Anti-monotheism as a religion

[lukethethird]

(update)
Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “science worship.” It’s a religion that has grown up around science, substituting “science” in the place of “God.”
(previous updates)
Currently I’m calling the religion I’m discussing here “scientianity.” It means everything that anyone calls “science” or “scientific.” Suggestions for a better name are welcome.
(end updates)

I have a new view of anti-monotheistic identity factions, including identity atheism, as denominations of a religion that substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” factional versions of history in the place of religious lore, reports of academic research in the place of scriptures, and academic and professional institutions in the place of religious ones. It has all the worst features that are associated with other religions. For example, some of its believers have blind faith in whatever their trusted sources call “science,” without any independent research or critical examination; and contempt for anyone who doesn’t.

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

How do we spot these Antimonotheists? Could we be sitting next to one and not know it?

 

[lukethethird]

Now I’ll be considering, if Antimonotheism has all the worst features that are associated with other religions, does it also have all the best?

I would imagine that some militant polytheists would be Antimonotheists. If I was a polytheist I'd be teaching them monotheists a thing or two.

 

[Jim]

Some folks do get their information from questionable sources, if that was what you were saying. Popular magazines are famous for click bait headlines and reinterpretation, misrepresentation, and sometimes just plain incorrect reporting.

Yes, those are examples of the blind faith I’m talking about.

 

[Jim]

How do we spot these Antimonotheists? Could we be sitting next to one and not know it?

They’re hard to miss. They’re continually denouncing and pouring contempt on monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One does however have to demonstrate that the god exists and that the messages, however many and of whatever kind they may be are actually from said god. That, sir, has never been done.

All one of Faith has to do is live a life of service to others no matter what they face, that demonstarates their Faith is sound.

I see many wonderful people have acheived this aim. Good on them, one and all.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas @Milton Platt

Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “faith in science.” It has its own gods, its own lore and scriptures, its own clergy, its own rituals, its own doctrines, dogmas and creeds, its own prophets and saints, its own history of crimes against humanity, and all the same psychological and social dynamics as any other religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas @Milton Platt

Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “faith in science.” It has its own gods, its own lore and scriptures, its own clergy, its own rituals, its own doctrines, dogmas and creeds, its own prophets and saints, its own history of crimes against humanity, and all the same psychological and social dynamics as any other religion.

Uh, sorry, that is a serious mistake IMO.

Faith in science is a common sentiment, and a very reasonable one. It is not religious by the positive meaning of the word "religion", let alone by the negative meaning.

And everything from your second sentence on is seriously mistaken.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, those are examples of the blind faith I’m talking about.

Blind faith in what? Not in science, from that example;.

 

[Jim]

Blind faith in what? Not in science, from that example;.

Some followers of the Faith In Science religion have blind faith in whatever their trusted media and faction stories call “science.”

 

[Vinayaka]

Some followers of the Faith In Science religion have blind faith in whatever their trusted media and faction stories call “science.”

So we could call you an anti-scientist then?

 

[Jim]

Faith in science is a common sentiment ...

Agreed.

... and a very reasonable one.

Only when it is faith in some kinds of attitudes and behavior that help advance human knowledge, which I think is rarely if ever the case in debates about science, religion and politics. All the faith in science that I’ve seen in those debates is appealing to the presumed authority of an opinion-vindicating selection of people called “scientists,” at best, and more often appealing to the presumed reliability of an opinion-vindicating selection of media and faction stories, which I don’t think is reasonable at all.

 

[Marcion]

The Science Dilusion, interesting Ted Talk by Rupert Sheldrake:

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They’re hard to miss. They’re continually denouncing and pouring contempt on monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

Maybe you should call a waaaaahmbulance rather than constantly whining about criticism of your beliefs. Why shouldn't we be critical of such religions? Give us something that we can respect.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas @Milton Platt
Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing “faith in science.” It has its own gods, its own lore and scriptures, its own clergy, its own rituals, its own doctrines, dogmas and creeds, its own prophets and saints, its own history of crimes against humanity, and all the same psychological and social dynamics as any other religion.

Uh, sorry, that is a serious mistake IMO.

Faith in science is a common sentiment, and a very reasonable one. It is not religious by the positive meaning of the word "religion", let alone by the negative meaning.

And everything from your second sentence on is seriously mistaken.

What I’m thinking of might be more religions than one. I’m not sure, so I’ll consider them that way for now. One is trusting that any belief in any god is wrong. Another revolves around a god that people call “science.” There might be others, using other substitutes for divine authority, as ways of trying to shame and intimidate people into submission. I’m still sure that faith in science qualifies as a religion, but that isn’t what I was thinking of when I started this thread. I need to sort this out some more.

 

[LuisDantas]

What I’m thinking of might be more religions than one. I’m not sure, so I’ll consider them that way for now. One is trusting that any belief in any god is wrong.

That is no religion whatsoever. It is just rejection of a concept that is not very useful to begin with.

Another revolves around a god that people call “science.”

That is scientism. A poor, mishappen thing that is neither religion nor true appreciation of science. IMO Auguste Comte's Positivism and Allan Kardec's Spiritism are good examples of that sorry thing.

There might be others, using other substitutes for divine authority, as ways of trying to shame and intimidate people into submission.

Divine authority? Is that a good or useful thing even for theism?

And if such a substitute is found, how is that not divine authority itself?

I’m still sure that faith in science qualifies as a religion, but that isn’t what I was thinking of when I started this thread. I need to sort this out some more.

Best of luck. I fear that you are relying on several rather dodgy definitons of dubious concepts at once.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas Thanks for helping me with this. Seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, this is awkward, but I am answering to the best of my sincere ability and hopefully that will serve us both in the end.

 

[Jim]

Divine authority? Is that a good or useful thing even for theism?

If you mean using it to shame and intimidate people into submission, it might be very useful for that purpose, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing.

And if such a substitute is found, how is that not divine authority itself?

Sometimes I see people trying to use the words “science” and “scientific” in their debates, to try to shame and intimidate people into submission, exactly the way people sometimes use “God.” Maybe you’re denying that, but if people really did that sometimes, would you call that divine authority?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you mean using it to shame and intimidate people into submission, it might be very useful for that purpose, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing.

That is sure nice to hear.

Sometimes I see people trying to use the words “science” and “scientific” in their debates, to try to shame and intimidate people into submission, exactly the way people sometimes use “God.” Maybe you’re denying that, but if people really did that sometimes, would you call that divine authority?

I would call that deeply confused.

I guess I see a bit of that in Auguste Comte. It lasted about as much as it could with him.

 

[Jim]

Yeah, this is awkward, but I am answering to the best of my sincere ability and hopefully that will serve us both in the end.

I see that, I’m glad and grateful for it, and it warms my heart.