Replies

Only to the extent you change the definition of atheism.

I've been using the word "atheistic," not "atheism." The former is a characteristic that can be applied to any number of objects or subjects. In this case it is the following statement: "God is beyond the purview of science." Note that this statement a.) specifically mentions God, and b.) specifically denotes God as excluded, i.e. not allowed to be placed under consideration. Those who adhere to this statement in princple also adhere to an atheistic principle. Sure, it is limited to their view of science. But that does not make it any less atheistic.

What are you trying to defend or avoid? What's wrong with atheistic science? Nothing, really. It's just not the prerogative of the federal government to establish it by law.

"I've been using the word "atheistic," not "atheism."

One is a noun, the other an adjective.

"The former is a characteristic that can be applied to any number of objects or subjects."

No, it can't. It has to be applied to something or someone that says that God doesn't exist. Science is not one of those things.

" In this case it is the following statement: "God is beyond the purview of science."

This is a completely incorrect usage of atheistic.

"Note that this statement a.) specifically mentions God, and b.) specifically denotes God as excluded, i.e. not allowed to be placed under consideration."

Please also note that it nowhere says that God doesn't exist. It cannot therefore be an atheistic statement.

"Those who adhere to this statement in princple also adhere to an atheistic principle."

No, most scientists agree with the statement that God is outside the purview of science and most are theists. You are clueless.

"What are you trying to defend or avoid?"

I am trying to defend science from people who want to bring in untestable, unscientific claims. I am trying to protect it from people like you who are trying to redefine science to be whatever you want it to be.

"What's wrong with atheistic science? Nothing, really."

It's not scientific to say that God doesn't exist. That's what's wrong with atheistic science. Luckily, that is not the position of the vast majority of scientists, who merely recognize that there is no way to examine God with science. They go to their theologian friends for advice and info about God.

" It's just not the prerogative of the federal government to establish it by law."

You have already said it isn't possible to do so. Make up your mind.

What's wrong with atheistic science? Nothing, really. It's just not the prerogative of the federal government to establish it by law.

There are two questions here. Can science address the supernatural? By definition, no. Because if there were discoveries related to "God-science", it would remove those discoveries from the "super" natural into the natural world.

Science has already done that in many ways. No doubt people during the dark ages thought that lightning was from God, and therefore a supernatural apparition. We now know it is electricity, and we now consider it fully within the natural world.

The second question is whether "God", or non-athiesm should be presented in public schools labeled as science. It should not, because it is false to claim it as science when it has not made the jump from "super" natural to natural. And second, religion violates the current interpretation of the Constitution and so is considered illegal in public schools.

"God is beyond the purview of science." Note that this statement a.) specifically mentions God, and b.) specifically denotes God as excluded, i.e. not allowed to be placed under consideration.

Non sequitur alert. The descriptive is not proscriptive. The factual observation that "God is beyond the purview of science" does not entail the He is "not allowed". He is certainly allowed. Go ahead and develop a God-based or God-inclusive scientific theory (if you can) that really works and you will have thereby expanded the purview of science to include God.

Unfortunately you can only do this by ACCOMPLISHMENT, not by DECLARATION. IOW you can't appeal to the saying-makes-it-so word magic that the radical left, and other insane people, resort to. The purview of science is determined by the content of science, and the content of science is determined by what scientists actually DO (not what they may say or declare) that is by what ideas working scientists actually utilize and implicate in the production of original research.

To put it more simply, the "purview" of science is determined by the reality of what science actually is. So if you think there should be a "God-inclusive" science then SHOW US that science, or continue to whine pointlessly. There is no in-between.

I've been using the word "atheistic," not "atheism." The former is a characteristic that can be applied to any number of objects or subjects. In this case it is the following statement: "God is beyond the purview of science." Note that this statement a.) specifically mentions God, and b.) specifically denotes God as excluded, i.e. not allowed to be placed under consideration. Those who adhere to this statement in princple also adhere to an atheistic principle. Sure, it is limited to their view of science. But that does not make it any less atheistic.

Bull. The statement: "God is beyond the purview of science" is not "atheistic" because something that is "atheistic" must have the quality of atheism, which is the believe that there is no god or gods. One can believe God exists, but understand that he is beyond the purview of science. The statement that God is beyond the purview of science is true regardless of whehter God exists or not, because of the limitations of the scientific method and scientific technology. As such, by definition, it cannot be atheistic, because it does not assert that God does not exist.