Atheists control science

In my summation (Message 380) for Percy's topic, I Am Not An Atheist!, I discuss your bizarre redefinition of "atheist" to include everybody who does not reject evolution and science and reality as you would wish them to: Until you provide a definition for "atheist" that actually means something, your entire position here is completely meaningless. Since you used Wikipedia to provide a definition for "scientific community", shouldn't you also use it for a definition for "atheist"?

quote:

---

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

​

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.

---

In contrast, your misuse of "atheist" includes vast numbers of theists, including the majority of Christians.Now, the qualities of scientists that causes you to brand them as "atheists" is that they are sane and they work and live in and with reality instead of your community's approach of denying, ignoring, and trying to redefine reality away. In that case, then I would most certain hope that scientists root themselves in reality. If that makes them "atheists" in your scale-covered eyes, then that is your problem, not theirs. Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican?

I have been an atheist for very nearly half a century, yet according to your "definition" I am not an atheist. Nor, I am quite sure, would most atheists in the USA qualify as such by your "definition". However, a very large segment of the fundamentalist Christian community, in particular the Christian Reconstructionists (CR) and those fundamentalists who have adopted the CR political agenda (beginning with the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's), would qualify as "atheists" by your "definition".Your "definition" is obviously faulty; it doesn't work. Not in the least bit traditional! Although the practice started during the Civil War (which is to say four score and seven years after the fact) and continued sporadically thereafter, it became required on all our money in 1955, which is well within my own lifetime. It wasn't due to traditional religious practice, but rather due to the mid-50's Red Scare, as were two other violations traditional religious practice in the US.Starting in 1776, the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") a statement of national unity. In 1956, Congress scrapped the National Motto and replaced it with the current "In God We Trust". Similarly, in 1954 Congress split another statement of national unity, "one nation indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance, with a religious statement. As I understand it, those violations of traditional US religious practice were committed by a Republican-dominated Congress under a Republican president.Being a reactionary, I call for the restoration of the National Motto and of the Pledge of Allegiance! A publicity stunt to promote Cecil B. DeMille's movie in the early part of the 20th century. Not in the least bit a "traditional religious practice." A document with Deistic wording written by a Deist, Thomas Jefferson. Or to put it in your terms, an atheistic document written by an atheist. Indeed, the wording of the Declaration strongly matches wording used by another famous Deist, Thomas Paine, who's constantly decried by the Religious Right as an atheist.

Despite my earlier snark (the creationist cretin tempted me!), there is another reason for scientists preferring Democrats over Republicans. Overall, the Republican party is anti-science. Whether actually believed or merely driven by the misguided beliefs of their constituents, Republicans take hard stances against science; eg, stem cell research, candidates' by-the-book creationist pronouncements. Democrats do not do the same. Why would any intelligent, sane, person align himself with a political party that is so doggedly and adamantly against his own profession?{ABE}
Back when, I was affected by the legislature that allowed people of age 18 to vote, though I was a bit older at the time. OK, so now suddenly I was expected to choose a party. Nixon was in power at the time. So what else could I possibly choose except Democratic? I think I was the only Democrat in my family. Curiously, my ex-wife was also the lone Democrat in her family, though at the time politics was not a factor in our family.Though ironically, Nixon would have been considered far too liberal for the current Republican party, as would Saint Reagan himself.

---

Regarding the word, "cretin". It was historically an expression of sympathy. Regardless of how sub-human that pitiful person may appear to be, he is nonetheless a fellow Christian, deserving of all the Christian consideration he should be due. Or else he implored that to the better-off Christians in order to elicit donations.Edited by dwise1, : ABE

One of the problems with labels is that others have used the same labels in the past with meanings that don't necessarily agree with ours (or maybe with yours, but we'll see).Wikipedia has two related articles: Secularity (formed from the adjective, secular, meaning: "worldly" or "temporal") and Secularism. These are two different words with subtly different connotations, but whose differences are important to our discussion. Obviously, "secular" is an adjective describes a condition, whereas "secularism" (like so many other "-isms") denotes a philosophy or advocacy based on the adjective, "secular".Quoting from the Secularity article (my emphasis bolded):

quote:

---

Secularity (adjective form secular, meaning: "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied to any particular religion.

​

For instance, eating and bathing may be regarded as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, both eating and bathing are regarded as sacraments in some religious traditions, and therefore would be religious activities in those world views. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities. Prayer and meditation are not necessarily non-secular, since the concept of spirituality and higher consciousness are not married solely to any religion but are practiced and arose independently across a continuum of cultures.

​

Most businesses and corporations, and some governments, are secular organizations. All of the state universities in the United States are secular organizations (especially because of the combined effect of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution) while some private universities are connected with the Christian or Jewish religions

​

. . .

​

The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from specifically religious affairs and involvement in temporal ones. This meaning has been extended to mean separation from any religion, regardless of whether it has a similar doctrine.

​

This does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way (see "secularism", below); Martin Luther used to speak of "secular work" as a vocation from God for most Christians.

---

The article goes on to list usages of "secular", including some uses by religions within those religions.So then, most certainly, science is a secular activity. But "controlled by secularists"?From the Secularism article:

quote:

---

Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state and Lacit.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence. (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.

​

. . .

​

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known as secularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent. Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.

​

Overview

​

The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. ... Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

​

Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, "the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience." However, in the view of soft secularism, "the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion."

​

State secularism

​

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.

​

Secularism is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe and plays a major role in Western society. The principles, but not necessarily practices, of separation of church and state in the United States and Lacit in France draw heavily on secularism. Secular states also existed in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages (see Islam and secularism).

​

Due in part to the belief in the separation of church and state, secularists tend to prefer that politicians make decisions for secular rather than religious reasons. In this respect, policy decisions pertaining to topics like abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and sex education are prominently focused upon by American secularist organizations such as the Center for Inquiry.

​

Most major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society but may still seek to influence political decisions or achieve specific privileges or influence through church-state agreements such as a concordat. Many Christians support a secular state, and may acknowledge that the conception has support in Biblical teachings, ... . However, some Christian fundamentalists (notably in the United States) oppose secularism, often claiming that there is a "radical secularist" ideology being adopted in current days and see secularism as a threat to "Christian rights" and national security. The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world are Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. At the same time, one significant stream of secularism has come from religious minorities who see governmental and political secularism as integral to preserving equal rights.

​

. . .

​

The nature of a secular society could characterize a secular society as one which:
1. Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.
2. Is not homogenous, but is pluralistic.
3. Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
4. While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
5. Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
6. Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.

​

Positive Ideals behind the secular society:
1. Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
2. Equality of all people.
3. Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
4. Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.

---

I'm sure that many of us here would agree with those two lists and secularism would seem reasonable to us. However, it is also true that the work of secularists in the late-19th and early-20th centuries was to promote a secular society, which required the loosening of religion's hold on government -- now secularist groups in the West are mainly working to maintain the existence of a secular state, which the USA has been from the beginning.Now, the loosening of religion's hold on government is what marc9000 is claiming that scientists are trying to do, so the question is whether that is indeed what scientists are doing. Which could hinge on just exactly how we define "secularist", whether as an advocate for a secular society or as a participant in a secular activity, which science most certainly is.I see science as a secular society and scientists in general as secularists only in so far as they engage in a secular activity and would fight to keep that activity secular, defending it against attacks from religionists and IDists who want to inject their religion into science. If there are scientists who want to work towards reducing the influence of religion in society, then they do so as individuals. Though it should be expected of all USA citizens (even if they have never taken the oath) to protect and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies who attack our secular state.

And yet you still have not presented a working definition for "atheist". And it should be noted that your Message 26 was edited into something completely different after most of us had responded to it. And that latter version of the message still fails to provide us with your definition. Until you have presented a cogent and workable definition of your idea of "atheist", all your prattle posted here is absolutely meaningless. Actually, that is half-true. Ever hear the term, "Dixie-crat"? Well, since after the Civil War, the South had been pre-dominantly Democrat, since the Reconstruction had made that region poison for any Republican. Going into the 60's, the greatest opponents to segregation and civil rights were from Democrat politicians.But then (according to a three-part PBS series by Bill Moyers in the mid-to-late-80's that also first informed me about the Christian Reconstructionist movement that formed the political agenda of the Radical Religious Right), President Carter organized a conference on the family which took an honest look at the structure of modern families (very complex with, due to divorces and remarriages, multiple "parents") and, in that process, alienated the conservative Christians (to apply a single label to a broad classification). This resulted, especially in the South, in a mass defection to the Republican Party, especially in Reagan's first election to the Presidency. At that point, the fundamentalist mind-set left the Democratic Party and transplanted itself into the Republican Party; both parties changed at that point.After that point in time, the Republican Party continued to cater to the fundamentalists while the Democratic Party was freed from that particular mental aberration. Then the Republican Party continued to fall ever deeper into the thrall of fundamentalist/etc ideology, while the Democratic Party was freed from that corrupting influence. The Republican Party careened ever further to the right while the Democratic Party remained at the center. Until we are where we are now, with the Republican Party trapped in an ideological black-hole from which nothing can escape.I've heard of several former Republicans leaving that party because it no longer represents their views; how many have gone in the other direction (outside of the old anti-segregation Dixie-crats)?Anyway, we are now left with Democrats who deal with the real world and Republicans who are committed ideologues. Republicans used to deal with the real world, but now they no longer can do so. And you have the audacity to claim that Republicans have not changed? Bullshit!And if you want to claim "it's the Democrats who have changed", then please show us! OK, my family is originally from Kansas, but a lot of US Census reports places us in Missouri, so please pretend that I'm from Missouri: Show me! OK, so please explain why more Republicans don't become scientists. Nothing's keeping anybody from studying the sciences nor in becoming scientists. So why don't they? You know full well that politics have nothing to do with it, so how can you explain it?Now of course, one problem is how many scientists used to be Republicans, but then found that position to be untenable? After all, the GOP has changed radically. Another problem is that the Republican Party now envelopes itself in ideology. While ideology is a normal part of religion, it has absolutely no place in science, which dedicates itself to reality. The Republican Party is inextricably enmeshed in ideology, whereas the Democratic Party deals with reality. So right from the start, Republican ideology is foreign to science.So, to return to your original question of why more Republicans don't become scientists: we find that Republicans find themselves enmeshed in so much anti-science, anti-reality ideology that they simply do not gravitate to the sciences.The fault is not within your imagined "atheists", but rather within yourselves.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Failed yet again to provide a working definition of "atheist", or are you trying to deceive us and Admin? That was very wicked of you!You stated in your reason for editing: "To conform to requirements of message 28." In Message 28, Admin says: Your response was: Well, here is what that link actually says (my emphasis added in bold):

quote:

---

Definition of ATHEISM

​

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See atheism defined for kids
Origin of ATHEISM

​

Middle French athisme, from athe atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

---

marc, are you really unaware of what "archaic" means? If so, then you would indeed be a mental midget, so I can only assume that you misquoted the dictionary out of pure and deliberate wickedness with that drive to deceive possessed by so many creationists. An archaic meaning is one that is antiquated, out-of-date, no longer in use! As such, an archaic meaning is not the standard definition of the word! You failed to comply with or to conform to Admin's Message 28.You still need to provide a workable and working definition for "atheism" and for "atheist". It has to be a real definition, not one that you imagine or just pulled out of a particular bodily orifice as you have been doing so far.Or we could go what you said: " the definition of an atheist is one that everyone knows - a lack of belief in a god or gods." Even though that's the definition of "atheism" and not of "atheist". That means that you cannot apply the term "atheist" to any theist. That also means that in order to claim that them members of the NAS are atheists, you will need to prove that they are not theists. That means that you cannot magically redefine theists as atheists as you have repeatedly tried to do. Instead of engaging in your characteristic wickedness, you will need to be honest -- give it a try this once; you might even find that you like it.BTW, replacing the entire message stinks of wickedness (if you're such an atheist in your own mind, why do you hate them so much?). Instead, leave the old definition stand, though with the new definition either as an addendum or in a separate message referred to by your old message.For those who want to know what marc's old "definition" was, you will find it in Dr. Adequate's Message 31 and in Tangle's Message 33.

As I already said in Message 34, that was a snarky remark made because your entire tirade about how few scientists are Republicans was so comical. While it is true that the GOP has become the party of wing-nut ideologues (just witness the parade of clowns in the GOP primary race), I've offered another explanation; again from Message 34: Then in my Message 61 (where I also responded to your ridiculous "It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed."), I added (though it has also been pointed out by others here): Funny how you completely avoided those explanations. So what's so wrong with Republicans that they are incapable of becoming scientists?

Just a few of the things wrong with that:You're talking about "New Atheism" and claim to provide a definition for it, but you didn't actually do that, now did you? Instead, you provided a definition for "militant atheist", something quite different. I believe that's called "bait and switch", where you promise one thing and then provide something different. "Bait and switch" is a thoroughly dishonest trick and, I believe, illegal when a business does it to a customer. Even more evidence that you should consider yourself an atheist by your own latest "definition", because of your demonstrated wickedness. You should have instead referred to a link that actually does talk about "new atheism", such as on Wikipedia.As pointed out by Granny Magda in his Message 62, you lifted that quotation out of context, thus misrepresenting it (committing even more wickedness, you filthy little atheist). The complete quotation reads:

quote:

---

Definition:
Militant atheist is defined as one who is militantly opposed to theism, theists, and religion. Militant atheists have an extreme hostility towards religious theism that entails a desire to see religion suppressed by force. The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist.

​

This definition of militant atheist is usually meant pejoratively because the label is typically applied to atheists who do not seek the forced suppression of religion or theism. Instead, religious apologists apply the label "militant" to atheists generally or at least any atheist that isn't quiet, meek, and obsequious.

---

marc, you repeatedly misuse that and similar terms as your link points out. You need to stop and think about what you're saying before you simply spew it out.Also, there's nothing new about "new atheism", except for public awareness of it. Sheesh! Just what the hell are you talking about now?What do you mean "to forget morality"? Just where do any of them actually promote forgetting morality? Provide the quotes properly cited (meaning provide the source along with the quote; and no more quote-mining, please).And "charm{ing} the young ladies". Really now! Where did that piece of nonsense come from? Please provide us with a list of "new atheist" pick-up lines known to be used in the wild and known to actually work! Again, provide actual quotes with proper citations! Or at the very least explain what you're babbling about.You should know by now that you can't just spout nonsense without being called on it!

---

From a bumper sticker:

quote:

---

Militant Agnostic: I don't know ... and neither do you!

---

I would also have to disagree.An old standard common-sense harmonization of science and religion says that religion is for answering the whodunnit and why questions about the universe, whereas science is for answering the how-it-works questions. Even if a god or designer were proven conclusively to exist, that would not change how the universe works and hence would not change science. Well, it may require some extra discipline to apply due dilligence to working out how something works instead of copping out with a goddidit "conclusion".The only way that science would be affected would be if it were also discovered that things happen because of arbitrary supernatural intevention, such that there are no underlying natural laws. Such as your final example of realizing that lightning really is the "Finger of God".