"Atheist Science" would be science based on the absolute conviction that there is no god.
The only thing this does is force the person to use only natural explanations and evidence without any blinders on that issue, but it doesn't change the evidence. It is possible that this might limit some avenues of research, but I am not sure how that would happen.
Creationists frequently argue that this is what evolution etc IS because they "take god out of the equation" etc.
What science in general is would - should - be classified as is "Agnostic Science" - let's wait and see what the evidence says eh?
I think what you want to ask about is: can there be a supernatural science?
...
I'm still waiting to see what "Porn Science" is about ... (XXXX?)
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then??
You got from "absolute conviction" to conclusion? Absolute conviction is faith, whether it is that a god exists or that a god does not exist.
The only problem I can see with "Atheist Science" being driven by this {conviction\faith} is that a pre-conviction of no supernatural activity would not significantly affect the study of non-supernatural activity.
It's only when you introduce the criteria that we must also consider supernatural activity that you run into problems with atheism --- AND science.
The problem here is that you have moved from science to {philosophy\religion} and the standards are different.
Philosophically I think that it is important that science not rule out anything before hand -- thus it must be agnostic or it is not science, and "agnostic science" should be (and is, imh(ysa)o) redundant.
Christian science literally has nothing to do with science. Its purely spiritual.
quote:Christian Science does not rely on conventional medicine but holds that the ills of the flesh, including death itself, can be healed through prayer and faith in God.
It rejects science in favor of non-science. You can call that "spiritual" or you can call it foolish, either way it is NOT science.
Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'?
Yes. Its referred to as "Secular Science." In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.
Moving the goal posts again nem?
Thesaurus search for secular:
Putting in atheist brings up two entries, with "skeptic" used here:
The point being that "atheist" and "secular" are so different in meaning that they are NOT synonyms -- as you attempted to use them
OR you are moving the goal posts from one to the other.
That last one is interesting ... an atheist clergy? By your usage anyway eh? OR your usage is just flat wrong. Again.
Curious, I DON'T see "study or belief of anything of only natural order" in SECULAR but I DO see it in SCIENCE.
Secular is part of the skeptic approach of science but it is not the all inclusive term - there are elements that science is skeptical of that are not religious: ufo's come to mind.
Amd "skeptic science" IS science.
If anything, "skeptic" protects you from voodoo science - whatever "voodoo" is involved eh?
I find it interesting that the term "atheist" is invoked much more often by true believers
Especially when what they usually mean is not-my-theism, as they don't seem to distinguish between non-believers in {A} and non-believers in {ALL}.
As for me, I am an "untheist":
A friend of mine uses "apatheist" -- just doesn't care. I think if you did a poll on the numbers of americans that would agree with that statement that the numbers would suprise the theists.
Of course "apatheist science" would likely be rather ... pathetic eh? (just to touch base with the topic)
™ Version 4.2
