Atheism Is Inconsistent With the Scientific Method!
Materialism, Naturalism and atheism are ideological positions in which the attempt is made to ascribe--:
a) the clearly observed wisdoms, objectives and goal-steering mechanisms and
b) the intricate, intertwined cause-effect systems facilitating life, which indicate ==>
c) the exercising of the attributes of knowledge, will, wisdom and power:--to matter and its properties.
This is absolutely no different to saying that in the creation and manufacture of a pen, no wilfully chosen actions were performed which arose through the attributes of knowledge, wisdom, will and power, and that such attributes are really only inherent properties of the pen itself, "the pen's nature".
Although atheists, materialists and naturalists have gotten away with this primitive, yet very calculated thinking for around a century now, because of the very clever use of highly-technical, cryptic scientific language, and making distinctions between human created artifacts and "nature", the tide is turning, and the intellectual scam behind the materialist religion is being ripped apart. We have already explained how some of them are terrified of the use of machine-information metaphors in education and scientific research and are calling for its avoidance - a hopeless attempt and a sign of the desperation of the most arrogant kind of atheists (see this article).
Especially with the development of sciences such as Biomimicry and machine-information metaphors permeating the study of biological life, which has now become a computational and information management discipline, a long stretch from the original notions of soup in a warm pond or blobs of jelly on the back of which atheists became "intellectually fulfilled" in their atheism in the 20th century. Further, huge technological advancements and the role of programming languages and design patterns (in programming), as well as the unravelling complexity of the cell-gene-DNA system are all indicating that biological life is programmed, it is architectural and formally produced.
This is undeniable and a time will come when staunch atheists will be treated no differently to those who claim that the attributes behind the creation of a pen or a robot with artificial intelligence lie in the pen or robot and not to an external agent and who will be laughed at by children.
The Qurʾān provides simple, powerful and effective arguments against this sophistry, doing away with long-winded philosophical babbling and clap-trap, by drawing upon innate disposition, intuition, sensory perception and basic reason that is common to all people.
=================
2019 Templeton Prize Winner: Atheism Is Inconsistent With the Scientific Method
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.
What I mean by that is, what is atheism?
It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. "I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe."
Period.
It's a declaration.
But in science we don't really do declarations.
We say, "Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that."
And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)
But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and all that.
This positions me very much against all of the "New Atheist" guys--even though I want my message to be respectful of people's beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on.
And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation.
It's not just me; it's also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality.