>And if science is atheistic (which I think it clearly is), what then?...



An atheistic or agnostic metaphysical worldview is not a necessary predicate for science, as history clearly demonstrates (see Isaac Newton, for example). What is necessary for science to flourish is the belief that nature has a consistent character, because if it doesn’t, then there’s not much point in trying to study nature in order to characterize and classify-by-characteristics its objects, phenomena, and interrelationships, the doing of which is what science is all about.



Metaphysical worldviews that endorse the notion that the natural world has a consistent character (which can therefore be studied) include:



1) [Mono]Theism (principally Judaism, Christianity, Islam), which posits that nature is created and endowed with characteristics by a mysteriously self-existent supreme being, who also sustains it and cares about it.  



2) Deism (now mostly extinct, but somewhat popular during the Enlightenment), which also posits a supreme being, albeit one that, having built and wound-up the clock, plays no further role in its care and nurture.



3) Atheism (e.g. naturalism/materialism), which posits that nature itself is mysteriously self-existent and mysteriously consistent in character.



Because the *consistency of nature* (irrespective of the believed reason, or lack thereof, for the consistency) is a tenant of faith in all of the above worldviews, scientists who are ardently theistic can work perfectly well alongside those who are ardently atheistic, and both can collaborate harmoniously with those who could care less about such questions. They do so everyday all around the world.



Science itself cannot properly advocate for any of these worldviews, because science can have no basis for asserting whether or not that which science is capable of studying is all that exists. When scientists and science enthusiasts advocate for the truth of a metaphysical worldview, regardless of which one it is, they are speaking philosophically, not scientifically. I don't mean to dismiss the validity or weight of a well-reasoned philosophical argument; I'm simply saying that it's not scientific.



(Science can, at least in principle, study claims of extra-natural “intrusions” into nature, but that’s a different issue.)

 

Just my thoughts, and not reflective of my employer.



Cheers,



John



John M. Stoke

Manager, Informal Science Education

E/PO Lead, The James Webb Space Telescope

Office of Public Outreach

Space Telescope Science Institute

3700 San Martin Drive

Baltimore MD 21218

USA

Tel +1 410 338 4394

Fax +1 410 338 4579

[log in to unmask]

http://hubblesource.stsci.edu

http://jwstsite.stsci.edu/