• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

What is scientism?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

That's because wars are not fought for "secularism," but they are sometimes fought for religion. The standard line for theists is that Hitler and Stalin were killing people because of atheism, but that makes no sense. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God.
Part of my point is that even godless people can commit crimes against humanity. They don't need a God to worship or commit sacrifice too. It's an ideology they kill for.
That's not difficult to see or admit, unless the emotion behind "religion is bad!" is too strong to overcome in favor of objectivity.
Last edited by ant on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant wrote:
I've always thought that the study of evolution if anything allows us to see ourselves as part of nature while many religions have only worked to foster the delusion that we are apart from nature
I like this. So very well put.

But Christ did in fact have an appreciation of nature:
“ See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."
Reverence for nature and the idea of being stewards of the planet are not religious tenets at all. Buddhists hold a reverence for nature as well. Ideas of universal love are also seen as a Christian ideal. But you don't need to believe in Christ to accept the notion of universal love. These are basic cultural ideas that exist outside of religion.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant wrote:
That's because wars are not fought for "secularism," but they are sometimes fought for religion. The standard line for theists is that Hitler and Stalin were killing people because of atheism, but that makes no sense. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God.
Part of my point is that even godless people can commit crimes against humanity. They don't need a God to worship or commit sacrifice too. It's an ideology they kill for.
That's not difficult to see or admit, unless the emotion behind "religion is bad!" is too strong to overcome in favor of objectivity.
There are usually many complex conditions on the ground that lead to violence, even when religious differences are specifically cited. Certainly religious intolerance is a contributing factor in matters of hatred. Here in North Carolina, the religious right are furiously pushing a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. It's weird to me that this would be a religious issue at all. Why do pastors and ministers feel that it's their domain to define marriage in society? This is another example of religion overstepping its bounds. Why do we deem men of the cloth to be arbiters of our morality? What special training or knowledge do they have? It's what happens when people stop thinking for themselves, passing of their own moral responsibility to group-think.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

But you don't need to believe in Christ to accept the notion of universal love. These are basic cultural ideas that exist outside of religion.
That is a reflexive response from atheists who believe theists in general feel religion is necessary in order to feel a reverence and universal affinity for the natural world. That simply is false and I do not believe anyone here made that assertion.

Christian, Buddhist, Taoist tenants all express an admiration and reverence toward nature. An even hand would recognize that.
Not saying you aren't even handed. Just highlighting that aspect of religion.
Last edited by ant on Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

There are usually many complex conditions on the ground that lead to violence, even when religious differences are specifically cited.
Yes, the world is a highly complex arena, with and without religious factors considered. To finger a literalist, extremist facet of religion and broad brush it as being responsible for "people flying into buildings" or "drugging the masses" is simplistic.
Why do we deem men of the cloth to be arbiters of our morality? What special training or knowledge do they have? It's what happens when people stop thinking for themselves, passing of their own moral responsibility to group-think.
I do not support men of cloth influencing legislation. I support fair, balanced laws governing society.
Group-think is inherent in all institutions, including the scientific/political arena. It can not be avoided.

Here are some examples of group-think in play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The Space Shuttle disaster can be seen as one also.

For the sake of the argument, let's both agree that religion is a detriment to society.
How would you go about resolving this problem?
Besides beating the "separation of church and state" drum, what else would you do?
Last edited by ant on Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
ant wrote:
It has also had a role in countless wars and murders and intolerance.
This is the standard line that atheists utilize when they attempt to indict religion as being largely responsible for the evils committed by mankind.

It's a bit morbid to think there exists some informal body count as to which "side" is more culpable - religion or secularism. It's certainly true beyond a shadow of doubt that secularism has played a major role in war, murder, genocide, intolerance, and other barbarous behaviors. But that is by and large ignored because the underlying emotion here is not outrage against the atrocities committed by man collectively, it is the disdain toward religion specifically.
That's because wars are not fought for "secularism," but they are sometimes fought for religion. The standard line for theists is that Hitler and Stalin were killing people because of atheism, but that makes no sense. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God.
Maybe it helps to look at the matter this way: Religion, whatever we might think of it, has been probably the most potent force for mobilizing people the world has ever seen. Secularism? How can that be said to have mobilized anyone? So the potency of religion is so much greater to begin with, and so we have greater extremes of good and bad stemming from it.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

Religion, whatever we might think of it, has been probably the most potent force for mobilizing people the world has ever seen.
Perhaps the greatest example in human history of the quickest, most lethal mobilization of a people is Hitler's Nazi State. It is not related to religion, but was a combination of factors - psychological, economical, and political.

When the appropriate climate exists and the right man positions himself to exploit the needs of a people experiencing a desire to regain security and be "liberated" from the aforementioned stress factors, you have the making of a potent, formidable force, WITHOUT religion playing a predominate role.

Hitler, although a morally depraved monster, was a master manipulator that was able to seduce the masses with his "politics of exclusion."

Hitler wrote..,
"To begin with, Judaism is definitely a racial and not a religious group...
The result of which is that a non-German race lives among us with its own feelings, thoughts and aspirations, while having all the same rights as we do."
The Versailles Treaty left Germany in economic ruin. It crippled future growth potential and left the people of Germany in a situation of economic desperation. Once a people with great national pride, they suddenly found themselves in a position of miserable desperation.

Hitler was in love with militarism and his personal "Mein Kampf" that he was able to psychologically transfer to a desperate people. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote Vienna was...,

"the hardest though most thorough school in my life" in which he obtained "the foundations for a philosophy in general and a political view in particular which later I only needed to supplement in detail, but which never left me"


World War I also helped shape his character and military value system. His usage of war propaganda was also a key factor.

We don't need a further review of history here. Most of us are familiar with the monstrous crimes committed against a race of people, by a people, indoctrinated into a racial and political ideology of superiority. The war waged was not a "Our leader was raised as a Catholic and you aren't Catholic, therefor you must die!" war.

Although there are certain individuals who are satisfied with a superficial analysis of this event and will curtail their analysis when they find a word like "Catholic" in the record, the Nazi movement was the greatest example of the mobilization of people to commit atrocities unrelated to religious tenants. I'm sure there are more examples out there to consider.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant wrote:
For the sake of the argument, let's both agree that religion is a detriment to society.
How would you go about resolving this problem?
Besides beating the "separation of church and state" drum, what else would you do?
I wouldn't say that religion is a detriment to society. I think the inclination towards radicalism and fundamentalism---thinking in black and white--is a negative and sometimes destructive force, whether or not it manifests itself in religion or some other ideology. The Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who massacred 77 people, was acting on his extreme political beliefs. But he could easily have fomented his rage around some religious belief, I have no doubt.

We sometimes talk about religion as if it is its own entity with its own agenda. In that it's like the argument that guns don't kill people. People kill people.

If anything all rational members of society should understand that religion has a place as a personal belief system.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

geo wrote:
ant wrote:
For the sake of the argument, let's both agree that religion is a detriment to society.
How would you go about resolving this problem?
Besides beating the "separation of church and state" drum, what else would you do?
I wouldn't say that religion is a detriment to society. I think the inclination towards radicalism and fundamentalism---thinking in black and white--is a negative and sometimes destructive force, whether or not it manifests itself in religion or some other ideology. The Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who massacred 77 people, was acting on his extreme political beliefs. But he could easily have fomented his rage around some religious belief, I have no doubt.

We sometimes talk about religion as if it is its own entity with its own agenda. In that it's like the argument that guns don't kill people. People kill people.

If anything all rational members of society should understand that religion has a place as a personal belief system.
The new atheists are attempting to turn the word religion into a pejorative term.

What's your take on that?
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant wrote:
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
For the sake of the argument, let's both agree that religion is a detriment to society.
How would you go about resolving this problem?
Besides beating the "separation of church and state" drum, what else would you do?
I wouldn't say that religion is a detriment to society. I think the inclination towards radicalism and fundamentalism---thinking in black and white--is a negative and sometimes destructive force, whether or not it manifests itself in religion or some other ideology. The Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who massacred 77 people, was acting on his extreme political beliefs. But he could easily have fomented his rage around some religious belief, I have no doubt.

We sometimes talk about religion as if it is its own entity with its own agenda. In that it's like the argument that guns don't kill people. People kill people.

If anything all rational members of society should understand that religion has a place as a personal belief system.
The new atheists are attempting to turn the word religion into a pejorative term.

What's your take on that?
It's difficult for me to respond to the general tenor of the term "new atheists" which seems to be an effort to frame atheism as an unified position or organized movement. Atheism simply means without belief in God which is hardly a unifying doctrine. Writers such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris have written about religion, but they each have unique perspectives. I don't think it's fair to summarize either of these writers' positions as an attempt to "turn the word religion into a pejorative term." I'm quite sure that's not what any of them are attempting to do.
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”