Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
The crevo threads typically degenerate into name calling. Recently, the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion and start to utilize the protections offered under the religion tags that are different than other threads (due to the intensity of feelings over religious issues). So this thread is intended to be an ECUMENICAL thread under the tag of SCIENTISM. The intent is to keep discussion civil.
I would like to see a straightforward discussion over the topic of whether scientism should be treated as a religion on FR. I'll try to find the links to the adminlecture series about what the ground rules are on ecumenical threads, and I'll copy some recent interactions that show the need for scientism to be treated as a religion on FR.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that either.
I looks to me like you're simply trying to badger people into accepting a religous label that conflicts with their actual religious beliefs in order to win some "point" in an argument.
It would help a lot if Kev would simply link to an instance where a believer in scientism admitted that science is a religion.
***Here you go, JS. How about one in YOUR OWN words?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=133#133
To: Kevmo
I may stray off the science reservation occasionally. I think any ideology can function psychologically as a religion. That includes political ideologies, mysticism, pseudoscience — whatever.
Science is indeed an enterprise made up up human individuals, and any large list of people there will be some who are quacks, some who are criminal, some who are nuts, some who dabble in areas for which they have no expertise. This also applies to religion, and the list of people professing faith in a creator God.
So my request is simply to remove comments from science threads that are not relevant to the objectives and methodologies employed by science. It would still be possible to have lively debates — just not flame wars in which the argument devolves into attacks on the morality of the participants.
133 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:13:17 AM by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I looks to me like you’re simply trying to badger people into accepting a religous label that conflicts with their actual religious beliefs in order to win some “point” in an argument.
***Nope. My aim is to reduce the level of invective on crevo threads. I stated that up front, so your assumptions about my motivations are out of place on this ecumenism thread.
Would it be a personal attack to say I don't believe you?
My understanding of the rules of ecumenic threads is that we are not allowed to mindread each other. I can’t mindread you and you cannot mindread me. But we’ve all had experiences where our discussions bore fruit to an actual admission by someone when they were honest about what they believe. Free Republic might not be the best place to try to find such examples, for many reasons. At any rate, mindreading 3rd parties is apparently not against the rules of ecumenical threads, and the examples I cited showed that at least 2 of my interactions led to actual admissions.
I have also seen one time on a TV documentary — something on PBS about the evolution controversy in America — where a scientist admitted such beliefs. But I don’t remember the name of the documentary.
Would it be a personal attack to say I don’t believe you?
***Yes.
Why do some believers think that God's caring for His creation would involve protecting them from pain or discomfort or death? All of the apostles except John died traumatically. A lot of very righteous people throughout history experienced great pain. This life is a microscopic blip on a time line of eternity, the time line of our souls. That's what God cares about. Putting your faith in God to save you from pain means you don't have real faith because you don't understand what it means.
Because it is a good question to drill down to what the person’s actual belief system really is.
Well, the truth is I’m not exactly convinced that’s really the case. If you don’t mind I’ll wait for a second opinion on whether it’s out of line to admit it.
I described myself as accepting the notion that evolution includes supernatural causes in its explanations? Where?
I ask you again for link to a post where anyone supporting evolution describes science as a religion. Not “functioning psychologically as a religion,” but as a religion.
There’s a clear demarcation between science and religion: science requires evidence and builds confidence based on Consilience. Religion requires no evidence. It really isn’t possible for evidence to overturn or modify a system of thought that ignores evidence, and it is impossible for a system that requires no evidence to comment usefully on a system built on evidence.
Those are good reasons for keeping science away from prayer threads, and good reasons for keeping religion away from science threads.
I only saw one and IMO it only fit your definition of an admission if your view of what the poster said was accepted in opposition to his view. Be that as it may; the type of ecumenical thread you are proposing would only become a reality if there are people who are willing to define themselves in the way you are describing. If they don't or won't then it would be against the ecumenical thread rule you have just cited about mind reading to suggest that they do define themselves that way, in some covert manner, because it wouldn't be 3rd party on those threads.
Even if the proof you give that such people exist is accepted, and I don't because the evidence given so far hasn't convinced me that they do exist, you, or someone, would have to convince them to accept it.
Not “functioning psychologically as a religion,” but as a religion.
***For purposes of our discussion on FR and how to set up threads, no demarcation is necessary. It is clear to many on FR that Scientism is “functioning psychologically as a religion,” even by your own words, and it would make sense to approach it as such for some ecumenical threads so that there is reduced vitriol on Free Republic. The remainder of what you said was some kind of academic exercise that I’m not really interested in. Perhaps if my motivations were what allmendream says they are, then my interests would be in that area. But my interests are not, so I offer it up as evidence that my interests are in reducing invective on crevo threads.
Even if the proof you give that such people exist is accepted, and I don’t because the evidence given so far hasn’t convinced me that they do exist, you, or someone, would have to convince them to accept it.
***Then it looks like you guys are stuck with the existing system that constantly leads to degenerated discussions and name calling. I have proposed a valid system for reducing the vitriol and it looks like it is being rejected. The next time one of the evolutionists whines about getting protection from religious zealots, they will probably get pointed to this thread, so you guys have only yourselves to blame for the putrid state of affairs on crevo threads.
Let me know how it goes, because I also have my doubts.
I don’t care much for academic discussions of definitions either.
My position is clear and simple. Scientists showing up on religion threads are unwelcome. Same for fundamentalists showing up on science threads.
To the extent that religion and science do not contradict, the religious perspective is superfluous. To the extent that they conflict, religion has nothing to add to the discussion. Mixing the two simply starts flame wars.
So far, it till stands.
Then why have you refered to people who question evolution as “cretards” on your other forum?
***He said he wasn’t going to be involved in this thread, so you won’t get an answer. It does look like the standard fare for crevo threads, with all the crosstalk and personal attacks. If the discussion were more civil, everyone would win.
Well, since your not busy with that anymore, are you willing to consider other things you might be able to do to reduce the vitriol and invective on "crevo" threads?
My position is clear and simple. Scientists showing up on religion threads are unwelcome. Same for fundamentalists showing up on science threads.
***This is Free Republic, where everyone is welcome on an open thread, even you. If you want to restrict involvement, you’ll need some kind of caucus tag such as exists in the religion forum. Hence, my suggestion. Such a system already is in place over at Darwin Central and it doesn’t appear to have reduced the level of invective — that should be a big hint for the guys who are looking to apportion blame. As things stand, today/right now, the evolutionists are stuck with the desire to exclude freepers but with no way to do it according to the current rules — except my suggestion. Best of luck, you’ll need it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.