Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

See Below

I don't understand what redefining of science has taken place...?

Personally, I think that the only truly defensible position on the god issue is agnosticism. However, people can believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't get in the way of science.

Our government functions as if there were no god. It doesn't mean that most people think that there isn't a god, it is just we agree that legally we cannot use god to justify our moral positions. Since no one agrees on what god wants, it is a good thing to pretend for the sake of argument that he does not exist. The same goes for science. If we explain things as, "God did it," it doesn't help us out. You can believe whatever you want, but don't hinder those who wish to explore possibilities that seem foreign and unsettling to you.

After all, some of us prefer to be unsettled.

Yes, it is, if we never recieved revelations from God.

Speaking as an atheist the concept of "god" ranks alongside the concept of "pixies".

There are a minority of eminent scientists who believe in a deity but they certainly do not sink to the simplistic and vacuous level of "scientific proof" nor do they any longer attempt to account for "origins" of the universe or life. Their beliefs seem to be linked to an attempt either to account for "morality" (e.g. Polkinghorne), or for what appears to be "design". However both morality and design can be subsumed as part of a "control paradigm" which has been criticized recently as being an anthropocentric aspect of "cognition". More recent "ecological" views which leave open the possibility of a "holistic spirituality" come from Capra, but this position can hardly be interpreted as "theistic".

Evolution ranks up their with "The war of the worlds"

At this humourous juncture I would say "War of the Worlds" is going on right now between various tribes of "believers", and I'm demoting "God" to a lesser rank than "pixies" because I have a good idea what a pixie would look like !

<sigh> Thunder I might argue with you on evolution, but it would make my brain hurt.

fredjones

....and presumably "creationists" must attribute the mutation of pathogens into resistent epidemics as "acts of God"....or "acts of the Devil" maybe !

I asked for an example of "atheists redefining science to get rid of god" roughly five pages ago.

Ironically, I'm not the least bit surprised I've not been greeted with such an example.

I'm not surprised either.

In the fact that people have tried to use science to disprove the existance of God, but really one cannot even use science to prove or disprove God.

thunder runner

I accept that science (or anything else) can not prove or disprove God.

What I don't see is why science is used to disprove the existence of God. Heliocentric theory has nothing to do with the existence of God. Evolution theory has nothing to do with the existence of God. Nothing in science has to with God. If God is transcendent to sensorial experience I could science deal with that concept?

I think that perhaps you meant that science has created conflicts with religions. But that is another thing and has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Well then atheist should never be able to try and use evolution as their defense.

thunder runner

I am atheist. I believe in the theory of evolution. But I don't see what they have in common. A close friend of mine is a catholic priest, believes in God and believes in the theory of evolution, and had never problems with it.
The theory of evolution can be in contradiction with same religious texts, like the Genesis in the Bible. But, again, this has nothing to do with the existence of God.

This is an exceptionally incoherent statement--just what is it that you contend someone who is atheist defends him- or herself against by invoking a theory of evolution?

On a day-to-day basis I have atheists tell me that science is the replacement for God.

I think you need to find smarter athiests.

The way I have always seen it is that evolution, atheism, and humanism all go hand-in-hand....in hand.

The Roman Catholic church, as well as many religious people recognize the validity of biological evolution, adjusting theological metaphores to fit with physical reality.

Athiests have no pre-set restrictions on what to believe, and therefor tend to support the only valid scientific theory which exists at this time: Modern Evolutionary theory.

Likewise with Humanism, Secular Humanism, Deisn, and a range of other "ism's", which lack a rigid description of the physical world which is in direct conflict with physical evidence (such as Christian Fundamentalism), the only remaining viable theory which is derrived from physical evidence is the one which tends to be selected: Evolution.

I don't understand why many have abandonded creation ideas so easily, macro-evolution is not a fact, and they don't realize that the bible and evolution cannot go together.