Is the Theory of Evolution a religion?

[Cerebrum123]

As far as I can tell, Jorge considers accepting anything incompatible with his delusions as being a religion. Apparently overwhelming bodies of evidence don't matter when you have "well-thought-out knowledge."

Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion, and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

[phank]

Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion

Where? Certainly not in this thread. What he said in this thread is that, well, it's not a religion except that well, it IS part of the religion of disbelief in his religion. OK, let's grant that Jorge didn't call it a religion, he called it a religious position. Before the Great Crash, he called evolutionary theory a religion repeatedly, as I recall. Here, all he's doing is taking a cogent, coherent examination of the question and dismissing it all as nonsense.

and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

OK, let's moderate that a bit. Rogue06 went to a considerable amount of trouble to produce a very well written and informative serious of posts. Jorge responds to the many compelling points raised in those posts by saying "The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that." Of course, Jorge ALWAYS leaves it at that. Not one error pointed out, not one argument made, nothing but trashing another poster's efforts while providing not a trace of substance.

I would be perfectly willing to take the position that rogue06's points are NOT delusional, and that dismissing them all wholesale without a single substantive response is if not delusional at the very least worthless. And yet, here you are defending Jorge rather than rogue06. I admit I can't help drawing some inferences from this.

Meanwhile, I eagerly await Jorge's dissertation on information theory. I'll be especially interested in which peers review it before publication.

[Roy]

Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion

Where? Certainly not in this thread.

Yes, in this thread: "The title of this thread is "Is the Theory of Evolution a Religion?" No, it isn't." That doesn't leave any room for doubt.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

Actually, the answer depends on how you define religion.

Most people casually think of religion as "the worshiping of a deity"

If you distort the definition enough, you end up with things like Scientology being defined as a religion.

I think this is the definition Jorge and his ilk use.

Actually, by almost any accepted definitions scientology would be a religion regardless of one's personal opinion of the belief. The problem is with calling 'Science (Scientism???)' a religion, which does not fit any of the accepted definitions of religion in the English language.

[shunyadragon]

Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion, and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

Please note J**** said,

"But to many it is undoubtedly a PART of their religious position."

[Wally]

Actually, by almost any accepted definitions scientology would be a religion regardless of one's personal opinion of the belief. The problem is with calling 'Science (Scientism???)' a religion, which does not fit any of the accepted definitions of religion in the English language.

It's actually very bad pop psychology, if you really stretch the definition, it might qualify as a philosophy, but that's my point, the definition of religion for most people involves a deity.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say a superstition and non-superstition, but that, even though accurate, sounds disrespectful to those who read more in to the descriptions that the literal.

[Cerebrum123]

Please note J**** said,

Yeah, and? Do you dispute that sentence?

[phank]

OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

[Jorge]

Please note J**** said,

To the poor souls like dragon that are clearly comprehension-impaired, let me repeat and clarify:

In and of itself, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not a religion. However, for a great many people the ToE does undoubtedly serve a major role - a major part - in their religion. As one example, what would Atheism-Humanism be without the ToE? Dawkins himself said (paraphrasing) : "Darwin (i.e., Darwinism ... the ToE) makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist." That statement implies, of course, that before the ToE an Atheist was not and could not be intellectually fulfilled.

But it is not the same to be a part of a religion than being a religion on its own. You need to improve your basic logic skills, dragon.

?Comprende?

Jorge

[Jorge]

OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

See my previous post ... apply generously to yourself.

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

He also applied it to theistic, and deistic religious stances.

[phank]

He also applied it to theistic, and deistic religious stances.

Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.

[Roy]

Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.

Yeah - just like I think of transsubstantiation and the planet Kolob in religous terms. They too are part of religious positions, but they are definitely not religions.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

It's actually very bad pop psychology, if you really stretch the definition, it might qualify as a philosophy, but that's my point, the definition of religion for most people involves a deity.

Careful, the definition includes more than what most people call a deity.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I believe scientology is a hoax and a pyramid con game of unbelievable proportions, but my opinion does not exclude it from being considered a religion.

[phank]

Yeah - just like I think of transsubstantiation and the planet Kolob in religous terms. They too are part of religious positions, but they are definitely not religions.

Roy

Seems that religious people find uncongenial scientific theories to be False Faith, while science-oriented people tend to see religion as Bad Science.