Changes

::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God.  Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures.  If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God.  Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures.  If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option?  And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God, and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God?  No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::: If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

 

:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century).  I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

:::and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

 

::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'.  'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God.  It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)