Distinguising Religion from Non-Religion

Does that mean it would not be unreasonable for abiogenesis to be included in evolutionism which seems to include several theories dealing with origins?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

So far evolutionism doesn't qualify as a religion or religious belief under the function-based approach.
Odds are it won't qualify under the form-based approach either. Message 1Under the form-based approach neither evolution(ism) nor the -isms mentioned in Message 1 qualify as religions.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hi, purpledawn.Maybe, I'm not sure what "evolutionism" is -- I've read this thread, but rather quickly I'm afraid, and so it isn't clear what people are talking about when the say "evolutionism". I just assumed that it was a YEC word trying to pass off the idea that the theory of evolution is a "religion" -- am I wrong?

Both the function and formed based approaches you mention seem valid although I would tend to lean more towards function over form. Both approaches include an appeal to the divine which science does not. IMO the only tangential argument for science as religion is in Tal’s fourth definition. This definition cannot be considered religion as defined in the function and form approaches you listed because it lacks an appeal to the divine. It is taken more as literary license to describe the zeal with which adherents to the topic in question advocate the cause.The cause may be evolution or anything else. (i.e. Johns plays tennis with religious fervor). In this case, it is more of a compliment to indicate John’s devotion to the pursuit of excellence in the sport.But in forums like EvC, religion is often used in a derogatory sense to describe the zeal of adherents to evolution by drawing subtle, (or not so subtle) comparisons to stereotypical angry pulpit pounding preachers who hold close minded devotion to their beliefs. Depending on how much zeal is apparent, I have noticed this is often an accurate characterization.If religion is used in any other context, it is an incorrect description of scientific belief. As such, I agree with your conclusion:

I have to slightly disagee with your 'number 2'.Evolution does not say WHY we are here. It might explain WHY we might have developed the way we did, but 'WHY ARE WE HERE' is a much broader question than evolution can answer. That goes into the realms of the metaphysical and philosophical.It only partly answers 'WHY..

quote:

---

I just assumed that it was a YEC word trying to pass off the idea that the theory of evolution is a "religion" -- am I wrong?

---

I don't think it is.This is the only definition I have of evolutionism. I didn't want this thread to go off on a TOE tangent, so this was my way of making the TOE fit with the OP.Didn't mean to confuse.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 09-03-2005 02:03 PM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Actually, that kind of a function would fall under ID / Creationism, it's part of the "Magic Wand" theory of creation, not a part of ToE.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-03-2005 05:01 PM

People keep going around and around on --4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.But, if this were the only definition of religion, wouldn't diets be a religion, wouldn't Star Trek, tax reform, anti-spam regulations? Defining something as a religion based solely on the idea that people believe it and pursue it, is way to broad to have any purpose for this discussion, or frankly, any discussion about the topic.

I found this explanation which I think goes along with what Monk was saying about meaning #4 and literary license.

quote:

---

Defining something as a religion based solely on the idea that people believe it and pursue it, is way to broad to have any purpose for this discussion, or frankly, any discussion about the topic.

---

I think that is one of the problems with the function-based approach. With such a broad meaning, people can have multiple belief systems, some of which could be contradictory.There can be Christian Materialism or Religious Humanism.

quote:

---

wouldn't diets be a religion

---

Most definitely!

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

No I don't feel that it has had any effect on me whatsoever. I am not an evolutionary scientist and in fact have little or no interest in anything biological at all.
My attitudes, values, morality etc. were firmly established long before I knew anything about evolution(ism)

That is a fair point Ramoss.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of "WHY WE ARE HERE" in a philosophical sense. I was really thinking of explaining why the human form is the way it is by looking at all the evolutionary steps which brought us to where we are now.