethics there are objective moral truth, that is neither subjective nor relative. It's outside of the limited human mind & away, & outside of limited emotions. Therefore it requires some type of grounding. Science has no say in this issue. Natural selection gives you the ability to formulate ethical rules, but it does not give you the foundation to justify or take to account objective moral truth, because these morals are subject to inevitable biological changes. Therefore; morals lose any meaning under biology, because they're arbitrary; a result of accidental rearing of certain biological condition.
Science cannot delve into the personal. It cannot deal with the hard problem of consciousness. Inner subjective conscious state. Neuroscience is a study of correlations so you won't know what it's like for someone to have a strawberry or any experience. You can only describe it using language, but you can't experience it. what is it like to be a bat? Science is a 3rd person fact, how can it deal with a 1st person fact?
Science can't answer why things happen. It can only tell you how things happened. Science is limited, it can't tell you the purpose of things.
Science is not the yardstick for truth, because there are other sources of knowledge. People are not even bothered to read a basic philosophy book on epistemology. One of them is Testimony. Even atheist follow such concept. They never did the science themselves but they believe the words told to them. If you haven't repeated it yourself, it's still the say so of others. Not empirical. Testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge as stated in the book Testimony: A Philosophical Study by C. A. J. Coady. However; both empirical & testimonial knowledge could be wrong, but testimony is a source of knowledge regardless.
Science cannot prove necessary truths, & these necessary truths are required before you do any science. For example, logic.
Secondly science working does not mean its conclusions are true given there were theories that were working that provided things called facts which turned out to be false.
Thirdly science does not lead to certainty. Many people think the Darwinian mechanism is a scientific fact; which actually means in scientific language a world confirmed theory that can change. It means it's well confirmed but may change in the future. Some are unlikely to change, though. They both have a likely-hood to change in someway. So you can't claim certainty.
Science relies heavily on induction. You have a limited set of observations and data. as a result you conclude for the next observation that you haven't observed or the entire set of observations that you haven't observed. There can always be a new observation that can be at odds with our conclusions based on our previous limited data. That's why in the book by Pro. Gillian Barker & Philip Kitcher; Philosophy Of Science: A New Introduction, they say, Science is revisable, hence to talk of scientific proof is dangerous, because the term fosters the idea of conclusions that are graved in stone.
The final assumption behind the assertion science leads to atheism is based on philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. People who believe science leads to atheism, they really hold a non-scientific assumption: the philosophical worldview of philosophical naturalism. It's not scientific and based on three things:
1. The belief/assertion that there is no divine
2. The assertion that all phenomena can be explained by physical processes.
3. There is no afterlife/hereafter.
If these are the lenses you're going to put on to see the world, then you're going to see the denial of the Divine, because these are your lenses. Michael Ruse states that philosophical naturalism is an act of faith.
The next part is methodological naturalism; which is for any conclusion or theory for it to be scientific, it cannot refer to the divine power or creativity. That's all it says, it does not say God does not exist. For scientific conclusions to be scientific just don't refer to God. This is no problem for the Muslim, because the Muslim believes that the whole universe is made of physical causes.
Methodological Naturalism has nothing to do with Philosophical Naturalism. Scott C. Todd states:
Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. (Methodological Naturalism)
<<Show less
Science leads to theism, not atheism. As scientists, we always try to understand the universe factually. In other words, we want to explain the universe in terms of cause and effect. For every effect, there has to be a cause. For example, if you look at a moving train you can say that the cause of the movement of the last carriage is the one just in front of it. Indeed, in terms of Newtonian way of causality, the movement of the last carriage is caused by the one which pulls it. This is fine. You can explain the movement of all the remaining carriages using the same explanation. What about the engine? There is no visible external force causing its movement. The engine, therefore, must be the first cause of the movement. Similarly, when we explain what we have now we can go back only so far in the past. There has to be a beginning. This is commonly accepted as The Big Bang. We, scientists, believe the universe came into existence at some point in the past and expanded to its current form. The Big Bang is the start of the universe. There has to be a cause of it. The first cause or the unmoved mover of the universe cannot be explained by the atheists. Therefore, theism becomes a much more plausible philosophical position.
Helpful
Unhelpful
Science leads to theism, not atheism. As scientists, we always try to understand the universe factually. In other words, we want to explain the universe in terms of cause and effect. For every effect, there has to be a cause. For example, if you look at a moving train you can say that the cause of the movement of the last...
Show more >>
Science leads to theism, not atheism. As scientists, we always try to understand the universe factually. In other words, we want to explain the universe in terms of cause and effect. For every effect, there has to be a cause. For example, if you look at a moving train you can say that the cause of the movement of the last carriage is the one just in front of it. Indeed, in terms of Newtonian way of causality, the movement of the last carriage is caused by the one which pulls it. This is fine. You can explain the movement of all the remaining carriages using the same explanation. What about the engine? There is no visible external force causing its movement. The engine, therefore, must be the first cause of the movement. Similarly, when we explain what we have now we can go back only so far in the past. There has to be a beginning. This is commonly accepted as The Big Bang. We, scientists, believe the universe came into existence at some point in the past and expanded to its current form. The Big Bang is the start of the universe. There has to be a cause of it. The first cause or the unmoved mover of the universe cannot be explained by the atheists. Therefore, theism becomes a much more plausible philosophical position.
<<Show less
<<Show less