Does Science Presuppose Atheism?

"I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since." [Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003]

The Problem

As mentioned in the post The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind, and later questioned in Is Evolution Science? It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general. This bias is constructed on the chassis of methodological naturalism, which primarily deals with how one gains "trustworthy" knowledge or information from the natural or material world in which we live. This is called epistemology.

Usually, along with the proposition of methodological naturalism, comes a stance know as Metaphysical Naturalism, which focuses on what actually exists within the natural world and makes bold statements of what doesn't exist within the natural world. This is called ontology. Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God. I've discussed that topic and the flaws of that sort of reasoning in depth HERE. The backbone of all of this sort of thinking is atheism (the denial of the existence of God).

Each of these constructs are the philosophies of men seeking to affirm their place of relevance within the world. In fact what can be more appealing than believing that you (self) is actually in control of all parts of your being and that everything, no matter how complex, is controlled by processes, events and actions that have human origin and human sources. It is this sort of belief, that leads to skepticism (which can be healthy at times) but too often leads to radical metaphysical naturalism, where all things are viewed only as a discovery of life apart from God when in actuality all methodological naturalism does is measure what God has already done in history and continues to do in modern reality and real time.

Some are confused when they come to understand that the secrets of the universe are unlocked, not because God hasn't revealed himself, but because God has revealed himself and left evidence of his actions throughout all his creation. It is a lack of that understanding that modern science in the hands of metaphysical naturalists have missed.  Why? Partially because man, in his desperate attempt to find relevance in life, has excluded the very one that makes man relevant from the beginning:

Col. 2:8-10 ~ "8-Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10-And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"

It is interesting to note that God places man at the center of his will and plans, but metaphysical naturalists place all other objects and things on the pedestal and claim that man has arrived via the sources of nature that are beneath man. The unfortunate part is that these sort of philosophies seem to proliferate among the most educated or those claiming the highest levels of academic literacy.  In fact college campuses have become a breeding ground for many of these philosophical constructs and they usually all begin when students take their first year philosophy class and are confronted with what is known as the problem of evil. This concept was taught by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270BCE) . The Epicurian problem of evil is usually constructed like this:

1- If a perfectly good God exists, then evil does not.

2- There is evil in the world.

3- Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist

Paul was confronted with much of the same in his day by followers of this particular philosophy in Acts 17:16-21. So these sort of constructs are not foreign news to the bible or bible believers. One note of interest from this argument against the existence of God, and its various reconstructions and updates, is that all versions of it give way to the notion that God, if he exists, would be GOOD. This is an interesting observation and telling statement from all who would specifically deny God's existence while at the same time stating that if God exists his "goodness" is arbitrary.

One could rightfully ask the question, why is it that the most educated amongst us, are sometimes caught in this vice and trap of philosophical metaphysical naturalism? In addition to what I've stated above, what is appealing to individuals who many times have been raised in theistic homes where religion and God was the centerpiece of life and morality. More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

Certainly not to oversimplify, but simply put, many people have never learned or simply choose not to live and walk by faith. In fact the "faith walk" has been so minimized and glossed over by the rank materialism of the modern church that it's a wonder that our youth maintain any significant values as they proceed through life. So in part the focus of life has shifted from faith to materialism:

Gal. 3:11 ~"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

2 Cor. 5:7~ "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

Then there has been a sub-diversion of the mind. Once a person has known Christ and then rejects him and continues to live in sin, there is a blinding and shading of the spirit from what is spiritual. Then self-will sets in to further drive the heart and lead one to understanding that they can best reckon on their own terms.

Rom. 8:5-6 ~ "5-For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6-For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace."

Very Brief History Of Modern Science:

Modern science was birthed through the Renaissance (1400-1527 AD). "Natural Philosophy" was the term most often used to describe science at one time. Later Mikolaj Kopernik (1473-1543), whose Polish name was Latinized to Nicolaus Copernicus, described what was called a "new knowledge" and eventually set forth the notion that the sun, rather than earth, was the center of the universe and that the earth, not stars, were spinning and that process was the cause of the changes of the sky and in the earth that we see.

Later, when Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) applied mathematics to motion, (which heretofore had not existed under Aristotlean  physics) and invented the telescope which was able to view objects in space in better detail, science would take it's greatest leap ever in history. Galilei's studies and inventions affirmed many of Copernicus's theories. In church terms Galilei became one of the first "evangelists" of modernistic scientific theory by presenting his evidences to the church under his former friend, Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). Unfortunately for Galilei he would later be jailed for life (house arrest) due to a character misinterpretation by the Pope of a piece of Galilei's work. Although Galilei didn't yield unto death or the shedding of blood,  modern science was born and there was no turning back.

Since that time there have been all kinds of scientists in all fields of science who have approached the subject from various points of view. Some have theistic and atheistic philosophical control beliefs and views. What is interesting to note is that peer pressure is highly at work within the field and study of science, even if that peer pressure endangers the actual exchange of good right and wholesome information. In fact within modern fields of science godlessness is a vocal position and rewarded and praised as being rational and the right way to think.

The Strange World Of Naturalistic Philosophy

In this world babies have no rights because they are consciously unaware of their existence, so abortions are OK. In this world animals are given and extended what was normally considered to be human rights, and afforded protections under the law that send people to prison. In this world sexual immorality and homosexuality in particular is placed on the same level as heterosexuality and extended a platform of "civil rights". The question is why can't other deviant sexual behaviors be extended or afforded the same rights? It's because in this world and through the metaphysically naturalist system, morality is established by the culture and is relative to the feelings of the one carrying out that morality.

Rise Of Godless Philosophy Or Merely A Reversion To Old Sophisticated Excuses?

Although current studies show that about 38% of scientists in the natural sciences are atheistic in their philosophical worldview as compared to 31% of scientists in the "soft' sciences. These percentages are yet high as compared to the population of the United States which is said to have a 90%  theistic philosophical worldview. In the same study there was discussion over whether many of the scientist who denied theism di so because they really denied theism. In other words, it was clear that those who lived in what the church would consider to be sin, were the highest group claiming atheism or a non-theistic worldview.

As it pertains to the traditional scientific thinkers such as Dawkins, many see science at home in a world where no gods are included. They believe or at least set forth principles based on their assumed metaphysical naturalistic premise and hogtie those principles to reason (logic), as if to say that belief in science is the only "reasonable" way to understand and view the world and occurrences within the world and gain knowledge of the world itself. Therefore the result is an ugly three headed monster of natural and metaphysical philosophy tied together under the false interpretation of reason planted in the shallow ground of methodological naturalism and presented as science.

A Unique Relationship

Not all proponents of materialism deny the premise that philosophy of science is different from methodological science. There is a close but vastly different and interesting relationship. Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education (NCSE), who describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality, sets forth the fine line regarding this relationship as follows:

"I have argued that a clear distinction must be drawn between science as a way of knowing about the natural world and science as a foundation for philosophical views. One should be taught to our children in school, and the other can optionally be taught to our children at home. Once this view is explained, I have found far more support than disagreement among my university colleagues. Even someone who may disagree with my logic or understanding of philosophy of science often understands the strategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical materialism -- if we want more Americans to understand evolution." ~ Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism May 1998

What she alludes to without saying it is that the philosophical materialism of science is the religious aspect of it and that zeal is carried by its most famed evangelists especially when it pertains to evolutionary theory. This is really quite telling because most scientists and those targeted by the new "good ole boy system" of scientific  affirmation, and what almost appears to be social club acceptance, do not distinguish the difference between the philosophical materialistic aspects of science and the purely methodological naturalistic aspect of science. In most venues these vastly different purposes and aspects of science are said, taught, and presented to be one in the same.

The same can be said true of evolutionary philosophy and the theory of evolution. It is often taught and presented with a metaphysical naturalistic bias that excludes the possibility of God replacing him with random processes over time and a purely synergistic relationship between matter and energy.

Do Scientists Need A Rescue?

Certainly the scientist who is often stymied by the vocal metaphysical naturalist minority are in need to be rescued from the radical right and left wing atheism which has crept into moder scientific method. Methodological naturalism has no necessity to give way to atheism or metaphysical naturalism, however this is the current condition and confusion of modern scientific method. Science, which is a valuable and needed tool in ordinary life should not be used as a tool to explain away God as in and of itself is not equipped to do so without being a philosophical construct. Science should remain neutral at best and worst even within a Christian or theistic environment. Modern scientific methods has lost it's purpose and feels that it should be rewarded for pointing to blind processes, random chance and time as justifiable answers to important life questions and universal concerns such as those aimed at by neo-Darwinian evolutionary science.

Unfortunately science has become the tool used to religiously and systematically recreate the mindset and shape it into a product of the culture, modern popularity and fads unbecoming of true scientific discovery. Remember the goal of humanism was and is to replace the city of God with the city of man. Gaining control of the educational process and dealing with origins is essential to that plan and the method that philosophical naturalism has taken and continues to take with the approval of the state which is ill equipped to discern and recognize the difference. The only way to make the state realize a religious construct and concept is to  wrap it up in a bible, prayer or other biblical literature. Believe that if God or God concepts were taught in the classroom as we found in Dover, PA., there would be no secrets nor silence and there would be resulting actions immediately. The critic says that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't science, but I pose that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't atheism taught under the guise of philosophical methodological naturalism.  

Conclusion:

One thing is sure, God doesn't need science to validate or approve of his intervention int the modern world. His power supersedes scientific laws that we feel define our world. In fact his law shapes our world in ways that are beyond scientific ability to comprehend. He is the only thing that has been here always and will be here always even after all scientific knowledge has been made illogical and irrelevant. However, in the meantime, our children and families must be taught the rudiments of science and the benefits that are currently gained through scientific understanding in the world in which we live.

I encourage Christians within the scientific community to take a stand, for this may be the whole purpose of your life and the opportunity that God has designed for you to make a difference. As a scientific community, I would encourage you to revert back to the time when science was understood as unlocking and discovering what God had already and historically done in this world.

With that said, it is incredulous to believe that complex process simply originate from mindless repetition of incomplexity that arose from nothing, for no purpose and for no reason. It is further more than a stretch of the imagination to believe that whatever is there somehow expands over time like an overweight individual in spandex until it creates something more complex than the information that it had to work with in the beginning. Even if that were the case, that, in and of itself would be miraculous because we know know by studying chemical biology that it is much easier to understand complex functions in the light of the transfer of complex information. In other words, nothing "just happens" as evolutionary biologist would like us to believe. eg: For mankind it is easier to measure what we can see, but measuring what is seen is not always the correct measure of the truth.

Blessed!