> no law of nature that supports his statement that atheism stems from any scientific reason.
when people talk about scientific reasoning, I assume it also includes the scientific method. As such, atheist and it tend to agree that any prevailing theory should be abandon as soon as a better theory is suggested. This however is strictly contrary to faith, in that faith is the constant belief no matter what other theories exist. (also see The God Delusion for an expanded version, and other arguments of scientific reasoning and atheism.)
It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims. It is not that we do not apply the scientific method to it. It is that, by design, religion is out of bounds of the scientific method.
> It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims
Most religions offer plenty. In the Bible for example, age and creation of the world, the great flood, praying can cure you, God punishes bad people, etc. The claims that have been falsified are nowadays interpreted as "metaphorical" stories.
The claims are not really falsifiable, because when you're dealing with a literal deus†, any premise of the scientific method - such as, floods affect the ecosystems and leave evidence - is invalidated.
when people talk about scientific reasoning, I assume it also includes the scientific method. As such, atheist and it tend to agree that any prevailing theory should be abandon as soon as a better theory is suggested. This however is strictly contrary to faith, in that faith is the constant belief no matter what other theories exist. (also see The God Delusion for an expanded version, and other arguments of scientific reasoning and atheism.)