Keeping God out of it - a bias against religion on the left

[hfojvt]

Not to turn GD into a religious forum, but I thought this article summed up some things very well on this issue.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060424/lerner

"In my research on the psychodynamics of American society I discovered that the left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off. So it becomes important to ask why."

(snip)

"So I am led to the conclusion that the main reason that underlies the left's deep skepticism about religion is its members' strong faith in a different kind of belief system. Even though many people on the left think of themselves as merely trying to hold on to a rational consciousness and resist the emotionalism that can contribute to fascistic movements, it's not true that the left is without belief. The left is captivated by a belief that has been called scientism."

(snip)

"Scientism thus extends far beyond an understanding and appreciation of the role of science in society. It has become the religion of the secular consciousness. Why do I say it's a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system. The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable. It is a religious belief system with powerful adherents. Spiritual progressives therefore insist on the importance of distinguishing between our strong support for science and our opposition to scientism."

(snip)

"The truth is that most people on the left already have a set of moral principles that guide their lives and have led them to be Democrats or Greens or social change activists."

(snip)

"The public sphere is currently dominated by a scientism that validates money and power (which can be measured) and steadfastly rejects the introduction of spiritual values. But since that public sphere generates a deep spiritual emptiness and validates an ethos of materialism and selfishness, the religious right gains huge credibility by challenging the alleged neutrality of the public sphere and insists on introducing values. But what it really has in mind is to impose Christianity and undermine the separation of church and state. If the left could recognize that the capitalist marketplace already imposes a set of values in the public sphere, it would understand that the most effective way to combat the challenge of the religious right is not to fight for values neutrality in a public sphere already fully permeated by the values of materialism and selfishness but instead to introduce a set of spiritual values with progressive content."

Do we generally agree on a set of values with progressive content? Or is the progressive battle a battle against religion? Sadly, the churches seem, unlike Craig Ferguson, to want to attack the sins of the poor more than they challenge the sins of the powerful. It seems to me that many in the churches are also be caught up in our society's worship of money and power.

[goddess40]

1. the left recognizes that religions shouldn't be involved in politics

it's a private personal belief.

[Vincardog]

4. Roger that this country was founded on that belief.

Face it Jesus is on the LIBERAL LEFT.
The real question is
"Why does the Radical Reich hate Jesus"?

[catbert836]

101. Was he?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Even if he did, and did in fact say all those things that are attributed to him in the Bible, any attempt to place a man of 1st-century Palestine on our 21st-century American landscape of political views is ludicrous. It just can't be done.

[Perky]

6. But are you saying that

private personal belief should not inform our positions?

[hfojvt]

14. that's just a call to keep it in the closet

What about values though? The political world does not suddenly become free of values just because Christian values are forced into a closet. It just gives more room for the 'values' of money and power.

[Donnachaidh]

23. WHAT forced into the closet? We've had Christian values shoved down

our collective throats for the past decade.

I don't have a problem with anyone using their own beliefs to make PERSONAL choices -- but when you have MEGA-churches, and Christian TV stations, and pastors dictating to their flock who to vote for etc., THEN we need to address the hording of POLITICAL POWER by Christian groups.

[hfojvt]

57. Pastors cannot dictate to their flocks

They could preach a sermon about dishonesty or greed and mention Bush tax cuts as an example. They are more likely, however, to preach a sermon about abortion and use Hillary as an example. Either way, it does not force anybody in that congregation to vote one way or their other. But Christians have free speech rights to talk about issues that are important to them.

As a Christian, I think that Christian values and progressive values are in agreement on most of the fundamental issues - things like compassion, honesty, and decency. Christian voters are making personal decisions, like who to vote for. They can be persuaded to vote Democratic if given the facts about how dishonest and greedy the Republicans are, but they are not going to be persuaded if their religion is attacked.

[Donnachaidh]

72. I guess Falwell, Dobson, etc are not pastors then?

And your premise that your religion is being attacked is disingenuous at best.

Try being a non-christian in the US. Those people can probably speak volumes about having to deal with being ostracized and *attacked*.

[me b zola]

51. values

"It just gives more room for the 'values' of money and power."

Well, that argument doesn't hold water. Christianity has been taken over by the values of money and power.

Religion was forced into politics when the republicans who stand for nothing but greed needed to create a base, that is when they began organizing faux religious organizations such as focus on the family.

I suggest that people who believe that religion has a role in politics vacation in Pakistan just to get a taste of what it is that they are craving.

[dogday]

55. Should be called Human Values

Equivalent set of values that apply for everyone.....

[Perky]

62. This notion is crazy

Material or scientific or secular values should inform our political positions in the discourse of public ideas...but religious ones should not????

Are they actually saying that?

Are they saying that bringing values informed by faith should bot be brought to bear in either discussing politics or having some sort of impact on policy? (Impact: as in influence to a degree reasonable in a pluralistic society)

[More Than A Feeling]

95. Of course religious ideas can inform, but...

why justify a position solely in religious terms, when you could use secular terms that would convince a wider range of people? Why make something sectarian when it doesn't have to be?

[Evoman]

114. To some of us, christian values ARE the values of money and power.

From what I can tell, most religious people are obsessed with power and money. Look at the "original christians", i.e. the catholic church.

Your christian values don't impress me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. Well, to be completely accurate the Catholic church are not the

original christians - the Catholic church was the form imposed on the up and coming religion when it was usurped by the failing Roman Empire - the entire authoritarian system of the priesthood, from the local up through the bishops and cardinals, was grafted onto the church in duplication of the ancient pagan system, where the Emperor was the supreme prelate to the Roman pagan system. That is why there is so little resemblance to the Jewish religion from which it had supposedly sprung (which brings in the myth of 'Judeo-Christian beliefs', which is off topic).

Before Constantine there were many different christian sects, of which the branch originally headed by Peter was only one. The Roman elites, and the version of the church that they created, invented the notion of heresy and eliminated most of the other branches to preserve their own power and wealth.

It must also be noted that it was this Roman church that decided what was and what wasn't to be part of the faith, and they decided on the authoritarian Paulists as being most in line with what they wanted.

So what doesn't impress you are the values of the Roman Empire.

[donsu]

2. when I got to this sentence I laughed out loud and stopped reading

" The left is captivated by a belief that has been called scientism."

[KittyWampus]

42. yes, it should read "materialism" or "reductionism"

[originalpckelly]

53. Ah, philosophy, the most useless exploration human minds...

have ever undertaken.

You know, the universe could really be made of turtles, but so long as it acts in the same as it does now, it is for all practical purposes useless to consider it.

[kiahzero]

65. Clearly someone has no idea what philosophy is about. (n/t)

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. How about "objective reality"? n/t

[Odin2005]

142. Materialism (or, as I prefer, Physicalism) does not neccesarily mean reductionism.

I suggest you read "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutch.

[Odin2005]

143. "Scientism" is a slur popularized by postmodernist idiots.

It is basically about turning the combination of philosophical Empiricism, philosophical Realism, and Physicalist Monism into something bad.

[cyborg_jim]

146. That's because evidence is not on their side. Get over it I say.

[mmonk]

3. "scientism"?

"a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other blief system"? Then why have the root of the word be science?

[Czolgosz]

10. "Scientism" is just a PC expression for the "Cult of the Fact" with its bias in favor of reality

[originalpckelly]

16. Damn realists and their "reality"

:grr:

:sarcasm:

[Lefty-Taylor]

80. As Colbert says,

"Facts have a liberal bias."

[The Straight Story]

19. I think the point is that people pick scientist prophets to follow who support their view

On everything from global warming and it's causes to the effects of smoking, eating meat, not eating meat, etc and so on - facts are bandied about based on studies from a scientist that agrees with you, and scientists are ridiculed that don't say the same thing.

If something is a 'fact' then there can't really be dissent on it since it can be proven - yet time and again we see scientists (preachers) interpreting the data (bible) differently.

Mylar causes cancer. Opps no it doesn't. Etc and so on.

edited for spelling

[Czolgosz]

24. I'll see it when I believe it...

[originalpckelly]

28. I agree with Straight Story, and I'm an agnostic with an absolute goal...

of pursuing only scientifically obtained truth.

[originalpckelly]

27. Actually, now that I agree with. Anyone who accepts any scientific data...

that hasn't been reproduced and verified, as fact, is doing so based upon the perceived credibility of the scientist presenting the supposed evidence.

I think that to some degree there is an appropriate criticism in calling out those who respect or disrespect evidence simply because of the credibility of the presenter, and not based upon what is being presented.

There are a number of instances in science where an individual very well known, with previous successes has been shown to be wrong profoundly.

[mmonk]

45. Absolutely. Of course, somewhere down the line,

that hypothesis is refuted with other evidence or analysis. But a belief system has no self correcting features as it has no established baseline or method with which to self correct.

[hfojvt]

52. no, the point is that some people have an irrational belief in science

The scientist says it, I believe it, that settles it.

"In my opinion, science has become a superstition for both the mass of the people and the scientists themselves. For the mass it has the power of magic. For the scientists it has the exclusive virtue of an orthodox theology."

It is in fashion to scoff at others for their faith, at the same time the scoffer refuses to provide either facts or rational argument, only mocking that "the facts are on my side". Clever sarcasm substitutes for facts and rational argument. I do not need to prove that what you said is wrong. I only need to prove that you are an idiot.

Some of the most important issues cannot be settled scientifically. Should we build a new super-walmart? Should we build a new prison? The argument goes beyond facts, to values. What is the purpose of life? What are we trying to do as a society? Do super-walmarts and prisons support that? And many arguments turn to fears about the future. "If we do not build super-walmarts our town will die." "If we do not educate our children instead of building prisons, we will be taken over by the Chinese." It is kinda hard to make a factual statement about the future, but people try all the time.

[Czolgosz]

56. Some people are also bad at math, but it is hardly a valid criticism of the mathematical axioms that

some people misapply them.

While it is undoubtedly true "that some people have an irrational belief in science" as you say, it is also true that all people who believe in religion have an irrational belief in that religion. I am a religious person so I do not mean that an irrational belief in religion is a bad thing - I just mean that a belief in religion is grounded in faith and not in rationality (i.e., your religion cannot be rationally proven to be more objectively correct than another person's religion).

In summary -

SCIENCE: some believers have a rational belief in science and some believers have an irrational belief in science.
RELIGION: all believers have an irrational belief in their religion.

[hfojvt]

74. it is not about science as much as meta-science

Materialism is no less irrational than any other metaphysics, including religious ones. The criticism is not about mathematical axioms as much as it is about people who irrationally believe all problems have a mathematical solution, that science cannot only answer the 'how' questions but also the 'why' questions, or alternatively that the 'why' questions or 'which direction' questions are meaningless or irrelevant.
As CS Lewis wrote "From propositions about fact alone, no practical conclusion can ever be drawn."

[Czolgosz]

76. Where is this population of people who believe that all problems have a mathematical solution?

Who are these people who believe that science cannot only answer the 'how' questions but also the 'why' questions?

This is an attack on a strawman.

[hfojvt]

81. that is an improper use of the word strawman

It would only be a strawman if I claimed that you had said it. Since I never made that claim, it is only a postulate. If we agree that those people, whoever they are, are wrong, then we have no argument. If you wanna argue that those people do not exist, then that is another argument. I would say that the common practice of using 'science' as a synonym for 'truth' is a symptom of what I claimed. When given an answer to a 'why?' question, the rebuttal will often not discuss the value of the answer, but simply dismiss it as 'unscientific'. It is implied in our education system that teaches math, science and english but does not consider values to be worth teaching. The only values taught are 'obedience to rules', and 'win' and 'make money'. It would be nice if we taught 'love of learning' but I am afraid that learning is only taught as a practical way to make money.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. No, I think Czolgosz used 'strawman' correctly

It doesn't have to be the argument they are making; you are claiming that someone is making the argument, and Czolgosz doesn't think anyone is (or anyone who can be identified as 'the left').

So it's up to you, or Rabbi Lerner, to give us examples (we can't be expected to enumerate every single argument on the left to show it doesn't apply).

"the common practice of using 'science' as a synonym for 'truth'is a symptom of what I claimed. When given an answer to a 'why?' question, the rebuttal will often not discuss the value of the answer, but simply dismiss it as 'unscientific'. ".

Again, examples, please. Since you say this is 'common', and happens 'often', they should be easy to give - and the people saying it should be identifiable as being on 'the left'. If people in the political centre, or on the right, also do this frequently, that will shoot down Lerner's argument.

Personally, I think that only rigid Marxists, and libertarian capitalists, have such ideas. Since they're both tiny segments of Western society, and nothing to do with the Democratic party, it's a fairly pointless post to make on a Democratic board. Democratic politicians fall over themselves to mention God, and praise religion values. They strive to set up systems where people feel loved. I really do want to hear which people of the left believe scientism is a good approach to life.

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. But religion is not interested in 'why' any more than science is.

"God said so" is not an answer.

Religion does not teach values. Just look at the bible - look at Kings. Story after story of religious leaders being deceitful, treacherous, duplicitous, vengeful, greedy, lustful. And often as not, suffering few, if any, consequences.

Religion only gives answers, all of which usually boil down to a single answer - "god said so".

Science is interested in 'how'. Proper science does not give answers, but gives hypothises which are open to further investigation - in other words, more questions.

Philosophy, which can be a part of religion and/or a part of science, asks 'why'. It is not education in religion that is lacking, but education in philosophy - but religionists are against that because, as a lesson learned in the Reformation, people asking "why" can cause a whole lot of problems.

[karlrschneider]

90. Some people might, but scientists are the most skeptical people in the world

ESPECIALLY when it comes to some -other- scientist's ideas or conclusions.

[Tormenta]

135. Finally!

Someone who understood the OP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. Those people would be looking for religion, not science.

Science is in a constant process of re-discovery. There is no theory that cannot be improved upon or, upon finding the proper evidence, be discarded.

Religion is about having answers.

Science is about having questions.

[KittyWampus]

43. No, materialism is the prevailing philosophy of scientists but it's not the defacto philosophy

DU'ers who think they're so freaking smart aren't even aware there is a Philopsophy of Science.

And even fewer DU'ers are even aware of what their own Philosophy really is or that valid alternatives even exist.

Reductionism and Materialism are NOT the only valid Philosophy of Science.

[Czolgosz]

50. Neither Reductionism nor Materialism (nor Epiphenomenalism nor Physicalism) is properly understood

as a religion.

Also, "scientism" - as referenced in the article quoted in the OP - does not appear to be any recognizable version of Reductionism, Materialism, Epiphenomenalism, or Physicalism.

[hfojvt]

64. it's all metaphysics, isn't it?

If it cannot be proven, then how is it different than a religion? I did not see alot of differenc there between scientism and materialism.

[Czolgosz]

75. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the difference between theism and atheism is the difference

between metaphysics and religion.

More specifically, materialism is a kind of monist ontology classified within the philosophy of physicalism which adheres to the belief that the only things which really exist are those things which are composed of matter and all events that really occur in the world are due to the interactions of matter. The philosophical roots of materialism go back over 2500 years.

Scientism is a term that theists made up to put a label on those people whose beliefs do not encompass those matters beyond which they can see, hear, touch, or otherwise objectively validate. Those people who use the neologism "scientism" generally accuse "believers" in "scientism" of having a "religious faith" in science. Of course, this is nonsense because "faith" means "a belief that is not based on proof" and anyone who has a "religious faith" in science has no respect for, or grasp of, the scientific method.

[BurtWorm]

12. That whole paragraph describes some America other than the one I know.

Maybe he hasn't been paying attention since 2001, but it is now de rigueur for all national political candidates, regardless of party, to prove their religious bona fides.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Exactly

Does nobody remember Obama's speechifying about God?

[hfojvt]

18. because many of the people who follow it

think they are being scientific.

[mmonk]

32. science isn't a belief system to follow,

it's a study or discipline. Having made up a word using science and proscribing it a belief system seems inappropriate to the word. Is math a belief system? What is someone who studies or engages in the study of math? A follower of mathism?

[KittyWampus]

48. But Science DOES operate within a philosophical framework. And is practised by people

with a philosophical framework.

And there is more than one valid philosophical framework for anyone practising Science.

The prevailing Philosophy is Reductionism and Materialism. Idealism is just as valid.

It is appalling that Du'ers don't know this or seem incapable of understanding it.

A person's world view influences how they interpret and utilize facts.

[Odin2005]

141. Idealism = Solipsistic BS

I REFUTE IT THUS!!! *kicks rock*

[Greybnk48]

5. leave it to someone steeped in religiosity

to interpret a lack of religiousity as religiosity. The rest of the analysis is ass-backwards with the worship of money and power going to the less religious (non-zealots). Read American Fascism in regard to the Christian-right's (dominionists') worship of money, money, money and power.

[hfojvt]

22. they too, are part of the culture

whether they admit it or not.

"It is not surprising, therefore, that many socialists in so-called advanced societies, who are themselves - whether they know it or not - devotees of the religion of economics, are today wondering whether nationalisation is not really beside the point." Schumacher 1973 p. 254

You could say the same thing, substituting "christian" for "socialist" and Schumacher is calling 'scientism' 'the religion of economics'.

It is religiousity, since it is a 'first assumption'. It is taken to be true, even though it cannot, or has not, been proven. It is a dogmatic tenet.

[jody]

7. The 1933 Humanist Manifesto I got it right.

Humanist Manifesto I

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

[SoCalDem]

8. Fact-based vs myth.. I'll stick to facts :) n/t

[KittyWampus]

49. No, Materialism vs. Idealism.

[HardRocker05]

70. who is practicing "materialism"? it's a strawman. nt

[BOSSHOG]

9. Actually I'd like to see God get in it

I'd like him to invite falwell and dobson and robertson and norquist and bush to camp david and have them splain themselves. I'd love for the poor people who give millions to the likes of the TV religious hucksters to hear "it" from the horses mouth.

But what the hell, I'm just an insane intellectually curious lefty who "beieves" the earth revolves around the sun, I have done my small part to add to global warming and that embryonic stem cell research will one day bring joy to the lives of some who may not suffer because the research was done. And I believe God has given me the ability (like he has everyone else) to be intellectually curious.

[stopbush]

11. The typical, uninformed, biased opinions of a religionist.

Religion is dependent on the involvement of something supernatural. Religious beliefs are based on faith, not facts.

Where is the supernatural in science? Where is the faith in place of facts in the scientific method?

This article says one thing - that the religonists are feeling increased pressure from BOTH the scientific and the atheistic
communities. My solution -get used to it! It's only going to get worse for the religionists.

[hfojvt]

33. I guess he was wrong too

about the left being hostile to religion.

You might wanna look at the last 27 years. "We" progressives are not exactly winning.

Where is the supersition in science? "The sciences are being taught without any awareness of the presuppositions of science, of the meaning and significance of scientific laws, and of the place occupied by the natural sciences within the whole cosmos of human thought."

"The errors are not in science, but in the PHILOSOPHY put forward in the name of science." EF Schumacher

The meta-science is taken on faith. It is neither acknowledged, questioned, or examined.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. That's not 'superstition'

That's just 'not teaching the philosophy of science'.

The 'real world' is one we all believe in, apart from the occasional kook who thinks he can walk through a wall by concentrating hard enough, and just believing that he can. We all think the Sun is going to continue to shine tomorrow, and not explode. We think it because the Sun has remained in basically the same state for all our lives; and we can do experiments, and make observations, that predict it will continue to, for billions of years. We expect physical laws to which no exception has yet been found to continue to apply. You can call that 'faith' if you want, but if you do, you should call everything you do 'an act of faith'. It equates 'having faith' to 'being conscious'.

Religions, on the other hand, have faith about things we cannot detect. Unlike, say, love, which you can detect by observing the way someone behaves, we cannot detect God, or the afterlife. People have wildly differing views on their form, and thus using them as the basis of societal decisions in the material world is a Bad Thing. Note that this is not a 'left' view, though. Politically, it's completely neutral.

[RaleighNCDUer]

133. I don't know who this Schumacher is, or what his bona fides are,

but "...the place occupied by the natural sciences within the whole cosmos of human thought." is a crock of shit. They physical world does not exist in the cosmos of human thought - human thought exists within the cosmos, as defined by the natural sciences.

"I think, therefore I am" does not postulate that my thinking created me.

The only presupposition of science is that there is a physical universe, and that we can observe it. That universe will not vanish if we are not here to observe it. Can I prove it? Of course not, just as I cannot prove that gravity will contine to hold me to this planet for the next 15 mnutes, but all observed experience makes it highly probable.

This is angels on the head of a pin nonsense.

[originalpckelly]

13. Who's more unreasonable:

1. The person worshiping a man who supposedly went up on a mountaintop thousands of years ago to get a couple of stone tablets from God;

or

2. The person not worshiping anything and just living their lives by what they see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and then use reason to create a coherent explanation of those sensory inputs.

[Dr.Phool]

25. One other thing overlooked about those tablets.

When Big Moe got pissed off and broke them, he went back up to get another set. He came back down with a new set that were the same, except that they were...different.

[hfojvt]

34. I am willing to bet

they most people are living their life based on many things they were told when they were small children. Things they accepted on faith, and then they built on that.

Second, any worship of a 'man' would be considered wrong by most major religions. If a person looks objectively and carefully, they can find both wisdom and truth in many ancient teachings.

Are justice, love, compassion, and mercy based on things you see, hear, smell, and taste? What about things you feel?

[originalpckelly]

47. I like how you didn't answer my question. But I will answer yours...

Justice is based upon reason.

Love, compassion, and mercy were emotions evolved to support the collective betterment of our species. I can see that through watching other animals and their actions. I can experiment and dig to find out that species that have social groups are better off evolutionarily in many scenarios. (I can't leave a Leopard Gecko in with its children because it will eat them, whereas most human mothers do not go about eating their children. It would seem through reason that fewer babies capable of growing into functional adults are killed by emotional and loving parents.)

[hfojvt]

63. pretty sure it was a rhetorical question

and you mischaracterised religion. It is not about worshipping Moses or Paul or Timothy. Timothy says "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." I do not worship Timothy, but I can see the wisdom in what he wrote. Same with Jesus. It is not about calling him 'Lord, Lord' but about following his teachings - to love God and to love my neighbor as myself. I do not think that is less rational than choosing to worship money and power and pleasure.

[rodeodance]

15. not AGAINST Religion----just keep out of gov. decisions.

[dysfunctional press]

35. actually, no. i am pretty much AGAINST religion.

in ALL forms- but especially the theistic variety.

it has been the bane of mankind since it's earliest inceptions.

belief in and squabbles over various mythological deities has always kept civilization from getting along peacefully and focusing on the fact that this planet is our one and only home, and that this life we're given is the only one we have- and it's VERY short, even at it's longest.

i pray for the day that the entire world actually sees the light.

[LeftishBrit]

98. I agree

I strongly believe that people should have the right to worship freely; but not to legislate for others according to their religion.

And while some people may have blind 'faith' in science, scientists do not. In fact, it is one of the main principles of science that nothing can be totally proved - only disproved.

[cdnwannabe]

17. It just seems like a battle against religion because....

our so-called leader is a religious zealot!

[madfloridian]

20. One pastor calls it "secular fundamentalism". He does not approve.

I do. I think it is best since seeing what has happened in this country for the last 6 years at least. So I guess I am one of those folks.

Secular fundamentalism

"The tenets of secular fundamentalism

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation."

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. You know, if you insert "my" in a few places you get what he's worried about.

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between MY church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons MY religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on MY religious reasons or enforce MY religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons (I) and MY groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation."

He thinks that it is all aimed at him and his - nevermind that it also keeps those 'other' religions from taking unfair advantage, as well.

[hfojvt]

83. no, it is more to the fact

that as a religious person, I cannot simply set my religious parts aside like they are a hat. Take the hat off and I am not a Christian, put it on, and I am. Nor am I required to, since that would be a non-religious qualification for office. I am free to speak, vote and hold office based on my convictions. The only question is whether I can influence events. There is no a solid dividing line between secular and religious considerations.

[originalpckelly]

59. The problem is basing a judgment upon no evidence.

It's like walking into a court room and convicting a person of a crime without any evidence at all. In many cases, the issues do not involve criminal matters, but rather are policies that will have a lesser but still material impact upon a person. People are not upset enough about it when that happens, but now this basing of policy upon religion (and therefore no evidence) is starting to have profound consequences for our world once again.

[hfojvt]

84. which policies are based on religion?

Do not mention marriage because that is a very old policy. Is there a policy that Bush has based on religion?

[NMMNG]

109. Faith Based Initiative

EG social service agencies run by religious organizations (who can discriminate in hiring and service delivery based on religious principles, and who often proselytize along with service delivery) getting federal funding.

[RaleighNCDUer]

134. Not to mention that the orginizations applying for funding as

a part of the 'faith based initiatives' are almost exclusively conservative protestant - grants allowed to catholics are well below their representation in the population, while those to jews and muslims are a fraction of their representation -- i would suspect that buddhist and hindu and native american representation is all but nonexistant. Therefore, the faith based initiatives are in direct violation of the first amendment as they are predominantly supporting one particular religion.

[NMMNG]

140. Exactly

Bush knew very well when he set up that program what "faith" was to be getting the money. I highly doubt any Satanists or Wiccans are getting funding.

[msongs]

21. the basic premise is FAULTY - there is no such thing as scientism

because the presmise is faulty, the arguments for and agains are also faulty.

the author says the left rejects spiritual values and that is ALSO false.

the entire arugment is fallacious and should be rejected and ignored. Discussing it gives credibility to fraud.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[trotsky]

36. It's an attempt at triangulation.

Many religious lefties realize that hard-right conservative evangelism is terrible. They want to see themselves as the true, tolerant Christians. In order to triangulate themselves into the eminently sensible "middle", they have to create some group of people to be the mirror image opposite of the science-hating fundies. Thus... SCIENTISM. Godless, but fundamentalist in their devotion to completely eliminate religious belief from the public square as well as the minds of every believer. Ooh, scary!

There are millions of fundie rightwingers. They're in our government. They hold positions on the Supreme Court. They have countless TV shows, radio programs, and tax-free pulpits from which to spew their garbage 24/7.

Show me one - JUST ONE - example of a follower of "scientism" who even begins to come close to that. Yeah, right. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

38. can you prove there is no such thing as scientism?

Oh wait, it is impossible to prove a negative. Then why make a negative statement and act like it proves something?

"The author says that the left rejects spiritual values."

Not here, he doesn't.

"The truth is that most people on the left already have a set of moral principles that guide their lives and have led them to be Democrats or Greens or social change activists."

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. To be honest, Rabbi Lerner does imply that the "scientists"

(assuming that's what you would call a follower of scientism) do reject spiritual values, then later contraticts himself with that quote - it is just that he, like most religionists, has trouble reconciling morality with a god-free philosophy.

He is, himself, a person on the left. But here, again, we see where the religious left has more in common with the religious right than with the secular left.

[hfojvt]

68. Even if that is a common belief

that one area of agreement does not imply more in common with the religious right. My problem with the secular left is that they seem more concerned with attacking religion than they are with solving social problems. If they operate from the theory that religion is a cause of all social problems (or most problems of all kinds) then obviously they part company with the religious left, even though the religious left is likely to be highly critical of some churches and some preachers.

Good point though, there is a contradiction there. I need to chew on that some.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. Who are these "attacking religion more than solving social problems"?

Names and examples, please.

[cyborg_jim]

120. Also prove religion is not a social problem.

[trotsky]

26. Obviously there's a huge bias against religion on the left.

I mean, look at the Democratic Party - atheists up and down. Bill Clinton was a rabid atheist, as are Al Gore and John Kerry. The party won't nominate anyone with even the slightest religious belief! :sarcasm:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. a lifelong believer and a Democrat here--

the core values of the Dems are the core values found in major religions.

[Caution]

30. Why is it that the religious always insist on fostering a belief system upon unbelievers?

I don't care about god, I don't think about god. Why? Because I don't believe there is one.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It's so frustrating. Be religious for all I care. Just don't use my tax dollars to push that religion and certainly don't use your religion as the basis for governmental policy. Beyond that I just don't care. Seriously.

I guarantee that if the religious would butt the fuck out of government that this whole farcical "war" on religion would end right there.

Have a freakin blast at church. Enjoy it. Or hate it. Don't care. Seriously. But stay the hell out of my life, my bedroom, my wife's uterus and public schooling. If the religious would do those simple things, this wouldn't be a problem.

[Madspirit]

77. Right On Caution!!

Whoohoo...you tell it like it is. Thank-you. I get too angry to verbalize. I am a second generation atheist and my dad was outspoken and we were TORMENTED by idiot religionists.

Keep your frakking nasty little book off my body, out of my life and out of my laws and my government. Do all that and my hostility level will drop. I promise. In the meantime, I think religion, in all it's flavors, is THE most detrimental force on the entire planet and if it did not exist we would be hundreds of years ahead in science, medicine, etc.

Grrr Argh.

Lee

[hfojvt]

87. an atheist has no religion in the same way that a person

who does not collect stamps has no hobby.

Alot of religious people might not have a problem either if they did not feel like they were paying lots of money to teach their kids atheism or materialism.

It just seems evident that all belief systems rest on unproveable assertions, just as unproveable as the existence of God. Second that the things that are most important in your life have the same function as the gods of the religious.

The religious are not going to butt out of government while they still have the right to vote. Would you be okay if I said you could practice your atheism but just keep it out of government? Seems like a double standard and a hostile way to debate the merits or lack thereof of a policy.

[LeftishBrit]

99. 'Would you be okay if I said you could practice your atheism but just keep it out of government?'

Yes, I would. I would not think it appropriate for an atheist government to pass laws forbidding or restricting worship, or telling churches to perform acts that went against their principles. E.g. though I am strongly in favour of gay marriage, I would not be in favour of requiring a church to perform gay marriages.

[Evoman]

112. How the fuck do you "practice" atheism?

Atheist: Uh..okay..so here I am...hmm...not believing in god. Hmm...yeah...

What your not getting, my friend, is the difference between secular and atheist. Secular societies, like the U.S. should no more promote atheism than christianity. Not praying in schools, and not legislating based on religion, is not "atheist".

[varkam]

128. Are you saying that atheism is just as unprovable as any other belief system?

If so, then I would like to introduce you to my friend - the burden of proof.

You see, the burden of proof holds that the individual who makes a positive assertion (i.e. God exists) must offer evidence to support that claim such that a reasonable individual would say that the burden of proof has been met. Let me give an example. Say, for example, I make the assertion that the tooth fairy lives in my ass. I simply say that, and no more. Now, it is not up to you to prove me wrong but, rather, it is up to me to meet the standards of the burden of proof by offering evidence to support the claim that the tooth fairy does, indeed, live in my ass. Once I have met those conditions, then it is up to someone else to disprove it by finding fault with the evidence.

Relating this back to theism/atheism, it is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of god. Rather, it is (and always has been) incumbent on the theist to support their claim that god exists such that a reasonable individual would be able to look at the same set of evidence and be in agreement with them. So atheism - at least weak atheism - really has nothing to prove. It is simply disbelief characterized by the theists failure to meet the standards of the burden of proof.

[dysfunctional press]

31. scientism...?

whatever...:eyes:

[NobleCynic]

37. This quote stands out as particularly fault ridden

"Scientism thus extends far beyond an understanding and appreciation of the role of science in society. It has become the religion of the secular consciousness. Why do I say it's a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system. The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable. It is a religious belief system with powerful adherents. Spiritual progressives therefore insist on the importance of distinguishing between our strong support for science and our opposition to scientism."

It is akin to stating one cannot know reality is reality, one cannot know what you see is what you see, not without believing that what one witnesses is what exists. Because one has to believe in what one's senses to make judgements regarding it, using your senses is a religion. Seeing is believing so to speak. That is the argument.

There is an amusing philosophical argument hidden in there somewhere, but one that is absolutely useless is practical terms. Double talk psuedo-philosophical BS at best. Because one cannot empirically measure empirical measurement, it is all just belief? Nonsense.

It is like a scientist stating a finding and being asked "How do you know that" infinite times until he has to say because I believe it to be so.

Example:

The gain in heat of this compound after the chemical reaction was 11 degrees Kelvin. How do you know? Because the thermometer read 11* change. How do you know that is accurate? Because I calibrated the thermometer using known phase change points of a known substance? How do you know that method is accurate? ...And so on until eventually you get to "Because I observed it." "And how do you know you can trust your ability to observe exists" "Because I have to believe it does to function in any fashion at all."

Double talk psuedo-philosophical BS at best.

[hfojvt]

71. I usually go in another direction

and think the philsophical questions are the most important.

"At present, there can be little doubt that the whole of mankind is in mortal danger, not because we are short of scientific and technological know how, but because we tend to use it destructively, without wisdom."

It's not the 'truth' of the chemical's temperature change which is being questioned infinitely. It is the assumed 'Truth' that all of humanity's questions can be answered with thermometers, rulers, microscopes and math. "He loved solving problems. He loved finding the answers. He thought that the answers that he found were the answers to everything. Then somebody told him that the stuff he made was killing people." 'Real Genius' It is the belief that 'any question or statement which cannot be quantified and tested in a lab, is false or meaningless.'
The scientist does not claim that, but it is assumed in the way science is taught and the way values are ignored (except at home and church and by some old fashioned authors like Schumacher, Tawney, Berry, and Quinn).

[NobleCynic]

78. Ah, but that is a different argument altogether

What the article was claiming was inane at best. What you're saying here is completely different.

Science IS the what and how. Why cannot and should not be part of our understanding of science. Why does the universe exist philosophically is not a science question. Why are we here is not science question. How we came to be is. Philosophy is the greater question of why. Science is the amalgamation of the smaller questions of what, when, where, and how.

When you give the why absolute priority, you end up with Galileo in prison for daring to point out that the earth revolves around the sun. The reason scientists try to separate the two is so that a presupposed foregone conclusion does not cause one to come to the wrong conclusion.

Science is nothing more than a tool. Morality should not affect how you understand the tool, rather it should affect your understanding of how and when to use the tool.

What you are doing is saying we should use our knowledge with more wisdom. I have no problem with that. When you go overboard and decry science for not having morals, you are doing the equivalent of complaining that Algebra has no conscience. Of course not. Neither does gravity. One cannot condemn the laws of nature for having no moral compass, and one cannot condemn the scientist for pointing that out. One can however learn how to use the laws of nature to follow one's moral compass.

[hfojvt]

89. I thought he was doing the same thing

distinguishing between science and scientism. I would have preferred if he said materialism because the other way makes it sound like science and scientism go together like love and marriage.

[xchrom]

39. well two things -- first the religious left

seems to be finding it's voice again -- true a bit muted after the relentless crusade of the right since reagan.

second -- the author seems to be saying two things at the end of his assertion.
but i'm not clear what he's saying.

the neither the secular left nor the religious left would say that ''scientism''{i'm not entirely convinced it exists} is with out ''values''.

both secularists and the religious find terrific ''value'' in authors like voltaire or nietzsche.

i mean iget the gist of what he's saying -- i'm just not convinced it exists as concretely as he claims.

[Warpy]

40. What a pile of whining, self serving horse shit

The left is all about giving unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's, and giving unto god that which is god's.

As much as the majority would love to trample all over the minority and force a theocracy on this country, we have a Bill of Rights that prevents them from doing just that.

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. I challenge the entire premise of the debate

A much better distinction would be that Liberals actually understood what Jesus said in his "Sermon on the Mount" and Conservatives merely want to return America to the Old Testament.

I agree with Ghandi. He said, "I like your Christ, I just wish your Christians were more like him." The religious right in America has no franchise on belief. The very idea that the right is THE party of faith is simply another of the constant false messages that the right wing media pumps out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Scientism

I myself am an orthodox factualite.

[NobleCynic]

79. You heathen!

As a member of the empirical calvary of the twelth experiment, reformed, I cannot let you go about speaking such heresies!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Oh, you're a vicious antiscieite.

Never a third data point!

[izzybeans]

60. This article reads like someone who is counting heads at a dinner table who

forgets to count their own.

He calls the left skeptical of religion and then documents what religious progressives are doing via his work and others as if it did not invalidate his thesis.

I think he's just not careful to identify who he is sampling from. The article should have been framed more clearly about a division within the left progressive movement itself. He could left the psycho-babble out all together.

[H2O Man]

66. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair. n/t

[Pastiche423]

86. Your best response ever!

[HardRocker05]

67. strawman mixed with malarky and bad logic. rationalism does not equal no values

we need to challenge the strawmen and educate people, not accept them and play the game on the RW's terms. democrats seem to let the repukes (or ignorant masses) define the issues every time.

[Jonathan50]

69. Scientism

http://www.answers.com/topic/scientism

sci·en·tism (sī'ən-tĭz'əm)
n.
The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

82. I reject the premise. The left is not hostile to religion, but hostile to what

are purely personal matters of conscience being crammed into public policy.

Public policy should be religion-neutral in order to allow for pluraliasm and to respect individual religious choice.

[hfojvt]

91. I do not see how conscience is separate from public policy either

Who would Jesus bomb?

Who would Jesus enslave?

[AX10]

85. The left also shuns any form of "morality" too.

I am not a religious person, but I do recognize the impact that religion played in favor of the Civil Rights movement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. What 'left' is that?

It doesn't sound like anyone in the Democratic party. It doesn't sound like anyone in the Green party. It doesn't sound like anyone who believes "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". So how do you justify your statement "the left also shuns any form of "morality" too"?

[NMMNG]

123. Which forms of "morality" does the left shun?

The desire to take care of the poor, disabled, elderly, sick and others who are unable to care for themselves?

The desire to advocate for those whose rights are being restricted and denied both at home and abroad, and to take steps to ensure those rights are granted to them as fully as possible?

The desire for all to have adequate education, health care, potable drinking water, food, living quarters and other basic necessities?

The desire for everyone to have the right to worship as they choose, or not worship if they choose not to, without anybody coercing them to do otherwise?



Are those forms of morality the left shuns?

[MedleyMisty]

92. I think it's pushback

Did anyone else notice in the book on authoritarian personalities that a signficant percentage of American atheists responded differently from Canadian atheists when asked what they would do if the child of a Christian family came and asked them for their thoughts on religion?

I think the reason so many of us on the left (not the politicans, sadly) are hostile to religion is because we're freaking tired of having a hateful nasty violent selfish version of Christianity shoved down out throats.

I know that there are some Christians who actually follow Christ and believe in things other than hate and ignorance and their own superiority, and so I do try to not overgeneralize. But I am only human and the one thing I've struggled with all my life is the morality of hating the haters. I really try to reserve my venom for hatred, not the people who hate, but sometimes I slip.

By the way, from all that I've observed it seems that it's the Christian right who worship money and power, far more than non-religious people.

[uppityperson]

93. Fundamentalism, THAT is what I destest, am hostile to.

Everyone has beliefs. It is the hijacking of "religion" by fundamentalists that is the problem.

[More Than A Feeling]

94. Lerner's thinking is shallow.

He can't conceive that people might have rejected religion because they have no reason to believe that a god exists.

[varkam]

103. Which is pretty much why I've rejected it.

But that's me.

[varkam]

96. WTF?

The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable.

Huh? Maybe I'm just dull, but I can't make heads or tails of that.

[More Than A Feeling]

97. I think that's Lerner admitting that God is as real as the values

of people who don't believe in God. Which is to say, that there is no evidence God exists except as an idea.

[struggle4progress]

100. Science is a method for developing knowledge, that insists upon

iterative use of observation and measurement with quantitative theory and calculation, as a method for obtaining and improving self-consistent and predictively-effective descriptions of the physical world. Within the actual practice of science, there is (by definition) no place for metaphysical mysteries or supernaturalities or concepts that have no measurable physical content.

However, it is entirely possible to practice science competently during the work day, and then to go home and deal with other matters, that one does not necessarily believe could be quantitatively described in material terms using clocks and yardsticks: from the point of view of scientific endeavor, it is of course true by definition that the real and knowable coincides with the empirically verifiable and measurable; but a scientist is primarily just a human being and need not be a scientist regarding all things in order to be a good scientist within his/her specialty.

The claim, that the empirically verifiable and measurable is important enough to deserve careful and special attention (without being contaminated by other philosophical considerations), is not necessarily the same as the claim, that only the empirically verifiable and measurable deserves any serious attention . The first claim is the attitude required of scientists, the second is scientism.

If you can imagine a sequence of empirical verifications and measurements, that one could perform, and from which one could deduce that nothing deserved any attention, except what was empirically verifiable and measurable, then please share your insight. Otherwise, I shall think that Lerner might be right to claim that empirical verifications and measurements alone may not exhaust what is knowable -- and that any claim to the contrary is incoherent and self-contradictory.

[varkam]

102. Currently, I agree.

I think there is much more out there yet to learn, and that some of that consists of phenomenon that we do not currently know how to measure. Once we are able to devise some method of measurement and quantification, then said phenomena moves from the metaphysical into the physical. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is neither evidence of existence. It's a moot point.

I think that's an adequate response, but quite frankly, you use a lot of big words and me no read so good.

[struggle4progress]

105. Well, me sorry me big blow hard

I would draw one further distinction

From a scientific point of view, the claim that something cannot possibly be measured and quantified and reduced to calculation is a pointless and self-defeating claim: it merely invites the retort that the problem is not that the issue cannot be measured and quantified and reduced to calculation but rather that you cannot imagine how to do it. So, when one engages in a particular scientific investigation, one always assumes that what is under investigation can be measured and quantified and reduced to calculation. That assumption, in the context of scientific investigation, is necessary and proper

But it remains entirely possible, as a philosophical matter, that some interesting or important aspects of human experience really cannot be measured and quantified and reduced to calculation. In fact, the claim everything can be measured and quantified and reduced to calculation merely invites the retort if you really think you can measure and quantify and reduce everything to calculation, then please stop jabbering about it and just do it for us!

Good scientists will certainly sometimes say I don't know how to investigate such-and-such in a scientific manner. And under some circumstances, I consider it reasonable to say I doubt whether such-and-such could be investigated in a scientific manner

[varkam]

107. We have to remain agnostic.

One of perhaps the most perplexing investigative questions in neuroscience is the "hard" question re: human consciousness. Most scientists tend to agree that consciousness is entirely dependent on the physical matter of the brain. If you alter the brain, you alter consciousness. No brain, no consciousness. Etc. The "hard" question is simply this: How? How does the physical activity in the brain of neurons firing create the subjective experience of consciousness? That might actually be a question that science can never answer. Or it might. We just don't know.

For any given questions that seem impossible for science to answer currently (e.g. the "hard" question) there is no reason to suppose that science will never be able to investigate such claims. There is, however, reason to think that science might. Consider the questions that science has already answered about the human body or the physical world that, millenia ago, were considered magical or divine or off-limits. Science will progress (that is a fact) and perhaps it will discover new ways of investigating questions that currently are quite perplexing. Perhaps not. Time, however, will tell.

[struggle4progress]

108. There are good philosophical reasons, based upon careful analysis ..

.. of the theory of calculating machines, indicating it is possible in principle to frame questions that cannot be resolved: the problem is that determining exactly which questions "fall between the cracks" is itself a nontrivial problem.

The approach is this: one carefully describes certain finite programmable calculating devices, shows that some machine behaviors can be re-interpreted as statements about the machines' behaviors, and then pulls a trick rather like the one involved in the "liar paradox." The upshot is that certain questions about machine behavior cannot be answered by the machines themselves; and if one replaces the machines by better machines, the same problem reproduces itself for the new machines. This was first done in the 1930's by several people, including Alan Turing, and has been very carefully studied ever since.

A reasonable theory of consciousness, based on calculable physical phenomena, is likely to suffer the same defect: one will assume (because the philosophy of science absolutely requires it) that the human mind is essentially a programmable calculating device (say, the calculation is performed according to certain electrochemical laws) which provides certain outputs (perhaps in a probabilistic manner) in response to certain inputs; then, once the whole theory had been worked out in full detail, one should copy the basic technique of Turing -- with the conclusion that certain well-framed questions will remain unanswerable. But one then has the problem that an unanswerable question is not a scientific question -- and thus any belief that all such questions can be addressed in a logical and scientific manner "commits suicide."

The appropriate scientific stance, of course, is still to formulate whatever questions one thinks one knows how to answer and to try to answer them -- but in some sense, as one approaches the unresolvable problems, the logical terrain becomes erratic and increasingly difficult to predict, requiring specialized methods that shed light on limited areas

[varkam]

111. The computational model

of information processing and consciousness is one model of how the brain works, albeit one which I am fairly unfamiliar with. I do know that there is great discord among scientists on what model best represents how it actually works. I will assume that you are correct in the statement that it is possible to frame questions that cannot be resolved scientifically (i.e. paradoxes) but then the matter becomes to reframe the question in a manner that is answerable. At least that's my interpretation, but it is fairly late here.

[cyborg_jim]

127. Nor anyone else

"The upshot is that certain questions about machine behavior cannot be answered by the machines themselves;"

Otherwise we probably need to update our concept of what computation is.

"But one then has the problem that an unanswerable question is not a scientific question -- and thus any belief that all such questions can be addressed in a logical and scientific manner "commits suicide.""

The problem is that no-one has shown that any other mechanism of addressing questions actually has any utility. As such, whether or not people like it, these questions simply become unanswerable at all.

[toddaa]

104. I can't believe it

I agree with your entire post.

[struggle4progress]

106. I'm not sure why that surprises you

I suppose it's nice we agree -- but that may simply mean we are both blind to the same error

[NMMNG]

110. Yawn.

What is this obsessive need some have to turn everything (atheism, science, etc.) into a religion?

[cyborg_jim]

115. Tu quoque

Most sane religious people have to acknowledge the underlying irrationality of their religion when pushed on it and the underlying emotional attachment means that a 'tu quoque' approach mitigates the obvious negative emotional reaction - the opponent is really no better so their entire argument is undermined and they can go back to being happy about believing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

136. Tu quoque?

Is that Latin for "sez you!"?

[cyborg_jim]

137. More, "You as well!"

It is an argumentative fallacy.

[Evoman]

113. Scientism?

Bwahahaha. Okay, I'll bite....here goes...ahem *cough*


Why do you meanies have to bash my scientism religion. *sob* So I believe that science is a superior way of learning...so what, why do you have to bash it. *whine* So what if I like to base my beliefs on verfiable theories based on evidence? *cry* So what if I believe that people from other stupid religions who know nothing about science are wrong in arbitrarily putting limits on science based on ridiculous 2000 year old ideas?

Me and the other 23 scientismists declare a fatwa on all your other religions. Our religion is the one true religion and when we fully take over the goverment (not just partially, like we've done now), we will INSIST that you memorize all 8 planets, and the phylogenetic taxon names! BWAHAHAHAHA.

And please quit bashing my religion. I find it intolerant.




*sigh* most days, I really like people and I can ignore their religion all together. But everynow and then something like this comes along and I wonder if I am the only sane person in this fucking world. I just can't understand the mentality of people who want to base goverment and society on some stupid 2000 year old incomprehensible book full of lies and contradictions. Leftist Christianity-Lite...keep it the fuck away from me.

[cosmik debris]

121. I have a couple of problems with the OP

First, it repeats the old tired argument that atheists believe something. Most of us have learned that it is not true, but the OP seems to hold on to that notion.

The OP also wants to tell me what I believe which is also bad form. If you want to know what I believe, please ask me, don't tell me.

But the worst part of the OP is that it implies that the reason for hostility toward religion is the beliefs of non-religious people.

In his blindness to his own faults, the OP is unable to see that the hostility TO religion is based on the hostility OF religion. Religion has been shown to be demonstrably monstrous. It has caused enormous human suffering. Why do we need any other reason to be hostile to religion?

If religion was all St. Francis and Mother Theressa, there would be no hostility. But religion is also Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, bombs at Women's Health clinics and endless wars in the middle east. You don't have to hold contrary beliefs to be hostile to religion. All you have to do is look at religion with an un-jaundiced eye.

Edit: And it would sure be nice if we had some names. You know, a list of people who say that they believe what you say they believe. Otherwise people might think that this whole argument is something made up to tarnish the progressive movement. Just who are these people? Give their names so that they can defend themselves.

[cyborg_jim]

122. Mother Theressa was a bitch with good PR.

[cosmik debris]

125. I used her only as an example that religion doesn't have to be

violent and hateful--which it frequently is. Perhaps I could have found a better example, but her PR has created a common folk lore that is easily recognizable.

[cyborg_jim]

126. I think it exemplifies the point though

Religion is entirely irrelevant to being able to carry out good.

[jgraz]

139. There are few more hateful than good ol' Mother Theresa

You can't get much more hateful than withholding pain medication from dying patients because you think god wants them to suffer.

[Imperialism Inc.]

124. Post modernist jibber jabber.

"Oh dear... All those wacky people who make their decisions based on facts. Everyone knows all points of view are equally valid."

Ironically, some feel that the "left's problem" is that it supports the post modernist jibber jabber this guy has written. I don't know that it is specifically a problem of the left as I try to avoid such nonsense whenever possible. I do however think it is a major problem. Have a read of this article , by a leftist, that chronicles how he got a spoof paper published in a peer reviewed journal just by spouting the type of jibber jabber the posted article does. Some funny quotes follow the link:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html

The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time.

-- Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)

In the first paragraph I deride ``the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook'':

that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

Later in the article I propose that the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is somehow analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics. In reality, all the axiom of equality states is that two sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Even readers without mathematical training might well be suspicious of the claim that the axiom of equality reflects set theory's ``nineteenth-century liberal origins.''

[Odin2005]

144. I have posted a lot about the evil of PoMo BS.

The public discourse has become infected with postmodernist nonsense spewed by crazy religionists, New Age woo woos, and global warming Denialist con-men.

[redqueen]

129. I think we do generally agree on a set of values with progressive content...

and that the progressive battle is not a battle against "religion" per se. But that's a loaded term. (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/print.html)

When you say "the churches", I'm sure you mean the megachurches and the evangelical right. I don't believe that all people in all churches act that way. However those types do seem to be in the majority. I don't know if they are in the majority, but they certainly get much more press.

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. To answer your original question

"Do we generally agree on a set of values with progressive content?"

Yes, I think we do. But, to contradict the whole claim of the article you linked to, those values are not spiritual. They are not about people' souls, or about anything to do with the divine, or supernatural. They are about humans, and human society.

Lerner's claim that "The left is captivated by a belief that has been called scientism ... The public sphere is currently dominated by a scientism that validates money and power " contradicts what the left is. I really don't think Lerner knows what 'scientism' is. It's a claim that everything can be studied in the way the physical sciences can - by observation, experiment and calculation. It may be wrong, but that doesn't mean it "validates money and power". It doesn't have moral values like that. And no-one has shown us examples of 'the left' having a significant belief in scientism in the last 50 years.

[Odin2005]

145. I gag every time i see or hear the term "Scientism"

It is nothing more then a slur by postmodernist morons. "Scientism" is simply

Realism: The philosophical notion that there is a reality independent of our minds (as opposed to Idealism, which says that there is no reality outside our minds).

Empiricism: The philosophical notion that all information about the nature of Reality comes from sense experience and the interpretation thereof, not by pure reason alone (as opposed to Rationalism, which says that some or all truths about reality can be explained by reason alone).

Physicalist Monism: The philosophical notion that reality consists solely of the physical world, there is no such thing as the supernatural "higher plane of existence" (as opposed to Cartesian Dualism and Supernaturalist Monism)