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.
The arguments that belief in ToE is a religion all revolve around the assertion that it is a religion because believing it requires faith, because no one has ever actually seen it happen. You can't have it both ways.
Right now we have a system on FR where members can select a state or national flag to designate which country/state they consider themselves a resident of. Mine is marked "Illinois". If JimRob wants to start a simular system and have members designate what religion they are on their profile, I'd be fine with that too. My religion is Catholic Christian. It is certainly not "scientism" although I certainly believe in evolution, I don't "worship" it.
>> ***Whatever you put your faith in is a religion. If you honestly think the Republicans will carry mankind out of its oncoming problems in the next century then your faith is in republicanism. I happen to think your faith would be misplaced. But since this is an ecumenical thread, antagonism is not allowed and if you wanted to pursue that line of debating, you’d probably need to open your own thread on that subject in the open/non-ecumenical environment. <<
If members want to voluntarily claim their "religion" is "scientism" on FR boards, that's fine with me, although I doubt any more than a few nuts would insist that's their religion. In England, about 60,000 people designated their "religion" as "Jedi" in the country's last last census. If they want to claim they geninuely practice a fictional spirtual method from a 1970s fantasy film, fine by me, but since that's not normally recogized as a serious "religion" with many adherants, there's no point in having people list it along side Christian, Judiasm, etc., except as a write-in by a few loons. Likewise they could write-in their religion as "Republicanism" or "Scientism" on the FR sidebar if they geninuely insist they worship science or the Republican Party all day.
>> ***I have no trouble understanding that. I stated before, which you apparently have trouble reading, that there is a departure point from science and scientism and that is in the area of faith. <<
Believing in evolution doesn't mean my religion is "scientism" anymore than believing the world is round makes your religion "scientism". Have you ever measured the world's circumfence yourself, done tests to determine it's round, observed from space that it's round, or do you place your faith in previously published evidence that the world is round? You clearly accept scientific evidence that the world is round and NOT your religious faith, since there's nothing in the bible stating whether the world is round or flat.
>> ***And such freepers would be welcome on ecumenical threads, with the expectation that they keep things civil. If you have a problem with that, then it’s not much of my concern. <<
I think it's the creationists who have problem keeping things civil on FR. You don't see me saying things like "you can't believe in creationism and call yourself a Republican". A couple of weeks ago, some creationist told me that "All Darwinists believe in the cult of death". Well that would be news to me since I accept the teachings of Darwin and last time I checked, I've always been very pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-euthensienia, etc., and far removed from the "cult of death". You don't think it's uncivil and baseless attacks to paint millions of people who believe in Darwin's publications to be supporters of the "cult of death"? And how about all the Ben Stein threads where they claim science caused the holocaust? How is that keeping things civil? The lead proponent of creationism in this country, William Jennings Bryan, was an avowed socialism, but you don't see people on FR proclaiming that creationism leads to socialism. Ask yourself which side is being uncivil?
>> ***And it was the atheism tag that was first used successfully with this kind of ecumenical back&forth discussion. If the atheists can hold themselves to such a standard, so can the crevo thread participants. Holding ecumenical discussions with atheists who refuse to call themselves atheists is a bit of a challenge, but the system is in place to do so and the same system is available to freepers to help us all reduce the vitrol of crevo flamewars. <<
If people want to voluntarily designate themselves as members of a fictional "scientism" religion on creationist/evolution thread so be it. Like I said, I doubt any freepers will take you up on the offer but for the record I'm fine with having an addition to this forum where members can select their religion from a pull down menu and write-in any additional "religion" not covered by mainstream ones. As for me, I believe in evolution, and I am a proud Christian, and I am tired of creationists insisting that you have to accept the world is 6000 years old or you're not Christian. I know Jesus teachings and he certainly never told his followers "accept the world is 6000 years old or you cannot follow me"
There's no need to get snarky with me is there? If the RMs answer was clear to you then perhaps you can tell me what it means.
...you neglect to consider that no one needs to accept the role that you have pigeonholed them into.
I believe you created that pigeonhole. I didn't call for a category called "Scientism" you did.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
I consider myself (and anyone else who accepts the following) to be a Christian if they can profess a belief in the following:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the on Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father
Light from light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of in being with the Father, through whom all things were made.
For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and by the power of the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary, became man.
For our sake, he crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried.
He rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.
In believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I profess one baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead;
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Note: This is not based on ANY observable evidence of worldly things, but concerns much of what is beyond man's understanding and deals with otherworldly events,
reflecting my personal spirtual beliefs about God and all that is unseen.
SCIENTIFIC BELIEF
I consider myself (and anyone else who accepts the following) to be a supporter of Evolution if they believe life on earth evolved due to the following observable evidence:
Evolution is the likely factor in the changing of life on earth due to the following key observations and inferences drawn from them:
1) Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2) Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3) Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
4) An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
5) In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6) Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7) Much of this variation is inheritable.
8) Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9) The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10) This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.
Notice is simply drawn from what we can observe, see, and measure on earth itself, and has nothing to do with anything written in my religious texts. Although evolution cannot be 100% proven, I think the above evidence argues strongly in favor of the evolutionary theory being the correct basis to explain the origin of species on earth.
Since I use the bible as a guide to faith and morals and do not interpret the text literally as a science textbook (i.e. believing that when it says “you are the salt of the earth”, it means God is telling the read this person is physically made from salt, or when it says Adam died at age 943, it means he lived to be exactly nine hundred and forty-three years by today's calender), I have no problem accepting both of the above beliefs, and feel they deal entirely with different matters. I feel no conflict in being both a Christian and a supporter of evolutionary science.
My religion is Catholic Christian. It is certainly not “scientism” although I certainly believe in evolution, I don’t “worship” it.
***Then, like I said, you should have no trouble with the ecumenical system. No one gets to attack your catholic beliefs in an antagonistic fashion.
If members want to voluntarily claim their “religion” is “scientism” on FR boards, that’s fine with me, although I doubt any more than a few nuts would insist that’s their religion.
***Great. Welcome to the ecumenical threads.
In England, about 60,000 people designated their “religion” as “Jedi” in the country’s last last census. If they want to claim they geninuely practice a fictional spirtual method from a 1970s fantasy film, fine by me, but since that’s not normally recogized as a serious “religion” with many adherants, there’s no point in having people list it along side Christian, Judiasm, etc., except as a write-in by a few loons.
***Well, if those 60,000 loons descended upon Free Republic, we’d be grateful for the ecumenical system that would keep the discussion civil.
Likewise they could write-in their religion as “Republicanism” or “Scientism” on the FR sidebar if they geninuely insist they worship science or the Republican Party all day.
***Now you’re starting to get it.
Believing in evolution doesn’t mean my religion is “scientism” anymore than believing the world is round makes your religion “scientism”.
***Believing in Christ makes you a christian. You’re sorta mixing terminology here. Having faith in science is the departure point between science and scientism. Once you get that straight, it’s easy to see the point of what we’ve been all talking about.
Have you ever measured the world’s circumfence yourself, done tests to determine it’s round, observed from space that it’s round, or do you place your faith in previously published evidence that the world is round?
***I have done the same kind of drill-down with atheists who insist that nothing in history can be counted on. We don’t “really” know that Columbus sailed in 1492 nor that Julius Caesar was a roman general. This kind of situation arises when they realize the historical evidence surrounding the death of Jesus, who was put to death for blasphemy — even his enemies acknowledge the claim. My faith in the historicity of Christ is on the same level as the kind of evidence you cite for the world being round. No, I haven’t seen the actual curvature of the earth, but the evidence is overwhelming.
You clearly accept scientific evidence that the world is round and NOT your religious faith, since there’s nothing in the bible stating whether the world is round or flat.
***That doesn’t make sense.
I think it’s the creationists who have problem keeping things civil on FR.
***Then the same rules apply to those guys and they’ll be held to a higher standard. Should be welcome news all the way around.
You don’t see me saying things like “you can’t believe in creationism and call yourself a Republican”. A couple of weeks ago, some creationist told me that “All Darwinists believe in the cult of death”.
***On THIS thread I had someone tell me that there wasn’t much evidence for my faith in Christ outside of the bible. Everyone is going to go through a learning curve, and the ensuing discussion will be better as a result.
Well that would be news to me since I accept the teachings of Darwin and last time I checked, I’ve always been very pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-euthensienia, etc., and far removed from the “cult of death”.
***Glad to hear it.
You don’t think it’s uncivil and baseless attacks to paint millions of people who believe in Darwin’s publications to be supporters of the “cult of death”?
***Very poor wording. Of course it’s uncivil, and it was the uncivil discourse that led me to this course of action of using ecumenical tags.
And how about all the Ben Stein threads where they claim science caused the holocaust?
***I haven’t been reading them. I don’t have much interest.
How is that keeping things civil?
***If that were taking place on ecumenical threads then I would reconsider my position. But it isn’t. It’s taking place on Open threads.
The lead proponent of creationism in this country, William Jennings Bryan, was an avowed socialism, but you don’t see people on FR proclaiming that creationism leads to socialism. Ask yourself which side is being uncivil?
***This is all just a straw argument. Obviously, both sides are being uncivil. So the ones who prefer civil discourse should have no trouble with the ecumenical tag system on FR.
If people want to voluntarily designate themselves as members of a fictional “scientism” religion on creationist/evolution thread so be it.
***And if they want to do the same for a nonfictional “scientism” I gather you’re okay with that as well.
Like I said, I doubt any freepers will take you up on the offer but for the record I’m fine with having an addition to this forum where members can select their religion from a pull down menu and write-in any additional “religion” not covered by mainstream ones.
***Good.
As for me, I believe in evolution, and I am a proud Christian, and I am tired of creationists insisting that you have to accept the world is 6000 years old or you’re not Christian.
***Then you’ll like this whole ecumenical thread concept. As for me, I don’t believe in evolution; I believe in Christ. I accept the facts that the evolutionary “theory” places its framework upon, but I find some of the conclusions unsupported by the evidence at this time. And in reality, my big problem isn’t with evos as much as it is with the abiogenesis crowd.
I know Jesus teachings and he certainly never told his followers “accept the world is 6000 years old or you cannot follow me”
***Then, again, you’ll like the ecumenical thread concept.
There’s no need to get snarky with me is there? If the RMs answer was clear to you then perhaps you can tell me what it means.
***OK, I’ll drop the snarkiness. This post was a response to #340, where I answered your question. So for you to claim that I didn’t answer your question was enveloping the conversation into snarky-land. However, if you’re talking about some other question that you asked the RM, then you’ll need to let us know which question & answer you’re talking about. I share the same frustration with you about cryptic responses from the RM.
I believe you created that pigeonhole. I didn’t call for a category called “Scientism” you did.
***I called for the category, but that doesn’t mean that anyone needs to fulfill the “role” of token scientism believer. I can see that several people are having trouble with the whole concept, so an illustration is in order:
In the 12 step program of Al-Anon, many newcomers have real trouble calling their family member an “alcoholic” because of the stigma attached to the “title”. So they’re encouraged to use whatever “title” they want, whether it’s “problem drinker” or “token idiot” or whatever. As long as the problem drinker’s BEHAVIOR is affecting that family member, it DOESN’T MATTER what title is attributed to them if you just keep working the program. Eventually one sees that every successful member of al-anon gave up that resistance to using the obviously applicable “title” and the formerly held position simply gets abandoned. Of course, the alcoholic is the biggest resistor to the “title” but if the family continues to work their program, the actual behavior is what gets dealt with and the title issue becomes irrelevant. The big blue elephant in the living room that no one is talking about is alcoholism for family members; here on FR the elephant is the vitriol on the crevo threads.
bmflr
Actually, that might improve things here when creationists accuse supporters of evolution of being "agnostists", "athesists", "scientism" and "new age" when their profile clearly states their ACTUAL religion.
Then the mods would be more justified in banning people for trolling and flaming when insist anyone who disagrees the world is over 6000 years old is "not a Christian"
I don't know what "bmflr" means.
>>> ***Then, like I said, you should have no trouble with the ecumenical system. No one gets to attack your catholic beliefs in an antagonistic fashion. <<
I don't usually participate in these threads, so I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. Your original post asked whether we should we consider "scientism" to be a religion here on FR. Right now we do not have a method for listing a member's religion on FR unless they write something up in their profile or posts and reveal that information.
If you're suggesting we should have a feature on FR where members can VOLUNTARILY "select" their OWN religion from a pull down menu and always have themselves identified as "Christian - Methodist", "Judiasm - Orthodox" or "Other -Scientism" when they post, then I'm fine with that.
On the other hand, if you think FR should have the ablity to take poster's thread with a title like "New Evidence Suggests Neanderthal Man was in North America" and have it INVOLUNTARILY placed in a section labeled "Scientism Beliefs Threads" where anyone who posts there is labeled a member of "Scientism", I must adamently disagree with your cause and consider it a stealth method to force all of us who believe in Evolution to have our religion labeled as "Scientism", regardless of our acutal beliefs.
>> I haven’t seen the actual curvature of the earth, but the evidence is overwhelming. <<
I haven't seen actual evolution take place, but I believe the fossile record is overwheming. I don't think that mean my religion is "Scientism" or that I worship science and believe it is the answer to all things.
>> ***That doesn’t make sense. <<
It makes perfect sence. You place your FAITH in science (due to the evidence being overwheming, and despite having NOT tested it yourself to confirm with your own "proof") that the world is round. You don't read the bible to determine the world is round, you simply ACCEPT what most scientists have published on the matter. I do likewise with evoluton. Neither one of us is a member of the "scientism" religion because we accept science has legitimate answers a certain field of study.
>>> And how about all the Ben Stein threads where they claim science caused the holocaust? ***I haven’t been reading them. I don’t have much interest. <<
The Ben Stein threads about his movie "No Intellience Allowed" have been the only "crevo" threads I've bothered to participate in (where Ben Stein and his fans have been very uncivil and basically said "Darwinists" are all card-carrying athetists and the evolutionary theory is the cause of all evil in the world), so you'll have to excuse me for not being famular with the "ecumencial" threads.
I generally don't post in the religion threads except to keep up on the ongoing meltdown of the Anglician church over their gay bishop, and to encourage anglicians who now feel they are without a religion to consider rejoining the Catholic church (of course I'm biased, I'm a Catholic)
I generally don't post in techno-heavy threads about new science breakthroughs either, except on the stem-cell stuff and the fact I'm a huge Michael Critchon fan and keep up with his efforts to debunk Global Warming.
So I guess that makes me a rookie on these "ecumencial" threads.
>> Believing in Christ makes you a christian. You’re sorta mixing terminology here. Having faith in science is the departure point between science and scientism <<
Ah, that's where I disagree with you here. I don't think professing a belief in Christ as your savior makes one a Christian and I don't think professing a belief in Science as the answer makes one a member of the "scientism" religion. I spelled out very clearly on post #404 what my personal stardards are for considering someone a "Christian" and someone a believer in Evolution.
For instasnce, the Muslims say Christ is a prophet and their savior but I sure as heck don't consider them "Christian". I've also been called a bigot on FR for stating that Mormons are not Christian (though I think most of them are very good devout people and I have no problem with them personally) For me, a Christian is someone who will accept the profession of faith laid out in the nicene creed, a doctrine agreed upon by all early Christians that has been accepted by all mainstream Christians, probably 90% of self-proclaimed Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) for 1600 years as the basic beliefs of the Christian faith.
>> ***This is all just a straw argument. Obviously, both sides are being uncivil. So the ones who prefer civil discourse should have no trouble with the ecumenical tag system on FR. <<
Others have alledged on this thread that your purpose here is simply to try and force anyone who believes in evolution to be labeled as a member of the "Scientism" religion on FR. The very title of this thread does seem to have an intent to bait people and that is why some have choosen not to participiate. If you make it clear that you have no problem accepting many of us us who DO believe in evolution ARE good, practicing Christians and NOT members of the "scientism" religion, I will consider your proposal more seriously, and apologize for my comments accusing you of other motives.
That's very ecumenical of you.
This post was a response to #340, where I answered your question.
Post #340 didn't involve you in any way. ???
So for you to claim that I didn’t answer your question was enveloping the conversation into snarky-land.
I didn't claim you didn't answer a question in any recent post that I can see. Are you the RM? Is that why you have gotten confused on these points?
However, if you’re talking about some other question that you asked the RM, then you’ll need to let us know which question & answer you’re talking about. I share the same frustration with you about cryptic responses from the RM.
I was referring to post #347. It raises more questions than it answers IMO. But my point to you was how my entire exchange on this thread demonstrates the one-sidedness of the ecumenical thread system. If you disagree with that then fine. There's no point in going back an forth on that. Others can decide for themselves what to think.
If we're talking about believing in evolution as a denominational or personal difference among people of different faiths or denominations (including atheists and agnostics) then I believe the proper term for it in a theological context is "schism". Kevmo rejects outright any consideration of it on those terms.
Considering it a religion by itself, separate and apart from Christianity or any other faith is the exclusionary approach - it justifies and provides a tacit agreement that the arguments that you cannot believe in evolution and call yourself a Christian are valid. Christians are not polytheistic.
Post #340 didn’t involve you in any way. ???
***Sorry about the typo. The thread branches from post #348.
I was referring to post #347.
***So it looks like both of us were on the wrong page.
It raises more questions than it answers IMO. But my point to you was how my entire exchange on this thread demonstrates the one-sidedness of the ecumenical thread system. If you disagree with that then fine. There’s no point in going back an forth on that. Others can decide for themselves what to think.
***I have gathered that a lot of the usual participants in crevo threads are going to have a learning curve experience in using ecumenical tags. The end result is going to be (and already is) a more civil discussion.
I don’t know what “bmflr” means. .... so I’m not sure exactly what you’re proposing here.... If you’re suggesting we should.... On the other hand, if you think FR should have....Others have alledged on this thread
***It is customary in all of Free Republic to READ THE THREAD before you go off commenting, especially before you go off accusing someone of something that’s already been dealt with in the thread. You’ve demonstrated a very selective reading and that makes me very wary of engaging with you on any discussion. So, if you want me to respond to your post, you’ll go to the Freeper Lexicon thread and look up BMFLR. In addition, you’ll need to familiarize yourself with RTFAB4UP. Then, once you remove the stuff from your post that’s been asked&answered, what will be left?
then I believe the proper term for it in a theological context is “schism”.
***And I believe that’s not the proper term — especially when we look up the definition of schism.
Kevmo rejects outright any consideration of it on those terms.
***Because the definition does not apply. Maybe we should consider “Scientischism”.
Considering it a religion by itself, separate and apart from Christianity or any other faith is the exclusionary approach
***We’re not excluding anybody, so the approach cannot be determined to be exclusionary.
- it justifies and provides a tacit agreement that the arguments that you cannot believe in evolution and call yourself a Christian are valid.
***No it does not. In all ecumenical threads, if your religion exists then you get to open a thread under that tag. So catholics, baptists, mormons, buddhists, and even atheists are allowed to use the system. If anyone has been exclusionary it is the ecumenical system up to this point. Now scientischismists have their own tag and can access the ecumenical system. If you’re catholic and someone has posted a mormon ecumenical thread, you’re allowed to participate in that thread. But if it’s a caucus thread, you’re not allowed. All these folks who are christians would not be invited onto a scientischismist caucus thread — which sounds like it would be really a rare event because the supposition is that there are very few scientischismists around. All of this discussion is starting to become a smokescreen because you just dislike this course of events and we’re into the nitpicking phase of how participants express their displeasure.
Do the Religion Moderators have any objection to characterizing belief in Old Earth theories or Evolution as schism?
Beliefs that are spawned from other beliefs, whatever they might be, can be considered a “religion” for purposes of theological debate.
Maybe we should consider “Scientischism”.
***Or Scienchism
Can they be considered "schism" for purposes of theological debate?
Like the term “cult” - “schism” is in the eye of the beholder. So claim “schism” if you wish. If others disagree with you, they will speak up.
As long as we’re nailing down sematics, is “religion” in the eye of the beholder?
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.