Belief in Atheism effect science

Does the belief in Atheism effect and affect science?

Theists’ points of view about life and science are certainly effected and affected.

It seems to me, Atheism is a form of belief, too.

Agnosticism is easier to see as a form of belief.

If there are any Atheist on these threads, they would be the ones to respond more so than theists.

I would love to hear all thoughts.

THANKS!

Lots of Christians in America seem to be against science and think all scientists are atheists. I’ve been called an atheist many times just for accepting something in science.

It must be hard to be a Catholic scientist. Atheists don’t have other atheists telling them which bits of science they must and must not believe.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed

If a person is an honest person and works in the sciences, his or her religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should have no impact upon scientific work. The misconception comes into play when people assume that science is what it is not. Science is the act of comparing items or phenomena and deducing differences and/or similarities between them and cataloguing the results. Science is the search for information, not the search for “truth”.
Science can describe some things that are true, but science is not truth.

St. Michael is an angel. This statement is true. It matters not whether anyone believes the statement or not. The statement is also completely impossible to prove or disprove by any method of science. Even having a conversation with said angel would not be scientifically verifiable proof of anything. Science has very hard limits as to what it is and what someone can claim is “scientifically proveable”.

If it can’t be repeatably measured or quantified, it is not science.

If a person is an honest person and works in the sciences, his or her religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should have no impact upon scientific work. The misconception comes into play when people assume that science is what it is not. Science is the act of comparing items or phenomena and deducing differences and/or similarities between them and cataloguing the results. Science is the search for information, not the search for “truth”.
Science can describe some things that are true, but science is not truth.

St. Michael is an angel. This statement is true. It matters not whether anyone believes the statement or not. The statement is also completely impossible to prove or disprove by any method of science. Even having a conversation with said angel would not be scientifically verifiable proof of anything. Science has very hard limits as to what it is and what someone can claim is “scientifically proveable”.

If it can’t be repeatably measured or quantified, it is not science."

Many athiests who have turned to science as the alternative to religion have distorted perceptions of what the Bible is. Trying to read the Bible as a science textbook is no better than trying to read Hamlet as a historical textbook about 17th century England or trying to read a love poem as the anatomy of the human heart. Science and religion are never contradictory because they do not seek to answer the same question. Science answers how we got here; religion answers why we got here. Science, which is based on concrete facts, can be proven or disproven, but religion is based on movements of God and of the heart which can be neither measured nor ignored. One cannot disprove the other.

2love

love your answer

I fear this thread may not live long since “atheism” is a prohibited topic. non-religious might have been a better classification to target.

But to answer the question to the best of my ability while steering clear of the prohibited topic there’s not a definitive impact that not having a conviction on whether or not there is a God will have on a person’s embracing of science. One can be without a conviction of the existence of any gods and have no interest in science or a deep interest in science, just as one can have a strong conviction that there is a god and have a deep interest in science or no interest in science.

I’ve personally have had an interest in physics both when I had been convinced that there was a God and after that conviction was gone. The conviction and my interest in physics are totally unrelated to each other. And familiarity with physics makes programming some types of simulations much easier (I’m a software engineer by occupation). Familiarity with physics has at times also been helpful in identifying products that are marketed with unrealistic claims.

I’m avoiding the discussion on whether or not it is a belief. That seems to be a hot button topic here (not just talking about the prohibition, but the responses that some times come from the discussion). I only hope that my reply above may in some way contribute towards helping you out with these questions.

I did not know I broke a rule!!!

It will not happen again!!!

Don’t worry, the moderator’s are reasonable. You’ll be fine. But if the thread get’s locked you’ll know why. At times they’ve just modified the title of a thread and let it continue for so long as the discussion is civil.

I disagree. That is why threads regularly appear here that-

A) Use science to explain away a miraculous event. The purpose appears to be to convince Christians that any particular event is merely symbolic and didn’t actually happen.

B) There is Church teaching that does touch upon science and posts here that simply state ‘the Church can’t do that.’ I guess most don’t realize there is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Take embryonic stem cell research. The Church tells us a unique human being is killed in the process. Ask any embryologist, everyone reading this began life as a unique human embryo. Meanwhile, some scientists have accused the Church of ‘standing in the way’ of scientific progress.

Peace,
Ed

Actually, it’s incredibly easy to be one. Science is the study of the physical reality. This has absolutely nothing to do with God beyond the fact that God created and maintains the physical reality. Science (this realities capacity to be categorically understood and measured) is God’s gift to us. It’s a way for us to get a tiny glimpse into his power and nature.

It may be hard for the other scientists to accept that a Catholic is a scientist, but it’s incredibly easy for the actual Catholic Scientist Himself/Herself.

To the OP, I do believe it does, and in a negative way as well. Atheist scientists (Dawkins and his ilk) try to force reality into their perception. They try to explain away things they don’t understand with theories and notion which may or may not hold up over time. This wouldn’t be terrible, except they try to present them as fact, when the reality is that they are heavily based in conjecture.

It’s too bad, to, because if they would just focus on the science, and stop trying to relate it to religion, they’d stop wasting a lot of their time and could actually do far more good for our understanding of the universe.

Personally, so far as the atheist scientists go, Neil deGrasse Tyson is probably my favorite. He personally doesn’t believe in God, but unlike Dawkins and similar, he doesn’t see anything wrong with other people believing in God. He, rightfully, believes that science and widespread knowledge are both great keys to human advancement; but he also recognizes that it is only one part of a greater whole. I saw one thing, it made me so happy inside, when it was Dawkins and Tyson having a debate about reality, and Dawkins was being his usually bashing self. Tyson basically told him that he was a moron for ragging on people simply for believing in God, and that he should shut up and focus on science. It was awesome! :stuck_out_tongue:

They certainly do seem to have two entirely different goals in mind. From what I’ve seen Tyson’s main goal seems to be to promote science education. And he’s highly enthusiastic about it! He seems to have a talent for presenting things in an interesting (and funny) way.

I have to admit it is difficult to openly admit that one is an atheist because there it seems there is a strong resentment by believers toward non believers. Some believers speak of “a war on christianity”. Yet, A church sits on nearly every corner, the influence of christianity is rife in American ambiance, and, most Christians associate non belief with immorality.

Nonetheless, I am certainly a skeptic This is because, I am convinced that there are too many more plausable explanations for many of the Christian propositions of faith. Christianity arose in a manner quite consistent with historic development of other bodies of theugical beliefs. 2000 years ago when Christianity replaced paganism, it was in a superstitious era, the replacement was gradual occurring over several centuries, and it was through a political context and via the sponsorship of Constantine, Theodosious and Justinian. Early Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan practices and struggled with intellectual rationales to come to terms with its doctrines much as paganism did. And once Christinanity had deep roots in Europe, the same persecutions of heritics occurred as occurred under the pagans. Its its earliest periods, as it seperated from Judeoism, it persecuted the Jews as well as heretics under Justinian. Fervent mobs of Christians burned the liabrary at Alexandria. Whatever tolerance practiced by Constantine was lost to later emperors who mid wifed Christianity into the European experience. Of course, once possessed of political backing and might, then it ushered in the brutality of the inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, the impatience with science for which Galileo paid at least a modest price.

Not that the Christian faith in its origins was any worse or better than Islam’s brutality (which seems now to be in full flower). Nor of the pagans who insisted that the traditional gods be honored and venerated lest the apostates cause the anger of the gods. So, there has never been tolerance by any side. Some beliefs wax and wane with their cruelity, manifesting depending pretty much on how much political power any one set manages to garner. Each expresses brutality with various degrees of fervor at differing times, but, always there is intolerance.

Now as for skeptics…like myself? Skepticism is an absence of belief–it is not belief. It is the withholding of a judgment on a particular proposition until compelling proof causes a different disposition. It is tolerant of any proposition that makes sense and is given credit until it it is shown to be implausable. I am a skeptic as to the question of whether there is life on Mars, and, will be skeptical of that proposition until evidence is demonstrated. I am tolerant of the idea that there may be life there. I simply do not know.However, I tend to discount claims that make no sense. To that extent I tend to be less tolerant because I like to think one should not “suffer fools gladly” For example. the proposition that UFO’s have visited the earth previously and abducted citizens makes little sense to believe because there are much much more plausable explanations for lights in the sky or why some folks might sincerely believe they were taken up by aliens and experimented upon. Psychotic episodes, after all, are more likely than aliens who visit, conduct experiments, leave no physcal trace and without corroborating evidence. I suppose one would have to have what some call “faith” to believe the contrary.

Thus, as a skeptic, I think the possibilities for the existence of a personal God is rather remote. Even so, I greatly appreciate the fact that there are mysteries abounding in the cosmos. The implications arising from an apparently rational universe cries out for an explanation, but, imbuing this mystery with a personality is an anthropomorphic conceit, it seems to me. Consider, for example how ordered and rational is mathematics—but mathematics is not a person. If there were an intelligence that governs the cosmos then why make it into a person? What compelling explanation is there for such a phenonomen? So on this issue I am a skeptic.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.