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.
Equating science to religion as some sort of perjorative
***That’s where you’re wrong. The aim is to generate civil discussion, not frame the other side in a harsh light.
I DON'T KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
;-)
Why aren’t there more scientists here? Oh, that’s right. They were shown the door.
***If there was this ecumenical tag system in place at the time, they’d still be here.
What’s harsh about it?
Science is about observable facts, the scientific method, and quantifiable things. It’s about evidence and conclusions.
Religion is not about any of those things in a measurable sense. It’s about faith, belief and doctrine.
The two are not contradictory, but they couldn’t be remotely considered the same. If scientism (however you might define that term) is a religion, then everything is.
The disdain this forum has for science is not one of its stronger points.
***Actually, it’s the disdain this forum has for SCIENTISM, not science. I love science. I dislike scientism. But for those who want scientism to be a recognized and protected philosopy/religion/whatever, I’m all for them having access to the ecumenical tag to protect them.
Also, I went through the crevo threads when JimRob was showing some of them the door. Invariably, they weren’t following simple forum guidelines, they were extremely rude and obnoxious, and for the most part they didn’t contribute to conservatism. A few months later there were people saying stuff like, “there was a purge of evolutionists? I didn’t notice.” They didn’t notice because the evolutionists were using this forum as their pet playground to beat up religious conservatives and they rarely ventured out into other threads, giving us the benefit of all of their wisdom.
Free Republic is not a science forum. Right on the front page, JimRob “posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I’m receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps. “
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Note that the Pro-God stuff is what came first. Hard core atheist evolutionists have overlooked that one in the past, to their own detriment it turned out.
All the worlds religions can be boiled down into two religions:
God is sovereign
Man is sovereign (man earns his salvation)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
“And the Weird Light Shines in the Dorks, but the Dorks Don’t Comprehend it
What is reality, anyway? Our paradigmatic science, physics, reduces the world to a few beautiful equations, but the equations don’t tell us how to generate a world with them. In fact, they provide no factual content whatsoever for the world we actually encounter. So which world is the “real” world? The inconceivable quantum world undescribed by physics, the ponderable world we encounter with our senses, or the eternal world known only to the illuminated intellect?
Science is obviously a wonderful tool, but when it is elevated to a metaphysic it is remarkably empty of content and meaning, especially as it pertains to the meaning of our human journey, the Adventure of Consciousness. One of the implications of Gödel’s theorems is that any logical or mathematical system will generate questions that are not answerable within the system. Ironically — or perhaps “cluelessly” is a better word — many postmodernists use Gödel to try to prove that all knowledge is therefore relative, but this was not Gödel’s point at all.
Rather, Gödel ...” ~ Gagdad Bob
Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-weird-light-shines-in-dorks-but.html
Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob] , Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics.
Scientism is, as you say, “ about faith, belief and doctrine.” As such, it deserves its own ecumenical tag so that it can be free of the religious zealots who jump on it.
If scientism (however you might define that term) is a religion, then everything is.
***You’ll need to expand on your reasoning here because it doesn’t really make much sense. 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.
Again, good writing.
“Science is obviously a wonderful tool, but when it is elevated to a metaphysic it is remarkably empty of content and meaning, especially as it pertains to the meaning of our human journey...”
Gagdad Bob sounds familiar. I’m wondering where I ran into him before. I wouldn’t doubt it if he’s a freeper
I agree. Science isn't a religion. It only becomes a philosophy (religion) when scientists, themselves (like Dawkins) attempt to mesh philosophical ideas WITH science. Only then does it become "scientism".
You may have run into him on LGF (Little Green Footballs). He used to post there a lot before he started his own blog.
That makes no sense to me. If a belief in science is a religion, then it means that there is no such thing as a scientific fact, only scientific doctrine or opinion.
2 + 2 = 4, not in any real sense, but only if you believe it and have faith in it? Then perhaps it's equally valid that 2 + 2 = 5, or at least that it's debatable. Maybe it depends where in the world you were raised and in what culture and religion.
What's more realistic is that good science takes religion out of the equation so that people of any religious background can indeed agree that 2 + 2 = 4.
The belief in that doesn't need any ecumenic protection. Perhaps what needed protection were the scientists who were presumed to be atheists because they reached different conclusions based on evidence presented outside of Sunday School class.
Simply because they reached a different conclusion does not mean that their conclusion had anything to do with religion. Science and religion are not the least bit in conflict unless someone wants to pretend that they are.
I know it’s easier on the eyes, but it doesn’t pass the simplicity of use test. When we can copy & paste into MSWORD and back into a post and the italics remain, then I’ll use them. Otherwise, they lose meaning when the information propogates across the internet.
It seems to me that any system of thought that postulates the way to determine truth is “religious” in the senses that it depends on principles that are not empirically verifiable.
Honestly, Kev, I’m not sure why we’re hammering at this issue, it doesn’t seem very important to me.
***Then ignore it. I’m tired of the flame wars on FR, and I see a system in place that can be used to calm down the heated discussion on the crevo threads if that’s what people want.
If there were to be a “science” caucus, who would be in charge of it?
***I dunno. Who’s in charge of the “catholic” caucus or the “protestant” caucus or the jewish one or the mormon one? The Religion Moderator moderates all of them, that’s all I need to know.
If a pro-evolutionist, then the fox would be in charge of the hen house, we’d have allegations of favoritism or elitism or what have you. So also if a creationist were responsible for it.
***I don’t know what the Religion Moderator considers himself to be, but it would fall under his purview unless a completely new tag were developed for crevo threads — which is not what I’m advocating just yet, because I happen to think that scientism is a religion.
And if an unbiased moderator were in charge of the caucus, I would just ask to be added, which by merit of name alone would send the evolutionists into a furor even though I’ve been debating on scientific terms for some time now.
***Best of luck on that, sounds like it would be fun for you.
The evolutionists now have their own province for private discussion on DarwinCentral.
***I agree. And look what a mess that is.
I find it difficult to believe that they are in need of a home for sound discussion on Free Republic, particularly given their allegations that most of the good scientists have been driven away.
***It’s my contention that the good scientists would not have been driven away if there were this ecuminism tag system in place at the time. They would have had to choose to behave themselves.
Here is a copy of a private message I sent to the Religion Moderator a couple of weeks ago:
For what my opinion is worth on this matter of defining crevo threads, it seems that we have two sides ... insisting the mods take their side. Some evolutionists want censorship of any creationist comments as “anti-science” while some creationists want all evolution threads to be placed in the religion forum.
***As far as I can tell, if the thread is opened with a scientism tag and is declared to be a caucus or ecumenical thread, they’d get what they want.
I am of neither opinion. I certainly come down on the side of free discussion.
***I am weary of what takes place on the crevo threads in the guise of free discussion.
I realize that arguments can hijack an otherwise innocent thread because of hostilities and past disputes being carried over, but Free Republic is about nothing if not disagreement, sometimes with high spirits and tempers. (Seems to me the Founding Fathers did their share of bickering over our founding documents...)
***It’s okay to bicker, on an open thread. I, for one, am tired of the bickering.
But obviously when Fox News, CNN, Science, SciAm, et. al. publish articles about evolution as news, they’re worth being put in the news forum. A fossil discovery, for example, is newsworthy, even if interpretations and disagreement over the significance is present.
***Then it should be up to the original poster as to whether it would be open discussion or polite discourse. I find it more educational when discussion is civil.
I don’t know what clout I have as a “lead creationist” on FR, but as a devout Christian and a seasoned crevo thread participant, I see a lose/lose situation taking shape with the two demands being made.
***And yet, you logged onto a scientism ecumenical thread to post what you had to say. And no one can make it personal, like they do on the crevo threads. I see a win/win.
I do not consider the term “scientism” to be a very sound or accurate description of what we’re considering. This term blurs the lines between science and belief (evolution is a belief which subscribers try to prove through science - the distinction is subtle but important) which is exactly what they would have you do, in order to accuse you of being anti-science.
***Then float a better term. On this thread, we’ve seen “Science Faithers” used descriptively. There are others. What do the science faithers say is descriptive of themselves?
If we are trying to demonstrate philosophical underpinnings of evolution, you must refer to naturalism, an idea which I don’t think many evolutionists will deny holding.
***Then we’ll use Naturalism. I don’t have that strong of a preference. I just think they should settle on one so that we can use it as a keyword.
At any rate, the theory of evolution is premised on naturalism, which I suppose could be considered grounds for classifying evolution threads as religious in nature.
***If you can see grounds for “classifying evolution threads as religious in nature” then you should be able to see grounds for allowing the ecumenical tag to be in place, which you have already taken advantage of by posting on this thread. Ironic, huh?
Regardless, I don’t see this discussion leading anywhere productive.
***Most people who feel that way just ignore the thread.
I would join a science caucus, unless it were governed by an evolutionist that would not agree to it, in which case we’d simply be creating a DarwinCentral wing of Free Republic, and I think we’ve already seen that DC and FR do not mix very well.
***I think I see the danger of which you are fearful. If you think a caucus thread should have an open tag then you would be free under the current system to start a thread yourself — with the very same title and subject — that has an open free-for-all tag rather than a closed off caucus tag.
Kevmo: but putting your faith in science is a religion.
Dog: That makes no sense to me
***Then take a look at post #37 in this thread, answer the question. How do you view the future? That’s where your faith lies. It is that element of faith that determines whether you are a believer in scientism, mother nature, God, or whatever.
If a belief in science is a religion, then it means that there is no such thing as a scientific fact, only scientific doctrine or opinion.
***The second part of your sentence does not follow from the first part. Saying it over again does not make it so.
2 + 2 = 4, not in any real sense, but only if you believe it and have faith in it?
***No.
Then perhaps it’s equally valid that 2 + 2 = 5, or at least that it’s debatable. Maybe it depends where in the world you were raised and in what culture and religion.
***No. Your analogy falls flat because it is demonstrable that 2 + 2 = 4. But is it demonstrable that science will find a solution to the energy crisis before civilization crashes from the weight of its own consumerism? No.
What’s more realistic is that good science takes religion out of the equation so that people of any religious background can indeed agree that 2 + 2 = 4.
***I have seen people who call themselves “good scientists” deny HISTORY. What is a historical fact? Did Columbus sail the ocean in 1492? Was Julius Caesar a Roman Commander? Did an obscure carpenter named Jesus get put to death by the Sanhedrin because he claimed to be God Almighty? There’s more evidence for Jesus’s claim than for Columbus’s and Caesar’s, using unambiguous historical SCIENTIFIC approaches. A denial of those approaches is a denial of the science behind it, just so that one can hold onto his or her belief that christianity is borne out of irrationality. What the atheists often try to do at this point is to move to the “just because Jesus might have claimed it, doesn’t mean he IS God.” They conveniently overlook the fact that it is a matter of HISTORY that Christ claimed it.
The belief in that doesn’t need any ecumenic protection. Perhaps what needed protection were the scientists who were presumed to be atheists because they reached different conclusions based on evidence presented outside of Sunday School class.
***Then let them have their protection. Free Republic would be a better place because of it.
Simply because they reached a different conclusion does not mean that their conclusion had anything to do with religion. Science and religion are not the least bit in conflict unless someone wants to pretend that they are.
***That would be a subject outside of the boundaries of the thread that I posted, as far as I can tell.
Here is what the Constitution says about religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Here is what the Constitution says about Science:
The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
We all agree that science is not a religion. It is the FAITH in science that is becoming a religion. The founding fathers don’t have much to say about that because most of them saw it as a narcissistic form of self-worship of mankind, which had zero popularity at the time.
You haven’t really defined what you mean by scientism.
Do you really mean evolutionism?
There are so many true scientific disciplines that do not engender the deep philosophical biases that are usually best described as religion. Do we really want to call them religion? I don’t.
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.