Is Evolution a Religion?

[CJK]

Simple question.

Is Evolution a Religion?

[Cathar1950]

Don't forget Abraham tried to get God to not destroy Sodom. He got him to go from 50 to 10 not bad.
He also asked him "does not the judge of all the earth do right?"
Also David named one of his sons after Baal.
I guess it isn't all that clear.

[CJK]

I guess it isn't all that clear.

No, it really isn't.

[Wordsmith]

I guess it isn't all that clear.

No, it really isn't.

As a Newbie, this is my first post to this subforum. Having read many past entries, it appears there is no unambiguous, uniformly accepted definition for the term RELIGION in its Constitutional context (where government and tax-dollars are involved).

The most comprehensive definition I've come across reads:

RELIGION includes any physically untestable explanations set forth addressing three classic unanswered philosophical questions of all time. 1) Where did life (I) come from? 2) What is life's (my) purpose, if any? and 3) what is life's (my) ultimate destiny?

Such definition effectively differentiating between RELIGION and SCIENCE and is broad enough to cover all religions, whether they be theistic or non-theistic.

Here all EVOLUTIONARY explanations qualifying as empirical SCIENCE (physically testable, Baconian scientific-method) do NOT qualify as RELIGION --- While explanations lacking such verification are tenuous enough to well qualify as RELIGIOUS "belief".

The sufficiency of this definition is readily apparent when one asks .... "Would I approve compulsary instruction of such unverifiable answers, be they theistic or non-theistic, to my children at my (taxdollar) expense?"

I appreciate this may initially appear "troublesome" to some -- and look forward to alternate definitions as may be proposed.

Wordsmith[/i]

[Lotan]

RELIGION includes any physically untestable explanations set forth addressing three classic unanswered philosophical questions of all time. 1) Where did life (I) come from? 2) What is life's (my) purpose, if any? and 3) what is life's (my) ultimate destiny?

Will you be re-defining the word 'DEFINITION' as well?
You can support any conclusion you like if you first alter the terms of the argument to suit your purpose. It's called 'begging the question' and it proves nothing, except that you choose not to approach the question in an honest and direct manner.

[micatala]

RELIGION includes any physically untestable explanations set forth addressing three classic unanswered philosophical questions of all time. 1) Where did life (I) come from? 2) What is life's (my) purpose, if any? and 3) what is life's (my) ultimate destiny?

Hi Wordsmith and welcome.

Yes, I would agree the meaning of the word religion, like many words, is a bit hard to pin down. Part of this is because people tend to use it in a great variety of ways.

I did offer a sort of bland (Webster's) definition on page one of this thread.

My comment on your definition is that it is more specific than many definitions in that it brings into play some particular themes that religion often deals with. I think these themes certainly are part of the discussion in many religions, but I'm not sure this would be universal. Also, I note that this definition does not include any mention of God or the supernatural, which are usually thought of as critical components of religious belief, although I would certainly allow this is not true in all cases.

Here all EVOLUTIONARY explanations qualifying as empirical SCIENCE (physically testable, Baconian scientific-method) do NOT qualify as RELIGION --- While explanations lacking such verification are tenuous enough to well qualify as RELIGIOUS "belief".

I would take issue with this a bit. The extent of verification or support for an explanation can cover a whole continuum from 'without a doubt' to 'nothing but speculation'. Where on this continuum you want to say something is no longer 'science' is a bit of an arbitrary distinction.

Also, I don't think it is quite fair to say that it has to be a mutually exclusive 'science or religion' dichotomy. If someone has an explanation that is meant to address the 'scientific' evidence that we have, and is plausible but not necessarily 'verified', this would not in my mind mean that it is automatically 'religion.'

If the person giving the explanation understands that it is tentative and is only one of several possible explanations, than he or she is not in any way believing in it as a 'religious tenet of faith' or even 'without evidence.' He or she might merely be saying that this is the best explanation that he or she can think of. If the explanation is consistent with the evidence we do have and if there is no intention to make the explanation a matter of faith beyond what is justified by the evidence, then I can't see how you could classify it as religion.

[1John2_26]

Yes in every way evolution is a religion. Including zealots.

religion:
1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. . . .
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
3. archaic . . .
4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Also,

religious
1. relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowleged ultimate reality or deity.
2. of, relating to , or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3. scrupulously and conscientiously faithful. b: fervent, zealous.

[CJK]

John, do not make blanket statements.

How is evolution in any way related to faith?

[jcrawford]

Simple question.

Is Evolution a Religion?

To the extent that certain aspects of evolution are believed in, and have religious elements, it constitutes a form of religious belief.

Of course, it depends on who is defining religion. Darwinists or other religionists. The physical sciences can't and don't define religion.

[perfessor]

To the extent that certain aspects of evolution are believed in, and have religious elements, it constitutes a form of religious belief.

Emphasis added.

Almost funny - evolution is a religion because it has "religious elements"? Seems circular to me.

To say that a person's "belief in" the scientific method, or "faith" in neo-darwinist dogma (whatever that is) makes it a religion, is a meaningless equivocation of terms. Do you believe in the dogmatic assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow? I guess that makes you a sun worshipper!

Of course, it depends on who is defining religion. Darwinists or other religionists. The physical sciences can't and don't define religion.

But if you say that we in the physuical sciences are part of a religion, then we do get to define religion. And we say it's not. Therefore we don't get to decide - I'm getting dizzy...

Anyway, I'm an Electromagnetist. I worship James Clark Maxwell. Anyone with enough faith to flip a light switch is part of my religion.

[jcrawford]

To the extent that certain aspects of evolution are believed in, and have religious elements, it constitutes a form of religious belief.

Emphasis added.

Almost funny - evolution is a religion because it has "religious elements"? Seems circular to me.

Obviously, evolution is not recognized and classified as a religion by most of society or the government, but to the extent it necessitates belief and faith in it's dogma and doctrine on the part of the teacher and student, it becomes part of one's religion, whether one's religious beliefs are theistic or atheistic.

To say that a person's "belief in" the scientific method, or "faith" in neo-darwinist dogma (whatever that is) makes it a religion, is a meaningless equivocation of terms.

Not necessarily, because faith and belief in the scientific method is part of both theistic and atheistic religions as well as the quasi-religious philosophy of Darwinism.

Do you believe in the dogmatic assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow? I guess that makes you a sun worshipper!

No, that would make people who don't worship the sun's creator, sun worshippers.

Of course, it depends on who is defining religion. Darwinists or other religionists. The physical sciences can't and don't define religion.

But if you say that we in the physuical sciences are part of a religion, then we do get to define religion. And we say it's not. Therefore we don't get to decide -

The physical sciences don't define religion. Individual scientists can define religion only to the extent that they are religious.

Anyway, I'm an Electromagnetist. I worship James Clark Maxwell. Anyone with enough faith to flip a light switch is part of my religion.

I share your religious faith and belief in electromagnetism.