Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Does science justify atheism?
The simplest explanation for what we don't understand is that "we don't understand yet," not that "there is an all powerful supreme being that is making it happen."
All that Science can explain does not require a superior being as a hypothesis. As our understanding covers more questions about Nature, resorting to a deity for explaining the unknown becomes less justifiable.
Belief is unfounded assumption. Science, or more particularly boolean algebra, proves that if one unfounded assumption is presumed true when it's actually false, then anything false can be proved true, leaving us with no facts and no logic. So, we shouldn't believe and science justifies Atheism.
An omnipotent, omniscient being is a self contradiction - logically absurd. Science is premised on the validity of reason and logic which do not permit self contradiction.
Science definitely gives one reason to adopt an atheistic view on life. In science, you need evidence to support any claim, so when it comes to a metaphysical realm such as religion, a scientific minded individual would need evidence of god rather than to just go on blind faith.
While logically consistent with theism, science paints a picture of a world that makes atheism more probable than theism.
Thousands of years of historical and anthropological evidence would suggest that even if it is logically easier to say "we just don't understand" it is not psychologically easier and therefore less applicable to humanity's needs.
"We do not know yet" is more rational, but "There is not a god" is not necesarly more rational. Both are pretty strong assertions.
This is a misunderstanding of theism, which is not an explanation for "what we don't understand." We have science for that. Theism explains the underlying cause of existence, not of natural causes in the universe.
One statement is not simpler or more obvious than the other. One cannot appeal to Occam's Razor to prove a point, only to suggest a hypothesis.
If it is more logical to say that a powerful being is the causal agent, it doesn't matter that agnosticism is simpler.
"We don't understand it yet." is not an explanation, it's an admission of ignorance. We may not understand a particular thing, but that doesn't necessarily imply that any given explanation (in this case God) cannot be inferred as the best explanation for a certain phenomena, or set of phenomena.
Saying “we don’t know” is not the best answer for certain “what is making this happen” questions that involve a non-natural hypothesis. Some scientific evidence lends to aiding certain non-natural hypotheses.
The Scientific Method reaches an agnostic conclusion with "we don't know yet" - rejecting a "God of the gaps" argument; however theism is not about supporting a "God of the gaps". Therefore one cannot conclude that the Scientific Method supports atheism.