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.
TigersEye: "That's true and I stand by that. The statement I disputed is incorrect."
To be consistent, you would therefore have to say that the statement below is "ignorant" and "incorrect":
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ..."
Most creationists actually win scientific debates against evolutionists, and very few evolutionists will now subject their views to debate. I’d encourage you to research the issue, as it is compelling.
The adherents to evolutionism include many militants who definitely accept Darwinism by faith and go haywire like a Mooney being decultified when challenged by valid counterarguments.
That said, I wouldn’t call it scientism, as in truth, their religion is the opposite of real science. They have a closed minded and one sided dogmatic allegiance to a pseudo science that refuses to allow them to consider any alternatives. When they lose on science they take to personally maligning or otherwise attacking their opponets. I’d specify that their religions are Darwinism, Algorism, Fakegaygeneism, etc., but not sciencism, because they are against science (maybe anti-logism).
“Scientism” (not “sciencism”) is a completely distinct concept from “science.” Scientism is the philosophical or ideological belief that only those things which can be measured by science actually exist.
Baloney!
In #321 I wrote: To be consistent, you would therefore have to say that the statement below is “ignorant” and “incorrect”:
“...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...” bttt
In #325 you replied: “Baloney!”
But how can you say that when you don’t believe in the One called, “THEIR Creator” mentioned above?:
In #315 you said: “..there are no external self-existent gods in the Buddhist view.”
Seriously, it could be better that we don’t give them a name even remotely related to science. It could bolster their image of legitimacy, when they have none. I’d call them the Fake Scientists, but that sounds more like a British rock group than anything else.
As I see it the DoI is even better supported by the Buddhist view as our Founders expressed the idea that liberty is an already existing state, a condition of life itself, that man had only to realize through his own efforts not create. ie we are endowed with liberty by virtue of being alive but preserving, defending and actualizing it through the pursuit of happiness and free expression require the efforts of man.
The Founders were devising a means to protect men from government, which itself is a means of protecting men from men, in order to clear a path, free of secular obstacles like physical attack and legal entanglements, to live the in-born liberty that is our right. Buddhist practice is a means of clearing the path of mental and emotional obstructions to living freely. Or, more accurately, seeing things as they are, freely, without obstruction.
I have never heard the term 'nirvana' used in the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism but 'liberation' is used quite frequently. Like the liberty guaranteed by our Constitution, liberation is not something given or earned. It is not something that once found cannot be lost. (To avoid dispute on this point it is not "found" by going anywhere to "get" it or by having anyone "give" it to you. Both liberty and liberation are "found" by realizing it is your right to be free and acting on that understanding. It is "lost" in the same way by forgetting or neglecting to act on that truth.) Like the secular liberty the DoI invokes and the Constitution defends liberation is an ongoing process of being free of artificially imposed constraints and working to remain in that state. In the case of government the constraints are externally imposed. In the case of mind the constraints are created and imposed by mind itself in mind itself and on mind itself.
Happy Independence Day, Matchett-PI. It's a good day to celebrate being born free in a country founded on the principle that government exists only to defend our liberty and that government has no right to exist except by the consent of the governed.
Now I need to go exercise my liberty by combusting some charcoal, scorching some carcinogens into some BBQ chicken and hot dogs and abusing my digestive system with 100% animal based nutrition, a lime daiquiri and more cigarettes. I should have bought a cigar for the day but that's OK. Every day is a good day to celebrate being an American.
Seriously, we're going to start from the premise that science is not a religion, and proceed directly to deciding who is and isn't a scientist according to their theology?
So your creator is part of you and everything else and as such he doesn't stand outside his creation?
That's one clever way to jettison the Gospel - just get rid of "sin" and voila! there goes the need for a sinless Saviour. And even if sin exists it's part of your creator, and the idea of your creator being saved from sin is silly. :)
Which of these "schools of belief" - Pantheism, Panentheism, Cosmotheism, Pandeism, or? - do you embrace, may I ask?
Our nation's creed, The Pledge of Allegiance, sums up our way of life and it's based on a three-legged stool of God, liberty, and justice. All three must be there. If God is not there, ethics and rights are defined by whoever has the most power. And in order to have liberty, we must have justice. The first role of government is to prevent evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17) so that the rest of society can live in peace. Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
"Evil" means different things to the different "schools" of Buddhism. What standard do you use to determine which one of the schools and which "teacher" has the right definition? For instance, some schools think it's "evil" if any sentient being is harmed. That's why that particular school makes sure all the earth worms are individually picked out of the soil before any construction can take place.
Relative truth (phenomena) arises together with Absolute truth (dharmakaya).
That's one clever way to jettison the Gospel - just get rid of "sin" and voila! there goes the need for a sinless Saviour. And even if sin exists it's part of your creator, and the idea of your creator being saved from sin is silly. :)
There is no intent to jettison anything except ignorance of the true nature of reality. "Sin" is a part of the duality of Relative reality. There is no duality in Absolute reality. Trying to describe Buddhist cosmology in Judeo/Christian cosmological terminology is silly. The conceptual basis for each is different so the conceptual terms used to elaborate on each of them are not interchangeable.
Which of these "schools of belief" - Pantheism, Panentheism, Cosmotheism, Pandeism, or? - do you embrace, may I ask?
I thought I already answered that; Tibetan Buddhism.
I have heard the term "Pantheism" but I don't really know enough about it to say what it is. I have never heard the terms "Panentheism," "Cosmotheism" or "Pandeism" so I can't say anything about them. Since there is not a God or gods (other than the gods and demi-gods of the god and demi-god realms which are types of sentient beings not deities) any form of theism is something other than Buddhism. Why do you ask?
Absolutely.
The first role of government is to prevent evil
As I said "The Founders were devising a means to protect men from government, which itself is a means of protecting men from men, in order to clear a path, free of secular obstacles like physical attack and legal entanglements,..."
Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
That is just plain ridiculous.
"Evil" means different things to the different "schools" of Buddhism.
Not that I have ever heard. All schools of Buddhism derive from the teachings of the Buddha. Different approaches to teaching are not the same thing as different doctrinal interpretations. The Buddha taught the "three baskets" himself and explained the reason for different approaches as meeting the needs of people of differing capacities. Superficially these differing approaches appear contradictory in some ways but ultimately they are not.
For instance, some schools think it's "evil" if any sentient being is harmed.
I don't know of any school of Buddhism that does not consider killing sentient beings to be negative and karma producing.
No, just those who try to stifle debate and expression of facts that don’t conform to their agenda and demand dogmatic allegiance to their side. That’s something most evoluts do and what few creationists would never attempt to.
So who gets to decide which ones are doing that?
Do you have a source for that? I don't think I've ever seen Communist or Nazi accounts of Creation.
I asked, because you continue to insist that Buddhism isn't a religion, yet you've never heard of those terms I mentioned. One of the most ancient man-centered religions is Polytheism.
Polytheism is belief in or worship of multiple deities. The word comes from the Greek words poly theoi, literally "many gods." ..In polytheistic belief, gods are perceived as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories. These gods are not always portrayed in mythology as being omnipotent or omniscient; rather, they are often portrayed as similar to humans (anthropomorphic) in their personality traits, but with additional individual powers, abilities, knowledge or perceptions.
As I said. There are only two religions when they're all boiled down to their essence; the "real" and the "counterfeit".
"I am convinced that the destruction of transcendence is the actual amputation of human beings from which all other sicknesses flow. Robbed of their real greatness they can only find escape in illusory hopes.... The loss of transcendence evokes the flight to utopia." --Pope Benedict
Counterfeit money can only be created if the real thing exists somewhere. Thus, all of this spiritual funny money must have its analogue in real bankable truths.
"Be lamps unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge.... Work out your own salvation with diligence" (Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2.33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon)
"Schuon coined the term "realization" to describe a "pernicious error" which nevertheless "seems to be axiomatic with the false gurus of the East and West"; specifically, the claim that "only 'realization' counts and that 'theory' is nothing, as if man were not a thinking being and as if he could undertake anything whatsoever without knowing where he was going.
"False masters speak readily of 'developing latent energies'; now one can go to hell with all the developments and all the energies one pleases; it is in any case better to die with a good theory than with a false 'realization.' What the pseudo-spiritualists lose sight of only too easily is that... 'there is no right superior to that of the truth.'”
"It goes without saying that I prefer the most narrow-minded of Catholics -- if he is pious -- to these pseudo-Hinduists, arrogant and permanently damaged as they are. They scorn the religious point of view, which they do not understand in the least and which alone could save them. One sometimes hates what one needs the most."
"And what can one say about the infinite naivete of believing that a method of meditation suffices 1) to change man and 2) to change humanity, hence politics as well?" ~ Schuon
TigersEye: "I don't know of any school of Buddhism that does not consider killing sentient beings to be negative and karma producing."
So killing an earthworm is the same as murdering 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.