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.
Nirvana is not salvation it is just a POV. In reality there is nothing to be “saved” from. It is ignorance of that that the practitioner is seeking to realize. Nirvana is not even considered the ultimate realization in Buddhism.
A religion? I don't think it's even a word.
Then properly considered, "Scientism" is only applicable to people who self-profess a religious belief in science. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually do that.
Then use whatever word suits your fancy.
But if they agree to discuss the issue in the Religion forum under a "Scientism" tag in order to escape the vitriol it will be taken as a tacit agreement that it is their religion.
Then properly considered, “Scientism” is only applicable to people who self-profess a religious belief in science. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone actually do that.
***I have seen it. They just don’t know that they’ve self-professed such a belief and when they’re confronted with it, they backtrack — but not because they don’t believe it, it’s because they don’t want to acknowledge they believe it. Faith in science is no more than faith in man’s knowledge, so it’s properly considered a form of secular humanism. Currently, the “atheism” tag is used as a caucus/ecumenical tag on Free Republic, so a SecularHumanism/Scientism/Naturalism/Evolutionism/Whateverism tag would be appropriate to facilitate calm discussion.
How about plain old 'science'? Which isn't a religion at all.
Okay, now you're telling me that you know what other people's religious beliefs are better than they do. I believe if you had said that explicitly to someone it would be considered "mind reading". It appears you trying to accomplish implicitly what is not permitted explicitly.
How about plain old ‘science’? Which isn’t a religion at all.
***You answer your own question — because it isn’t a religion at all, so it wouldn’t be suitable as a religion tag on Free Republic. So how about a better suggestion?
Do you also disparage and refuse to accept the definition of faith provided by Scripture?
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
I’m not “mind reading” you, I’m “mind-reading” someone else from the past, and when I have been given the chance to drill down, they do expressly admit that their faith is not in any god, it is in science itself.
Then why have you refered to people who question evolution as "cretards" on your other forum?
How many of these people can you remember, individually? So far we have one unidentified person. Is this person even still an active member? If we created such a tag in Religion how many posters on FR do you think there are who would self-profess a religious belief in science and actually belong in those threads by virtue of their own professed religious beliefs?
My understanding of your position is that science doesn’t need affirmative action, but religion does.
By your own admission you are mind reading others.
I’m not “mind reading” you, I’m “mind-reading” someone else from the past, and when I have been given the chance to drill down, they do expressly admit that their faith is not in any god, it is in science itself.
That seems to me to be inconsistent with your previous complaint about someone mind reading you.
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.
I could not disagree more. "In the beginning God created..." Before the Big Bang theory scientists believed in an eternal universe. Big Bang theory says there was a singular beginning to space and time which is absolutely in line with scripture. Atheists were very much against the theory untill the evidence became overwhelming.
I really don't understand fellow Christians having a problem with what may be the single most important physical evidence pointing to a Creator. The Big Bang is a problem for the atheist position.
It would help a lot if Kev would simply link to an instance where a believer in scientism admitted that science is a religion.
I will certainly accept as fact that evolution is frequently called a religion on this forum, but I can’t recall any evilutionist accepting that characterization, or accepting the notion that evolution includes supernatural causes in its explanations.
SO then you retract the definition of faith that you provided? In toto or in part?
***The Dictionary.com mention was a REFERENCE to prove that “Trading in one term that sounds just like another doesn’t mean much to me”:
People like me have CONFIDENCE in Science based, tentatively, upon the preponderance of evidence. ***Than shall we use the term Science-confident? Trading in one term that sounds just like another doesn’t mean much to me. They’re all about the same. Dictionary.com
When the time came for me to “Provide” a definition, I PROVIDED one and you have refused to use it.
Do you also disparage and refuse to accept the definition of faith provided by Scripture? “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
*** I do not disparage the definition of faith as provided by Scripture. The scriptural definition of faith is good and useful for comparing scripture to scripture. None of what we’ve been discussing in terms of scientism rises to the level of scripture, so the scriptural definition wouldn’t be as useful as an unloaded one from Dictionary.com.
I do find you to be a disruptive influence on this ecumenical thread and I am asking you to leave. Your tactics are more suited for open threads. If you like, feel free to open a thread just like this one with your own definition of faith or whatever. Best of luck.
Faith: belief without proof
Or the definition provided by Scripture which is...
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
What definition do you find acceptable then?
How many of these people can you remember, individually? So far we have one unidentified person. Is this person even still an active member?
***I can recall 2 people individually; both were face-to-face encounters.
If we created such a tag in Religion how many posters on FR do you think there are who would self-profess a religious belief in science and actually belong in those threads by virtue of their own professed religious beliefs?
***As many as want protection from religious zealots. So far I count three in the threads I’ve been involved in (who want such protection), and none of those would admit that their chosen belief system is SecularHumanism/evolutionism/scientism/naturalism/whateveritism. Before the purge of evolutionists on FR, there would have been more. There are tons of them over at Darwin Central, so in effect they already have what they want. What I want, and why I push this subject, is a reduction in acrimony on the crevo threads. Like I said, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
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.