# statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily



## Scott DeWar (Jul 27, 2015)

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Baph...qid=6176205256440310520&__mref=message_bubble

I was cruising about Facebook and found this. 

Now I know there are people from all point of the religious spectrum and many have very strong feelings on something like this, but I am asking for civility here. If I feel someone is acting out of line I will not hesitate to call for the green overlords  the moderators in.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2015)

I saw this elsewhere.  Am I right in that they're actually atheists, not satanists?  I heard a rumour that to get in to the unveiling you had to sign a contract signing your soul over to Satan - something an atheist, obviously, is happy to do because they consider the beneficiary (and, indeed, the currency, I guess) to be nonexistent.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 27, 2015)

Considering how our secular world has attacked all religious symbols, from having the Ten Commandments at a courthouse to one where one can not say "Merry Christmas", nor have a Christmas tree or a Hanukkah on public property, so this having a representation of satan, which is a symbol of evil to most western religions...

IMO, this statue has no place in the general public eye.  If it must be displayed, it should be placed in a dark corner of a museum or as part of a private collections.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2015)

All art has a place in the public eye; that's what it's for.  Artistic expression should not be suppressed.

Whether or not _religious_ art should be on a governmental building is an entirely separate issue and not really relevant here.  This is a private piece in a private location.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 27, 2015)

As I am a professed broken christian, I still agree with Morrus. I just wish it in some other country.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Am I right in that they're actually atheists, not satanists?




They call themselves "non-theistic Satanists" - they say they have a religion, but without a creator-god.

To quote them: 

"We understand the Satanic figure as a symbol of man’s inherent nature, representative of the eternal rebel, enlightened inquiry and personal freedom rather than a supernatural deity or being. It is our mission to facilitate communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty. We actively provide outreach and participate in public affairs where the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights."


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 27, 2015)

Umbran said:


> They call themselves "non-theistic Satanists" - they say they have a religion, but without a creator-god.
> ". . . . . participate in public affairs where the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights."




dang. I already said for this thread to be civil.

hoisted by mein own petard!


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jul 27, 2015)

I admire these folks, honestly.  I have been following them on Facebook for a while and Umbran is somewhat correct.  They take Satanic symbology and make a statement with it to protest and point out the absurdity of religiously focused laws.  There is an assumption by many Christian lawmakers that theirs is the only religion and so, when the make laws designed to protect religious "freedoms" they don't realize the can of worms they are opening.  The Satanic Temple then steps in and demonstrates the loopholes...much to the chagrin of the lawmakers.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Considering how our secular world has attacked all religious symbols, from having the Ten Commandments at a courthouse




Well, that's where this statue comes from - it was originally intended as a protest against having Christian iconography in a government building in Oklahoma - the law tried to sneak around by saying that it would allow any group to petition to have such, and the Satanists, to show that it was still inappropriate, called their bluff.  The Ten Commandments statue has since been ruled unconstitutional, so this statue was no longer needed for its original purpose.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 27, 2015)

It's hard for me to get all worked up about people who are creating controversy for controversy's sake. As to the statue...... Enh. Another inanimate chunk of plaster, or whatever, that I don't really see as having a lot of artistic merit, made for a purpose rather than as art.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Considering how our secular world has attacked all religious symbols, ... to one where one can not say "Merry Christmas",...





Who is saying you can't say "Merry Christmas"?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 28, 2015)

The statue was not art for the sake of art.  I do not agree with the "protest art" aspect either.

They (satanist) tried to exploit a loophole so they could display an idol of the "fallen one" as they had originally planned on public land.  Once the courts blocked all religious symbols from public spaces, they turned to an industrial "private" location.  




Sacrosanct said:


> Who is saying you can't say "Merry Christmas"?



I have been in stores in December where the sales associates had to say "Happy Holiday".  When asked why they don't say "Merry Christmas", was told they had to by management so as to not offend non-Christians, while still getting the $ale$.  All signage/flyers must not mention Christmas in any way.

News channels also have forgone to the "politically - Happy holidays", as too newspapers, media, etc.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Jul 28, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The statue was not art for the sake of art.  I do not agree with the "protest art" aspect either.
> 
> They (satanist) tried to exploit a loophole so they could display an idol of the "fallen one" as they had originally planned on public land.  Once the courts blocked all religious symbols from public spaces, they turned to an industrial "private" location.
> 
> ...




This in no way means people can't say 'Merry Christmas.'  These are business decisions so as to not ostracize people.  Simply put, they make more money when people feel more included.  Employees are paid to represent the company and thus should speak in a manner that benefits the company.  Public organizations do the same thing; but, their 'money' is productivity and community...so they use general language to make that environment better and hopefully more efficient.  Citizens all over the US have the liberty to say what they want.  They don't have the liberty to avoid criticism though.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The statue was not art for the sake of art.




Neither was the statue with the Ten Commandments they were attempting to combat.  That one was art for sake of a religious message.  Which is fine in general, just not on government grounds.  



> I do not agree with the "protest art" aspect either.




You don't agree that "protest art" is valid?  Or do you not agree that this was protest art?



> Once the courts blocked all religious symbols from public spaces, they turned to an industrial "private" location.




And?  In a private location (meaning privately owned), they certainly have the right to have it - freedom of speech, and all that.  



> I have been in stores in December where the sales associates had to say "Happy Holiday".




Given that they are saying it from before Thanksgiving through New Year's, it makes a whole lot of sense to say "Happy Holidays".  Plural. Because it is several holidays in a row, several of which are not Christmas.

"Merry Christmas" is exclusive to all other holidays.  "Happy Holidays" is inclusive of any and all.  I fail to see why a policy to be inclusive is a problem.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 28, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> There is an assumption by many Christian lawmakers that theirs is the only religion and so, when the make laws designed to protect religious "freedoms" they don't realize the can of worms they are opening.




Lawmakers often forget that religious freedom requires freedom from religion.  It's often either difficult or impossible to be a member of one faith while being legally obligated to obey the rules of another faith.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 28, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I have been in stores in December where the sales associates had to say "Happy Holiday".  When asked why they don't say "Merry Christmas", was told they had to by management so as to not offend non-Christians, while still getting the $ale$.  All signage/flyers must not mention Christmas in any way.
> 
> News channels also have forgone to the "politically - Happy holidays", as too newspapers, media, etc.




I work in fast food and have worked in retail.  At my current location, there are no holiday instructions (though I generally wait for the customer to offer whatever seasons greetings they think is appropriate before echoing it back).  However, at the retail chain that I used to work at we were instructed to say Happy Holidays if we were going to blindly offer a seasonal greeting to a customer.  if a customer said Merry Christmas to us, we were allowed to say it back to them.

What it ultimately comes down to is money.  People like to shop where they feel welcome.  That's the main reason why people in customer service get fired for being rude: alienating a customer can mean losing that customer for life.  The same is true of various media that rely on selling a service (whether it's news, entertainment, or whatever).


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jul 28, 2015)

Christianity has enjoyed the privilege of being assumed to be "default" for a long time in the U.S.  Being denied privilege is not the same as being denied freedom.  Lack of default status is not persecution.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 28, 2015)

I dunno.  Is the statue a protest, or representative of a true belief?  Also, many people would find the statue to be extremely offensive, the same as many other symbols are offensive.

That means a public display is a problem.

A private showing is another matter.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## pedr (Jul 28, 2015)

Surely the point here is that the state was pretending that a public display of the Ten Commandments was art and not an endorsement of a particular religion so this sculpture was created to challenge that mischaracterisation by seeking to install more "art" which would appear to a reasonable viewer as being the endorsement of a different religion. 

The creators of this sculpture almost certainly wish that the situation never arose, and that Oklahoma hadn't installed a Ten Commandments sculpture at the State Capitol, and hadn't used misleading rhetoric to attempt to justify it. If Oklahoma had admitted that it was a religious display, the legal opposition would have been simpler, but by seeking to defend it as non-religious - as something in a monument park paid for by a private donor - they opened the way for the proposal for alternative monuments. 

Ironically Oklahoma lost the challenge to the constitutionality of the monument at the State Supreme Court, so the Baphomet sculptors found an alternative site for it, but Oklahoma is defying the determination that the Ten Commandments sculpture is unconstitutional and considering changing the state constitution, though how you could create a state constitution which allowed state displays of Christian religion but not other religions while remaining compliant with the U.S. Constitution is a mystery to me. So for now the Christian monument is up, and the non-Christian one isn't.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 28, 2015)

pedr said:


> Surely the point here is that the state was pretending that a public display of the Ten Commandments was art and not an endorsement of a particular religion so this sculpture was created to challenge that mischaracterisation by seeking to install more "art" which would appear to a reasonable viewer as being the endorsement of a different religion.
> 
> The creators of this sculpture almost certainly wish that the situation never arose, and that Oklahoma hadn't installed a Ten Commandments sculpture at the State Capitol, and hadn't used misleading rhetoric to attempt to justify it. If Oklahoma had admitted that it was a religious display, the legal opposition would have been simpler, but by seeking to defend it as non-religious - as something in a monument park paid for by a private donor - they opened the way for the proposal for alternative monuments.
> 
> Ironically Oklahoma lost the challenge to the constitutionality of the monument at the State Supreme Court, so the Baphomet sculptors found an alternative site for it, but Oklahoma is defying the determination that the Ten Commandments sculpture is unconstitutional and considering changing the state constitution, though how you could create a state constitution which allowed state displays of Christian religion but not other religions while remaining compliant with the U.S. Constitution is a mystery to me. So for now the Christian monument is up, and the non-Christian one isn't.




Such is the way of things in a country that enshrines the separation of Church and State in law, but in which no candidate for State of Federal office would ever be elected without referencing God.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 28, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I dunno.  Is the statue a protest, or representative of a true belief?  Also, many people would find the statue to be extremely offensive, the same as many other symbols are offensive.
> 
> That means a public display is a problem.
> 
> ...




To add to this, I know many main stream Christians who find this offensive due to the commandments found in Exodus 20: 3-5. I being one of them.

Refrence:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Is the statue a protest, or representative of a true belief?




False dichotomy - it can be both.  As they say, ""We understand the Satanic figure as a symbol of man’s inherent nature, representative of the eternal rebel, enlightened inquiry and personal freedom..."

Given that mission statement, certain forms of protest will be statements of true belief.  Thumbing their nose at "The Man" may well be the equivalent of a sacrament.



> That means a public display is a problem.




Not if it is a privately owned site, it isn't.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 28, 2015)

(Being an atheist myself) I don't get what this thread is about. What am I supposed to discuss? Whether I consider the statue pretty or not?!

All I can say is that considering the 'mission statement' (as quoted by Umbran) of the guys who revealed the statue, they're obviously not atheists.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> To add to this, I know many main stream Christians who find this offensive...




Part of the price of living in a free society, with a right of freedom of speech, is that we *DO NOT* have a right to not be offended.

People will say things, and express thoughts, that each of us find offensive.  We must live with it, if we want our own right to speak preserved.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Part of the price of living in a free society, with a right of freedom of speech, is that we *DO NOT* have a right to not be offended.




I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?

I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?
> 
> I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.




It means no person has the right to make everyone else make sure they don't do anything to offend that one person.  I.e., I don't have the right to make everyone else change their behavior so as to ensure I never get offended.  It's impossible, for one, since we all are offended by different things.  Secondly, it also is directly counter to the 1st amendment.

Basically, it means that just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean it must be removed.


That being said, just because someone might have the right to be offensive, doesn't mean they are any less of an  by doing so.  Luckily I have the same right to tell them that.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 28, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> That being said, just because someone might have the right to be offensive, doesn't mean they are any less of an  by doing so.  Luckily I have the same right to tell them that.



Huh, you must love invoking the smilies!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Huh, you must love invoking the smilies!




[Edit - profanity removed - Morrus].


----------



## Morrus (Jul 28, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I typed [edited], but the forum code automatically changed it to smiles for profanity.  My bad.




There's a reason for that.  Don't type it, please.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

My apologies.  Won't happen again. I didn't realize that variation of spelling was considered profanity.  Now I know.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?




Let me rephrase:  We get no guarantee to an offense-free life.  The government will provide you no protection from offense.



> I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.




No.  At least, I don't mean that.

Our "rights", as I'm speaking of them now, are usually about protection from governmental action.  Our "right of free speech" is actually, "The government shall not infringe on your freedom of speech", at least so long as that speech does not do certain forms of harm - our right of free speech is *not* absolute.  Our "freedom of religion" is freedom from governmental influence on our religious practices.

So, how does this apply to being offended?  It means that, if someone says something that offends you, you can't bring the government in to remove that offense, as that would be government infringing on his or her right of free speech, on your behalf.   But, you have a right of free speech, too.  So, if he offends you, you can respond.

"Browbeat" starts going into dangerous waters.  That may verge into harrassment, which we as a society have agreed is beyond merely expressing yourself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2015)

> Oklahoma is defying the determination that the Ten Commandments sculpture is unconstitutional and considering changing the state constitution, though how you could create a state constitution which allowed state displays of Christian religion but not other religions while remaining compliant with the U.S. Constitution is a mystery to me.




Yup...and, as I recall, it isn't just a violation of the US Constitution, but OK's state constitution, as well.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 28, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The statue was not art for the sake of art.  I do not agree with the "protest art" aspect either.
> 
> They (satanist) tried to exploit a loophole so they could display an idol of the "fallen one" as they had originally planned on public land.




I buy the protest angle, and this is why: if they wanted to put up a statue of "the fallen one," no one would be provoked by its appearance because it would look like a very beautiful male angel, if it were to hold true to the origin story of Satan.

My understanding is that the goat features were added by later artists.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> if it were to hold true to the origin story of Satan.




Um... not necessarily.

In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12).  In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon.  Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier.  Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.

The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources.  This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine.  The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Um... not necessarily.
> 
> In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12).  In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon.  Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier.  Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.
> 
> The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources.  This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine.  The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.




There are also references to him as "day star", "guardian cherub", comments about trading wisdom for splendor, disguising himself as an angel of light, and the like. The references range from beautiful, to terrible.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Um... not necessarily.
> 
> In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12).  In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon.  Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier.  Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.
> 
> The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources.  This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine.  The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.




Revelations is a later writing.  Satan appears earlier than the new testament.  The Book of Job refers to "the accuser," or "the adversary" called "Ha-Satan."  In the Book of Job, Satan comes before god, with all the other angels.  Satan is then given permission to test Job, implicating that Satan may work for God, and is likely an angel.  This possibility of being an angel is further enabled by "Ha-Satan" actually being a title, not an individual's name, or the name of a species of divine/profane creature.

It's also worth noting that the dragon you mentioned has 7 heads, 10 horns, and 7 seven crowns; and that the number and division of these features have been compared to rulers of different empires who persecuted God's faithful.  In this way it offers the faithful hope that godliness will prevail over earthly persecution.  It's one of the hallmarks of apocalyptic writing.  You can see something similar in David's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 28, 2015)

I think you meant Danial who interpreted, not David. David was a King of Judea and Isreal before ol king Neb.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I think you meant Danial who interpreted, not David. David was a King of Judea and Isreal before ol king Neb.




You are correct.  I did mean Daniel and not David.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2015)

As a group, angels do not have one set, humanoid form. They can appear as humans, but that is for convenience.

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-do-angels-look-like-a-biblical-analysis/
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...-the-bible-say-about-the-appearance-of-angels


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Revelations is a later writing.  Satan appears earlier than the new testament.




I'm aware.  But from none of the old testament bits do you get an origin story for an individual.  

In the Jewish tradition as I understand it, Satan is by no means fallen.  It is instead an *agent* of G-d (and so, not in need of an origin story), whose job it is test people.  



> It's also worth noting that the dragon you mentioned has 7 heads, 10 horns, and 7 seven crowns; and that the number and division of these features have been compared to rulers of different empires who persecuted God's faithful.  In this way it offers the faithful hope that godliness will prevail over earthly persecution.




I am fully aware of all that.  However, it is still Satan in that text.  I leave it as an exercise for the reader to reconcile the conflict between Satan as a literal entity, and Satan as a metaphorical one.

The whole point is that the "origin story" of Satan is not necessarily as mentioned upthread, and there's not really much of physical description, either.  That's the only point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 29, 2015)

Not remotely the most evil thing to happen in Detroit, just sayin'.

In fact, it appears downright tame and respectful to me.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I'm aware.  But from none of the old testament bits do you get an origin story for an individual.
> 
> In the Jewish tradition as I understand it, Satan is by no means fallen.  It is instead an *agent* of G-d (and so, not in need of an origin story), whose job it is test people.
> 
> ...




I'm not entirely sure.  I do know that the Jewish tradition also includes something called "midrash."  Midrash is an interpretation and filling in of the gaps in the Torah.  For example, in Genesis, we get two accounts of the creation of women.  There is the line that says "man and woman he created them" and then the later creation from Adam's rib.  Through the Midrash tradition, this led to the invention of Adam's first wife, Lilith.

Also, I know that there are several Christian scholars, of whose works I am not well read.  That said, I know that the works of some of these scholars have been influential in the formation of official opinions of the church despite not being from the bible.

Further, it's worth noting that the bible is somewhat incomplete.  Some of the texts that were excluded (the apocryphal texts) were widely circulated and influenced religious practices and beliefs throughout the Christian world.  The Acts of Paul & Thecla and the story of Solomon using demons to build the temple are examples of this.  The story where Solomon is depicted as a master of demons is even referenced in an exorcism with the line "for one greater than Solomon is here. . . ."

I suppose I took a long way around to say it, and I hope it was at least an interesting journey, but my ultimate point is that works beyond the bible and the torah need be remembered when looking to find the "origin stories" of biblical figures.  It may well be that Satan is identified as an angel in one of these extra-biblical texts.  Or, he may not.  I am not as well read on those texts as I would like to be.  One of the reasons I am learning latin is so I can read them closer to their language of origin.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 29, 2015)

Well, if the statue gets out of line, we can always animate the statue of Robocop to fight it.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays.  Whether such a location can or should be created by the state is a good question, but a separate matter.  And, one could truly believe that state sponsored sites are contrary to the law (here in the USA), that doesn't make a protest statue representative of the protester's religious beliefs.

My mistake re: that the statue was offensive.  Displays which are meant to be intimidating was what I was thinking about.  I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays.  Whether such a location can or should be created by the state is a good question, but a separate matter.  And, one could truly believe that state sponsored sites are contrary to the law (here in the USA), that doesn't make a protest statue representative of the protester's religious beliefs.




The issues, while separable, are nonetheless tied together in the case in particular.  While most Satanists are more akin to atheists in many ways, their use of the Judeo-Christian symbology of Satan serves a purpose within their philosophy.  Their use of this statue's imagery thus dovetails with what they actually profess.

The thing is, they just happen to be very politically active and very American.  There are sacred images of other faiths that mainstream Christians might find just as offensive if put on public display.  But by and large, practitioners of those faiths haven't been here long enough to feel as comfortable confronting Christians in, as it were, the lion's den as are the Satanists.  As such, you're not going to see those believers petition to erect statuary of lingams, divine sexual acts, or the like.  They don't feel safe doing that...and I don't blame them.



> My mistake re: that the statue was offensive.  Displays which are meant to be intimidating was what I was thinking about.  I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.



To ban it purely for its content, you'd actually have to PROVE that a piece of art was either "obscene" (see a bunch of rulings at the state and federal level) or equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a theater or "Kill that cop!"- the prospective harm would have to be recognizable and immanent.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To ban it purely for its content, you'd actually have to PROVE that a piece of art was either "obscene" (see a bunch of rulings at the state and federal level) or equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a theater or "Kill that cop!"- the prospective harm would have to be recognizable and immanent.




And I hope no one would ever call something like that as any form of art or self expression. Even "Harm your neighbor" Should be an acceptable ban.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays.




But it *also* is a valid religious icon of the group in question.  The point is that protest and religious display are not mutually exclusive - it can be both at the same time, so long as the protest is in line with the tenets of the religion (which, in this case, they very much are).  

There's this thing called "synergy".  Sometimes it happens. 



> I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.




I sure as heck hope not.  The chilling effect such a precedent would cause would be horrible.  All anyone would have to do to censor another would be to threaten violence in response to the expression.

There is a point at which people must be held accountable for their own actions - and losing your cool over the shape of a piece of rock would seem to be over that line.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I suppose I took a long way around to say it, and I hope it was at least an interesting journey, but my ultimate point is that works beyond the bible and the torah need be remembered when looking to find the "origin stories" of biblical figures.




Certainly.  And if someone can point me to an older work that has this, I'd be very interested in it.  However, I'm pretty sure the common image originates with Milton.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

I'm a member of the Satanic Temple and a big supporter their various activities.

Their own perspective on the statue can be found here.

But the upthrust is as others have said: they are there to challenge the assumption that "religion" always means "Christianity," and that when we allow one religion to override the laws of a place, we must allow all religions to do so under the same principle - either we allow all religious voices including Satanism, or we exclude all. Another one of their campaigns has to do with a Florida judge who allowed religious material to be distributed to kids in schools - they promptly made their own religious material and plan to distribute this also to kids in schools in Orange County. 

If you're feelin' spendy, you could even get a replica of the statue. Though really, you should just get the bronze bust of baphomet for that classic idolater vibe.



			
				tomBitoni said:
			
		

> placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays




It's pretty clearly a religious display. The fact that some Christians wouldn't like it doesn't make it any less of a religious display.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The fact that some Christians wouldn't like it doesn't make it any less of a religious display.




The fact that some Christians don't like it on theological grounds is strong evidence that it is a religious display.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The fact that some Christians don't like it on theological grounds is strong evidence that it is a religious display.




Obviously so and Christians can be as put out by it as they like, but they can't do anything about it, if it's on private property. I would also say that it has just as much right to be on public land as that Ten Commandments display; none.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

For folks who can tolerate reddit, there's also this.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For folks who can tolerate reddit, there's also this.




I cannot tolerate reddit. is there a way to give a slight hint of what is in there?


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The fact that some Christians don't like it on theological grounds is strong evidence that it is a religious display.




Well, what matters is what is represents to those who put it up, not what it matters to other folks.

But, if folks say it is truly a religious display, and not just a stick in the eye of other folks, I accept that.  I was getting a sense that the statue might have been put up less to honor a religious belief and more to simply offend others to make a point.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I cannot tolerate reddit. is there a way to give a slight hint of what is in there?




There's this fun bit related to the showing: 


			
				reddit said:
			
		

> Whose genius idea was it to weed out protestors by having everyone in attendance sign a paper selling their souls to the devil? Did anyone actually leave at that point? Were there any other security protocols put in place that we may not have heard of?
> 
> 
> The contract was my idea. As far as I know nobody left. We had a decoy location that ticket holders had to first visit before receiving the secondary location - which was one of four intersections surrounding the venue. Attendees then had to find a "psychopomp" wearing a red scarf and recite the passphrase "as above," and wait for the response "so below". They were then led by foot to the actual venue.​




This bit about why they do what they do:


			
				reddit said:
			
		

> What would you consider the goals of Satanism? In realistic terms.
> 
> To empower individuals to challenge tyrannical systems.​




This is cool because it gets at part of the "protest vs. worship" vibe: TST considers activism _a kind of worship_, a devotion to their higher ideas of individual sovereignty and opposition to tyrannical authority. 


			
				reddit said:
			
		

> What's an out-standing point of view that many people don't know about your group?
> 
> What practices do you have?
> 
> ...




And there's this bit:


			
				reddit said:
			
		

> Our organization was not founded to oppose Christianity. We have affirmative beliefs as Satanists.




They're also thinking about moving the statue to Arkansas, presumably because of stuff like this.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> . . . . . I was getting a sense that the statue might have been put up less to honor a religious belief and more to simply offend others to make a point.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




which is why i feel they are doing this as well.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's this fun bit related to the showing:
> 
> 
> This bit about why they do what they do:
> ...




Oh, sorry. I thought you meant the reddit i hear about on facebook. 

THAT reddit I can't stand.

This one depicted on enworld I do not know so have no right to make any judgement.

forget what I said there. I went back and discovered you were quoting the regular reddit. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is cool because it gets at part of the "protest vs. worship" vibe: TST considers activism _a kind of worship_, a devotion to their higher ideas of individual sovereignty and opposition to tyrannical authority.




So... a variation on Discordianism's fight against the Curse of Greyface?  Just a tad more focused.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So... a variation on Discordianism's fight against the Curse of Greyface?  Just a tad more focused.




Similar in principle, but more seriously held. In the same way that people protesting outside of an abortion clinic are probably motivated by their faith to demonstrate (they have deeply held beliefs and are expressing them through protest) TST is motivated by its faith to challenge tyrannical authority in ways including statues to Baphomet sitting next to monuments to Christianity.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Similar in principle, but more seriously held.




Eh.  You were good, until the "serious" part.  Not that folks at the TST aren't serious.  But it isn't exactly appropriate to cast aspersions on how seriously others hold their beliefs.  "Us?  We are dedicated to our faith!  Those guys?  They're just fooling around!" is not a generalization we should usually be making.

It would be interesting to see if the current TST has some roots in the Discordianism of the 60s and 70s....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Eh.  You were good, until the "serious" part.  Not that folks at the TST aren't serious.  But it isn't exactly appropriate to cast aspersions on how seriously others hold their beliefs.  "Us?  We are dedicated to our faith!  Those guys?  They're just fooling around!" is not a generalization we should usually be making.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if the current TST has some roots in the Discordianism of the 60s and 70s....




There's probably some overlap.

But when I said "serious" I meant it - Discordianism in part defines itself by being a parody religion, not unlike Pastafarianism or the Church of the SubGenius. Parody is arguably part of that practice. TST isn't a parody. It doesn't define itself in part by being a mockery of religion, or making a practice of parody. It's a religion that takes its tenets seriously, without the wink-wink-nudge-nudge-we're-not-serious-but-seriously-not-serious elements of parody religions. 

That is, TST's religious practice isn't about making fun of religion. It is a religion, its convictions are serious, its followers believe them, and they would have them in absence of other religions. 

That's what I meant by "more seriously held." Parody isn't a purpose here like it is in Discordianism.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.

This:



> What would you consider the goals of Satanism? In realistic terms.
> 
> To empower individuals to challenge tyrannical systems.




Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism.  I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.

I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical.  That is an interesting alternate view.  (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)

While I'm generally against questioning someones religious views, that seems to be exactly what is relevant here, and in no small part due to the group presenting the statue, since they are offering what they say is a sincere view, but are also mixing in what seem to be deliberate absurdities.

(If the idea is to challenge tyrannical systems, there seem to be more important systems to which to direct challenges.  Any why challenge in this form?  Would a big pink easter bunny, or any number of other absurd symbols not also work?)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

Some would equate other religions to satanic following, such as witchcraft.


----------



## megamania (Jul 29, 2015)

Have to admit, its within their rights but I really, really don't like it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.




What is accepted as a "religious belief" probably shouldn't hinge on what "most folks" would consider one, yeah?


> Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism.  I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.
> 
> I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical.  That is an interesting alternate view.  (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)




Yeah, one of the tyrannical systems they're empowering people to challenge is _Christianity_. 



> While I'm generally against questioning someones religious views, that seems to be exactly what is relevant here, and in no small part due to the group presenting the statue, since they are offering what they say is a sincere view, but are also mixing in what seem to be deliberate absurdities.




I think they'd say the same thing about the folks who want a monument to the 10 Commandments - they seem to be offering a sincere view, but are also mixing in some deliberate absurdities (10? Golden Calf? A man receiving a divine revelation from a burning bush?). 

Religion is a slippery fish to define even for those who dedicate their lives to it. The title is available for anyone who wants to claim it (Christians. Jedis. Scientologists. Hindus. Atheists. Mormons.), and always looks absurd from the outside (You _eat human flesh_ as your weekly ritual?! You found _magic golden tablets_ in the desrt?! _How many arms?!_). And given the Constitution, the American legal system has a bit of a binary thing: they can't declare some religions religions and other religions not religions, so they either accept all the diversity of human belief as - officially - equally worthy of representation, or they exclude all beliefs. 

Or as they put it:


			
				TST said:
			
		

> The idea that religion belongs to supernaturalists is ignorant, backward, and offensive. The metaphorical Satanic construct is no more arbitrary to us than are the deeply held beliefs that we actively advocate for. Are we supposed to believe that those who pledge submission to an ethereal supernatural deity hold to their values more deeply than we? Are we supposed to concede that only the superstitious are proper recipients of religious exemption and privilege? In fact, Satanism provides us all that a religion should, without a compulsory attachment to untenable items of faith-based belief: It provides a narrative structure by which we contextualize our lives and works. It provides a body of symbolism and religious practice — a sense of identity, culture, community, and shared values.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm going back to being unsure of whether the belief is what most folks would consider a religious belief.




Well, most folks can be wrong about things.  For example, most folks (in the USA) may not understand "nontheistic" religion, but about half a billion Buddhists would smirk kindly at them for it.



> Seems to not be what most folks would think of as Satanism.  I can't say that I could pin down exactly what *is* Satanism, but I wouldn't think that it is the above.




Yes, well, most folks probably get their ideas on Satanism from Christians, rather than from actual modern Satanists.  How many have actually gone to read up on the modern practice of Satanism?  Unless you've actually done some open-minded work to educate yourself, "what you would think it is," isn't an informed position, and you should not trust it.  



> I do suppose you could equate the idea of Satan's rebellion against Heaven's rule as rebellion against authority, if you consider Heaven's rule to be tyrannical.  That is an interesting alternate view.  (Although, it might be a-historical, based on what folks are saying above.)




Modern Satanism has little to do with what a Medieval Inquisitor would have called "worship of Satan" if that's what you mean by being a-historical.  But, that Inquisitor probably didn't know much about *actual* Satan worship anyway.  You have to go a long, long way to find documentation on actual historical Satan worship.  And, historical status isn't really relevant.  You don't have to be historical to be a real devotion.

The folks we are talking about are, by their own description, non-theistic.  Satan is a metaphor and symbol for them, not a real extant entity.  



> (If the idea is to challenge tyrannical systems, there seem to be more important systems to which to direct challenges.




I heartily disagree, insofar as in certain sections of our country, a great deal of effort is being made to push religiously-driven laws onto the books.  Seems a pretty important system to challenge.



> Any why challenge in this form?  Would a big pink easter bunny, or any number of other absurd symbols not also work?)




You mean specifically, for the statue?  You couldn't use any old absurd symbol, because in order to qualify for inclusion, and to be a fitting contrast, it must be your *religious* symbol.  The Satanists haven't established the Easter Bunny as a symbol, so it isn't a valid religious display for them.


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> What is accepted as a "religious belief" probably shouldn't hinge on what "most folks" would consider one, yeah?
> 
> 
> Yeah, one of the tyrannical systems they're empowering people to challenge is _Christianity_.
> ...




AAAAAAAH!  Atheism is not a religion!

That's a 50 dkp minus for you.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That is, TST's religious practice isn't about making fun of religion. It is a religion, its convictions are serious, its followers believe them, and they would have them in absence of other religions.




It is hard to say that one would have a belief in the absence of other religions, when those other religions are clearly a strong influence on the beliefs.  It isn't like Satanists are somehow immune to the impact of history on their own beliefs - and Christianity is a major portion of that history.  



> That's what I meant by "more seriously held." Parody isn't a purpose here like it is in Discordianism.




Insofar as there's no intent to make people laugh, I'll buy.  But parody isn't limited to the cheap laugh.  Do you want to tell me the other aspects of parody - the cognitive tweak of the contrast, the commentary and satire aspects -  were not a major point of choosing the Satanic symbology?


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

To say that one thing is absurd (a religion which erects a bizarre statue as a symbol of protest against tyranny) is not to say that other things are not also absurd.  That one would imply the other is unsound.

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

I do see "The Satanic Temple" down at the end, including a very short discussion of the statue.  The group doesn't seem to represent "Satanism" except in a very small way.  I don't have a way to tell how true the group's beliefs are, and how much might be a cover for usually frowned upon activities.

Where I end up with all of this is that this emphasizes the need for the state to stay far away from religious matters, since questions of what is a "true belief" are hard to answer.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Joker said:


> AAAAAAAH!  Atheism is not a religion!




We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context.  Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:  

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods.  And that's it.  Not enough meat there to call it a religion.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> The group doesn't seem to represent "Satanism" except in a very small way.




I don't think anyone claimed otherwise.



> I don't have a way to tell how true the group's beliefs are, and how much might be a cover for usually frowned upon activities.




Pardon me for making an example of something:

You don't have a way to tell how true a Christian's beliefs are, or whether their involvement is a cover for, say, their homophobia - "It isn't me!  God said it was wrong!"

Replace the referent there from Satanic Temple to Christian, it becomes offensive, doesn't it?  Then maybe the problem isn't with the referent, but with the prejudicial nature of the question.  

And you are correct, this is exactly why government needs to stay out of, and protect, religious practices.  Because our fellow humans cannot yet be trusted to do so.


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context.  Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:
> 
> A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
> 
> Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods.  And that's it.  Not enough meat there to call it a religion.




Maybe I'm nitpicking but I don't think the absence of believe in a deity is the same as having a believe that no deity exists.  That would be the purview of anti-theists.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think anyone claimed otherwise.
> 
> Pardon me for making an example of something:
> 
> ...




Actually, I do (and so do most folks).  They are the same tools that are used, generally, to tell what is true and heartfelt, or otherwise.  In the case of Roman Catholics, I have more tools, since I know a lot more about that religion than others.  I'm pretty sure that some Roman Catholics are against homosexuality because that is what they were taught.  But I'm sure there is a lot of homophobia there, too.  The tools are not 100% reliable, sure, but, in this case, sufficient to raise suspicions.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Joker said:


> Maybe I'm nitpicking but I don't think the absence of believe in a deity is the same as having a believe that no deity exists.  That would be the purview of anti-theists.




Some dictionaries will have atheism and anti-theism to be equivalent.  I think that's missing some subtlety.

In modern use "anti-theism" is more usually the position that belief in gods is harmful or destructive.  It connotes active opposition to theism.  Technically, a person who believes in god(s) can still be an anti-theist, if he or she thinks the influence of the divine is bad for humanity - if you think, "God is a jerk," you can be an anti-theist.

Agnostics believe the truth of some metaphysical claims cannot be known by humans.  "We cannot know if god(s) exist."

There are degrees and shades of atheism.  

Implicit atheism- the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it (this may include some agnostics).  

Then there's explicit atheism, which may be the more common form today, where the person consciously rejects the existence of god(s).

You might also hear reference to Strong or Weak atheism.  Strong atheism is akin to the explicit atheism above - affirmation that no god(s) exist.  Weak atheism is all other forms of non-theism (including agnosticism, and some Hindus who believe there are spiritual entities, but they aren't really gods, per se).

There is also practical atheism aka "apatheism" - whether god(s)s exist or not is irrelevant, or not a concern.  Basically, "If god(s) exist, they are useless.  They are not needed to explain natural phenomena, don't influence or give purpose to life, so I don't really care."


----------



## reelo (Jul 29, 2015)

As an (explicit) atheist (who thankfully lives in Europe!) I usually say:
"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in a car full of drunken people, yet nobody wants to give you the keys."

And that's all I'm saying on that matter, in order to comply to the OPs rules regarding manners.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Actually, I do (and so do most folks).




You do... what?  Have the ability to tell if someone actually believes something?

Most folks *think* they have such ability, but empirical evidence - the ease with which most of us are taken in by con-men, for example, and how easy it is to get us to accept lies, suggests otherwise.  Our ability to discern this without long and close personal association is weak, at best.  A trained mental health professional can probably weed out what things a person believes, what things are rationalizations over some less-conscious belief, and what things are outright false statements, given a long period of observation and discussion, but laymen should probably not try it at home.

And, the idea that you can tell what people believe, without actually even speaking with them?  No.  Just no.

Very broadly - we humans are very bad at understanding where our own understanding stops, and just as bad at knowing when we are applying our own biases.  Moving forward with a false belief that you actually know what's going on inside the other person's head can cause a great deal of harm.

I mean, do I have to mention the Inquisition to show how we should not rely on such abilities?


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 29, 2015)

I wouldn't try to pin down exact beliefs.  Folks are too changeable, and what is true is probably very complicated.  I wouldn't even expect a person to know their own beliefs.

But, I'm not looking for full detail.  I'm looking for enough evidence to be suspicious.

Certainly, the folks who put up the status may have a strong belief that the USA is too strongly centered on Christianity as a semi-official religion.  That seems plausible, and possibly very likely.  But so does the notion that those folks are using religion as a cover for a protest.  My admitted uncertain instincts are to favor the latter.

What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion?  If there were a place where all manner of religions were openly practiced, with the current main-stays at the margins, would there be a purpose for the statue?  Would it be displayed?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 29, 2015)

Joker said:


> AAAAAAAH!  Atheism is not a religion!
> 
> That's a 50 dkp minus for you.






Umbran said:


> We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context.  Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:
> 
> A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
> 
> Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods.  And that's it.  Not enough meat there to call it a religion.



Would the belief that man is his own god - his own destiny - evolution is the origins of humanity be a religion unto itself?

I do believe those are some the elements of secular humanism and have some strong  startings of being a religion in its whole.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion?  If there were a place where all manner of religions were openly practiced, with the current main-stays at the margins, would there be a purpose for the statue?  Would it be displayed?




I suspect it is more the former than the latter.  Modern Satanists don't strike me as particularly prone to proselytizing.  If so many of my fellow Christians were not so concerned with professing their faith even beyond Constitutional boundaries and into state-sponsored displays of endorsement and evangelization, I doubt the statue would even have reached the drafting table.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> But, I'm not looking for full detail.  I'm looking for enough evidence to be suspicious.




Seek and you shall find. Really - if you are looking for a reason to be suspicious, you *will* find it.  Humans are incredibly good at finding justifications.  

But really, how *stupid* do you figure these folks are?  Satan/Lucifer is well known as the "Prince of Lies" right?  So, how utterly idiotic is it to pull that name up to use as false pretense?!?  I mean, isn't using the name pretty much saying, "HEY! LOOKIT ME!! I'M A LYING LIAR-PANTS!!!!1!"  So, everything they say or do will be scrutinized with an intense scrute for mistruths, pretense and falsehood...

A wise man said - the best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth, and make it sound like a whopper.  The best way to "cover" their actual agenda is to tell you exactly what it is, because you are so busy trying to uncover the lie you won't believe it!  



> But so does the notion that those folks are using religion as a cover for a protest.




The above aside, the very tenets of the religion include protest - there's no "cover" here.  They are up-front about it.



> My admitted uncertain instincts are to favor the latter.




There is a word for that:  Prejudice.



> What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion?




Very simple false dichotomy there.  It isn't as if those two are mutually exclusive, or the only reasons to have the statue.


----------



## reelo (Jul 30, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Would the belief that man is his own god - his own destiny - evolution is the origins of humanity be a religion unto itself?
> 
> I do believe those are some the elements of secular humanism and have some strong  startings of being a religion in its whole.




Secular humanists don't believe "man to be his own god". 
And evolution is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. It is called "theory" in scientific terms, but it's about as close to a scientific law it can get. Unfortunately it is scientifically impossible to positively prove evolution. It can only be falsified (disproven) but each *failed* attempt to do so (and there are many) serves to further strengthen its claim.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 30, 2015)

reelo said:


> Secular humanists don't believe "man to be his own god".
> And evolution is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. It is called "theory" in scientific terms, but it's about as close to a scientific law it can get. Unfortunately it is scientifically impossible to positively prove evolution. It can only be falsified (disproven) but each *failed* attempt to do so (and there are many) serves to further strengthen its claim.




The word "theory" in scientific terms isn't the same as the word "theory" in common English language.  Thus the incorrect phrase "it's just a theory". There's no "just" about a scientific theory!


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The word "theory" in scientific terms isn't the same as the word "theory" in common English language.  Thus the incorrect phrase "it's just a theory". There's no "just" about a scientific theory!




And I'm very grateful to my 10th grade biology teacher for both calling evolution a "theory" and for explaining what that meant in science, in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The word "theory" in scientific terms isn't the same as the word "theory" in common English language.  Thus the incorrect phrase "it's just a theory". There's no "just" about a scientific theory!




Didn't you post something about that somewhere else? was it facebook?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Would the belief that man is his own god - his own destiny - evolution is the origins of humanity be a religion unto itself?




I'm setting aside the "man is his own god" bit - presence of a god isn't even necessary for a religion.  And, unlike reelo, I acknowledge that one can believe a scientific fact.

But, it could be, by the definition I gave, yes.  



> I do believe those are some the elements of secular humanism and have some strong  startings of being a religion in its whole.




What is missing is the *organized* collection.  Right now it is scattered bits of thought and philosophy here and there, with no cohesion.  For example, if someone wrote an immensely popular book on secular humanism, what it means, and what the beliefs imply for how we should behave in the world, and folks started taking that to heart strongly enough to change their behavior and how they look at the world, then you might call it a religion.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2015)

reelo said:


> And evolution is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.




Better to say that evolution is not *only* a matter of belief. One can believe facts.  One can *easily* have faith in science, as it gives you "miracles" and wondrous events  every day to support, reward, and reinforce your belief.  Every person with cancer who goes into remission after treatment is grounds for faith in science, for example.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Better to say that evolution is not *only* a matter of belief. One can believe facts.  One can *easily* have faith in science, as it gives you "miracles" and wondrous events  every day to support, reward, and reinforce your belief.  Every person with cancer who goes into remission after treatment is grounds for faith in science, for example.




penicillin was once harolded as a miracle, as was aspirin. I sit in a chair made of a material that scientifically is proclaimed to hold my weight and I believe in that chair.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If so many of my fellow Christians were not so concerned with professing their faith even beyond Constitutional boundaries and into state-sponsored displays of endorsement and evangelization...



...as our Air Force leadership seems to be happy to do on a regular basis:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha...mer-_b_7859372.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

This is just the latest example of how our commanders with wings seem to think they have haloes, too, and that their ability to fly high means they can't be touched by merely earthly rules and regulations.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Would the belief that man is his own god - his own destiny - evolution is the origins of humanity be a religion unto itself?
> 
> I do believe those are some the elements of secular humanism and have some strong  startings of being a religion in its whole.




No, because the definition of 'religion' then tends to get stretched to the point that it could include anything at all. That's a common debate tactic used in the political arena (particularly in education about evolution) in an attempt to classify certain things as 'a religion' so that they can then say, 'you want to treat all religions equally, then hey, this thing are actually a religion, so you have to treat [science] as equal to [my belief system], I win'. 

Religion has, at it's core, faith in something that cannot be proven.

Science deals in facts and proofs that a current theory models the real world - one of the main checks on the value of a theory is how well it can be used to predict things in the real world. No faith or belief is involved.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2015)

WayneLigon said:


> Science deals in facts and proofs that a current theory models the real world - one of the main checks on the value of a theory is how well it can be used to predict things in the real world. No faith or belief is involved.




I think he's talking a bit beyond *just* the evolution science bit.  Secular Humanism, for example, isn't restricted to science.

Oh, hey, lookee here!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity


----------



## Staffan (Aug 2, 2015)

WayneLigon said:


> Science deals in facts and proofs that a current theory models the real world - one of the main checks on the value of a theory is how well it can be used to predict things in the real world. No faith or belief is involved.




Scientific _results_ are not matters of faith. The belief that science is the best way to understand the world in general, and make things better, could be seen as one.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 2, 2015)

I always thought about this as a belief that the universe is effectively knowable, and that reason is a sufficient and effective tool to obtain knowledge.

A problem with science is that for some people it doesn't work, because of a limit of their reasoning abilities, of because of bad training, or because of emotional interference.

Thx
TomB


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 2, 2015)

I have contended before that science is a religion.

The belief of the "religion of science" is that the entire universe obeys laws that are predictable, knowable, and observable (with the right equipment), even if we currently do not know what all of those rules are.


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I have contended before that science is a religion.
> 
> The belief of the "religion of science" is that the entire universe obeys laws that are predictable, knowable, and observable (with the right equipment), even if we currently do not know what all of those rules are.



The scientific method, by definition, involves only repeatable experiments. If there were a phenomenon that was not repeatable, and your explanation did not abide by existing theories and "laws", then it cannot be accepted.

 (I use "law" loosely here because by definition there is no principle that could NEVER be dismissed, only theories that have been proven by experiments for a very long time) 

If, tomorrow, a universal phenomenon were revealed that was predictable, observable, AND repeatable, then science would have no choice to accept it with no question. The process of being accepted might be long (takes a while to confirm with those experiments of course) but by definition it would be accepted.

Scientific Method is the ultimate "verify, then trust", which is why some people treat it as a religion, they forget to "verify" - in a religion, "trust" is essential, but the "empirically verify with repeatable experiments" is not.

That said, I am a person of Faith, though I consider myself a fan of science because of the improvement of our way of life because of it. What I'm not a fan of is violator's of Wheaton's Law in pursuit of either Science or Faith because, "I know I'm right! I speak the Truth!"


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> A problem with science is that for some people it doesn't work, because of a limit of their reasoning abilities, of because of bad training, or because of emotional interference.




That is kind of like saying basketball doesn't work, because not everyone can slam-dunk.

How many people who can't play basketball worth a darn are still fans, even aficionados, and pay close attention to the sport?  Being able to do it and being willing to follow it aren't generally connected.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Aug 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That is kind of like saying basketball doesn't work, because not everyone can slam-dunk.
> 
> How many people who can't play basketball worth a darn are still fans, even aficionados, and pay close attention to the sport?  Being able to do it and being willing to follow it aren't generally connected.




An on the science of electricity:

How many people cannot grasp how electricity is distributed in a city, industrial complex or residential unit; How it applies force of energy to produce work; how it is harnessed - yet there are such fellers as my self that not only grasp it, but apply it in the field of commercial electrician work.

I am but one of millions of an army of of electricians in the USA alone.

I know there are sciences that I do not understand. Most to be precise. I Know there are aspects of the electron I am completely clueless about.


I only use this one bit  of the one science as an example of how people who do not understand electricity still can be great admirers of it. I say this as I type on the 'miracle of the transistor' even Instead of the huge clunker of a typewriter I used in the Air Force)! Not to mention the AC that I hear running and the fan I know is twirling behind me on the ceiling.

Edit: Ps, sorry for rambling there.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 2, 2015)

Having things around you work without understanding how they work can be disempowering. 

And science is not just how electricity works.  It's also about thinking through statements about economics, or evolution, or climate instability.

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 2, 2015)

Economics is something I have a degree in- it's not really a science.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Having things around you work without understanding how they work can be disempowering.




Yes.  Quite literally.  Our species isn't the strongest, or the fastest, or the sneakiest, or what have you.  We are the smartest, the most able to manipulate the environment.  If your species strength is manipulating the world, and you don't understand the world, you are less powerful.  

But, thankfully, you are not alone!  You are part of a tribe, and entire nation, that has people doing science for you!  They figure out the how, and we can all cooperate on the actual work, and thus we are empowered.

So, you then get to choose where to put your faith - into your fellow humans, or something else that makes you feel empowered.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Economics is something I have a degree in- it's not really a science.




I think of it this way...

We have science in physics.  We have pretty solid theories there that cover wide realms of the world, that can predict the movement of planets, sofas, atoms, and electrons.

In Economics, we don't have a solid theory that reliably predicts much of anything, on any scale.  

That doesn't mean that Economics isn't science.  It means that it isn't yet *useful* science.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 2, 2015)

Trust me, Umbran: there's a reason why the basic degree in Econ is a BA, NOT a BS (though it really oughtta be). 

Econ is too variable to truly be science...at least, at this point in time.  This is one thing that fans of Albert Laffer's supply-side economic theory don't understand.  While Economics uses the scientific method, terminology and even some of the high-end math of hard science, results can vary wildly and conform to more than one school.  It has too many soft variables that cannot be controlled for, including human irrationality.  It has more descriptive than predictive power.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Aug 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think of it this way...
> 
> We have science in physics.  We have pretty solid theories there that cover wide realms of the world, that can predict the movement of . . . . . , sofas, . . . . .




I know many a married man that will contest this claim.


----------



## reelo (Aug 2, 2015)

Concerning the discussion about understanding science and the "scientific method" in general, some smart man (whose name eludes me) once said:
"Believing is being content with not wanting to know."
I think this sums it up pretty well.
My wife is pretty religious (me being an atheist, and her a muslim) and whenever I *try* to explain certain things to her, she pretty much goes "lalalala" with her fingers in her ears. It's frustrating. 
Of course, I feel her religiosity is a waste, and she thinks I'm damned to an eternity in hell. 
Other than that, we do get along fine...


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 2, 2015)

Henry said:


> Scientific Method is the ultimate "verify, then trust", which is why some people treat it as a religion, they forget to "verify" - in a religion, "trust" is essential, but the "empirically verify with repeatable experiments" is not.
> "




of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?


----------



## Staffan (Aug 2, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.
> 
> or is Quantum not science?




At this point, the more advanced levels of quantum physics is at the relatively (heh) early stages of the scientific method: hypotheses have been made, those hypotheses are consistent with available data, but they have not been verified.

Basically, it's like saying that we can see this:



And based on that, that the world looks like this:


It _could_ look different, but the current theory seems to be the one that best fits the available facts.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Aug 2, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.
> 
> or is Quantum not science?




[humor]Nope, its faith, not science. Mysticism I tell ya - MAGIC![/humor]


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 2, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> [humor]Nope, its faith, not science. Mysticism I tell ya - MAGIC![/humor]




well when sufficiently advanced it should be indistinguishable

afterall Newton was an Alchemist and Thoth was an engineer


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.
> 
> or is Quantum not science?




Well, large parts of quantum mechanics are used... to make the computer you're reading this on work.  So, it is definitely science.

And, you misunderstand the purpose and position of those speculative theories in the overall process of science.  Those theories are put together for purposes of testing them.  First, you work out to see if the math of your new theory fits already observed data.  Then, you see if it predicts new things that other theories don't predict, that you might try to test.  Then, sometimes your math is way ahead of what we have machines to test, and you have to wait.  The recently discovered Higgs boson being a great example - the basic math of it was worked out in the 1960s.  It took decades for them to be able to build a machine that would work at high enough energy to detect the darned thing!

There is no "trust and faith" involved in these - people in the business don't hold them up as the way the world actually works until such time as they have been tested.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 2, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> o
> or is Quantum not science?




That sentence doesn't mean anything. There are areas of quantum physics which are used to build things right now. So if they're not science, you're not reading this. There are other (mathematically viable) areas which are hypothetical in nature and have yet to be tested, and nobody (except random quacks) claim they're anything but. 

Some stuff becomes a theory, which means it has been peer reviewed, repeatedly tested, and used to predict things which have been shown to be true.   And then they use it to build a microchip or a satellite. And folks then use that very equipment to claim the very science they're using is operating by 'faith' or some such.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Econ is too variable to truly be science...at least, at this point in time.  This is one thing that fans of Albert Laffer's supply-side economic theory don't understand.  While Economics uses the scientific method, terminology and even some of the high-end math of hard science, results can vary wildly and conform to more than one school.  It has too many soft variables that cannot be controlled for, including human irrationality.  It has more descriptive than predictive power.




I don't think it's really a question of being too variable to be a science. Rather, I just think, in the social sciences (my background is in poli sci), we're looking at extremely complex systems. That renders them more suited for historical analysis and description than prediction, sure, but I think understanding and measurement can be improved scientifically.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 3, 2015)

No question: Econ uses the scientific method to refine models, etc.  But as in all social sciences, controlling for variables like human irrationality can be such a beast.


----------



## freyar (Aug 3, 2015)

Just popping in on the quantum physics and theoretical cosmology discussion, though I would like to mention that I've really appreciated the civil tone of this thread and the different sides to the discussion.



Tonguez said:


> of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.
> 
> or is Quantum not science?




Well, let's first note that quantum mechanics is a framework for physics, not really a single theory.  As such, it is used in almost every discipline of physics from atomic physics (really, the foundations of chemistry), to solid state physics (as noted by Umbran and Morrus, this is necessary for modern computing and even LEDs) to cosmology (the history of the universe).  This framework is very well tested in areas like atomic physics, particle physics, etc, etc.  In cosmology, quantum physics is used in describing the behavior of the primordial  plasma (through particle physics), which is a very conventional use of physics, in understanding the effects of early universe inflation (if you remember the flap about whether we observed gravitational waves or dust from a year+ ago, the gravitational wave option was quantum in nature, though it was not ultimately what the observation represented).  Multiverses, etc, are based on applications of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole. Yes, this is speculative because we don't have many ways to test these theories yet (though some can be tested relatively soon), but it is worth noting that many (indeed not all) are based on firm mathematical and scientific principles that hold every place we can test them.  To be fair, some are more like "what if" stories.

It is fair to say that there's a lot of speculation and that we may not get to test all these theories directly for a very long time --- though indirect consequences, which are necessarily harder to distinguish between theories, may be testable sooner.  But, like Umbran said, the idea is not to say that we have faith in any one of these ideas at this stage.  You might here a physicist talk about believing in a particular theory or the other, but that's generally not a faith issue (leaving aside the personal religion of the scientist) but rather a statement about what scientific principles might be deemed most important.  An analogy would be making a bet: you know there is a right answer, and you're trying to lay down the odds.





Staffan said:


> At this point, the more advanced levels of quantum physics is at the relatively (heh) early stages of the scientific method: hypotheses have been made, those hypotheses are consistent with available data, but they have not been verified.
> 
> Basically, it's like saying that we can see this:
> <snip picture>
> ...




In a way, though I'd have to say again that this is really cosmology and not quantum physics.  And if you're asking about the shape of the universe (which is a reasonable scientific issue to ask), that's not even really a quantum question in cosmology.

I'm not going to quote them because this is going long, but let me just say again that I agree completely with what Umbran and Morrus have said here.


----------

