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.
Faith: belief without proof./(evidence)
And that is the difference I wish to highlight, seeings as how it is the opposite of having confidence in the Scientific method, said confidence being based upon evidence.
If you do not wish to deal with the definition you provided that is OK, but lets not accuse me of antagonism for highlighting the difference in the definitions you provided.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - ---
schism Audio Help /ˈsɪzəm, ˈskɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siz-uhm, skiz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ---
noun 1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties. ---
2. the parties so formed. ---
3. Ecclesiastical. a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference. b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division. c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division. ---
[Origin: 1350–1400; < LL (Vulgate) sc(h)isma (s. sc(h)ismat-) < Gk, deriv. of schízein to split, with -ma (s. -mat-) n. suffix of result; r. ME (s)cisme, sisme < MF < LL, as above] ---
schism n. A separation or division into factions. ---
A formal breach of union within a Christian church. The offense of attempting to produce such a breach. Disunion; discord. ---
[Middle English scisme, from Old French, from Latin schisma, schismat-, from Greek skhisma, from skhizein, to split; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And because this is an ecumenical thread, also do not be antagonistic.
I believe you’ve stated your goal is to reduce the vitriol that frequently becomes an issue on “crevo” threads. Would you entertain suggestions about what you might be able to do to help accomplish that without moving the treads to the Religion forum, labeled as “Scientism”?
***Umm, no. I have my hands full with this suggestion. Feel free to open a thread with your suggestions and invite me & others to it. You’ll get my feedback and that of others as well.
Stop playing word games and use the latest definition. The one you wanted was a loaded definition. If you don’t agree with that, open your own ecumenical thread and start in with your own definition.
Your appear to be seeking a division or separation (Scientists / Non-scientists) based on doctrinal differences.
Then I'll stand by my original assesment.
Will his post be removed? If I respond to the post that you’ve identified as antagonistic, will my response be removed? What is the procedure? Should we ask the poster to rephrase things in an un-antagonistic manner? That seems like the right thing to do, if you’re willing. Then the antagonistic post could be knocked out and we could all move on.
Your appear to be seeking a division or separation (Scientists / Non-scientists) based on doctrinal differences.
***No. I’m seeking to reduce the vitriol on the crevo threads by giving the evos what they have asked for: protection from religious zealots on chosen threads, much like the other religions get under the caucus and ecumenism guidelines.
I think that's going to be a matter of opinion.
I often leave errant posts up so that others can also see what is not tolerable. If they are particularly harsh or lead or will likely lead to a flame war, I pull them.
In this case, I expect all parties to be cooperative.
Then I’ll stand by my original assesment.
***Does that you mean you’ll “open a thread with your suggestions and invite me & others to it”? What exactly is the purpose of “standing by your original assessment”, if not to antagonize? Someone who really wants to generate and entertain suggestions that are outside of the purview of a thread would do exactly that. But someone who wants to disrupt would do something more snarky, like what we see here. I encourage you to open your own thread so that your motivations are not subject to question.
Cool, thanks. I’ll respond to the post.
I'll simply note that no one invited me to join this one.
“The triumph of hope over experience.”
OK, it looks like your post, which the Religion moderator said was antagonistic, will survive; so it’s not a waste of my time to respond to it. I’ll try to respond to the actual questions and let the antagonistic tone go by, forgiven.
Provide any contemporary historic source about the life of Jesus outside of the Bible. There are none.
***Well, right off the top of my head, there was a circular letter put out by the Sanhedrin explaining that they killed this man, Jesus for blasphemy. Basically, even Jesus’s ENEMIES acknowledged that he made the claim to be equal with God. There is plenty more evidence, and since you don’t seem to be aware of it, I’ll point you to a few good apologetic books.
Note that the best place to start is right here on Free Republic, where a classic of the literature is being reproduced in whole:
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? (Chapt. 10)
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm ^ | 1959 | F.F. Bruce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1981738/posts
Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14:57 PM by blue-duncan
Then you can click on the “apologetics” keyword and topic index to discover a myriad of choices:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/apologetics-religion/index
In addition, there is the keyword Biblical Archaeology
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/biblicalarchaeology/index?tab=articles
Someone who has been reading through these apologetic resources right here on FR wouldn’t post what you just did. It would behoove you to come up to speed.
Some more books to recommend:
“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“More Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“The Stones and the Scriptures” by Edwin Yamauchi
“Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru” by Buell and Hyde
That’s just a starter. Once you’re up to speed, there’s a few more books to round out the education process on textual criticism and the science behind biblical archaeology and the historicity of Christ.
The first time Christ enters the historic record is 60 to 90 years after his death.
***Nope. Wrong. You’ve got some reading to do. Historians accept the gospels as part of the historical record, so you’re off by an entire generation.
1st Century writers write about Christians and what Christians believe. There are absolutely no contemporaneous records of his life, his writings, his image, his tax records, his execution order or anything.
***This is a very high standard, to throw out all contemporaneous records that are friendly — not one other historical figure would survive such a process in tact, and yet, we would still have Jesus being put to death for Blasphemy as claimed by his Enemies.
All we have is the Bible, is that not enough for you?
***There was a time when it was not enough for me.
Counting the number of manuscripts is “science” that is “sturdy”? You really have absolutely no idea what Science is.
***Looks like maybe you have some reading to do here.
Science is based upon theory and experimentation. Science can be performed upon objects like the Shroud of Turin or a statue of Caesar to see if either object is actually old enough to be contemporaneous, but that is not the same thing at all.
***Exactly. And it is the science behind such things that confirm the gospel records as reliable history. Also, the evidence from the enemies of Christ as well as indifferent sources adds to the scientific weight.
So you not only think Science is Religion, you also think it is History? Anything else you want to throw in there?
***This is classic mind reading, as well as straw argumentation. I can state categorically that what you claim I think is not what I really do think. At this point it bears out that we are spending a lot of attention on something that is outside of the purview of this thread. If you want to continue down this line of discussion, open your own thread on the historicity of Christ and invite me to it.
Or more correctly, "Based on a certain fundamentalist literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, to which I adhere, I believe the world is around 6,000 years old, in spite of the physical evidence."
Most Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2 (and other Scripture) have their roots in the teachings of those coming out of Dallas Seminary (which is Darby/Scofield dispensationalism to the core.)
If you ever decide to expand your horizons, here are some resources:
McGrath (Christian) takes on Dawkins and his religion (Scientism):
Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins By ALISTER McGRATH
This is the best book on the market specifically providing a critique of Richard Dawkins' view that science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, can be used to support atheism. McGrath was himself a committed atheist when he came up to Oxford as a student, before then becoming a Christian. McGrath did a PhD in molecular biophysics before later turning to theology, and is therefore in a strong position to analyse Dawkins' views, which he does carefully and objectively. The philosopher Michael Ruse writes that this is "A wonderful book...This is scholarship as it should be - informed, feisty, and terrific fun. I cannot wait to see Dawkins' review of Alister McGrath's critique". Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, writes: "Wielding evolutionary arguments and carefully chosen metaphors like sharp swords, Richard Dawkins has emerged over three decades as this generation's most aggressive promoter of atheism. In his view, science, and science alone, provides the only rock worth standing on. In this remarkable book, Alister McGrath challenges Dawkins on the very ground he holds most sacred -- rational argument -- and McGrath disarms the master. It becomes readily apparent that Dawkins has aimed his attack at a naive version of faith that most serious believers would not recognize. After reading this carefully constructed and eloquently written book, Dawkins' choice of atheism emerges as the most irrational of the available choices about God's existence.v
I’ll simply note that no one invited me to join this one.
***Please forgive me for overlooking you. As you can see from this post, I asked others to ping anyone whom I forgot.
Coyoteman; js1138; Yomin Postelnik; DaveLoneRanger; Soliton; editor-surveyor; TigersEye
I have mentioned all of you in posts on this thread, so I’m pinging y’all. If I left anyone out, please ping them.
Torah and science work fine for me.
Considering your opening post, that seems like a rather glaring breach of decorum, but I’ll let it go in the interest of civility. What bothers me is that the whole thing looks like an exercice in rhetorical blackmail. If people want to have a civil discussion about certain topics, they have to have it on your terms or they’re not going to have it at all.
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.