Anti-monotheism as a religion

[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?

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas Here’s how I’m thinking now. Besides the most obvious and convincing reason for not calling everything that happens in the name of science a “religion,” which is that no one else calls it that, I can see other possible reasons for not calling it that.

However that may be, I don’t see any consequential difference, psychogically or socially, between factional atheism and factional religion. The only differences I see are in the targets of their animosities and hostilities, and in the excuses and verbal camouflage they use for them.

I also don’t see any consequential psychological or social difference between what happens in the name of “science,” considered all together, and what happens in the name of any religion, considered all together. For example, I see people using the word “science” in all the same ways, beneficial and harmful, reasonable and unreasonable, that I see people using the word “God,” and in roughly the same proportions. I see people using reports of academic and industry research in all the same ways, beneficial and harmful, reasonable and unreasonable, that I see people using religious scriptures, and in roughly the same proportions. That makes perfect sense to me because it’s all part of human nature.

I think that waking up to that might help me erase some of the lines that I’ve been imagining between people, and it might help some other people too.

 

[Jim]

One example of how this helps me is to be able to see interactions between atheists and followers of religions as “interfaith” interactions, as much as interactions between followers of different religions.

 

[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?

"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.' " Unquote

Does one think that unknowingly even the Atheism/Agnosticism people do “science worship”, they they don't believe in any religion, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

One example of how this helps me is to be able to see interactions between atheists and followers of religions as “interfaith” interactions, as much as interactions between followers of different religions.

I appreciate peaceful dialogue between religions and with no-religions, we have to co-exist in this world so why be enemies to one another or hate one another in the name of religions or the non-religions.

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

@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.

Support your assertions:

 

[Jim]

Support your assertions:

My view of that has changed, but I’ll try to explain what I was thinking, if you’d like to know.

 

[oldbadger]

(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?

Morning Jim!
OK, let's look at the above.
Scientianity as a name for 'science worship' is OK, but it's hard to spell correctly every time and I propose that you could rename it 'Dafty' (pronounced darftie) because I can spell it and that's what these folks worship their slight knowledge really are....... daft. Mostly they are not glorifying knowledge but their own bits of paper which suggest that they are scientists.

Anti-monotheism could be adjusted to 'Anti-Theism' because this would then include those folks who scorn any ideas of God(s) at all.

The simple fact is that when we look back over a few decades we can see how totally stupid that we were with our ideas and beliefs about the world. It's not just that the Dafties dirtied up our World in a couple of centuries, only a few years ago everybody where I live (UK) had been told by the 'Dafties' (that's a person who follows Dafty) that the cleanest IC vehicles in the country were diesel engined vehicles. True, that. Amazing!

Only a few years back I met a specialist who was writing a computer program for all NHS General Practitioners in the UK to help them diagnose diabetes conditions and prescribe treatments more accurately. He told me that about ten thousand deaths each year were caused by 'lack of knowledge' about this condition.

I don't take a massive amount of notice of folks who rant about how clever we are, 'cos in a few years we'll all know just how DAFT everything is at this time.

 

[Jim]

Anti-monotheism could be adjusted to 'Anti-Theism' because this would then include those folks who scorn any ideas of God(s) at all.

Actually I was scrambling some things together in my mind. Part of what I was thinking was about popular religious and anti-religious denunciations of some parts of some Abrahamic religions, their followers and their Gods. Those religions are commonly (and mistakenly I think) labeled “monotheistic.” Some of the denunciations of “monotheism” are coming from theistic factions. That’s why I was calling it “antimonotheism.” It might be more accurate to call those denunciation campaigns “anti-divine-authority-ism. What I see being denounced from all sides, religious and anti-religious, is not actually monotheism. It’s any concept of divine authority.

Another part of what I was thinking was about people using the word “science,” and reports of academic and industry research, in public debates, to try to shame and intimidate people who disagree with them into submission or silence, in exactly the same ways that people try to use the word “God,” and allegedly infallible scriptures. I don’t see any psychological or social difference between the religions, and what people do in the name of science, considered all together. That’s why I was calling what people do in the name of science, considered all together, a “religion.”

The connection between science worship, and denunciation campaigns against belief in divine authority, is that people sometimes use science worship in their campaigns against belief in divine authority, in the same ways that religions sometimes use scripture worship in their campaigns against each other and against science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(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?

So, in your mind, if two people disagree with you on this one issue that you consider important - the existence of a monotheistic god - this is enough for you to consider them to have the same belief system?

If I understand you correctly, this seems like an amazingly self-centred view for you to take.

 

[Jim]

So, in your mind, if two people disagree with you on this one issue that you consider important - the existence of a monotheistic god - this is enough for you to consider them to have the same belief system?

Where did you get the idea that the existence of a monotheistic god is an important issue to me? It isn’t. I don’t know, or care, if any such god exists. Besides, the theism in Abrahamic scriptures doesn’t look monotheistic to to me.

Lumping together everything people do in the name of science, and calling that a religion or a faith or worship, doesn’t mean that I consider all the people doing that to have the same belief system. I don’t.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually I was scrambling some things together in my mind. Part of what I was thinking was about popular religious and anti-religious denunciations of some parts of some Abrahamic religions, their followers and their Gods. Those religions are commonly (and mistakenly I think) labeled “monotheistic.” Some of the denunciations of “monotheism” are coming from theistic factions. That’s why I was calling it “antimonotheism.” It might be more accurate to call those denunciation campaigns “anti-divine-authority-ism. What I see being denounced from all sides, religious and anti-religious, is not actually monotheism. It’s any concept of divine authority.

I wouldn't worry too much about who is rubbishing what. For instance, not only do some Abrahamic religions contend against others, but the thousands of Creeds and several sections of Islam contend against each other. It could also be said that some estranged Bahai groups contend against mainstream and possibly each other. It's all a swirling mix of ideas.

Another part of what I was thinking was about people using the word “science,” and reports of academic and industry research, in public debates, to try to shame and intimidate people who disagree with them into submission or silence, in exactly the same ways that people try to use the word “God,” and allegedly infallible scriptures. I don’t see any psychological or social difference between the religions, and what people do in the name of science, considered all together. That’s why I was calling what people do in the name of science, considered all together a “religion.”

The connection between science worship, denunciation campaigns against belief in divine authority, is that people sometimes use science worship in their campaigns against belief in divine authority, in the same ways that religions sometimes use scripture worship in their campaigns against each other and against science.

Oh surely......... Science is more than a fashion, it's a whole new group of cults. And its so credible to the gullible that its used as the reference in adverts, news programs, etc etc........ It is a typical example of the 'truth pill'. If you want a lot of people to believe your story, don't tell them that a bunch of enthusiasts has carried out some experiments (on whatever) .... tell them that scientists have been undertaking research into (whatever).... you'll get much more interest and attention then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where did you get the idea that the existence of a monotheistic god is an important issue to me?

Your OP.

It isn’t. I don’t know, or care, if any such god exists. Besides, the theism in Abrahamic scriptures doesn’t look monotheistic to to me.

If you say so.

Lumping together everything people do in the name of science, and calling that a religion or a faith or worship, doesn’t mean that I consider all the people doing that to have the same belief system. I don’t.

If you're using the word "religion" in a way that doesn't imply a common belief system, then I have no idea what you're trying to express with the word "religion."

 

[Jim]

I'm not the only one calling it a religion after all.

"... an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought—instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight."

- The Problem With the March for Science

 

[Jim]

If you're using the word "religion" in a way that doesn't imply a common belief system, then I have no idea what you're trying to express with the word "religion."

That's the way "religion" is most commonly used. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all called "religions," and none of them have a common belief system.

 

[Jim]

If you're using the word "religion" in a way that doesn't imply a common belief system, then I have no idea what you're trying to express with the word "religion."

What definition of "religion" do you think people are using when they call Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "religions"?

 

[paarsurrey]

Friend @Jim !

Please bear with me for being off-topic.
I am asking this question from my all respected Bahai friends here:
Hase on read Quran from cover to cover?

I also request to read my post my post #88 addressed to our friend @shunyadragon in another thread.

Kindly don't answer if it is a private thing.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I wouldn't worry too much about who is rubbishing what. For instance, not only do some Abrahamic religions contend against others, but the thousands of Creeds and several sections of Islam contend against each other. It could also be said that some estranged Bahai groups contend against mainstream and possibly each other. It's all a swirling mix of ideas.

Oh surely......... Science is more than a fashion, it's a whole new group of cults. And its so credible to the gullible that its used as the reference in adverts, news programs, etc etc........ It is a typical example of the 'truth pill'. If you want a lot of people to believe your story, don't tell them that a bunch of enthusiasts has carried out some experiments (on whatever) .... tell them that scientists have been undertaking research into (whatever).... you'll get much more interest and attention then.

"Oh surely......... Science is more than a fashion, it's a whole new group of cults. And its so credible to the gullible that its used as the reference in adverts, news programs, etc etc........ It is a typical example of the 'truth pill'. If you want a lot of people to believe your story, don't tell them that a bunch of enthusiasts has carried out some experiments (on whatever) .... tell them that scientists have been undertaking research into (whatever).... you'll get much more interest and attention then." Unquote.

That we observe people doing so often.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

My view of that has changed, but I’ll try to explain what I was thinking, if you’d like to know.

yes, actually. You seem to be outside of the norm, so it would be interesting. You can do a private message if you want to avoid the "pile on" effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What definition of "religion" do you think people are using when they call Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "religions"?

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, perhaps.

Or maybe they mean a particular system of faith and worship.

Or maybe a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

But what do you think the word means?