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.

>>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

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…

…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.

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.

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