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.
Try not to remain stuck. Use the latest definition provided and, if you cannot, then start your own thread. The definition you’re holding onto is loaded, which causes freepers to question motives on an ecumenical thread. Antagonism is not allowed, so use the right definition.
Palo Alto, CA.
www.pbc.org
I used the definition you provided.
I also use the definition provided by Scripture.
it’s all the moderator’s fault?
***Umm, no. JimRob took notice of the level of invective and started paying attention to the crevo threads and removed a bunch of offenders, just like he did a couple of years earlier when he sent a bunch of 6-day creationists out the door. So, it was the participants’ fault. However, if the offenders had been operating in such a manner all along, it would have been the moderator’s duty to draw the line.
Ah, it does sound familiar.
I’m afraid that people mistook the [ecumenical thread] tag for the [barroom brawl] tag.
Alas!
Who gets to determine what the “right” definition is?
I used the definition you provided. I also use the definition provided by Scripture.
***Well, since the moderator determined that some of what you said was antagonistic, and I’m the one who started this thread, I’ll posit that I’m the one who determines what the “right” definition is. If you don’t agree with that, start your own thread with your own definition. Your penchant for loaded definitions is contrary to the stated goals of an ecumenical thread. Also, since you claim to be willing to use the definition I provide, then use the definition I provide. Stubborn clinging to loaded definitions is the sign of a disruptor.
None of the people who engaged in vitriol and invective on those threads bear any personal responsibility for the way they turned out?
Not used to ecumenical threads. Apparently taking issue with peoples stance is “antagonism” rather than just “personal antagonism” which is verboten on open threads.
Allowed on open but not on ecumenical because it is antagonistic: “Your position is ignorant because...”
Not allowed on open: “You are ignorant because...”
I like FR threads because I don't go for the personal attacks, but enjoy thrashing out (even with “gasp!” antagonism!) peoples positions and why they believe what they believe.
If FR makes Science threads ecumenical what is acceptable?
“I respect your position that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do not believe that there is any Scientific evidence for it, so saying that a young Earth is supported by Science would, in my opinion, be incorrect.”
Would that be acceptable? Or is that antagonistic?
an·tag·o·nism (n-tg-nzm)
n.
1. Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. See Synonyms at enmity.
2. The condition of being an opposing principle, force, or factor: the inherent antagonism of capitalism and socialism.
3. Biochemistry Interference in the physiological action of a chemical substance by another having a similar structure.
According to Deff #1 any opposition that results in hostility (deserved or not) would be antagonistic. So people can only agree with each other?
Faith: belief without proof.
Is that a “loaded” definition? If so why did you provide it?
Is the Biblical definition also a loaded definition?
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Is there a standard theological definition of “Scientism”?
“I respect your position that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but I do not believe that there is any Scientific evidence for it, so saying that a young Earth is supported by Science would, in my opinion, be incorrect.”[excerpt]I believe that is acceptable.
And as I keep telling you, move on to the latest definition. Stop being a disruptor on this ecumenical thread.
Of course they do. There’s plenty of blame for everyone involved.
Is there a standard theological definition of “Scientism”?
***I don’t know. For purposes of our discussion on this thread, we’re using what was posted on #47:
Science is not a religion, but putting your faith in science is a religion. It’s that faith element that is the point of departure between science and scientism.
You’re smarter than the average bear, Yogi.
Is there any theistic component or requirement for the term "faith"? In some respects, you put your faith in science everytime you get on an elevator or an airplane.
Do you accept any of it?
Is there any theistic component or requirement for the term “faith”? In some respects, you put your faith in science everytime you get on an elevator or an airplane.
***As far as I can tell, no, there’s no theistic component. See post #38 for my perspective. Did you read the thread before you started posting?
Some folks can’t see a distinction between faith and confidence.
I have confidence that a bridge will hold me because I have seen others drive over it. After I have driven over it a number of times, my confidence is increased.
I have confidence in the opinions and statements of certain people due to experience. My level of trust depends on my overall experience with individuals.
The word “faith,” in the context of discussions of science, does not refer to confidence and trust based on experience. It specifically refers to belief in supernatural causation. Same for “religion.”
Like I said, there’s plenty of blame for everyone involved. Feel free to look through how involved I was and measure out a proportional weight of the blame on me.
While you’re at that task, look where I started posting on crevo threads, and why I avoided them for so long. During that time of avoidance (due to the level of invective) I carry zero blame for how the discussion spiraled downward. As far as I can tell, most of the evolutionists who were dismissed by JimRob were ousted during a time when I was only lurking on crevo threads.
Oh, and answer this question: How many lurkers like me do you think there are for all the posters on those threads? One indicator is how many views of the threads there are compared to how many posts.
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.