The definition of "science".

 

The atheists will say that the heavens do not declare anything to anyone about anyone.

Some atheists allow for the possibility that superintelligent-advanced-civilisation-aliens from elsewhere in the cosmos may communicate with us and may even visit us. Perhaps they do!

Some atheists allow for the idea that life on earth may have been seeded here on purpose by extra-terrestrial intelligences. Perhaps it was!

Some atheists will suggest that a sexual union might be possible with such alien visitors. Perhaps it is!

Their rules about these possibilities however are that the origin of life and intelligence has to be from within the confines of naturalism. The explanation of the origin of any possible intelligence and any possible life elsewhere in the cosmos has to be an explanation within the materialist dogma:

MatteràLifeàIntelligence

It has to be unintelligent life that leads to the origin of intelligence

It has to be non-living material that leads to the origin of life.

The basic foundational dogma is that the ground state of being has to be non-living and unintelligent.

Material existence is the only existence allowed… (Apart from the existence of information, negentropy, beauty, goodness and truth…. The sort of beautiful and wonderful stuff people produce!)

The realities of life and intelligence have to begin to exist within the cosmos, within the space-time/mass-energy reality that we call “the universe” and “nature”- within the “laws of nature”. The basic rule of the atheists is that life and intelligence cannot always be. Life and intelligence are realities that can only come to be. Life and intelligence can only be material. Material reality is all the reality that there is. (Apart from the existence of information, negentropy, beauty, goodness and truth…. The sort of beautiful and wonderful stuff people produce!)

The basic dogma of atheism is that there cannot be any self-existent non-material living intelligence… for ever and ever Amen. There cannot be any non-material being for ever and ever. Amen.

This is the basic rule of atheism. This is not a rule of science however and never has been.

The problem comes when atheism makes this a rule of science. This rule is just as much a “religious” rule as the arbitrarily imposed rule that science has to be theistic. Let there be robust debate about what intelligence is. Let there be robust debate about what the reality of evil means. Let there not be a basic rule about life and intelligence that only permits a

Eternal SomethingàSomone Cosmos

as opposed to a

Eternal SomeoneàSomething Cosmos

The only rule of science that I am aware of is that we have to tell the truth about what our senses tell us. If that rule goes then science goes with it.

Let this basic decision be argued and decided on the basis of empirical evidence not simply imposed by dictat from by an unelected scientific elite.

In other words if you want atheism to win you have to do the hard work of making the case properly in cosmology and in physics, and in biology and in psychology and in sociology and in philosophy and in logic and in language. This means facing honestly the real problems with the origin of negentropy and with the origin of life research and the origin of biological information. These are real problems and it is no service to true science to pretend them away.

Nor is it serving true science to pretend that that the origin of semantic information is an easy problem to solve or a trivial one either. Simply pretending that science means atheism is just not going to work in the long run. In the end real science is all about telling the truth. In the end scientific atheists have to admit that truth is not at its root a material entity. Personal reality does seem to have a problem when you try to cage it inside material reality. There seems to be something real there that does not belong in the cage!