Subject: | Re: Religion Instead of Science
| Date: | Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:43:26 -0700
| From: | Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net>
| Newsgroups: | sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.atheism
|
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>Although Sweet tries to hide his intent with a lot of scientific
>language, political rhetoric, and outright mistatements, his
>anti-religion agenda is manifest.
So, opposing Creationists is anti-religious?
>
>Beginning with the title - why title the piece "Religion instead of
>Science" unless you are asserting a conflict between the two?
There *is* a conflict - between those who would push their religion *as*
science and those who would keep science and religion separate. The
Creationists (and their IDiot allies) are indeed trying to substitute
their religion for science. Opposing this does *not* make a person
anti-religious.
> There
>isn't any such conflict, but the title would imply there is.
There *is* a conflict, just not the one you think Sweet is talking
about.
>
>The article calls creationism a "theological position", implying that
>there is some actual theological basis for it and again emphasizing the
>religious tie-in.
Because it *is* a religious position, pure and simple. And it *is*
based on a particular approach to Bibilical exegesis, and so it is a
*theological* position as well. Acknowledging this is not
> He implies this is a dictionary definition. Well,
>maybe Sweet's dictionary really says this. However, my edition of the
>same dictionary calls creationism a *belief*. Now a belief could be
>religious, but it doesn't have to be.
So? The form of Creationism being espoused by the neo-cons *is* a
religious position. This is true no matter what any dictionary says.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|