(February 23, 2010 at 12:54 pm)objectivitees Wrote:Quote:Adrian was giving an example of how a statement such as "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview." is not necessarily true as a function of science itself. It doesn't steer you toward a conclusion about God or gods. It has no say in unfalsifiable claims.
Oh my Effing god. Can you stay on topic? Whether "science" itself "has no say" in proving or disproving anything, it still is nevertheless the claim Atheists make as a default. It is precisely what the post I responded to did, right after saying it doesn't. It makes no difference if science can't prove anything, but my post did not say it could. It said Atheists default to science to provide arguments that Atheism is true. Then the post claimed that is not true, and immediately thereafter said that an understanding of science tends to lead to Atheism. That statement was an appeal to science's efficacy in doing exactly what the poster said is not done. my comment was to point out that even if you believe science can't "prove" anything, it doesn't stop Atheists from trying to use it nonetheless. Sheesh.
I don't understand what you're trying to assert. If you don't claim that science leads to atheism, does atheism lead to science?
Creationists regard what they believe as scientifically based. Would you also contend that science may also lead, or have a hand in promoting creationism?
And again, you can lack a belief in God and not have a scientific basis for it.
"I don't feel that he's there, so I don't believe". That's not defaulting on science, it's purely subjective reasoning.
