No, we have the same position. We both hold that the supernatural does not exist, and we both seem to agree that we can’t disprove the existence of the supernatural (unless we are testing specific claims that are supposed to have natural-world effects, like telekinesis or if prayer helps people heal faster). But I can’t make a statement like “God doesn’t exist” and claim that is a scientific statement (because it’s not).

If someday, some test uncovers evidence of the supernatural, then science will work to understand it and explain it. In doing so, it will be noted as part of the natural world.

We seem to be disagreeing because of a basic default stance. Yours seems to me that you by default assume the supernatural exists. Mine is the default position that the supernatural does not exist.

I can’t prove your position to be wrong… ever. There is no test whatsoever that would overturn your position. There is no way for me to know for sure that your position is incorrect.

Therefore your position is untestable, and therefor it is not scientific.

My position is testable, and can easily be shown to be false. It would require an unusually good piece of evidence, but it could be done is the supernatural is true. This is a scientific position.

“Sorry if you don’t like it. That is just the nature of science.”

Well, invisible creatures (not because their microscopic, but because they are see-through) would be supernatural (because there is no scientific mechanism for their invisibility, just like there is no scientific mechanism for other supernatural things, like telepathy). So you can’t prove or disprove invisible Venutian Teddy Bears because they’re supernatural. Feel free to add them to your odd worldview, Greg.

JY said: “…Scientists don’t believe homeopathy to be effective. Why? Because there’s no evidence that it is…”

First of all, homeopathy is testable scientifically and is usually not claimed to have supernatural effects. Second, not *all* homeopathy is ineffective. Scientific studies have tested homeopathy. Some of it is utter garbage, like, say, magnet therapy. Other claims, like smelling grapefruit reduces appetite, have been scientifically substantiated without having to resort to magical explanation. So comparing belief in homeopathy to belief in God is completely specious reasoning.

Not necessarily, but (1) we can prove teddy bears exist, (2) we can prove Venus exists, and (3) we can send space probes to Venus and show that teddy bear cities aren’t there and that conditions on Venus aren’t conductive to teddy bear life.

JY said: “…you said ‘atheism also requires a belief that is not founded on science’. What belief is that?”

That God (or whatever deity you prefer) doesn’t exist. Science can’t prove or disprove God. Therefore, belief or disbelief (or lack of belief or whatever) in God cannot involve science. Any statement about God is not founded on science. That leaves the use of logic, reason, and skepticism — but those are all cultural constructs.

Calladus said: “… when I was doing lab experiments in Physics class, I never had to assume that any experiment might be subjected to divine intervention. THAT is the nature of science.”

I’m baffled why you think we disagree on this point. How many times can I say that science is exclusive the natural world and has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs? Science doesn’t allow for divine intervention. Just don’t expect to disprove divine intervention using science. It works both ways.

That said, I don’t understand the logic behind the strong anti-religion movement among my colleagues. For one thing, it seems to simply be a bad idea to actively offend and alienate so many of the same constituents that will be casting ballots at the upcoming elections.

I also think it is very narrow-minded to decide that at this point in time we have uncovered all of the evidence that is pertinent in the religion v. atheist debate…given that there is so much that we are aware of NOT understanding.

Imagine that, 300 years in the future, the fruits of our careful empirical studies and advanced, highly sensitive instruments indicate overwhelmingly that our universe is simply the by-product of the bursting of a gas bubble (the big bang) in the digestive tract of some creature of currently unfathomable size and longevity, living in an even larger world that also conforms to the basic scientific laws that we are familiar with.

If that’s not entirely implausible then what is to say that, instead of a gastronomic bubble, our universe instead exists in a giant petri dish, as the product of a phenomenal biological lab experiment by the same unfathomably-sized individual, who has astutely hypothesized about how each of the chemicals and climate controls involved in the experiment would impact the microenvironments and evolution of the organisms in the petri dish. Would this titanic scientist qualify to be called God, or god, or simply Homo pater familias?

When it comes to the origins of life, at this point anyone’s guess is good as the next. If we want to fight the introduction of “intelligent design” into science classes then let’s focus on that. Being smug and judgmental is never the best way to negotiate a truce.

Hey, I just thought of something; I think there is a city of teddy bears living on venus.

Now that I’ve said that, do we have to assume it is possible until proven otherwise?

No, I think, of course, that an atheist is someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. You could probably could me in that category. You’re all laboring under the assumption that I believe in God. I don’t — or more accurately, I don’t know or care.

I’m not laboring under any assumptions about your personal beliefs. I don’t know nor do I care. I do know, however, that you said “atheism also requires a belief that is not founded on science”. What belief is that? Not the belief that God has been proven to not exist, since atheists, usually, don’t say that. What then? Again, science generally implies not believing things to be true without evidence. Scientists don’t believe homeopathy to be effective. Why? Because there’s no evidence that it is.

You don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist, of course. But when a scientists are religious, they are clearly going ‘beyond science’ when they choose to believe something without evidence. The atheist clearly is NOT doing that (at least in the arena of religion). So while it is possible that ALL of the atheist’s beliefs are backed up by science* (assuming the atheist doesn’t believe in some other form of woo — being an atheist doesn’t imply never believing silly things), it’s clear that NOT ALL of a religious person’s beliefs are supported by science. This is why your statement, “atheism also requires a belief that is not founded on science” is wrong: religion requires beliefs that are not founded on science, but atheism does not.

* – or, at least, by evidence. I for example, believe that there’s a Coke can on my desk, near my left hand. The process by which I came to that conclusion isn’t really science, but it does involve evidence.