The unreasoning hostility to religion...

[Skipjack]

Why is secularism always put togethe with humanism here?
Hello?
One thing is an ideology the other thing is a form of government.
I can have a secular government that is not humanistic (in the original sense of the word).
A secular government will use science for its decision finding a non secular government will more often than not ignore science and use religious believes for its decision finding.
Since religious believes are never impartial and science is impartial (or should be), I think that using science as the basis for decision finding is fairer to everybody. Since religious freedom is important and there are many religious minorities, religiously motivated decisions will inevitably result in the discrimination of religious minorities.

[GIThruster]

I think you're confusing the term "evangelical" with the term "evangelistic".

Not really. I am precisely sure of my understanding of what I think 'evangelical' means. I may be misunderstanding it, but I am not confusing it.

Well Chris, why then would anyone bring to the issue of science, the fact someone holds the religious distinctions of the reformers as opposed to the Catholic Church? This has nothing to do with modern day Christian Fundamentalism. Nothing to do with "creation science" or with "Design". It has to do with things like whether a person believes the Bible is the book of the church, or if "the church is the church of the book"--where authority for faith comes from. It has to do with whether you need to go see a priest to forgive your sins, and whether you need good works to be "saved".

How has ANY of that got a thing to do with whether you're a capable astronomer? Nothing! This guy needs to sue.

[chrismb]

I said I don't have an opinion on this until the nature of his reported evangelism is understood, so there is no point posing 'what-ifs' to me.

Having suffered capricious behaviour of interviewers myself in the past, all I can say is 'that's life'. Society gives him due recourse; he can sue. If you were to tell me that society forbade him from raising such a suit, arguing on the basis of religious discrimination, then I may express issues I would have with that, but this isn't the case. Interviewers appear to have demonstrated capricious behaviour [this is to be expected] and if it is unfair then the law offers recourse. The issue is very well concluded at the level of my interest, and I hope that his suit arrives at the just outcome, whatever that may be.

[GIThruster]

Why is secularism always put together with humanism here?

Beats me. Isn't it obvious the rebirth of humanism in the proto-renaissance is found singularly in the person of Michelangelo, an extremely devout Christian? Humanism comes from the Christians, as does secularism, just at different times and places.

[Alchemist]

Dictionary.com defines religion as: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

If you follow that basic definition then Atheism is as much a religion as any other. And it has been my experience that they are just as evangelical.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I think intelligent design and theistic evolution are thoroughly bogus, evolution by natural selection is one of the best demonstrated theories in science. However, this guy is an astronomer, not a biologist, and it doesn't sound like he pushes his views very hard, or that he's a hard core intelligent designer. If he's good at teaching and research in astronomy, let him do it. If necessary, ask him not to invite people to his astronomy and the bible talks while on university time.

If he was a biologist, it would be a very different story. I think a university biology department would be well within its rights to deny someone with intelligent design tendencies a job.

Apart from the above, everyone please stop stereotyping "religious" and "atheistists." Most people I've met are quite happy to keep their views to themselves and only discuss them when asked. What you're talking about are the proselytizing fringes of the Christian and atheist groups.

[happyjack27]

Dictionary.com defines religion as: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

If you follow that basic definition then Atheism is as much a religion as any other. And it has been my experience that they are just as evangelical.

atheists may hold a set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe (e.g. object persistence, inertia, probability, etc.), but as regards "cause" and "purpose" i beg to differ. to an atheist the idea of asserting a "cause" of the universe is nonsensical at best. likewise, and often by the same logic, most, if not all atheist reject the notion of teleology.

so the definition is not met. only the most general part of it ("nature") which could be said of any belief, about anything whatsoever (that it concerns the "nature" of something).

[Skipjack]

If you follow that basic definition then Atheism is as much a religion as any other.

Uhm, I object. There may be some atheist that follow an ideology which is a believe system too (e.g. marxism). Generally atheism does not necessarily mean that. Atheists will (or at least should) usually use science to explain the universe, its origins, nature and purpose.
Science is a not a believe system. It is actually the very oposite of that.
So saying that atheism is a believe system is non sensical.

[Skipjack]

atheists may hold a set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe

Unless they follow some alternate ideology, they dont believe in anything. They use science to explain the universe. Science is not about believe. There is no believe in science.

[chrismb]

Dictionary.com defines religion as: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

If you follow that basic definition then Atheism is as much a religion as any other. And it has been my experience that they are just as evangelical.

I would suggest that a key word here is 'belief'. 'Faith' and 'belief' are not things I would associate with clear-headed secularism and atheism. Sure, some individuals in those categories may hold odd beliefs, but the scientific way of modern man aims to hold interpretation against testable observations.

Granted, sometime sufficient reliable observations and logical explanations are a bit thin on the ground and one has to spread a few facts a long way without actually knowing for sure, but that is over-stretching what you know and it is not falling into a belief system, by any measure.

Do not confuse 'not knowing all the facts and coming to a provisional conclusion' with 'religious belief'. In the former case the intent is still to acquire all the facts, even if they are not available at the time, whereas the latter is an acquiescence to an accepted dogma. And, NO, they are not the same even if the outcomes might occasionally overlap.

[Edit: 'belief' changed to 'religious belief', for the aid of GIT's comprehension.]

[chrismb]

You out-typed me to that point, SkipJack!

[AcesHigh]

I said I don't have an opinion on this until the nature of his reported evangelism is understood, so there is no point posing 'what-ifs' to me.

Having suffered capricious behaviour of interviewers myself in the past, all I can say is 'that's life'. Society gives him due recourse; he can sue. If you were to tell me that society forbade him from raising such a suit, arguing on the basis of religious discrimination, then I may express issues I would have with that, but this isn't the case. Interviewers appear to have demonstrated capricious behaviour [this is to be expected] and if it is unfair then the law offers recourse. The issue is very well concluded at the level of my interest, and I hope that his suit arrives at the just outcome, whatever that may be.

I just posted an entire article about this issue, written by someone who knows both the guy and other people at Kentucky University.

It seems nobody cared to read it.

[chrismb]

I read it. But I didn't see the bit that describes his evangelical nature/activities. Did I miss that bit?

[GIThruster]

Do not confuse 'not knowing all the facts and coming to a provisional conclusion' with 'belief'. In the former case the intent is still to acquire all the facts, even if they are not available at the time, whereas the latter is an acquiescence to an accepted dogma.

What rubbish. How is it you're suddenly forced to such a ridiculous definition of "belief"?

Everyone "believes" uncounted millions of things, billions of things. Making up a nonsensical definition for what belief entails is only going to make you sound foolish and self serving. Atheists are mo more rational than theists. They just believe different things. Crazy, nonsensical definitions of belief don't make it in the real world. If an atheist believes his wife when she tells him she loves him, he's just as guilty of "faith" as any theist. He's just not honest enough to admit to it.

[Betruger]

Apart from the above, everyone please stop stereotyping "religious" and "atheistists." Most people I've met are quite happy to keep their views to themselves and only discuss them when asked. What you're talking about are the proselytizing fringes of the Christian and atheist groups.

The word atheist is too vague compared to the spread of beliefs covered by that word. It can mean anything between a certainty of the absence of deity, to a certainty only of absence of belief.