A little rant for desdamona

quote:

---

I would suggest to Des that she drop the "Bible thumping" and stop hammering all of us over the head with her opinions and spend the time in finding out just exactly what evolutionists believe in the first place before condemning us all to Hell for believing something we don't!

---

About a week ago, I already suggested that she do exactly that.At first she accused me of "preaching" evolution, but then I explained that I wasn't asking her to believe it, just understand it.She then said something like, "Thanks for the clarification!"...and then went on her merry way, unchanged and unrepentant.

You remember that thread about supporting your assertions that was posted a couple days ago? Maybe you should go back and take a look at it. It might help you.

quote:

---

The branch of science called scientism sure exists to reject God and overturn Genesis.

---

Um, scientism is a type of philosophy, not a branch of science, WT.While it would not be unusual for a scientist to hold to this philosophy, it certainly is not a requirement, as the 40% of scientists who believe in God are evidence of.Science is conducted via methodological naturalism; what individual scientists believe personally about the supernatural doesn't enter into their work.

quote:

---

Doesn't matter what you claim - opinions/hatreds about the God of Genesis does not cease at the laboratory door.

---

This comment reminds me of a story.There was a fellow named Eric who worked in my department for about 4 months, until he was fired for poor performance.I ran into him several months after that, and he was clearly kind of embarassed. He kept going on and on about how he just knew everyone he had worked with probably talked about how terrible a job he did, and what a loser he was.I, of course, told him that this wansn't at all the case, which was absolutely true.The truth was, we didn't think about him at all.We forgot about him almost immediately.My point in telling this story is to remind you that all of us tend to be self-absorbed and think that we are the cause of other people's behavior, when it is most often not the case at all.WT, you seem to think that most scientists are sitting around their labs, hating God. The fact is, most scientists are way too busy writing grants, teaching lectures, preparing work for conferences, attending department faculty meetings, and supervising the grad students doing their research to have much time left over to plot ways to dethrone your Sovereign Lord.Scientists may hate God, but they probably do it on the weekends.

I've never heard of a branch of science called "scientism"....sounds like "creation science" (or more commonly known as creationism)...has embarked on a prose crusade against innocent scientists...maybe they should burn us at the stake like witches.

I hate to say it, but you're absolutely right. She's apologized several times but then pops back to her usual self. Just today she apologized out of nowhere to me and began to speak politely, and even answered my question with a certain extent of coherenceny.NOW-I'd like to think this means she's going to clean up her act, but I'm not sure if this is so.PERHAPS-She could change her ways now while there is still time. I really hope so. Yet...

scientology creationism?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

SCIENTISMOGONOCOLGYISM? I could go on forever with this.

what if she has short term amnesia?

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

Oh my.

​

A HOME SCHOOL TEACHER???!!!

​

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

---

Yes, that was my reaction as well after I read her profile.

---

The Laminator

​

Missing your medication can have a similar effect.

{Added in edit}That's because it's a philosophy or a point of view, not a branch of science.

quote:

---

Scientism is usually used to mean the acceptance of scientific theory and scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion.

​

Here, 'science' is held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of public policy and even religion.

​

This viewpoint is typified by comments, such as 'Science demonstrates that it is useless (or useful) to use seatbelts in cars' or 'Science has shown that religion is wrong' or 'Science shows that capitalism (or communism or socialism) is correct.' In the case of such views as Marxism (and most types of totalitarian rationales) such views are also called historicism, relying on a 'scientific' analysis of inevitable historical patterns.

---

More at Scientism (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-23-2004]

While this is a reply to a post by JonF it isn't actually a reply to JonF's post, if you see what I mean.Its quite wrong to suggest that mostly scientists favour scientism and scientism is therefore anti-religious. Not only do most scientists probably not have beliefs, unless they are really evangelical and dogmatic atheists, that would agree with that definition of scientism. Very few scientist would suggest that science was the appropriate direction to approach religion or morality from for instance.In fact it is religious fundamentalists, creationists are a good example, who are far more guilty of scientistic thinking. It is the creationists who insist that evolution is "bad" science and that if only people would study their "good" creation science then the inerrant bible and inerrant science would be seen to agree as they so obviously should and everyone could live happily ever after in the knowledge that universal truths are knowable both by scientific endeavour and divine revalation. Many Islamic fundamentalists exhibit a similar mind set, such as all those who go to great lengths to show how well the Quran accords with modern scientific theories.Scientific theories should not cause such trouble unless you feel beholden to accept them as perfect and unapproachable truths.TTFN,WK

She seems to genuinely want to open her mind to new ideas. If that's true I think we should all back off on the criticism for a while and give her a bit of breathing space. For a day or two, assuming she continues to visit us, can we simply encourage her without judging her?I hope everyone will congratulate her on the apparent change that's taking place in her thinking. She needs as much gentle encouragement as we can give her. Remember, it's not just her - she has children of her own, children she's homeschool teaching. If we can succeed in getting des to see things in a new way, the benefits to her will devolve to those kids. That can only be a good thing.I still expect a bit of back-sliding by her, but as she herself says it's difficult to embrace what to her are radically different and new ideas without some resistance. If she is genuine and she does indeed begin to study these new ideas, she is likely to encounter quite a bit of resistance and argument from her friends and family. I think it would be great if evc could be a sort of refuge for her, a place where she will be encouraged and not ridiculed.Does anyone else agree with me, or am I being too optimistic?

It's a mis-nomer, Science can't be an "ism" because by definition it is NOT a belief.

I agree with the sentiments. I think you're being rather optimistic though. I'll mostly try to hold back and leave things alone.