Anti-monotheism as a religion

[Jim]

@LuisDantas I haven’t lost any confidence in calling what I’m seeing a religion, but that might not be essential for whatever I thought I was doing when I started this thread. I need to reconsider that, and what I want to say about it. Thanks again for staying with me, and keeping it friendly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I already answered that question.

ETA: On second thought, I think I’ll answer that question any time that it’s asked. By “identity atheism” I mean a kind of identity that’s formally defined as not having any belief in any god or gods, which flies banners of science, skepticism and free thinking, but which only uses them as excuses and camouflage for continually maligning monotheistic religions and their followers, and raking up muck about them.

1) Thanks for re-answering. I appreciate you might have had to reiterate something you'd already said. I try to read through threads entirely, but sometimes it gets tricky. So I respond to the OP with only a skim of other responses.
2) That sounds like the sort of label an outsider might impose on someone, rather than the sort of label anyone would place on themselves. Still, unlike some responses here, I don't doubt that such people exist. I just think they're a potentially noisy minority. I live in a secular country, with large numbers of atheists, agnostics and non-religious, and don't see much of this here. Which is not the same as saying it doesn't exist, of course, but it's not impactful in my opinion. Despite not falling into that group, I sometimes wish it was MORE impactful. Australia can be quite apathetic about some things, and what is defined as 'tradition' or 'traditional values' is commonly a less religiously-obvious way of promoting Christian traditions.

If considered in the long term, our battle to finally agree to marriage equality (long after countries like Ireland and the US) fits into what I am talking about.

 

[osgart]

There is the philosophy of strict reductionist materialism that is prevalent in science mainstream. The philosophy is strongly impressed upon people as the only rational way of perceiving reality. The assumption is considered factual. Basically if you dont see existence as anything but a brute fact that is totally indifferent to life, then you are considered anywhere from irrational to delusional. This philosophy has been quite demanding of everybody's conformity.

 

[paarsurrey]

(update)
Now I’m calling the religion I’m discussing here “faith in science.” It’s any kind of faith in anything that anyone calls “science.”
(previous 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 update)
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?

One wrote a wonderful post, congratulations.
Regards

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas I have some more work to do on this, before I try to discuss it some more.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas It still isn’t very clear to me what I was trying to say, and why, but here’s what I’ve come up with so far. Seeing factional atheism antimonotheism as just one more example of factional religion might help erase one of the lines I’ve been imagining between people. So instead of calling it “religion,” all I need to say is that I don’t see any psychological or social difference between factional atheism antimonotheism and factional religion. The only differences I see are in the targets of their animosities and hostilities, and in the excuses and camouflage they use for them. Factional religion uses excuses and camouflage borrowed from religions. Factional atheism antimonotheism uses excuses and camouflage borrowed from a widely popular quasi-religion that revolves around science.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

There is no such thing as Faith in Science, at least not in a functional shape.

Science is anathema to faith. It is based on doubt, experimentation and proposal of new explanations.

There are certainly deluded people by the boatload that claim adherence to some caricature that they call "science". You will find them in Scientology, in Spiritism, in Comte's Positivism, and in much of New Age, but also elsewhere.

How much they have blind faith or are just confused is mostly a matter of how emotionally structured they are.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas All arguments from science in debates about social issues, are part of the science religion I’m talking about. There! That’s what I’ll call it: “the science religion.”

ETA: Any time people try to prove something by calling it “science” or “scientific,” or try to discredit some view by saying that it’s “unscientific” or “against science,” they are doing the exact same thing as other people do when they appeal to the authority of their scriptures.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas All arguments from science in debates about social issues, are part of the science religion I’m talking about. There! That’s what I’ll call it: “the science religion.”

In that case, I can't in good faith refuse to say that you are seriously mistaken there.

 

[Jim]

In that case, I can't in good faith refuse to say that you are seriously mistaken there.

I can’t be mistaken. It’s true by definition. Whenever people use “science” as a reason for believing or disbelieving something, it’s part of what I am calling “the science religion.” Do you mean that it’s a mistake for me to call it a religion, for the reasons you’ve already given?

 

[Jim]

@Luis I’m defining “the Science Faith” as using science as a reason for believing or disbelieving something, and everything that people say and do that they call “science” or “scientific.” How is that not a religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

I can’t be mistaken. It’s true by definition. Whenever people use “science” as a reason for believing or disbelieving something, it’s part of what I am calling “the science religion.” Do you mean that it’s a mistake for me to call it a religion, for the reasons you’ve already given?

I don't know how you can say such a thing, mainly because the concepts of science and religion make that an inherently contradictory notion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@Luis I’m defining “the Science Faith” as using science as a reason for believing or disbelieving something, and everything that people say and do that they call “science” or “scientific.” How is that not a religion?

Science has nothing in common with a religion. There are no myths, no icons to wear around your neck, no weekly meetings, no tithing, no prayers or magical thinking, no god concepts, no advice on how to live, no moral system, no discussion of afterlife, no religious type faith required or desired, no support community, no scriptures, and makes no claims about the unseen.

Science does offer prophecies (predictions such as the Higgs boson and the cosmic microwave backround), but these outperform religious prophecy by a mile.

Nor is having confidence in the pursuit of science or the scientific method anything like religious faith. Science has proven itself to be a valid method of examining and understanding the physical world - the only one in fact that can do that successfully. Citing it as an authority is not religion. It is reasonable position justified by science's stellar successes.

So what's your point? What are you hoping for from anti-monotheists and science advocates? Or anybody else?

 

[Jim]

I don't know how you can say such a thing, mainly because the concepts of science and religion make that an inherently contradictory notion.

I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly, but what I see that you might be saying is that everything that goes on in the name of “science” can’t be a religion because its concepts contradict religious concepts more than they contradict each other. If that’s what you mean, how did you measure the amount of contradiction, and how did you decide how much contradiction with what you call “religions” disqualifies a phenomenon that in some ways resembles what you call “religions” from being called a “religion” also?

Besides that, what other reasons can you think of for not lumping together everything that goes on in the name of science, and calling that a “religion”?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am trying (and failing) to see a meaningful difference between this idea of "anti-monotheism as a religion" and simple attachment to the certainty that is promised by many brands of monotheism.

It is certainly true that there are nutcases out there claiming to have "scientific certainty" of Flat Earth, Ghosts, being the true reincarnations of Jesus and whatnot.

Using the word science does not mean that they even know what they are talking about, though. And it is not all that hard to tell the claim from the reality... among other reasons because science does not deal with those kinds of quick certainties.

 

[LuisDantas]

I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly, but what I see that you might be saying is that everything that goes on in the name of “science”

... has to be better defined. There are Spiritists and Scientologists swearing that what they teach is "science", after all.

If you will toss that together with science proper, right there you are confusing your thesis something fierce, and compromising any conclusions that you might reach to the point of worthlessness, if not worse.

can’t be a religion because its concepts contradict religious concepts more than they contradict each other.

Right there there is another major flaw of your thesis. I have little notion of what you mean here by "religion", but it sure does not sound like a very coherent or very useful conception. Above all, it does not seem to be worth of much consideration either way;

If that’s what you mean, how did you measure the amount of contradiction, and how did you decide how much contradiction with what you call “religions” disqualifies a phenomenon that in some ways resembles what you call “religions” from being called a “religion” also?

I did not even try to. There is not nearly enough of a coherent idea there to be worth the attempt. You should attempt to define your terms and meanings better before that becomes possible.

Besides that, what other reasons can you think of for not lumping together everything that goes on in the name of science, and calling that a “religion”?

You can do that. Anyone can call anything that they please a religion, or refuse to. But if you do that in this case, in such a way, there is really no meaning left in the word, and all that you will have accomplished will be defaming science and religion both.

 

[Jim]

Science has nothing in common with a religion. There are no myths, no icons to wear around your neck, no weekly meetings, no tithing, no prayers or magical thinking, no god concepts, no advice on how to live, no moral system, no discussion of afterlife, no religious type faith required or desired, no support community, no scriptures, and makes no claims about the unseen.

I disagree with most of that, but what I agree with might be enough reason for me not to call everything that goes on in the name of science a “religion.”

So what's your point? What are you hoping for from anti-monotheists and science advocates? Or anybody else?

Exactly what you’re doing. Thank you.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas Do you ever talk about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and do you call them “religions”?

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas Do you ever talk about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and do you call them “religions”?

Not Islaam, not anymore.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas On second thought I have a different question. Do you agree that suicide attacks and bombings by people claiming to be Muslims, and Ahmadiyya Islam, are widely considered as part of one religion called “Islam”? Would you agree that the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Quakers, are widely considered as part of one religion, “Christianity”?

Maybe you don’t agree with lumping them together that way. However that may be, what definition of “religion” do you think people are using, to lump them together as part of one religion?

ETA: Or, how do you think it happens that they consider all that as part of one religion? Or, how do you think it happens that in popular thinking, suicide attacks and bombings, and Ahmadiyya Islam, are part of one religion?