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.

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.

>>(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

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.

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

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