Do atheists have the idea that science is a complete framework for understanding man and the universe?

Question

thus any unscientific claims should be automatically rejected...

doesn't that sound irrational...

if someone kills another person...science can bring knowledge as to how the murder took place...but it doesn't answer why there was a murder...

Answer 1

Sometimes it does.Let say that murderer died at the scene, too. If science (autopsy) proves some  changes in  murderers brain than you have reason for that murder.Psychiatric disorder. Might be debilitating changes in the brain, brain tumor etc.

Answer 2

Saying science currently does not explain something is a separate claim from saying science can't in principle explain something. The first is contingent, the latter requires that you show science fundamentally incapable of addressing something.

Science is based on observation - experience. So, if you want to claim science in principle *can't* explain something, you are basically saying that thing produces no effect to be observed. Thus, if science can't explain something in principle, that thing is irrelevant, since it has no effect. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to see science as the best methodology for approximating (as much as humanly possible) truth.

Now, you seem to have followed up with a question about the origin of the universe. This implies you think not having an answer to this (and perhaps other) phenomena suggests God did it, which is a form of the fallacy "argument from incredulity". But this question cannot be asked, much less answered. The origin of the universe is the origin of space and time. Outside of the universe (and thus time), the concept of causality has no meaning. Put simply, you cannot ask "What came 'before' time?" in any way that has a meaning, and thus no answer can be given.  

Answer 3

No, science is a tool with limitations.

It cannot be used to explain that which cannot be reliably observed.

It cannot render a valid judgement on things that cannot be reproduced ( the scientific "laws" vs "Theory" debate)

But it is more reliable than faith, which reaches a conclusion, then tries to back it up with pseudoscience.

Answer 4

Yes it does, the motivation for murder would come under psychology and criminology.

x

Edit: Who's to say the universe isn't just eternal? I'd rather go with that idea than "Some old guy in the sky made it" For that matter where did God come from? By your own admission, the theory that something just exists is ridiculous.

Answer 5

Why do you automatically assume all atheists believe science?

Did it ever occur to you that just because a person may be an atheist,does not mean they must believe science in order to be an atheist.

Lots of people seem to get that confused.  

Answer 6

Oh, I get where your coming from...so GOD is the reason there's murder! That makes so much sense.

Answer 7

really, have you heard of criminology? have you heard of forensic medicine? have you heard of criminal psychology? they are all fields of science.

There is no purpose for the universe. It exists without our will and is bigger than us. Science cannot answer this question today, it may have the answer afterwards. Consider whatever is happening in the universe as a natural process that needs to establish itself.

We do not need a purpose to understand the universe.

Answer 8

Why do you insist that science must be able to answer every possible question there is?  That's pathetic.

By the way, science can give us a lot of evidence as to why a murder happens, particularly in psychology and neuroscience.  

Answer 9

Atheists= believes in no god

Science= facts

But yes, that is correct and very rational.

Answer 10

Sure it can. Psychology can help answer why the murder took place.

Answer 11

No, but claims that have no evidence to support it should be rejected until there is evidence.

Answer 12

I believe science is the basis

and if science contradicts or proves the belief wrong then it should be treated as such

You can believe what you want to believe

Answer 13

No, but it is a good beginning.

"if someone kills another person...science can bring knowledge as to how the murder took place...but it doesn't answer why there was a murder..."

Don't tell me you'd invoke the supernatural to solve a murder.

Answer 14

LOL!!

Anyone with half a brain knows that there is so much we don't know, especially concerning the universe.

The difference between those people and you is that they are looking for answers without bias.  

Answer 15

they can't get past lunch

1Cr 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.

Answer 16

what a stupid point.

Why does there need to be a why? do you not have value in your life unless you believe that it has some kind of greater purpose?

what sad individuals you theists are.

Answer 17

That's a very weak argument.  

Answer 18

I would say that a scientific approach to understanding the murder would give you a better insight rather than blaming it on demons or Satan.

It is not because a claim is "unscientific" that it is rejected, but because the claim has no supporting evidence or that it can not be independently, objectively verified.

Answer 19

Let's put it this way. Anything outside the framework of science/logic is personal conjecture which is fine until you start trying to force in on others because it makes you feel better.

Answer 20

No, I freely admit that scientific knowledge is not a complete explanation. Yet. It does, however, provide us with the necessary framework to explain everything.  Thus any unsupported claim should be rejected.

In your example, the scientific fields of psychology and ethics (and possibly others) work to explain the why.

Answer 21

Science is a great place to start.  

Answer 22

Science is the accumulation of human knowledge, so all your philosophies and moralities and even religions are represented by science. In the case of religions, science has much to say, about the psychology of it, the errors in reasoning, the evolution of the human mind from simple to complex, etc. You have to understand that science isn't excluding you because you're ignorant of much of human knowledge, you're excluding yourself by refusing to learn, by holding on desperately to what your parents taught you rather than looking around for a minute with a clear head.

Answer 23

i agree with guy number one: its a good start.

And actually, you're wrong :] psychology is a science and it can indeed tell us why in some cases at least.

*edit*

why are you so impatient? science couldnt tell us what caused sickness for a LONG time. It takes time to discover bacteria! Give us some time, and we will come up with an answer.

and a note: christians tend to reject sciences answers anyway, for example evolution. So what if we discover there is no meaning to the universe? there is no why? You'd probably just reject it.

Answer 24

It is perfectly rational.

Science can answer why there was murder - that's what science of psychology and forensic science are for.

As to why is the universe there - that's what philosophy is for. Even if you won't count philosophy as a science (technically, it does not follow scientific method as the results are usually not testable and cannot be used to generate predictions), science and philosophy combined cover every aspect of the field of the unknown.

Answer 25

Well actually in your example science can say why there was a murder. The fields of psychology, sociology, and criminology would tackle that question.

The more sophisticated atheists do not think that science is the only valid epistemic undertaking. A big problem with a purely scientific view is that it cannot address ethical or moral questions. Maybe in your example you meant something like "science cannot say that the murder was wrong."

I think many fields other than science are useful in understanding humans (although natural science is probably best for understanding the non-human universe). Philosophy, literature, the arts, history (if you don't consider it a science), cultural studies, even the teachings of religions can offer insights in to human nature (although as an atheist, I want to point out here that simply because a religion's teachings give us knowledge about humans, that is no reason to think its metaphysical teachings are true.)