Is Evolution a religion?

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, my - hypocrisy run amok.

That is an astute observation of your posts, Deut. I concur. There are many who regard you as such, I hope that I am not the one to break the news to you. Your posts filled with vehemence and meanness do nothing to further the discussion, but I am sure that they boost your ego.

 

[Quiddity]

By your definition of "ritual", (ie, religiously sponsored), I would say "no". Monkey's washing their food before they eat is no more ritualistic than me washing my food before I eat. Monkeys' wash their food before they eat because they have learned that the food then tastes less like dirt, and that they reduce their chance of getting worms--pretty much the same reasons why I wash my food.

That's funny, I wonder why the show I was watching failed to mention this. Perhaps monkeys will figure out how to cook their food next.

Deut has an ego?


~Victor

 

[Yerda]

Come on, play nice.

 

[Sunstone]

Let's look at the "definition" of faith, shall we?

Faith - Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.



It can have something to do with religion, but it is NOT confined to it. Look especially at #3. Now if you contend that you DON'T have FAITH in the evidence, then I am led to believe that you doubt it. Is THAT what you are trying to say???

You guys get even MORE pissed off when I talk about the fact that you have been proven wrong. Get a grip. YOU HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE. It's not a sin. I HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE TOO. But, I have far more faith in God and in the evidence that surrounds me.

The belief that man landed on the moon is based upon your interpretation of the evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is based on FAITH. FAITH in NASA to do their job, FAITH in the system to not decieve you, FAITH in the validity of the pictures that they sent back. ERGO, your belief that man landed on the moon is most definitely a function of FAITH.

Even if your argument held water, which it doesn't (IMHO), what has faith (so defined) got to do with evolution being a religion? Faith (so defined) alone is not enough to make something a religion. Otherwise (using your loose definition of faith) your belief that you could get groceries at a grocery store would be a religion.

For something to be a religion, then, it must have characteristics other than that of (loosely defined) faith. What characteristics of religion, besides your loose definition of faith, does belief in evolution share with religion?

 

[michel]

Even if your argument held water, which it doesn't (IMHO), what has faith (so defined) got to do with evolution being a religion? Faith (so defined) alone is not enough to make something a religion. Otherwise (using your loose definition of faith) your belief that you could get groceries at a grocery store would be a religion.

For something to be a religion, then, it must have characteristics other than that of (loosely defined) faith. What characteristics of religion, besides your loose definition of faith, does belief in evolution share with religion?

I don't actually believe that evolution is a 'Religion', but to your last question, Sunstone, I think there is an answer.

With Certain Religions, there is a certain aspect of evolution in a religion, in that it changes, to adapt to the changes in society. Acceptance of women priests, Gay blessings ? - are those not a form of evolution?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The belief that man landed on the moon is based upon your interpretation of the evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is based on FAITH. FAITH in NASA to do their job, FAITH in the system to not decieve you, FAITH in the validity of the pictures that they sent back. ERGO, your belief that man landed on the moon is most definitely a function of FAITH.

Well NetDoc you're simply arguing semantics. The point is that my "faith" in evolution is contingent upon observable evidence. Religious faith in things like Jesus walking on water is not based on observable evidence. According to you, it's based on "spiritual evidence" a term which you have failed to define, leaving it meaningless.

Remember, there are two very different definitions for "faith": Religious belief not based on evidence/reason, and confidence in a person or thing. Having confidence in something because it is supported by evidence is very different from a belief that is not based on evidence.

 

[michel]

Seriously, Mr_S, could you prove that man walked on the moon ? ( without accepting certain some data on trust?)

 

[Sunstone]

With Certain Religions, there is a certain aspect of evolution in a religion, in that it changes, to adapt to the changes in society. Acceptance of women priests, Gay blessings ? - are those not a form of evolution?

If I understand him correctly, NetDoc has asserted that belief in evolution is a religion because it takes "faith" to believe in evolution, and this "faith" is what makes something a religion or not. I have, on the contrary, asserted that if one defines "faith" as loosely and as broadly as NetDoc does, then all sorts of things become religions. Things we are not normally accustomed to thinking of as religions become religions. For instance, a belief that we can buy groceries at a grocery store becomes a religion. I further contend this absurd. That is, NetDoc's definition of "faith" is so broad and so loose that it leads us into absurdities, such as saying that the belief we can buy groceries at a grocery store is a religion.

I therefore ask what characteristics, other than this very loose and broadly defined "faith", does belief in evolution share with religion? For instance, do people who believe in evolution have rituals they perform in association with their belief in evolution? That is a legitimate question because one characteristic of nearly all religions is that nearly all religions have rituals associated with them. Thus, if belief in evolution were a religion, then we might expect to find that believers in evolution performed rituals associated with their belief in evolution. There are other characteristics of religion that we might expect to find, too. My question is, therefore, "what characteristics of religion are common to both religion and belief in evolution?"

So, far, I have not received a satisfactory answer to that question.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Excuse me, where in this discussion have I ever asserted that "evolution" was a religion. I have played the Savior's advocate where appropriate, but please do not assign a belief to me that I do not hold.

I did point out to some of our intelligentsia that Science (or evolution) can't tell us where we came from or why we even came. I did point out the fallacy of claiming to live a life without faith. But I have never claimed that evolution (which I believe in) is in any fashion a religion.

[joke=on]It's merely a cult![/joke]

 

[Pah]

...
You guys get even MORE pissed off when I talk about the fact that you have been proven wrong. Get a grip. YOU HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE. It's not a sin. I HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE TOO. But, I have far more faith in God and in the evidence that surrounds me.

The belief that man landed on the moon is based upon your interpretation of the evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is based on FAITH. FAITH in NASA to do their job, FAITH in the system to not decieve you, FAITH in the validity of the pictures that they sent back. ERGO, your belief that man landed on the moon is most definitely a function of FAITH.

Nope. If I were fit I could go to the moon and see for myself. And I could come back to tell about it. Who has "come back" to tell about about the supernatural and brought tangible evidence. Use the word anyway you like, NetDoc, but don't burden me with your meaning. Your's is a leap from reason - and none of science and the material world is without reason. Science is repeatable under controlled conditions - religious faith is not. Science is measurable - religious faith is not.

While you may see a god in the beauty and majesty of nature, what do you see in crops withered from lack of water? What do you see in vegatation stripped of leaves by insect pests? Do you find a god in the destruction of a hurricane? Or are you selective in "nature's evidence"?

 

[mr.guy]

...could you prove that man walked on the moon ? ( without accepting certain some data on trust?)

Michel, michel, michel...you seem like a sensible guy but you have to stop using that argument. It's appeared on this thread twice from your keys and you've posted it on other threads as well.

I don't want to suggest it's unworthy...it's always heartning to see reasonable doubt (seriously). But if you insist on frequenting this tidy bit, you have to take it to it's own conclusion.

Can anyone prove that man walked on the moon. No. Can those astronauts prove they were on the moon? No. Does my cat fly when i chuck her out the window? No, but it was fun trying to prove it.

Essentially, all data can be subject to doubt, obviously. All data is subjective. Not just it's accuracy or relevence, but it's very existence, and that means ALL data. If i feel unsure that i have oh, let's say pubic hair, i can reference the last time i looked at my crotch and remember "oh yeah, it was there last time i checked." That's generally how we use empirical data. I trust my recollection, so i'm naturally satisfied. But if I have doubts, i can gather evidence by dropping my pants and checking again, no? (yep, still there). Now equiped with a priori (sense) datum, i can again feel confident that everything is as i left it. But what happens when i pull my pants back up? Has it changed in the 2 seconds since i last refered to my nethers? What's more, how objective can i be about the sense datum i initially collected? Because of limitations of perception, there is no logical reason to believe anything you see, hear, smell, etc.
I might not have sufficient faculties to judge by absolute measures the conditions withing my shorts. If i subject the question to peer review (expose myself to anyone walking by) how do i judge and evaluate the empirical data they give me (confirming or denying my hypothesis of bushness) but by means of 'trusting' that their eyes see my short hairs much the way mine do.

I have no means of ever really knowing anything at any given time because ultimately, no datum of any sort can be absolutely trusted. I can always get a gist of what might be, or the insinuation of beingness, or maybe go as far as to believe in matter. But it is utterly impossible to prove beyond all doubt that anything is, or was or will be (or not). That's were logic's something of a *****-if you remove all systems of verification or posibility of acknowledgement you can prove nothing but the absurdity of logic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pah,

you surprise me. History is NOT repeatable. However, religious faith is definitely repeatable and it has been repeated millions of times.

While you may see a god in the beauty and majesty of nature, what do you see in crops withered from lack of water? What do you see in vegatation stripped of leaves by insect pests? Do you find a god in the destruction of a hurricane? Or are you selective in "nature's evidence"?

Why, I actually do, Pah. We want the mountains majesty without the earthquakes, we want balance while trying to wipe out the phylum insecta. We take for granted the gifts that God provides and then rail against him if we don't get our "due".

 

[painted wolf]

NetDoc: but never the same way twice.... hence its not a valid 'scientific' outcome.
It is ultimatly an unrepeatable because the results are so varied.

Michel- about proving man went to the moon... I suppose Leprechauns/moon men could have put the reflector arrays on the moon. All you need to find them is a lazer and an instrument to record it bouncing back.
If I was really that caught up about man on the moon I could build/buy the instruments to test it.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

michel--

Seriously, Mr_S, could you prove that man walked on the moon ? ( without accepting certain some data on trust?)

I cannot prove anything beyond all doubt. However, I have a lot more confidence in well-evidenced claims than completely unevidenced claims, and I can provide overwhelming evidence that NASA's Apollo missions happened (not the least of which would be the lunar samples the astronauts brought back, which you could confirm came from the Moon by taking their electromagnetic spectrum/chemical composition and comparing it to the spectrum of the Moon). One of the main problems I find with religious faith is that it is inconsistent: why believe some unevidenced claims/ancient stories while rejecting others as fantasy?

(edit: Another quick note about the Moon missions: the claim "we went to the Moon" and NASA's/physicists/engineers' explanations of how it can be done are consistent with known science. It is not a relatively extraordinary claim. However, if the Moon missions DIDN'T happen, one would need to somehow explain ALL the evidence for those missions....these kind of conspiracy theories are indeed extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence to back them up, but thus far there has been zero compelling evidence that the Moon rocks, the Moon landing videos, etc. are all hoaxes.)

At any rate, I think pretty much all of us can agree that evolution is not a religion. Sunstone said he has not had an answer to his questions, but I think he has: the answer is that belief in evolution is not religion, but it is cast as such by those who have a political agenda to make evolution legally equivalent to creationism, thereby opening the door for teaching their religion in schools.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We take for granted the gifts that God provides and then rail against him if we don't get our "due".

Please NetDoc, speak for yourself, or if you mean to accuse Pah or anyone else of doing such things, address him directly. You talk at length, and often, about all the sinister things "we" or "they" do, but you avoid taking responsibility for your comments. If you mean Pah, or anyone else, say so. Otherwise, say "I" instead of "we" and do not pretend to speak for others.

 

[Sunstone]

Excuse me, where in this discussion have I ever asserted that "evolution" was a religion. I have played the Savior's advocate where appropriate, but please do not assign a belief to me that I do not hold.

I did point out to some of our intelligentsia that Science (or evolution) can't tell us where we came from or why we even came. I did point out the fallacy of claiming to live a life without faith. But I have never claimed that evolution (which I believe in) is in any fashion a religion.

[joke=on]It's merely a cult![/joke]

If you have not claimed that evolution is a faith, and therefore a religion, then I stand corrected. But that raises the question of what exactly your claim that it takes faith to believe in evolution has at all to do with the topic of this thread, which is "Is evolution a religion."?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the answer is that belief in evolution is not religion, but it is cast as such by those who have a political agenda to make evolution legally equivalent to creationism, thereby opening the door for teaching their religion in schools.

That and perhaps more. Those who suggest (or insist) that evolution is a religion tend to be the same as those who claim that atheism is a religion, that science is a religion, etc.

It is a curious tu quoque assertion, as if to say: "You nontheists are really no better than we are!" Rather than the clear, self confident faith of the fideist, it is faith with an inferiority complex, desperate to drag science down to its level.

 

[Malus 12:9]

[size=-1]Teaching evolution as religion harms science.
[/size]

 

[mr.guy]

Lying makes the baby jesus cry

 

[Malus 12:9]

Lying makes the baby jesus cry

Yes, well, while that may be releveant somehow, how can one have a religious belief
towards evolution? You leave a sandwhich to go stale. Eventually it grows fungus, and turns green, and evolves into a huge pile of mould.

How anyone can base evolution as a religious belief has really struck me.