…Why do I say that atheism is antiscience?Because atheism is …

Comment on Adventists are virtually silent by Bravus.

…Why do I say that atheism is antiscience?Because atheism is the positive assertion that “There is no God”. But to be scientific a proposition must be testable. It must be falsifiable. Unfortunately, for the atheists there is no possible way for us to test this statement and falsify it and thus it cannot be a scientific statement. Indeed, as others have observed, it is a religious statement, every bit as much as “There is a God” is a religious statement..

Two quick points:

1. Non-science is not at all the same thing as anti-science: it’s scientism to think it is. There are many, many domains of life that are not science and are valuable: and I say this as a scientist and science educator.

2. As you’ve noted, theism is non-science in the same way as atheism, and if your logic is followed through it follows that theism is anti-science. This is not the case: most of the famous scientists on whose shoulders we stand were theists.

Bravus Also Commented

Adventists are virtually silent
@Denver Fletcher: (reposted because it got stuck in the moderation queue for a while and the discussion passed it by):

Newton was a Christian, of sorts, though he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, but also an occultist and alchemist…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

And, you’re saying that science can be used to, for example, explain the merit of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Denver? Or to prove that my wife loves me? Of course there are massive domains of life in which science is not the appropriate tool! As I posted above, it is scientism to believe otherwise.

A complete caricature of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ – and the response to it – is not doing your valorisation of science a lot of good, either.


Adventists are virtually silent
Newton was a Christian, of sorts, though he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, but also an occultist and alchemist…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

And, you’re saying that science can be used to, for example, explain the merit of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Denver? Or to prove that my wife loves me? Of course there are massive domains of life in which science is not the appropriate tool! As I posted above, it is scientism to believe otherwise.

A complete caricature of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ – and the response to it – is not doing your valorisation of science a lot of good, either.


Adventists are virtually silent

@Bravus: Essential atheism is potentially scientific since it can be tested and potentially falsified. In short, if anyone could produce any evidence that necessitated a God or a God-like entity that could not readily be distinguished from a real God, then essential atheism would be falsified. This is in fact the reason why Richard Dawkins has often said that:

“…although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

– Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker,” [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.6

By implication then, if Darwinism is falsifiable, and it is (i.e., it is a potentially valid scientific theory), then so is intellectually tenable atheism… Think about it…

If that’s the case, intellectually tenable theism must be falsifiable too, yes?


Recent Comments by Bravus

Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.

Just my interpretation.


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.