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.
What was it you found attractive about that particular term?
***I dunno. Like I posted before, I would have used Scientology but it was taken. Scientrilogy sounds almost like Scientology so it could be a reverse play on Scientology with a hint of self-deprecating humor. Naturalism seems to be the term that strikes the least amount of discord, so I’d be fine with that term. As I’ve said, I don’t have a strong preference about what term is used. It simply doesn’t matter to me that much. Having a tag to use is what matters.
Will the ones who want to call it a duck stay on the duck threads and leave the non-duck treads alone?
***If those are the rules that the Duckhood Moderator has decided to enforce, then, yes.
So far all of your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that the Scientism tag is already a given.
Can you give me any stardard reference on theology that lists "Scientism" as a religion?
Kevmo: Basically, if we turn the question around and ask why would it NOT be treated as a religion, we see little practical benefit from that perspective so it’s a green light to use the ecumenical tag system.
Tlogic: And you believe you can do this fairly without implicitly telling them they have no right to claim whatever religious beliefs they do profess?
***JimRob doesn’t care that much about fairness. And I think this whole fairness issue is just a smokescreen, a red herring. No one will be “telling them they have no right to claim whatever religious beliefs they do profess”. If that happens, I’m certain the religion Mod will remove such comments. Sounds fair enough to me.
So far all of your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that the Scientism tag is already a given.
***My arguments aren’t based upon it being a given, my arguments are mostly based upon observations that it operates as a religion. But you don’t accept those observations, so the discussion tends to move towards the practical end of how it will actually be dealt with.
Can you give me any stardard reference on theology that lists “Scientism” as a religion?
***I don’t need to, for purposes of our discussion. That is, unless that’s part of the criteria that the religion moderator comes up with to determine whether or not the ecumenical tag will be allowed. If that is the case then I’ll expend some effort in that direction. In the meantime, it strikes me as a waste of my time so I have no intention of looking into it.
But whatever religious beliefs they do profess will be deemed irrelevant for the purposes of determining if the belong the the religion of "Scientism".
Can you tell me the the theological differences between believers of "Scientism", and what adherents of YEC Creationism would describe simply as "infidels"?
Kevmo: No one will be “telling them they have no right to claim whatever religious beliefs they do profess”.
Tlogic: But whatever religious beliefs they do profess will be deemed irrelevant for the purposes of determining if the belong the the religion of “Scientism”.
***No.
Can you tell me the the theological differences between believers of “Scientism”, and what adherents of YEC Creationism would describe simply as “infidels”?
***Probably, but it simply wouldn’t matter. If there’s some kind of discussion about that type of thing on an ecumenical thread, the mod will help keep it civil and that’s what I want. This little side issue is most likely not going to be a dealbreaker for the religion moderator. My read on ecumenical threads is that no one gets to call another an infidel, but that is up to the moderator, not up to me.
How can it not matter? You want an ecumenical thread labeled "Scientism", and "Scientism" treated as a religion. Then you submit that discussing the theological aspects of this "religion" and how it compares to other religions is irrelevant.
Is there anyone other than those who profess a belief in YEC Creationism who is not a candidate to be label a follower of "Scientism"?
How can it not matter? You want an ecumenical thread labeled “Scientism”, and “Scientism” treated as a religion. Then you submit that discussing the theological aspects of this “religion” and how it compares to other religions is irrelevant.
***Because my interest, as far as this thread is concerned, is in whether we get to use such a tag. If you REALLY think it matters, ask JimRob to post it as a poll or something. If you review my posting history, you’ll find a relative absence of posts on theological/philosophical discussions because I don’t have much interest in such things. So, go ahead, knock yourself out and find some people to discuss this big issue with, right here on FR. I wil experience MEGO and lose interest in that topic, just as happened right here on this thread when the finer points of Bhuddism were discussed. So, if this really does matter to you, start doing something about it. It really does matter to me that the crevo threads degenerate into mud, so I’ve done something about it.
Is there anyone other than those who profess a belief in YEC Creationism who is not a candidate to be label a follower of “Scientism”?
***Absolutely. Well, at least I think so, if I read your question as it appears to be intended which is “are there any others besides YEC’s who think there are followers of Scientism around?” or something like that. To start off with, I count myself in that group, so I can say, yes, Absolutely. I would suggest that most who have struggled with the issues that Alamo Girl & Betty Boop bring up in their book would be counted in that category as well.
Then why the interest in whether "Scientism" is a religion? Why would we agree to consider Scientism a religion, without any theological reference or basis for making that determination?
***Absolutely. Well, at least I think so, if I read your question as it appears to be intended which is “are there any others besides YEC’s who think there are followers of Scientism around?”
No, I meant it exactly as asked. Who, besides YEC Creationists are not candidates for being labeled followers of "Scientism"? At what point does believing that the account of Creation in Genesis, or the age of the Earth based on the genealogical record of the Bible is not literally correct, based on the physical evidence stop being a doctrinal difference among various denominations, and become a religion all by itself?
Then why the interest in whether “Scientism” is a religion?
***Because, with this ecumenical tag system in place, there is now a way to have civil discussions on these crevo issues.
Why would we agree to consider Scientism a religion, without any theological reference or basis for making that determination?
***You can go on all you want about it, and discuss it with others until your fingers are raw. For purposes of the discussion on this thread, if such discussion generates a real reference or standard by which FR can gauge whether something is a religion, then I might be interested. I do not have confidence that such a thing will happen. Also, for purposes of our discussion, we would need the religion moderator to publish their criteria for determining if something is a religion, and that has not happened. Any basis of determination would heavily reside in what the religion mod thinks, so we’re at an impasse without such a published criteria. And while the philosophers are at this impasse, we freepers who are interested in civil discussion on crevo threads are allowed to proceed forth with the ecumenical tag and have moderated discussions.
No, I meant it exactly as asked.
No, I meant it exactly as asked.
***Then your question doesn’t make sense and would only cover some minor minutiae anyways.
I think it is clear now from my experience on this thread that the ecumenical thread system doesn’t work. I asked for a little help and the answer I got made it even more confusing as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. I don’t know how you can expect it to work for “Scientism” when no one will accept that role. The reasons they won’t should now be very obvious.
For purposes of serious theological discussion, it's way better than "because Kevmo and some of his friends said so." Personally, I'm finding your arguments rather curious. You claim no particular interest in theology. You say you're only interested in having a tag with that label you can use for starting "civil" threads, but you resist at every turn any discussion or consideration that what we're talking about might more accurately be call "schism" - you are absolutely convinced and will accept no suggestion that it is anything except a religion, to be considered separate and apart from all others. A definitevly theological position from someone who claims no interest in theology.
My scientific belief is in evolution, and my religious belief is Catholic Christian. I was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic Christian, and raised to believe in the science of evolution. They are entirely different things. One deals with earthly matters that can be seen and observed and the other deals with spiritual matters pertaining to faith and morals.
I have no problem accepting both a belief in both Jesus Christ as my savior and in traditional evolutionary theory as a method in which life on earth changed over the eons.
Believing in modern science is no more a "religion" than listing my citizenship as "American" or my political party as "Republican" is a type of religion. They are completely unrelated things, something Kevmo apparently has trouble understanding.
You can ask anyone else on FR who believes in evolution what their religion is and I'm sure they will be happy to tell you. If they are indeed "atheists" (which I doubt more than a handful are), I'm sure they will have no problem admitting that either.
And I think it is clear that the system does work. I can’t help if you get confused by the answer. When you say, “I don’t know how you can expect it to work for “Scientism” when no one will accept that role” you neglect to consider that no one needs to accept the role that you have pigeonholed them into. We can use the tag and the ecumenical system regardless of whether anyone accepts the role. Eventually someone will see the opportunity that is there — I’m certainly not going to spell it out for them.
You claim no particular interest in theology.
***Straw argument. I do not claim NO interest, just a limited interest. I’m not interested in debating certain theological issues such as whether Mary was assumed to Heaven on catholic threads. There are other areas where I have plenty of interest. I can see that the direction of this particular discussion is heading out into the weeds and I’m not interested. If the religion moderator answers the question about what constitutes a religion for purposes of FR, it may spur my interest.
You say you’re only
***not ONLY, just that the large percentage of the magnitude of my interest lies here for now
interested in having a tag with that label you can use for starting “civil” threads, but you resist at every turn any discussion or consideration that what we’re talking about might more accurately be call “schism” -
***Primarily because calling it “schism” is again a straw argument and I’m not interested in the direction things are going with that false premise. Feel free to pursue it for yourself if that’s what you want, you aren’t encountering resistance, just apathy from me on that subject.
you are absolutely convinced and will accept no suggestion that it is anything except a religion, to be considered separate and apart from all others.
***Ecumenical threads allow such conviction.
A definitevly theological position from someone who claims no interest in theology
***again I do not claim NO interest, just not interested in where you want to take this discussion. We simply disagree, and that’s kind of the end of it when it comes to ecumenical threads. You’re perfectly free to open the same discussion on an open thread, invite me to it and discuss it, but you’ll most likely discover that I’m even less interested in the open thread on such a topic. But if it’s important to you, you’ll do it. Reducing the invective on crevo threads is important to me, so I did something about it.
I have no problem accepting both a belief in both Jesus Christ as my savior and in traditional evolutionary theory as a method in which life on earth changed over the eons.
***Then you should have no trouble with the ecumenical thread concept.
Believing in modern science is no more a “religion” than listing my citizenship as “American” or my political party as “Republican” is a type of religion.
***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.
They are completely unrelated things, something Kevmo apparently has trouble understanding.
***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.
You can ask anyone else on FR who believes in evolution what their religion is and I’m sure they will be happy to tell you.
***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.
If they are indeed “atheists” (which I doubt more than a handful are), I’m sure they will have no problem admitting that either.
***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.
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.