The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why we should teach religion in schools > Comments

Why we should teach religion in schools : Comments

By Roger Chao, published 26/3/2012

There is an atheistic case for teaching religion in schools - you have to understand your enemy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Religion in schools?
Only if the children a told the real truth of this new militant forced religious superstition by the shadowy groups behind it.
The reason for almost 2 millennium of constant religious genocide and war.
Why in that 2 millennium, virtually no woman was permitted to paint sculpt or write any work of art. And any male was required to do so only if it were a religious work.
Women only receiving the right to a vote one hundred years ago because of religious pressure.
Even in the last few centuries, women had to use a mans name to be published.
Religion has held mankind back from centuries of development and will so again if we are not constantly vigilant against it's oppression.
Such was the choking oppressive strangle hold of religion on our society, on democracy, medicine, science, art, etc, etc.
Even today the new militant evangelical religious creationist charlatans involved in the infestation of religious frauds in our public schools and politics is a frightening sight to see in our democracy.
The republican party in the USA and Liberal, National etc, etc, parties in Australia are an affront to a free society. Christian fundamentalist believing the same ridiculous creationist beliefs and superstitions as their brethren in the Islamic fundamentalism.
Posted by HFR, Monday, 26 March 2012 10:00:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you might be surprised at the number of freethinkers who would agree there should be education ABOUT religions in schools. What they don't want is instruction in the specific doctrines of any particular religion.

The curriculum for such education should be developed by professional curriculum developers accountable to State education bodies. It should include education about non-religious worldviews and methods of ethical inquiry.

It should be delivered by qualified teachers rather than volunteers (no matter how well meaning).

The Rationalist Society of Australia would support the development and delivery of such a curriculum IF AND ONLY IF all 'special religious instruction/education' is removed from existing government school timetables.
Posted by President, Rationalist Society of Australia, Monday, 26 March 2012 10:43:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite a good essay altogether.
But who said that astrology, chiropractic healing, and homeopathy have been discredited. They have not.
Such a claim is just part of the intolerant dogma of one-dimensional Newtonian scientism which now pretends to be the arbiter of what is real and possible.

Astrology has always been an integral feature of most if not all of the old-time religions all over the world. Astrological symbolism was very common in the case of old-time pre-Renaissance Christianity. There are numerous astrological and numerological references in the Bible.
The Renaissance, and then the so-called "enlightenment" were followed by the simultaneous rise to cultural ascendency of the equally anti-magical phenomenon of Protestantism and scientism.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 26 March 2012 11:11:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we don't need are 'policy analysts' and 'independent scholars' using the category 'religion' as a boojum in their self serving narrative.

"..religious neutrality is a myth. Basic social institutions inevitably claim the right to make decisions on matters of life and death, and to demand sacrifice—even extreme sacrifice—of personal interests. To do so, they must be seen as grounded in ultimate realities regarding the meaning and value of life, and thus correspond to an authoritative religious outlook." http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815

Instead of being culpably blind to his own ersatz religion he could maybe attempt to argue for it? Haven't we grown tired of the idiotic caricatures secularists present of competing understandings of ultimate things? If he's truly interested in the vigour of our intellectual life - Australia's ability to accurately map the structure of reality - then Mr Chao could take a lead by letting go of his conceptual crutch 'religion' and begin some mature analysis.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 26 March 2012 11:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a refreshing essay, soundly argued.
I grew up in other people's countries because my father was in the RAF. We learnt at school about the countries we found ourselves living in, including the history, geography, culture and religions of each country. We celebrated all the Christian festivals AND all the local religious festivals, and learnt about the significance of these from local children. It gave me a balanced view of religion which has stood me in good stead in my adult years in writing ethico-legal policy where an understanding of different religious perspectives is useful during both the policy development and implementation phases.
I wish my children had the same opportunity, but they grew up in Australia where they were offered "religious instruction" but only in one Christian denomination, which I declined because this was delivered as narrowly-focussed indoctrination not education. I agree that students should learn about the various religions of the world and the denominations within them thereby generating more tolerance and understanding across cultures. I did what I could to pass on my knowledge and understanding to my children, but it isn’t the same as talking with other young people about their experiences
Posted by DrJeanMurray, Monday, 26 March 2012 11:49:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am weary of writers who triumphantly proclaim the "rational invalidity of religion" as if that settle the matter. I am not for religion in general but rather against. I was reminded the other day of a quote from Walter Winck that says in effect that it was not irreligion that nailed Christ to the cross but religion, it was not lawlessness that did so but the law. Consequently one can neither live by religion nor the law. I agree that "religion" in general is rather a nasty thing but faith is something quite different. Faith is not irrational, while it cannot be tested under the regime of scientific reason it has a rationality of its own that can express the essence of the human dilemma. A disciplined study of Christian theology makes one aware that it is governed by a rationality different from scientific rationality but a rationality all the same that governs what can and cannot be said about God. The writer suffers from the usual modern blindness to any rationality but scientific rationality. Even he would not apply such rationality to his major relationships or in pondering the depth of a poem or the true of a narrative.
Teaching about religion in schools may be handy but let us not confuse it with what the church does, inculcate the faith.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Monday, 26 March 2012 11:54:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course there should be references to religious beliefs in the relevant areas of the school curriculum. History, certainly, along with music and the arts. As Mr Chao points out, religion has played a significant part in recent world events, especially the last four thousand years or so.

The problems arise not with the concept, but with the execution.

One of the basic problems with religion is the inability of its different versions to live comfortably alongside each other. If there were some form of unity - those who believed, all believed in the same entity - it would hardly be a problem at all. The population would simply divide itself between believers and non-believers, and that would be that. Unfortunately, many hundreds of years of conflict inform us that this cannot be the case.

So, what would be the practical implications of introducing religion as a subject? Quite simply, it would form yet another battleground for one religion or another to take pride of place in the classroom material. And the last thing we need is yet another place for us-and-them conflicts to breed and multiply.

The chances would be high that one faction - Micks or Prods, Mozzies or Anglicans - would attempt a hijack on the curriculum, and paint it their way. And as Newton explained, mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. The next thing we know, Blenkinsop Minor in the lower fifth would have started the Tenth Crusade. Or Mick O'Flaherty will start kneecapping his Proddy classmates.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 26 March 2012 11:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Martin, in response to your post about Kalb's view on Liberalism, here's a reply to Kalbs treatise on Liberalism I wrote a while back. I don't think his argument is as water tight as it seems.

http://journal.telospress.com/content/2011/154/181.short
Posted by Rogercc, Monday, 26 March 2012 12:35:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's bad enough that the religious cohort go on about "militant atheists", without atheists trumping them at this unjustified name-calling: "aggressively militant atheist". As I've followed the debate in various media it's been my experience that most atheists are "for" religious "education", or comparative religion, and none are "militant". It's "religious instruction" and proselytisation by stealth that the atheists I know, or know of, condemn.
In other words I and most atheists, I believe, agree with the article's distinction between education and instruction; religion is of course quite properly a vital element in every culture's history and development, so why preface your remarks with nonsense about "aggressively militant atheists"?

To make matters worse, the author then goes on to be aggressive and militant himself!: "It is only by studying your enemy that you can defeat your enemy".
Peter Sellick is quite right to object to this unnecessary drawing of lines, I object myself; as if there is unimpeachable right on one side and wrong on the other, when neither side has a monopoly on wisdom--or ignorance.
Yes we need comparative religious education, but we also need political and ethical education, and self-reflexive critical thought, turned on rationalism as well as religion!
"We can only defeat the enemies of reason by studying them. Ignorance of religions breeds the ignorance that religion brings and thrives on";
what high sounding garbage!
I do not see religious people as my enemies. And religion does not breed ignorance any more than science and so-called reason do!
The author has said precisely nothing here, as thinking atheists don't object to religious education!
But worse, he goes on to breathe life into and personify himself exactly the straw man of ignorant-aggressive-militant-atheism he props-up.
I'm an atheist, Roger Chao, but you do not speak for me!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 26 March 2012 12:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's great Rog. I'm sure you had a profitable conversation with Mr Kalb, Mr Gottfried et al. but it's $USD20 to read mate and Jim's latest in ISI likely clarifies or tightens? What say you?

I take it we agree that your concept 'religion' is vacuous and does no useful work in your article.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 26 March 2012 12:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an atheist, I don't have any trouble with schools teaching about superstition, magic, ritual, barbaric practices and religions - in fact, about all uncivilized or pre-modern attempts to understand the complexities of the world, and at the same time, justify existing social inequalities (i.e. 'culture') - in schools, provided that it is all taught by atheists.

There's certainly enough interesting material to cover twelve years of schooling. There is a pictorial edition of Frazer's 'Golden Bough' which would be a good text for nine- and ten-year-olds.
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 26 March 2012 1:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After liberalism as the applied politics of totalitarian religion, or "religion" as a dramatization of individual and collective psychosis, which by its very nature systematically eliminates ALL other cultural possibilities while all-the-time masquerading as the self-appointed guardians of the "one-true-faith", in the form of both "orthodox" Christian-ism and Islam-ism.

http://tpjmagazine.us/adams29

Of course the "victory" of such Islam-icism would be a complete disaster for even the possibility of the emergence of a truly free religious and Spiritual consciousness.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 26 March 2012 1:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent response, Squeers, Pericles and others expressing similar positions. Roger, I think you will have great difficulty finding any thinking atheist who would not want children to be educated about all the important ideas, philosophies and beliefs that have influenced human behaviour. How else can they learn that today's religious beliefs are but the most recent of at least twenty thousand supernatural cults invented for the control of societies?
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 26 March 2012 8:58:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity has done vast good, and occasionally a little bad.

Unfairly, many wars have been blamed on religion, when they were caused by ability, ambition, technology or demographics... and the leaders were wise enough to enlist religion as an footsoldier in these much greater wars... In other words, religion was an innocent bystander, but ends up being blamed.

The Spanish Inquisiton is cited as the worst excess of religious abuse... but this was a result of the war of demographics across southern Spain... the islamic Moors were gradually defeated by the growing populations of Christians from the north... and, as always, the wars of demographics and race had religion conscripted as an innocent footsoldier and history records it as a war of religion.

The many millions of lifes slaughtered in the twentieth century by 'socialism', the millions of children whose futures are being destroyed by fatherlessness as a result of feminism, dwarf the people killed by Christianity.
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 26 March 2012 9:04:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" to be cited as the worst excess of religious abuse… Mostly because it's an inaccurate statement.

"…as always, the wars of demographics and race had religion conscripted as an innocent footsoldier and history records it as a war of religion" is certainly an assertion – unfortunately, when the figures in history who waged the wars claimed them as religious I think it's fair enough to believe them since they were there.

I'd love to hear your take on the ironically titled 'Lord Protector's' motives in the civil wars (one through three) and in Ireland – just a couple of events in history that don't deserve to be dismissed as "occasionally a little bad".
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 26 March 2012 9:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

ARE THERE RELIGIOUS TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS ?

.

I am afraid I have been away from home too long to know if there are religious teachers in schools these days.

There were none in my days. We used to have non-compulsory religious instruction provided by a local bush brotherhood Church of England minister once a week when I was a kid.

I enjoyed his classes though he did not teach us anything about religion. He simply explained various lessons from the bible in accordance with the dogma of the Church of England.

Nobody ever taught us what religion was, no more than they taught us what mathematics, phycics, chemistry, history, literature, or geography was. It never seems to have occurred to anybody that that might be necessary. The modus operandi was the same as the way my big brother taught me to swim: by throwing me into the deep end.

That was the method of teaching at school, whatever the subject. We never knew what it was we learned but we learned it - at least, some of us did. We were rewarded if we succeeded and punished if we failed.

As I am slow to understand anything, it has taken me most of my life to resurface and realize what it actually was that I was taught. I am gradually recovering my wits at last.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 26 March 2012 9:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheists are not militant. Why would one be militant about insisting that something does not exist? what reason has an atheist to consider religion as "enemy"?

The ones who are militant are not atheists, but rather those of a contrary religion, in this case the pseudo-religion of humanism. They hide cowardly under the cover of "atheism", never admitting to being a religion, but in fact, humanists believe in their own god - Man!

So NO. I wouldn't allow a biased humanist teacher to indoctrinate my children in school under the guise of "general knowledge".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 26 March 2012 10:30:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A disciplined study of Christian theology makes one aware that it is governed by a rationality different from scientific rationality but a rationality all the same that governs what can and cannot be said about God." -- Peter Sellick

Gosh, Peter, not so many weeks ago you were lecturing us about how wicked and irresponsible it was to be rational. But now you've apparently decided that rationality is a Good Thing, and so -- like any jealous three-year-old -- you want your Invisible Friend to have it.

OK, if Christian theology is 'rational', give me one example of an widely-accepted fact or item of information rationally derived from its premises. Just one, to set against the millions of facts derived from the rationality of science. If you can't do that then I'll be forced to conclude that Christian 'rationality' is just as elusive as Christian charity and Christian tolerance often seems to be.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 6:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mmmm, What a delightful comment, Jon J
An interesting notion, Yuyutsu, humanists thinking humans are gods... . it does explain how a purportedly rational species could so effectively poison their own nest and means of survival. Unless we're not rational after all? Merely creatures of evolutionary instinct?
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 6:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put, Squeers, my thoughts precisely.

>>...worse, he goes on to breathe life into and personify himself exactly the straw man of ignorant-aggressive-militant-atheism he props-up<<

But no discussion on religion would be complete without Sells.

>>I agree that "religion" in general is rather a nasty thing but faith is something quite different<<

I know what he is trying to say. But I think he is kidding himself.

There should, on the surface, be no harm in taking Sells' line, that faith and religion should be seen as two entirely separate aspects of the human condition. The classroom could then put faith under the heading of philosophy: what is it about the human condition that enables some people to replace rationality with dependence on spiritual externalities. And religion, under history: how have societies placed self-serving structures around a belief system.

Faith is, at base, only one of the many possible reactions to the deeply philosophical questions we ask ourselves, from the moment we are told exactly how far away the stars are from earth. Religion is the tapping of that feeling of mystery and wonder, channelling it into a set of rules within a command-and-control structure.

But here's the rub. Without faith - here describing the commitment to a set of ideas that have no basis in rational analysis - religion cannot exist. And without a religious framework, faith - in Sells' context - is entirely irrelevant.

Sells makes a living (pun not intended on this occasion) from his position within a religion. In describing the Anglican Church, which is his version of religion, as "rather a nasty thing", he leaves us - or me, at least - to wonder how he would write his job description.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 8:10:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mmmm... one with optional death benefits?

Or is that irrational?
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 8:41:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Either you don't have a clue what humanism actually is or you are simply projecting your own idea of what you want to interpret it to be because of some axe you have to grind. I can't find a single definition that supports anything you're saying.

I remember saying the same thing too when I was a Christian. It's one those things that gets around congregations like, "Einstein believed in God" and "They’ve found Noah's Ark", where no-one actually bothers to check the truth of the claim, they just believe it because they like it.

Religion in a nutshell really.

Do you have any evidence for your claims, or should we just write them off as emotive religious babble?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 12:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu is correct in that atheistic humanists have their set of rules and beliefs of which to adhere [their religion]. In their opinion man is the highest intelligence in the universe [except those that have faith in a Creator of the Universe] and then atheist humanists have higher intelligence - the absolute truth [because they see no eternal cohesive mind behind all reality].
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 1:38:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be honest, Pericles, I only glossed Sells's post and was going by the representation we've all come to know and ...

I find myself in an uncomfortable position here where while I don't believe in God, I don't discount the possibility either; where I don't have much patience for the "rather nasty thing" populist/fundamentalist religion tends to be, but can't dismiss the fact that highly intelligent people, no disposed to be deluded, have "religious" experiences; where much as I respect reason and rational thought, it also has its populist/fundamentalist abusers. Hence my comment above: "religion does not breed ignorance any more than science and so-called reason do".
On the face of it, it would seem it most certainly does but it's not the fault of religion or science that there are a great many idiots and bigots (as well as the merely naive and immature) among their ranks; there are also savants. It's not politically correct to say such things these days but I think it's true. It seems to me that "religion" and "science" are different ways of rationalising the world, opposing hypostases, based on idealism and materialism respectively and each with their dangerous excesses and innanities. Whether rationalists like it or not there is a spiritual/uncanny dimension to human life that is not necessarily delusional; "religion" doesn't have to signify something inane, any more than "scientific" signifies objective reality to the exclusion of all else. At its best, religion projects an ethical paradigm (though it's never been ideal or realised); at its worst, science projects an amoral. What we have on all sides is ignorance and education's cure--at least for those interested in learning.
"Faith", for the thinking person at least is, is more than a "feeling of mystery and wonder", and is as deterministic as rationalism; based on predestination, as opposed to nihilism.
But I'm getting in a bit deep here. I think all human experience, objective and subjective (arguably inseparable) should be part of education, and would be if it was done with any rigour.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 1:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

According to wikipedia:

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

According to dictionary.com, 'humanism' is:

1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities.
3. the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.
4. Philosophy, a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

Take the case of North Korea where they worship the Great Leader, Kim Jong-XX. North Koreans cannot admit that they consider Jong as god, but in fact they do, valuing him above all else. They must therefore consider religion an enemy as it would compete with their own pseudo-religion.

Similarly, Humanism is the movement, idea or way of life, which considers human life, human society and human scientific progress to be of such value as North-Koreans attribute to their Jong. Unlike atheism, which in itself is neutral, humanists must consider religion an enemy as it would compete with their own pseudo-religion.

The tool of science can at best tell the facts of existence (including the facts about Noah's ark being such or otherwise), but can tell nothing about values and what's of prime importance, what's worthy of predominance. The belief that humans, their society, their progress and their science are of utmost importance isn't rational any more than the belief that Mr. Jong is.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 2:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

You need to look up the definition of “religion”. I know of no Humanists who think that humans are the highest intelligence in the universe - the world maybe. You ought to look up the definition of “Humanist” too.

Yuyutsu,

I suspected that would be your response and none of it supports your assertions.

There is nothing about attaching prime importance to human matters rather than supernatural matters that says that Humanists hold themselves to be Gods or God-like in any way. You have merely invented this non-existent link to attach a sinister, cult-like stigma to a mode of thought that simply puts reality-based concerns ahead of myth-based assertions.

As for your definitions, none of them support your purported link either and neither do any of the definitions in a Google define search… http://tinyurl.com/bn9e3th

[I wouldn’t pay too much attention to dictionary.com. Look how they define abiogenesis despite scientists having contacted them about it many times… http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t]

Do you have any evidence for your North Korea claims? From what I’ve heard, many North Koreans hate the Jong’s but are not allowed to show it. Can you show me how I’m wrong there too?

<<Similarly, Humanism is the movement, idea or way of life, which considers human life, human society and human scientific progress to be of such value as North-Koreans attribute to their Jong.>>

And this after failing to demonstrate anything of the sort with your Wikipedia reference and definitions.

<<The tool of science can at best tell the facts of existence (including the facts about Noah's ark being such or otherwise), but can tell nothing about values and what's of prime importance, what's worthy of predominance.>>

Neither can religion. It merely asserts it in the dangerously arbitrary manner that it does and yet here you are, railing against a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 4:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

Indeed many North Koreans hate the Jong's, but most do not because they were brought up with his worship from the cradle (if indeed they had a cradle, most slept on bare concrete floor) and know nothing else. All we know is from reports of those who escaped, probably of above-average intelligence, and their stories usually tell us of a turning point in their life when they discovered something about the outside-world (for example that we have comfortable beds to sleep on) which did not fit their indoctrination.

The historical depiction of gods, their powers and limitations varies from one culture to another - not all were omniscient and omnipotent (BTW a logical contradiction: could god create a stone-so-heavy-that s/he-couldn't-lift-it?). There were some who couldn't even feed themselves and others who were lusty and capricious, but what is common which made them all 'gods' is the fact that they were worshiped and considered by people to be of prime importance, the ultimate and most worthy goal of life. It is in this sense that humanists consider man as god, while many of them also go a step further, aspiring (neurotically) to enhance the human body and/or the human society, trying to make it omniscient, omnipotent and immortal.

Describing humanism as "a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns" is like shooting the arrow first then marking the target around it: naturally if you are a humanist, then your concerns will be along humanistic goals - how to preserve and glorify the human race. You would take such concerns for granted just as North-Koreans would take for granted their concerns for the health and happiness of their Jong. Naturally also, since humans live and develop within the world of existence, humanists consider that world as the "real world", simply because it's the only place that is real enough for them, the only place they care about. In other words, any mode of thought, including religious, pseudo-religious, nationalistic, etc. would consider itself "grounded in real world concerns".

Suit yourself, but don't indoctrinate my children.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 9:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

You exaggerate, distort and twist the facts to paint a caricature of Humanism that doesn’t exist. It’s this type of dishonestly that gave rise to another caricature that doesn’t really describe anyone: “Scientism”.

<<...but what is common which made them all 'gods' is the fact that they were worshiped and considered by people to be of prime importance, the ultimate and most worthy goal of life. It is in this sense that humanists consider man as god...>>

Yeah, only no humanists worship mankind and any “prime importance” or worthiness needs to be put in a humanitarian/survivalist context (one that particularly prioritises measureable, demonstrable and verifiable reality over superstition) to be understood. Not with the warped slant you’re putting on it by choosing your words, and those you omit, emotively.

So you see, describing Humanism as "a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns" is not “shooting the arrow first then marking the target around it” at all.

<<...while many of them also go a step further, aspiring (neurotically) to enhance the human body and/or the human society, trying to make it omniscient, omnipotent and immortal.>>

Sounds like you’re talking about Transhumanists here but it’s hard to tell because you use words with an omni pre-fix and throw the word “immortal” in when Transhumanists only seek to greatly enhance Mankind physically, mentally and ethically and push back and reduce our limitations. There may be some cuckoo brains out there who dream of eliminating all limitations completely but they still don’t seek to turn humans into any sort of contemporary or common understanding of what a God is.

<<...naturally if you are a humanist, then your concerns will be along humanistic goals - how to preserve and glorify the human race.>>

Here you go again. You just can’t help yourself!

Glorify
Worship
Ultimate
Most worthy
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Immortal

All words/concepts/phrases you’ve used to describe Humanists and how they allegedly think and none of them are accurate or used in context - as the definitions and the Wikipedia article show.

What’s your real problem here?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:33:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<...It’s this type of dishonestly that gave rise to another caricature that doesn’t really describe anyone: “Scientism”.>

AJ Philips,
much as I respect your position, as I understand it, I have to respond to the above statement. Scientism is not a caricature and does describe a mindset that's been around more or less since the Enlightenment and is common today in popular and professional form. Scientism, or logical positivism/scientific materialism, insists science derives the only valid knowledge of the world and humanity's place in it, notwithstanding that empirical research is socially-selected and, conscious or unconscious, invariably guided by particular interests that at least implicitly involve value-laden conceptions. And while scientism dismisses subjectivity and its productions wholesale, insisting science provides the only genuine knowledge of existence, there's a blind faith (or self-interest) in the "rational optimism" that technology holds the solutions to humanity's problems. Just as religious fundamentalists see detractors as victims of their own sin, typically pride, champions of scientism dismiss dissenters as having abandoned reason. Indeed, your statement describing scientism as a "dishonest caricature", when there have been any number of logical positivists (and hidebound liberal rationalists), looks like hypersensitivity to, and intolerance of, criticism.
While “militant” atheism is, imo, generally exaggerated, there is a common tendency among so-called “secularists”, and swathes of the scientific community, not only to ridicule subjective/philosophical/theological experience and forays into the nature of reality out of hand (a denialism Chesterton considered a combination of undemocratic elitist scepticism and intellectual snobbery), but to ingenuously or disingenuously support a leaden liberal rationalist orthodoxy http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/
Ironically, there is a certain anthropocentrism to humanism (that Yuyutsu grossly exaggerates—what about “Christian Humanism”, Yuyutsu?) that doesn’t fit easily with the scientistic mindset, just as there’s inevitably a degree of rationalism in the secular humanist preoccupation with ethics. Indeed secular humanism sometimes exhibits mild cases of scientism, imo, in its exclusionary dedication to reason, empirical evidence and scientific method, none of which can be declared disinterested or uncontaminated—though I acknowledge that this scepticism can be abused in a species of petty equivocation. Conviction, of all sorts, tends to intolerance.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 6:21:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

Surely one wouldn't expect humanism to describe itself in religious terminology, for even different religions use different terminologies.

As a religious person (so I hope), I think in religious terms, but given your sensitivity I'll try to say the same in secular language:

Humanism is designed for a purpose: to preserve and advance the human race within the realm of existence.
Religion is designed for a purpose: to come closer to God.

Those goals are often incompatible.

Re: "reality over superstition", we both agree that science (measurable, demonstrable and verifiable) is the best way to tell facts within the world of existence, but here is the point of contention: humanism believes that existence is real (as in 'reality', in fact that existent=real) as well as important, whereas from my religious point-of-view, I consider existence an illusion, or using your word, 'superstition' - and superstitions aren't of great importance. Science is great at answering "what", "how" and other factual questions, but with due respect, it is outside the scope of science to answer questions about reality or value, so science cannot refute my view.

Some humanists (transhumanists) are not satisfied with only preserving and advancing the human race within the realm of existence, but also strive to master that realm. Others do not, but then not every Muslim is a Jihadist either.

What I try to demonstrate here, is that although humanists don't name themselves a 'religion', there are at least as many essential parallels between humanism and most given religions as there are among the different established religions.

<<What’s your real problem here?>>

In the context of this article, my problem is that the author, pretending to be neutral (or atheist), suggests giving one specific pseudo-religion free reign to brainwash state-school children in matters of spirit in order to direct them away from God and towards His human substitute. What an outcry would there be if a Zeus-worshiper attempted the same...

Dear Squeers,

Thank-you for bringing Fish's excellent article, which I thoroughly enjoyed and essentially agree with!

I view "Christian Humanism" as a sad loss of direction.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 7:39:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I realize that, Yuyutsu.

>>What I try to demonstrate here, is that although humanists don't name themselves a 'religion', there are at least as many essential parallels between humanism and most given religions as there are among the different established religions.<<

But in my view, there are far more "essential differences" than parallels.

Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start. Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs. I doubt very much either, whether a humanist has set himself alight, in protest against the oppression of his beliefs.

I also take issue with this statement of yours:

>>The historical depiction of gods, their powers and limitations varies from one culture to another... but what is common which made them all 'gods' is the fact that they were worshiped and considered by people to be of prime importance, the ultimate and most worthy goal of life.<<

Roman gods in everyday life were a form of supernatural domestic servant. They ranged from the generalist Lares, who protected the household, to the specific - Abeona, who protected the kids as they left home, and Adeona, who protected them on the way home.

Others covered war, wisdom and so on, but the principle was the same: you prayed, you paid homage or made sacrifices, you worshipped, and then they came along to help.

Not, from any point of view, "the ultimate and most worthy goal of life".

Which is also why this is also questionable:

>>What an outcry would there be if a Zeus-worshiper attempted the same<<

Since the worship of Zeus has a great deal in common with the conduct of other religions, they would be quite at home.

I can understand why you would be less than happy with a humanist posing the sort of questions to the kids that a humanist would.

But a Zeus-worshipper would be fighting on your side, surely.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 8:43:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religions invoke belief in "the supernatural",

Humanism doesn't - it just invokes the positive of human interaction and activity.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 9:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,

"Religions invoke belief in the supernatural",
Obviously you havent attended an active Church lately, to witness the diversity of activity that are performed.

"Humanism doesn't - it just invokes the positive of human interaction and activity."

That is exactly what Churches do. Havent you heard of the commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That is why Church based Charities exist, and overseas education etc programmes are run in developing countries.

Conclusion from your statements: Humanism is a form of religion.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 12:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Josephus. Christian Humanism is[a form of religion].

But, non-Supernatural Humanism is not.

See "Recommendation 14" here http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm#P19_1825

>> "That the definition of religion be based on the principles established in the Scientology case, namely:

> - belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

> - acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief." <<

Church of New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (1983) 154 CLR 120.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 1:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists to stop people in their tracks when a discussion becomes uncomfortable for them. Whenever someone feels that science is sticking its nose in where they don’t want it to, they get to cry “scientism” to halt the conversation and get a gasp from the audience. Half the audience may not even know what scientism is but that doesn’t matter - it’s an “ism” and it sounds scary and dogmatic.

I don’t know of anyone who fits the description, though (not even Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett or Harris) and so I therefore reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it - as many others don't.

<<Scientism, or logical positivism/scientific materialism, insists science derives the only valid knowledge of the world and humanity's place in it...>>

What you’ve described here is scientism; not necessarily positivism, materialism or naturalism for that matter. Many atheists are materialists and naturalists, but that doesn’t necessitate that they reject, absolutely, the possibility of anything supernatural as a “scientismist” would. If someone wants to invoke the supernatural, however, then the burden of proof lies with them.

There is a very big difference between acknowledging that scientific explanations - given what we currently know - are the only valid ones, and insisting that they are the only explanations that can ever be valid. Beyond an off-the-cuff remark, who could honestly, dogmatically and so stubbornly say they were the latter?

Yuyutsu,

I don’t think I’m just being sensitive. Some of the words you’re using have specific religious meanings that completely clash with the accepted definitions of humanism and only serve to imply sinister/hidden/unbeknown motives that simply aren’t there and parallels that fade into insignificance in light of the differences.

<<…I consider existence an illusion…>>

Well, I’m only interested in that which is useful and this way of thinking has no practical use.

Anyway, I think I’ve now well and truly made my point. So unless you can show me how your paranoia about humanism is in any way grounded in reality…
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 3:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

When you write

" .... humanism believes that existence is real .... whereas from my religious point-of-view, I consider existence an illusion .... "

* in the first place, that's a bit of a tautology: existence = reality, as you say, and what is not real does not exist except perhaps in our minds (where, of course they appear to be real);

* in the second place, we can't just ordain existence to be just what we would like it to be, like Chauncey Gardener in "Being There', using the remote to try to change channels in the real world while he is being mugged;

* most importantly, reality 'bites': fall down the stairs, and see if your broken bones are mere illusions. Or if the stairs are, or whatever you hit at the bottom. Or the haste with which your kids would shove you in an old people's home as a consequence.

Reality (i.e. existence) is sometimes hard to understand, inconvenient, or even very unpleasant. But it still happens, nothing illusory about it. Illusions are for spectators on real life.

Humanism doesn't worship humans, but takes them as one of the primary concerns and drivers of reality, one of the main agents of both disaster and improvement, endlessly innovative and idiotically destructive - humans as the focus, but humans warts and all, full of potential but also of illusions.

One of the greatest of which is this thing which we create in our own image, that we call god. Yes, the existence of god is an illusion.

Cheers,

joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 4:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips:
<The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists to stop people in their tracks when a discussion becomes uncomfortable for them. Whenever someone feels that science is sticking its nose in where they don’t want it to, they get to cry “scientism” to halt the conversation and get a gasp from the audience. Half the audience may not even know what scientism is but that doesn’t matter - it’s an “ism” and it sounds scary and dogmatic.>

Well that’s a neat way to avoid the substance of my post, deny the validity of the word, as if its coinage consists in nothing more than an empty pejorative. Coming from you this cranky piece of indignation is a great disappointment. All the same, since you argue this is merely a matter of semantics you won’t mind if I consult a higher authority.
According to the OED the word was first coined in 1877 and denoted “The habit and mode of expression of a man of science”.
It wasn’t until 1921 that it acquired its derogatory connotation:
“A term applied to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences”.
Here's a sampling of original quotes since:
1938 G. Reavey tr. N. A. Berdyaev Solitude & Society i. 12 Science has not only progressively reduced the competence of philosophy, but it has also attempted to suppress it altogether and to replace it by its own claim to universality. This process is generally known as ‘scientism’.
1942 F. A. von Hayek in Economica IX. 269 We shall wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with that slavish imitation of the method and language of science, speak of ‘scientism’ or the ‘scientistic’ prejudice.
1953 A. H. Hobbs Social Probl. & Scientism ii. 17 Scientism, as a belief that science can furnish answers to all human problems, makes science

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 5:09:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a substitute for philosophy, religion, manners, and morals.&#8229; It is a pattern of beliefs&#8229;a creed that shapes thinking and affects behavior.
1956 E. H. Hutten Lang. Mod. Physics vi. 273 This belief in the omnipotence of science is&#8229;making a mockery of science: for this scientism represents the same, superstitious, attitude which, in previous times, ascribed such power to a supernatural agency.
1957 W. H. Whyte Organization Man iii. 23 Scientism,&#8229;the promise that with the same techniques that have worked in the physical sciences we can eventually create an exact science of man.
1972 K. R. Popper Objective Knowl. iv. 185 The term ‘scientism’ meant originally ‘the slavish imitation of the method and language of (natural) science’, especially by social scientists.
1977 A. Sheridan tr. J. Lacan Écrits iii. 76 The early development of psychoanalysis&#8229;expresses&#8229;nothing less than the re-creation of human meaning in an arid period of scientism.
Some big names but not one single “theist” in the OED’s longer list of quotes!
Not that I’m not defending theism.

<I don’t know of anyone who fits the description, though (not even Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett or Harris) and so I therefore reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it - as many others don't.>

Well that’s that. You refuse to consider criticism of your world view so you contemptuously dismiss it—the classic stance.
Perhaps then you shouldn’t have used the word in the first place as your own “strawman”.
For what it’s worth, for me, scientism indicates a hasty and unreflective, dismissive, reductionist, yet derivative attitude that supports the status quo, who’s memes are as popular as they are doctrinaire.
It’s not about personalities, though Dawkins might be nominated patron saint with this gem, “[O]ur own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but … it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it”.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 5:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<But a Zeus-worshipper would be fighting on your side, surely.>>

About 2200 years ago, Zeus worshipers prohibited the practice of Judaism and ordered the Jews to bow down to statues of Zeus, killing those who didn't. So I couldn't trust those pseudo-religion guys any more than I could trust the modern humanist pseudo-religion.

<<Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start.>>

So what for example are universities for?

Of course humanists wouldn't use the same terminology and of course different gods require different forms of worship. I have seen professors getting red in the face at hearing my views, calling it "desecration of science", some of which also call universities the "Hall of Science".

<<Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs.>>

That's a straw-man: the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Some of the words you’re using have specific religious meanings that completely clash with the accepted definitions of humanism>>

Naturally, humanism wants to believe that its premises are based on science, refusing to see their irrationality. There's nothing rational or scientific about the choice of doctrines and values of humanism.

<<Well, I’m only interested in that which is useful and this way of thinking has no practical use.>>

So do I, we're only divided on the question of "use for what?", in other words, on the goal(s) of life.

<<how your paranoia about humanism is in any way grounded in reality…>>

Read the article - the author wishes to eliminate religion.

Dear McReal,

The factual details of existence are natural, but the belief that existence and/or aspects within it are real or of any value, is supernatural.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 6:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs.>>

""That's a straw-man: the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'.""

Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 6:17:04 PM

Hahahahahahahahaha. What you propose is the strawman!!

..........................................................
"Dear McReal, The factual details of existence are natural, but the belief that existence and/or aspects within it are real or of any value, is supernatural."

More realistically - the factual details of existence are real, but the belief that existence and/or aspects of it is influenced by the supernatural is not.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 6:25:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Interesting comments, although a bit unrelated to this article.

The idea which equates "existence=reality" is not mine, I only alluded to this common false belief.

Either all, or at least nearly all of us, suffer from this perception as if existence=reality and waking up from this illusion is not so easy as changing channels on a remote. Within this illusion, indeed our bones get broken and our kids shove us in old-people's home.

Nevertheless, religion claims that there is a way for us to be released from this illusion and proposes measures to increase our chances to escape this predicament. Those measures are often austere and unpopular, which is why most people give up before they even try, then criticize religion as something that doesn't work.

Ultimate reality is neither pleasant or unpleasant, and has nothing to do with existence. Ultimate reality is God. So long, however, as we pursue the pleasant, we receive the unpleasant as well.

Humanism worships and reveres human progress and science, even while it describes its behaviour with different verbs.

Some idiots indeed attempted to create gods in their own human image. These I call 'gods' with a small 'g', not God. The existence of God is a fallacy and a logical contradiction. God is not part of the illusion of existence!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 7:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I’m not sure how you read my post as “cranky”. I thought it sounded quite cool, calm and collected, personally. That’s how it was meant to sound anyway.

<<Well that’s a neat way to avoid the substance of my post...>>

I didn’t avoid anything. I addressed the substance of your post in my last paragraph to you. You’re problem seems to be that you are unable to distinguish between:

(a) the understanding that scientific method (or more broadly, applied reasoning based on logical absolutes) is the only method we have of validating claims, given what we currently know, and;

(b) the belief that scientific explanations are the only explanations that will be EVER be valid.

There’s a world of difference in my distinction above, just as there is a world of difference between understanding that it would be crazy to exclude science from something just because it may never have the answers, and assuming that it must be excluded in certain areas. But you seem to want to focus more on the semantical side of my argument...

<<...since you argue this is merely a matter of semantics you won’t mind if I consult a higher authority.>>

Okay, so maybe (just maybe) I shouldn’t have included the word “invented”. Especially since I’m talking from a more contemporary viewpoint/experience. Your quotes, however, only confirm to me that no-one I can possibly think of fits the profile.

Speaking of “contemporary”, though, I note that the references were oldish. I could imagine that, in more ignorant times, such bold assertions about what science can and cannot know would have flown about more easily (given it took a whopping 44 years to develop derogatory connotations!) but again, I can’t think of anyone in our more open-minded and enlightened day and age who thinks like that.

But do a search of OLO for “scientism” and browse though the 225 results Google finds to see how the word is used nowadays and, more to your point, by whom... http://tinyurl.com/74bypk6.

You’re the only atheist I spotted in my random browsing of the results.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 9:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<You refuse to consider criticism of your world view so you contemptuously dismiss it...>>

Eh? No. We haven’t even discussed my worldview yet. Again, no-one I know of fits the scientism profile.

<<Perhaps then you shouldn’t have used the word in the first place as your own “strawman”.>>

My use of the term was not a strawman.

Finally, I don’t think the issue of scientism is about personalities either and I don’t know what the point of your Dawkins quote is. One could express/agree with it and still not be a “scientismist” because Dawkins was talking about our being here - physically - not the human condition.

Yuyutsu,

<<Naturally, humanism wants to believe that its premises are based on science...>>

Okay, and I’d be fine with your usage of the terms too if you could demonstrate otherwise but I don’t think you’ve done that yet. All I’m hearing is conjecture.

<<...we're only divided on the question of "use for what?", in other words, on the goal(s) of life.>>

I mean “use for anything” other than brief musings - goals in life too, if you want. Until you could find a way of even beginning to validate the claim that existence is all an illusion and distinguish between illusion and non-illusion, the belief has no useful purpose.

<<Read the article - the author wishes to eliminate religion.>>

To be honest, I skimmed it because I’m not aware of anyone who would argue against teaching the role religion has played throughout history.

I wish to eliminate religion too - along with all other forms of irrationality. But whether or not this is evil depends on whether one would actually want to proceed with eliminating religion and more importantly, how one would go about it.

Obviously concentration and re-education camps would be a bad thing (not to mention fail). But if your method of going about this is to spread enough reason and rational arguments about so that people eventually (over many generations even) see reason on their own accord, then how could that be anything but a good thing?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 9:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

All proofs must be scientific and science is only good within the realm of existence, so I should be a fool if I were to attempt to prove anything about that realm itself. I am not here to convince anyone in the truth of my views, but rather to point out that the religious perspective stands on the same logical footing as the humanist perspective, that religion is not an "enemy of reason" as the author claims, but rather that both religion and humanism are based on unprovable metaphysical assertions and subjective direct experiences.

Ensuing from those two perspectives are two different life-goals and life-styles. The best tool to pursue the goals of humanism is science, while religion has less use for that particular tool: that doesn't make religion any less logical or reasonable - religion simply does not focus on the realm within which science is effective.

<<I’m not aware of anyone who would argue against teaching the role religion has played throughout history.>>

Neither do I, so long as the teacher is unbiased and doesn't spread derogatory fallacies about religion (such as being an enemy of reason). As it stands, few teachers would even understand (or wish to understand) what religion is really about.

<<I wish to eliminate religion too - along with all other forms of irrationality.>>

Then you will need to eliminate humanism as well...

<<then how could that be anything but a good thing?>>

If done in a pure unbiased spirit, rather than by a rival pseudo-religion, then religion has nothing to fear about reason and rational arguments (however, you could never achieve your goal of eliminating religion this way!).

Dear Josephus,

The full sentence is [Leviticus 19:18]: "Love thine fellow as thyself, I am the Lord". The Christian-humanist trap is to concentrate so hard on the first half-sentence as to forget the second which is the reason for that and for everything else.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Thanks for giving the full text.

There is physical reality in which the natural sciences are based, and there is a spiritual reality of which the divine is based [in other words a religion]. Though we can observe metaphysical behaviour incarnate in reality, science cannot determine creativity, attitude, motive and character only by the physical expression of these. These are the ultimate reality of the person, it is these spiritual realities that have effected the reality of the physical. It is these spiritual realities that express the very character of God, and upon which we are ultimately held accountable to the eternal reality.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 March 2012 4:53:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're on shaky ground here, Yuyutsu.

>><<Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start.>>
So what for example are universities for?<<

Universities are not the humanist's place of worship in anyone's lexicon bar your own. The generally accepted definition of "worship" is "an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity". Unless you consider all forms of knowledge to be god-like, your proposition fails utterly. Think of it this way: what are a bunch of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, atheists etc. doing at university, if it is the humanist's place of worship? Do you get the same mix in your church every Sunday?

And I'm sorry, nor can you escape either the simple realities of a society, divided by their religious beliefs, turning to violence in the name of those beliefs.

>>...the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'<<

They were, I'm afraid, not only "religiously-based actions", but deep-down, fundamental, core-value religion-based actions. No "despite" about it. History - a great deal of it, stretching back centuries - is against you on this.

Your defence - that old chestnut "they couldn't have really been Christians" - is completely invalid. The only reason they blew each other up was because they were Christians, not in spite of their being Christians. If they had not been Christians of such deeply-held beliefs, they would not have gone around kneecapping each other in dark alleys.

I know it is hard to accept, but that was the reality then, and in many places still is the reality.

Among the gems you create in your continuing attempt to pervert the course of the English language to your cause, this is an outstanding example.

>>...both religion and humanism are based on unprovable metaphysical assertions and subjective direct experiences<<

And the "unprovable metaphysical assertion" upon which humanism is based is... what, exactly?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 29 March 2012 7:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips,

By “Cranky indignation” I meant you exhibited the same impatient and authoritarian refusal to consider criticism—of an institutional-perspective you embrace—as members of any flock generally do.
<I didn’t avoid anything. I addressed the substance of your post in my last paragraph to you>
No you didn’t; my post elaborated both the term, scientism, and its dogmatic manifestation in the modern world.
<You’re problem…>
I don’t have a problem; I don’t defend or cleave to any institutional thinking. I only acknowledge there is an idealistic/spiritual/experiential side to human life that shouldn’t be hastily dismissed, indeed that empiricism is only possible via the faculty of mind, that is the conflation of the subjective and the objective, and the subjective is subject to, steeped in, ideological influence. Objectivity is compromised in itself, but also in its affiliations. You’re a,b distinction indicates a childish apprehension of what I’m talking about.
I don’t propose excluding science and it was you who preferred semantics to the incidence of scientism. I dealt with the substance and offered “logical positivism/scientific materialism”, “rational optimism”, “liberal rationalists” “intellectual snobbery”, “arrogance” and a link to an article for further variations on the theme.
For my pains you, “reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it”, hence I went to the OED. Then you accuse “me” of wanting “to focus more on the semantical side of [your] argument”; it’s been about an invalid word for you from the start!

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 29 March 2012 8:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

Even after I cite the OED, rather than concede you were “wrong” saying, “The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists”, you complain the OED’s etymology—an eclectic list of quotes, some defending science—isn’t up to date and persist in saying, “I can’t think of anyone in our more open-minded and enlightened day and age who thinks like that”, and this is after I quoted Dawkins in what is without doubt an instance of the personalised scientism you’ve been after (I’ve been saying it’s a spectrum of institutional thinking)! You just repeat, “Again, no-one I know of fits the scientism profile”. You then indulge in semantics to get out of it: “I don’t know what the point of your Dawkins quote is. One could express/agree with it and still not be a “scientismist” because Dawkins was talking about our being here - physically - not the human condition”.
Are you saying then that Dawkins believes in a human condition beyond biology?
Scientism is not about personalities or semantics and in my view it’s as relevant as ever. It only seems archaic now because its signified is an attenuated and institutional mentality, which makes it unconscious.
And since we still abide in ignorance—especially apropos consciousness—as well as an ideological realm of normative-political-competitive-haunted-emotional-instinctual, idealistically-sectarian strife, we needn’t flatter ourselves we’ve solved anything.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 29 March 2012 8:40:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was hopeful, Yuyutsu, when I got to "…and science is only good within the realm of existence," expecting the dichotomous "and religion is only good within the realm of nonexistence". But no.

That you are seeking "rather to point out that the religious perspective stands on the same logical footing as the humanist perspective" was one of those "What the…?" moments for me. I think we've reached the stage where you need to supply a primer for the rest of us who think that, for public discourse, it's important the use of the words "logical, reason, reality and indeed God" are not contorted into nonsense.

To paraphrase William James, "the use of a given object, like a word, may be lost by the mind. We may lose our acoustic idea or our articulatory idea of it; neither without the other will give us a proper command the word. And if we have both, but have lost the paths of association between the brain centres which support the two we are in as bad a plight."

What you have demonstrated without doubt is the apparently infinite capacity of the human brain for imagination.

But I'm biased in my perceptions – having reached a conclusion so far, that religion is the result, and is analogous to an optical illusion, when our conscious minds try to cope attempting to comprehend our mortality. It seems there's something there but it's not real.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 29 March 2012 9:44:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles questions yuyutsu:- "And the "unprovable metaphysical assertion" upon which humanism is based is... what, exactly?"
He explained this on page two, or thereabouts, with words to the effect that Humanists make the unprovable metaphysical assertion that humans are the most important objects for our study and reverence, and they base their actions on what is of benefit to humans, instead of the entire living world. And therein lies a problem for a finite planet in which the natural world is on the verge of irreparable damage.
Animism is the answer.
Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:47:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've always considered Buddahism as a religion yet it has no diety. A religion is a method of worship / devotion to a belief system that gives answers to existence and purpose. What one is devoted too as one's highest ideal of behaviour and character is one's religion.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:12:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ybgirp,

Too clever !

Your slide from a very debatable 'Humanists make the unprovable metaphysical assertion that humans are the most important objects for our study and reverence,'

to

'they base their actions on what is of benefit to humans, instead of the entire living world....'

begs the question. In my limited understanding, and perhaps with some wishful thinking, humanists are concerned about ALL of the natural world, of which humans are a necessary component, and perhaps the only component which can do much about fixing up the damage, after as well as before the event, that all species have - usually unintentionally - wrought on the planet.

Yes, humans are a major part of humanist thinking if only because we humans have the means to do either great harm or, hopefully, great good - turtles and mosquitoes don't yet have the technology to counter global warming or Third World poverty, but we have the potential to develop it - at the same time as we are finding ways of protecting the existence of those turtles and, to a lesser extent, mosquitoes. In the case of turtles, stopping their killing using power-boats and spear-guns would be a start.

So the teaching of religion, as a precautionary tale so to speak, and of ethics, human core values, is vital in schools.

Children must understand the limits of superstition and a child-like belief in the supernatural, and that there is nobody to save the world from the damage that may be wreaked on it, except us: not to leave it up to either some imagined god or to the turtles. Us, we, have the responsibility, and the potential.

Schoolchildren must get an initial understanding of why and how that damage is taking place, and whether or not humans can devise social and other systems to overcome, minimise and avoid such problems in the future.

And obviously, only atheists and humanists are able to do any of that impartially.

Joe ;)
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:25:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
You make the unfounded claim, "And obviously, only atheists and humanists are able to do any of that impartially".

Please give your reasoning for such a claim and demonstrate by examples.

Most religions believe god created all things and has given man ultimate responsibility to manage and preserve and sustain all life. That is the original commission given to man which Jews and Christians uphold. The Hebrew Scriptures gives instructions on land maintenance to retain productivity 1000 BC. These instructions are linked to religious practise. These were also in existence in Mesopotamia and Egypt prior to that and are deeply religious States.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

All religious people are entitled to believe in whatever rubbish they like, magic, spirits, sorcery, miracles, the smiting of this or that city and burning bushes.

But by definition, any one religious person could not be impartial towards the beliefs of other religions: one only has to think of the innumerable religious wars to be aware of that ghastly defect in some humans.

So clearly, only people like atheists or humanists, who are above all of that squabbling and back-biting and incipient warfare, can be in a position of impartiality.

So they are the only people who should be allowed anywhere near schoolchildren to teach them ethics or respect for other people, and for the natural world.

Cheers,

Joe ;)
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks ybgirp, now I understand.

>>...words to the effect that Humanists make the unprovable metaphysical assertion that humans are the most important objects for our study and reverence<<

So what we have here is an "unprovable metaphysical assertion" that turns out to be one that Yuyustu himself asserts.

No wonder it is unprovable.

What he actually claimed, in fact, was that..

>>...humanists believe in their own god - Man!<<

Which is a concept that bears absolutely no meaning for anyone accustomed to the normal, everyday, non-Yuyutsu meaning of "man" and "god".

Of course, if Yuyutsu could come up with some evidence that humanists do "believe in their own god - Man!" - with or without the exclamation mark - that might help the discussion along. Finding one who says "Man is God" would help his case, I feel. I suspect, though, that he will only find those words in the mouth of religionists.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>But by definition, any one religious person could not be impartial towards the beliefs of other religions: one only has to think of the innumerable religious wars to be aware of that ghastly defect in some humans.<<

Fail. Any one religious person could be just as impartial towards the beliefs of other religions as an atheist could be: the theist and the atheist consider them equally wrong. If the atheist can consider other people's religious beliefs wrong and still remain impartial I see no reason why the theist can't.

It is quite common for people to be religious and still maintain a secular outlook. Just because you think somebody else's religious beliefs are wrong doesn't mean you want correct their thinking with fire and the sword. In the same way that atheists can dismiss the truth of any given religion but still remain tolerant of its practice, religious people can dismiss the truths of every religion but one and still remain tolerant of their practice.

It's what I do. I think atheism's absolute dismissal of God is as wrong as Christianity's acceptance of superstition and absurdities. But I'm quite happy for both to co-exist. Where would we be without you guys? It's such tremendous fun to watch you bicker so earnestly with one another while you both continue to miss the point.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 29 March 2012 3:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I guess the difference between you and I then, is that I care about the truth of my beliefs and would prefer as few a false ones as possible. One cannot possibly discern the truth of something that lies outside the realm within which science is effective (given what we currently know), and for that reason, believing in religion is not rational.

Squeers,

I’m not sure this is worth continuing. You’re brushing off some of what I say and twisting a lot of the rest.

<<I meant you exhibited the same impatient and authoritarian refusal to consider criticism—of an institutional-perspective you embrace—as members of any flock generally do.

I am considering your criticism and I’m showing you how it ignores a crucial distinction between scientism, and those you accuse of scientism. But you dismiss it as childish.
<<No you didn’t; my post elaborated both the term, scientism, and its dogmatic manifestation in the modern world.>>

Its dogmatic manifestation in the modern world (and the apparent non-existence of anyone who fits the description in the modern world) is all I’m concerned with - as I explained before.
<<I don’t defend or cleave to any institutional thinking.>>

That makes two of us. But that doesn’t mean we have to lend equal time and consideration to any and every crazy idea that’s proposed. Some ideas and institutions of thinking have shown themselves to be more credible and reliable than others.

<<I only acknowledge there is an idealistic/spiritual/experiential side to human life that shouldn’t be hastily dismissed>>

Well, you’d have to define “spiritual” because everyone seems to have a different meaning for that term. But in regards to “idealistic” and “experiential”, I couldn’t agree more and, once again, I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t. Who in their right mind would dismiss ideals and experience?!

<<You’re a,b distinction indicates a childish apprehension of what I’m talking about.>>

Then we’re talking about two different things. I thought I made it clear in my last post that I’m referring to the modern (and derogatory) understanding and use of the word “scientism”.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 29 March 2012 3:34:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<I don’t propose excluding science…>>

I didn’t mean to suggest you did.

<<Even after I cite the OED, rather than concede you were “wrong”…>>

I conceded that I could have been wrong in saying “invented”, but the rest of my points still stand and I provided a link to a Google search of OLO with examples of that.

<<…you complain the OED’s etymology—an eclectic list of quotes, some defending science—isn’t up to date…>>

No, I didn’t complain at all. I agreed with the quotes and there was nothing wrong or bad about the dates. My point about the dates went to your point about the fact that none of the people quoted were theists - both our points helped highlight a distinction between the old use of the term and its contemporary use, and I hypothesized why.

<<...and this is after I quoted Dawkins in what is without doubt an instance of the personalised scientism…>>

Yeah, we are talking about very different things here, aren’t we? I’m referring to the modern derogatory use and meaning of the term and it ain’t a “spectrum”; it’s a very rigid, dogmatic, absolutist one-eyed viewpoint.

<<Are you saying then that Dawkins believes in a human condition beyond biology?>>

No. But he doesn’t reject it outright either and that’s what excludes him from the category. Same goes for me.
<<And since we still abide in ignorance—especially apropos consciousness—as well as an ideological realm of normative-political-competitive-haunted-emotional-instinctual, idealistically-sectarian strife, we needn’t flatter ourselves we’ve solved anything.>>

I don’t think anyone’s claimed that we’ve solved everything regarding consciousness. But science is certainly starting to reveal some interesting finds and the fact that studies in this area are so incomplete is what often attracts the “scientism” label. Particularly if someone - with an apparent need to retain a certain level of mysticism in their lives - decides they’re not comfortable with science exploring that area.

Tony Lavis,

Atheism, broadly speaking, is just a lack of belief in Gods. Not even strong atheism is necessarily an absolute dismissal of God.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 29 March 2012 3:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,
Exactly! Loudmouth immagines he is impartial and the best person to teach children the truth about religion in schools. His premise about the truth of religion is evidenced by his personal bias.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 March 2012 3:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tony,

OF COURSE, believers can be tolerant. Of course, some of them may be indifferent to the beliefs of others, or at least not particularly hostile. But that's hardly the full story, is it ? Currently, between Muslims vs. Hindu, Shi'a vs. Sunni Muslims, Muslim Nigerians vs. Christian Muslims, Egyptian Muslims vs. Egyptian Copts, violent and lethal clashes have gone on in just the past few weeks and months.

Atheists are of course indifferent to either side in these disputes except insofar as they are aware that one side may be launching unprovoked attacks on the other.

Could religious wars break out in a dozen places in the world any time soon ? Certainly. Is it likely that devout atheists, inflamed by irreligious fervour, could launch such unprovoked attacks on any particular religious group ? I don't think so.

I'm happy to respect the beliefs - and the political struggles - of Tibetan and Burmese Buddhists, of Sri Lankan Hindus, of Egyptian Copts and Nigerian Christians - of anybody who is facing persecution at the present time. I have compassion for my fellow human beings, regardless of their being unEnlightened. I look forward to the day, most likely to be arrived at without bloodshed, when all sensible people put their superstitions and idols and gods behind them.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 29 March 2012 3:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With such a flood of responses and posting limits, it will take me a while to respond individually, which I will try to do in time.

Meanwhile, Loudmouth(Joe) provided an excellent summary of this article:

<<Schoolchildren must get an initial understanding of why and how that damage is taking place, and whether or not humans can devise social and other systems to overcome, minimise and avoid such problems in the future.

And obviously, only atheists and humanists are able to do any of that impartially.>>

I do not agree with the article, hence with the above statement, and no less damage is caused by humanists, but hereby Joe agreed with my main point, which is that humanists are not atheists!
(and BTW I have no problem with atheists, only with humanists (including the Christian variety))

Next, I was asked for definitions, here are some:

*Atheism: the belief that God does not exist.
*Religion: any activity that brings one closer to God.
*By inference and language-overloading, "religion" commonly refers also to institutions set up for the purpose of promoting religion (regardless of how successful or otherwise those are in their mission, or of the actual behaviour of their leaders and followers).
*Pseudo-religion: an irrational movement which resembles a religion, but does not in fact promote coming closer to God. Examples: Zeus-worship, devil-worship, Scientology, nationalism, humanism.
*Humanism: the faith in the extreme value of human survival, progress and science.
*God: It is impossible to define God in positive terms (as that would place a limitation upon God and God is not limited), but only to state what God is not (fill in the blank, anything fits). OTOH, there is nothing BUT God (otherwise "not being that other thing" would be limiting God).

Attempting to base religion on rationality/science is foolish, but so is the attempt to rationalize the desire for human progress and understanding the physical world (through science), itself as supernatural/mystical. The statement that the earth is round, for example, is scientific and rational, but the claim that it is of importance to know that fact is irrational.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 29 March 2012 6:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

<<There is physical reality in which the natural sciences are based, and there is a spiritual reality of which the divine is based [in other words a religion]. Though we can observe metaphysical behaviour incarnate in reality, science cannot determine creativity, attitude, motive and character only by the physical expression of these. These are the ultimate reality of the person, it is these spiritual realities that have effected the reality of the physical. It is these spiritual realities that express the very character of God, and upon which we are ultimately held accountable to the eternal reality.>>

Perhaps so, I don't know, this sounds so complicated - Let's not concern ourselves whether the walls of our jail are painted blue or pink, but rather concentrate on our escape plan!

<<I've always considered Buddahism as a religion yet it has no diety. A religion is a method of worship / devotion to a belief system that gives answers to existence and purpose. What one is devoted too as one's highest ideal of behaviour and character is one's religion.>>

Indeed, Buddhism is an example of a movement which takes its followers closer to God, without mentioning it explicitly. But you need to watch it because not any highest-ideal is indeed a religion - some lead not to God but to the abyss, which is why I coined "pseudo-religion".

<<Most religions believe god created all things and has given man ultimate responsibility to manage and preserve and sustain all life. That is the original commission given to man which Jews and Christians uphold. The Hebrew Scriptures gives instructions on land maintenance to retain productivity 1000 BC. These instructions are linked to religious practise. These were also in existence in Mesopotamia and Egypt prior to that and are deeply religious States.>>

Acting as God's gardener is a good religious technique, but only so long as you remember you're doing it for God, not because the garden has supposedly an inherent value in itself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 29 March 2012 7:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>(and BTW I have no problem with atheists, only with humanists (including the Christian variety))<<

So how do you feel about atheist humanists?

>>Pseudo-religion: an irrational movement which resembles a religion, but does not in fact promote coming closer to God. Examples: Zeus-worship<<

Fail. Zeus is a God; worship of Zeus brings you closer to Zeus ergo: by your definitions of religion and pseudo-religion Zeus-worship is a religion.

>>The statement that the earth is round, for example, is scientific and rational, but the claim that it is of importance to know that fact is irrational.<<

Epic fail. To claim that it is of no importance to know the shape of the Earth is irrational. The shape of the Earth is not just some fascinating fact which exists in isolation of other scientific knowledge. It matters to astronomers and navigators and engineers and meteorologists and physicists and geologers and geographers and whole lot of other -ers and -ists who would be kangaroo Edward (roo-Ted) if they didn't know what shape the earth was. So it is important to know the shape of the Earth even if it's not personally important to you.

>>Acting as God's gardener is a good religious technique, but only so long as you remember you're doing it for God, not because the garden has supposedly an inherent value in itself.<<

2nd epic fail. God doesn't care what you do. You can devoutly tend to the garden or raze it to the ground and salt the earth so that nothing may grow again: God doesn't give a hoot either way - It hasn't a hoot to give. So the only rational reason to tend the garden is because it has some inherent value in itself. Which it does: on the purely practical level gardens are good because they provide food which we need to live and even if they only grow inedible plants they are still more aesthetically pleasing than bare earth. On a more more metaphysical level the garden is God and God is the garden: what has more inherent value than God?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tony,

I was expecting this comment about the roundness-of-the-earth, but struggling with my 350-words didn't allow me to explain further: Astronomers, navigators, engineers, meteorologists, etc. are rational professionals, but nothing in science proves that it is important to embark on those professions to begin with. If you press me further that those professions are important for survival, then nothing in science proves that survival is important. It's an irrational whim! You could even claim that it's genetic, but there's nothing rational about one's choice to serve their genes.

Epic failure in reading/understanding plain English text: Where did I ever claim that God gives a hoot? All I said is that tending the garden with devotion will get you closer to God. Razing it with contempt will not. Simple! Your value-judgment that edible-fruits are better than non-edible plants which are still better than bare-earth has no scientific proof. It's just your personal preference for survival and aesthetics. Metaphysically, the garden of God is God, but God isn't the garden of God: if you see a garden rather than God, then you attribute value to an illusion.

Now Zeus is only a god with small-'g'. His followers may believe otherwise, but go ask them (if you could go back 2200 years), "Does Zeus exist?" and they would answer "Yes of course, climb and see". This would be sufficient to tell that they aren't really talking about God, hence they aren't a religion, but a pseudo-religion.

How do I feel about atheist humanists?

Their atheism or absence thereof makes no difference - as humanists and by their actions, they worship man, his survival, progress and science. That I consider harmful because it tends to detract people away from the path to God.

Dear AJ Philips,

"One cannot possibly discern the truth of something that lies outside the realm within which science is effective...believing in religion is not rational."

Any religious leader claiming that religion is rational is a charlatan, yet irrationality does not imply logical inconsistency. Discerning the truth outside science is still possible by an (alas, personal and subjective) direct experience.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 30 March 2012 12:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scientism is your word; I prefer the subheadings I’ve mentioned, which indicate it's a spectrum; we have the high priests like Ditchkins, his groupies, and the semi-literate (in science) rabble that follow them worshipfully.
<we’re talking about two different things. I thought I made it clear in my last post that I’m referring to the modern (and derogatory) understanding and use of the word “scientism”.>
You’ve provided “no” evidence for your modern version, just assertions and denialism. In any case the term’s been derogatory for nearly 100 years! Even the OLO article you link to is by an economist and not a theist, though looking at the comments I see Squeers features prominently.

<My use of the term [scientism] was not a strawman>

It was precisely that! You attempted to dismiss critics of scientific fundamentalism en passant (while you were dismissing critics of Humanism), accusing them of dishonestly conjuring caricatures. Since then you’ve insisted no one fits the profile, even though I gave you Dawkins (you can add Hitchins and Pinker, but the high priests are legion!). Yet as you point out, the bone of contention is an “ism”, though you continue to insist no one fits the profile. The very article here demonstrates an aspect of scientism—intellectual intolerance.

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 30 March 2012 6:08:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

<I don’t think anyone’s claimed that we’ve solved everything regarding consciousness. But science is certainly starting to reveal some interesting finds and the fact that studies in this area are so incomplete is what often attracts the “scientism” label. Particularly if someone - with an apparent need to retain a certain level of mysticism in their lives - decides they’re not comfortable with science exploring that area.>

This says it all! You imply your faith that science will solve it all and beyond that you just say insulting stuff to denigrate unbelievers! I apologise for my lack of faith in the accumulating omnipotence of science, but this doesn’t indicate a need for mystical comforts on my part or the part of anyone I’ve read on the subject of scientism. As I've tried to argue, here and elsewhere, it's about much more important considerations than preserving mystical beliefs.
Beyond that, I’m all for science exploring consciousness, just not its drawing the parameters of what’s admissible as evidence or explanation. I’m all for science full stop, just not its being the indifferent be and end all in a world torn with strife--like Nero playing his fiddle.
The scientistic mindset is as dogmatic and intolerant of dissenters as all fundamentalists tend to be.
The reason I called your distinctions childish is because they are not the horns of the dilemma you want them to be.
But I don't have time for this.
If you're interested, here’s a link to a couple of pages on scientism by Alan Wallace (1992)
http://tiny.cc/222xbw
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 30 March 2012 6:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
If you remember me you will know that I do not always agree with you but I think I could always learn from you. This applies, in particular, to your contributions to this thread. I am especially thankful for bringing up the relevant book by B. A. Wallace (in your link) that I did not know about.
Posted by George, Friday, 30 March 2012 8:03:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
I’m sure I could learn from you too but unfortunately you don’t tend to participate these days.

AJ Philips,
Apologies for not using your handle above, it was an oversight. Also, the Alan Wallace text was published 2000, not 1992.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 30 March 2012 9:04:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

You questioned my impartiality the other day:

"Loudmouth immagines he is impartial and the best person to teach children the truth about religion in schools. His premise about the truth of religion is evidenced by his personal bias."

And who said Christians don't have a sense of humour ?

When I was doing RI in school, there was always the problem of which brand we would get to bore us silly. The Catholics had their own bloke, I think, but the rest of us had to put up with some unworldly soul from one of the smaller outfits.

He (always a he) recruited some of us to the ISCF, which had singing twice a week, at which we all got a Milk Arrowroot and glass of red cordial, which was great. The ISCF also organised camps during the holidays, where we used to chat up the girls from other schools while the organisers tried desperately to keep us apart, and busy on hikes and singing sessions. It got even better in secondary school. I loved the music, and I don't think any of it did us any harm.

It just seems that the best way around this problem of bias is to appoint atheists, people will be even-handed, equally disparaging of all superstitions, not just Christian ones.

And as a bonus, we might be able to turn some of those impressionable kids against religion altogether :) Win-win !

Come on, Josephus, turn that frown upside down !

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 30 March 2012 9:45:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I also thank you for that link to B.A. Wallace! I've now bought it on my Kindle.

Cheers
Posted by crabsy, Friday, 30 March 2012 11:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We’re getting somewhere here now, Squeers.

<<I prefer the subheadings I’ve mentioned, which indicate it's a spectrum;>>

One can fit your subheadings and still not fit the scientism profile. People like Dawkins do hastily dismiss mysticism and spirituality (as do I), but there’s nothing irrational about that considering scientific explanations have been found for everything was once thought to have mystical properties.

But that doesn’t mean they’re not open to spiritual/mystical answers if they can be demonstrated (I know Dawkins clarified this many times before), however, it’s up to the invoker of such ideas to present the evidence.

<<You’ve provided “no” evidence for your modern version, just assertions and denialism. In any case the term’s been derogatory for nearly 100 years!>>

Okay, I really haven’t been clear when I’ve spoken of the modern “use” and “meaning”. I take full responsibility for all the confusion here. I have pretty ordinary communication skills and talking to someone who sounds like they’ve swallowed a thesaurus is really testing.

The meaning appears to have always been the same. The last link you provided and the OED references support what I believe scientism to be. Your definition seems to be a little more lax.

The use of the term is the also appears to be the same, to a slightly lesser extent. But in my experience (and the experience of many others) the term is now predominantly used by theists wanting to stop someone in their tracks because they don’t feel comfortable with science exploring certain places. I’ve had it happen to me on OLO.

<<Even the OLO article you link to is by an economist and not a theist, though looking at the comments I see Squeers features prominently.>>

Huh?!

I didn’t link to an article. They were comments sections from many articles. There were 14 pages of results linking to every page that Google finds OLO containing the word “scientism”.

<<It was precisely [a strawman]!>>

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

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 30 March 2012 2:00:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<You attempted to dismiss critics of scientific fundamentalism en passant (while you were dismissing critics of Humanism)…>>

No, I simply used an analogy. I still addressed the arguments regarding humanism.

<<You imply your faith that science will solve it all…>>

Not at all.

You could possibly say that I imply that science MAY solve it all, and suspecting that this may be the case is entirely rational considering every unknown in the past, that was thought to have a spiritual/mystical/miraculous/transcendental/other-worldly explanation, was eventually found to have a scientific one.

I don’t have “faith” in anything either. I have trust that has been earned and I will grant trust tentatively, but I don’t have faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.

<<…and beyond that you just say insulting stuff to denigrate unbelievers!>>

Unbelievers of what?

I’m sorry if you find what I said offensive but that's my experience and it’s an important factor in what I’ve been saying.

<<As I've tried to argue, here and elsewhere, it's about much more important considerations than preserving mystical beliefs.>>

Fair enough. But what reason do you have for devoting so much energy to spiritual/mystical/transcendental considerations that you could go on such a tirade against those who are sceptical? Has science once failed somewhere? Is there an occasion I’m not thinking of where scientists had to give up and conclude that the answer must lay in a different realm? No, and until such time, tirades and derogatory labels like ”scientism” are unfair, inappropriate and just plain irrational.

<<Beyond that, I’m all for science exploring consciousness, just not its drawing the parameters of what’s admissible as evidence or explanation.>>

I’m not aware of anyone who insists that such parameters be drawn. People are free to put forth whatever evidence and explanations they like, but if they want public funding, then they need to demonstrate that the validity of their explanations.

Sorry Squeers, but you’re punching at shadows.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 30 March 2012 2:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
I'll admit you’ve got the running in this; there’s a mountain of mystical crap piling up out there such that it’s a chore sorting through it for something that’s not an embarrassment, and you have the ideological wind at your back, but I shall soldier on—piecemeal.

<People like Dawkins do hastily dismiss mysticism and spirituality (as do I), but there’s nothing irrational about that considering scientific explanations have been found for everything was once thought to have mystical properties>

It depends what you mean by “mysticism”; I agree that what outrages reason should be dismissed—though who’s reason?—I only think it’s hasty to dismiss the complexity of consciousness, psyche, the projections and introjections of the human heart (in matters above the heart), as well as real experience, as necessarily delusional—or indeed superfluous to “reason”.
The fact is human beings inhabit a material and idealistic world simultaneously. It could be that the latter is a product of language and culture—an evolutionary eccentricity. But if that’s so, how can we trust our ability to interrogate reality objectively? And if our powers of reason are above their culturally-conditioned and historiciesd intelligence quotient, which means they may apprehend, indeed interrogate, nature independently, or in excess of cultural cyphers, wherefore this a priori capacity to exceed nature—for nature to transcend itself in effect? (this is pure Kant)
If human reason is, rather, beset by phantasms of its own making (what Hume called the “passions”. Though the philosopher Schelling thought we were irretrievably mad, rather than distracted), is it not fatally compromised, indeed a delusion? How can reason, pure epiphenomena, objectify and transcend itself—like termites building a cathedral?
Your proof against these anxieties (not that scientismists are anxious about anything) is, as you say, that science always comes through in the end. But how many scientific hypotheses have stood the test of time? And how many will stand in a thousand years? http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/
Isn’t it striking that if reality is so objectively available, and empirical reason is so reliable, that the truth is so elusive and changeable?
But I'm sure you've considered all this.
tbc
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 30 March 2012 7:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
Obviously you would be teaching by example and belief atheism; an not teaching subjectively religious studies.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 30 March 2012 7:29:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips:
<But that doesn’t mean they’re not open to spiritual/mystical answers if they can be demonstrated (I know Dawkins clarified this many times before), however, it’s up to the invoker [sic] of such ideas to present the evidence.>
This is interesting—that you designate the source of the idea the “invoker”. Doesn’t the terminology trivialise the account at the outset and prophesy the conclusion?
What you’re saying is that mystical evidence is only admissible if it’s subject to empirical analysis, that is demystified and made manifest—no longer mystical? Otherwise it’s discarded as delusional. No wonder the evidence is thin! All part of the scientistic filtering process, but doesn’t that make the findings tendentious, indeed guarantee them?
< Okay, I really haven’t been clear when I’ve spoken of the modern “use” and “meaning” [of scientism]. I take full responsibility for all the confusion here. I have pretty ordinary communication skills and talking to someone who sounds like they’ve swallowed a thesaurus is really testing>
This is fascinating too; a generous confession of semantic confusion, followed by false modesty and the invocation of a Casaubon—a sesquipedalian pedant. I’m glad I’m at least a little testing.
< The meaning [of scientism] appears to have always been the same. The last link you provided and the OED references support what I believe scientism to be. Your definition seems to be a little more lax.>
According to the OED it wasn’t always derogatory. But as I keep saying, I’m more interested in the manifestation of scientism than semantics. However, my “lax” understanding of it is both more comprehensive and faithful to the generous spirit of the term.
< in my experience (and the experience of many others) the term is now predominantly used by theists wanting to stop someone in their tracks because they don’t feel comfortable with science exploring certain places. I’ve had it happen to me on OLO>
I’m sorry, but according to your own strictures your anecdotal experience, as well as that of the “many others” you invoke, is inadmissible and possibly delusional, and I don’t feel like ...
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 31 March 2012 7:52:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont.
..sorting through the OLO concordance you linked to. In any event it’s a localised and close-knit community wherein words are passed-on like memes (though I’m disappointed “minimifidianism” never caught on). I’m sure Dawkins would agree you need to cite a much more diverse theistic sample to substantiate a new pejorative trend. But perhaps your opponents were sincere in their charge of scientism, and resent analytic denunciations of what is after all mysterious—spiritual.
<No, I simply used an analogy [scientism]. I still addressed the arguments regarding humanism>
Isn’t this a good definition and instance of “en passant”?

<You could possibly say that I imply that science MAY solve it all, and suspecting that this may be the case is entirely rational considering every unknown in the past, that was thought to have a spiritual/mystical/miraculous/transcendental/other-worldly explanation, was eventually found to have a scientific one.>
Doesn’t this only apply to natural phenomena? Can you give me an example of the “spiritual/mystical/miraculous/transcendental/other-worldly” that’s been found to have a scientific explanation? I don’t mean a scientific rationalisation or cull, such as that these phenomena are deemed delusional and/or inadmissible, and I don’t mean speculation, I mean an explanation?
It could be argued that mystical experiences and explanations have been discredited and superseded according to the dictates of our new scientistic paradigm; overcome by its success in manipulating material reality and obtuse to idealistic/spiritual/mystical experience, ergo it dismisses the latter as aberration. As we are seeing in the groundswell of support for modern naturalism, much of the lay-community is easily persuaded to conform, just as they were to the conventions of more ecclesiastical times, but there’s a troubling majority that refuses to turn, whose members take obstinate comfort from their respective faiths. Then there are a great many with no institutional affiliation, who are yet unable to dismiss their personal idealistic/spiritual/experiential lives. On top of that, our increasingly materialistic lifeworld is showing ever-greater signs of stress and mental disturbance—of course, this irrational, “pathological”, pandemic is instantly diagnosed and medicated by the scientific bodies.

TBC
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 31 March 2012 8:01:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For me, the last dozen or so posts illustrate perfectly why it is dangerous to teach "religion" in schools. There seem to be so many different understandings of what "religion" is, it would be impossible for any two people even to agree on a basic text.

The various manifestations of religion need to be placed into some context, of course. But this can be done within the realms of existing curricula of history, geography, economics, philosophy etc., without the need to find what is essentially an internal definition.

Just as it is not at all necessary, for example, to understand that the solar constant is approximately 1,368 watts per square meter, before you apply sunscreen.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 31 March 2012 8:43:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a person to teach a subject they ought to have some passion and real experential knowledge about the subject.

To teach art or music one ought to have real live expressions and ability in each. To teach mathmatics or science one ought to have real passion for their subject so as to enthuse the students. Similarly with history or geography they ought to have travelled or have seen images of their subject. Similarly with religion passion and conviction is essential. To have another agenda to divert or degrade the subject matter does not qualify one as a teacher of the subject. Though lessons on bad behaviour or world views are part of teaching ethics and morality.

The essential lessons of Christianity are forgiveness and the granting of grace to wrong doers [or an enemy]. The person teaching Christianity ought to have personal experience of these essential attitudes.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 31 March 2012 9:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I was going to wait for your next post before I responded but I’m never going to have the time or posting allowance to respond to most of what you’ve already written anyway, so here’s my brief response.

<<What you’re saying is that mystical evidence is only admissible if it’s subject to empirical analysis, that is demystified and made manifest—no longer mystical?>>

If they could find some other non-empirical way of demonstrating the validity of their claims, then that would be fine too. But if we can’t validate it in some way, then it has no real explanatory power and is therefore useless.

<<...according to your own strictures your anecdotal experience, as well as that of the “many others” you invoke, is inadmissible and possibly delusional...>>

I agree. But I’m no lone ranger here with a conspiracy. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much accepted knowledge amongst a great many (possibly the majority of) atheists. Heck, I only provided that link to comments sections as an additional bonus. I didn’t even think it was necessary at first.

You’re the first atheist I’ve come across who honestly doesn’t seem to know any of this. Although I’m sure you won’t be the last.

But don’t just rely on my small OLO sample, there’s a wealth of debates out there on the internet with examples of what I’m talking about, in videos and other forums.

<<...perhaps your opponents were sincere in their charge of scientism, and resent analytic denunciations of what is after all mysterious—spiritual.>>

They probably were/are sincere (I wouldn’t think they’d always do it consciously) and they almost certainly would resent analytic denunciations of their beliefs. But when they are dishonest enough to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, then what else can they expect?

Considering these people influence the public sphere, it would be irresponsible to just let them continue on unabated and this is why I get so frustrated when well-meaning atheists, such as yourself, unintentionally and indirectly hand them more legitimacy than they already think they have.

Cheers.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 31 March 2012 2:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
<Unbelievers of what?>
I meant you were denigrating unbelievers in your rationalist view of consciousness when you dismissed their alternative or sceptical thinking as needing, “to retain a certain level of mysticism in their lives” and so not being “comfortable with science exploring that area”. The imputation being that dissenters are necessarily irrational and the mystery of consciousness must ultimately yield to material causes and explanations. Why must it? This preliminary ruling-out of other possibilities is a hallmark of the scientific study of consciousness and, according to one expert, in this way “resembles a religious conviction”.
Then you say, <I don’t have “faith” in anything either. I have trust that has been earned and I will grant trust tentatively, but I don’t have faith.>
Here, you first equivocate between faith and trust, though your trust is akin to faith, vested as it is in your experience, your faith in your senses, and your subjective/ideological preferences. It’s not even “your” experience or knowledge on which your trust is based, rather it’s vested in appreciation of and preference for reports of empirical explanation—how else can you explain that other people are just as trusting in their preferred explanations as you are in yours? Doesn’t this suggest that humans are easy-prey to all manner of influence?
<Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.>
Notice how this aphorism includes the implicit premise that people’s “faith” can only be based on “belief”, and not on spiritual evidence? Because “spiritual evidence” is a misnomer and ruled inadmissible.
<I’m sorry if you find what I said offensive but that's my experience and it’s an important factor in what I’ve been saying.>
Can you see then that I’m not “offended”, far from it. I was, and am, merely deconstructing the rhetorical bias in what you say—and indeed in how you think!

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 31 March 2012 3:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<what reason do you have for devoting so much energy to spiritual/mystical/transcendental considerations…>
“I am a man, nothing human is foreign to me”.
This experience/perception we label “spiritual/mystical/transcendental” is part of the human condition and I’m not qualified or brazen enough (unlike science) to dismiss it.
<… that you could go on such a tirade against those who are sceptical?>
“Tirade”—have I?
But wait!
<Has science once failed somewhere? Is there an occasion I’m not thinking of where scientists had to give up and conclude that the answer must lay in a different realm? No, and until such time, tirades and derogatory labels like ”scientism” are unfair, inappropriate and just plain irrational.>
Doesn’t “this” qualify as a “tirade”?
However, to your first question; what about “Hiroshima”?
According to Terry Eagleton, “Dawkins [in the God Delusion] castigates the Inquisition … [but] On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked upon humanity, he is predictably silent. Swap you the inquisition for chemical warfare. Yet the Apocalypse, if it ever happens, is far more likely to be the upshot of technology than the work of the Almighty”.
I think I’ve addressed the rest of that paragraph already, except to observe that it sounds an awful lot like an angry profession of faith to me! Am I at risk of being burned at the stake?
And after all this we still haven’t so much as touched on the “manifestations” of scientism I’ve said I’m more interested in.
All ideologies have practical, political and social complements and consequences in the world, and “logical positivism/scientific materialism”, “rational optimism”, “liberal rationalists” “intellectual snobbery”, “arrogance”—the spectrum of scientism—preside over a world of stupendous and unprecedented immanent catastrophe and misery.
This post was meant to follow the last but I’ve had to wait. Apologies for my prolixity but I felt I had to respond at length. I hope I’ve at least given you pause, but I’ll continue to respect your intelligence and position regardless.
I have to knuckle down now and work for some time, so adieu to all—if I can resist temptation.
Mark.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 31 March 2012 7:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

You might find this an interesting article supporting your position:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7714533/brain-drain.thtml.
Posted by George, Saturday, 31 March 2012 11:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article, George.

Here's another along the same lines that might be of interest.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 1 April 2012 9:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy