Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

The quote goes far beyond #2, and includes things like worship spaces,
authoritative founders (e.g., Jesus, Buddha), recognized officials
(priests), holidays, and such. While ID might be derived from a religion,
there's no way it would in itself be classified as a "religion."

On 1/9/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> David,
> What I have left of your long post, especially #2, shows that ID is
> religious in nature, for its "designer" is clearly a metaphysical notion.
> Adherents try to obstruct this notion by referring to the inference of
> design in archeology, for example. But the latter inference is to a physical
> being manipulating a physical object intentionally. This is also seen in the
> LGM tag applied to the detection of the first pulsar, before they understood
> the mechanism. Despite obfuscation, the designer of ID is a nonphysical
> entity producing matter as well as forming it.
>
> At the other extreme, atheism is also a metaphysical doctrine. This
> applies to scientism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, all approaches
> to atheism. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an approach to
> experiences we share. It is not a metaphysical claim, for it is compatible
> with everything from Berkeleyan idealism to materialism, and all the
> branches.
>
> There is an attempt to argue from the fact that we cannot ascribe limits
> to science that we cannot exclude the deity. This is correct insofar as
> logical analysis goes. I note that the only aspect of light Newton could
> examine was the visible spectrum. Now we detect a range from below long wave
> radio on beyond hard X-rays. When IDers demonstrate how to detect the
> designer instrumentally (the claimed statistical test is misguided), we can
> consider ID as science. Applying my philosophical training to the matter, I
> conclude that it cannot happen.
> Dave
>
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:20:32 -0500 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I think what we're bumping up against here is the limitations of the
> establishment clause. The short answer is no, I don't think
> most courts would not bar the teaching of evolution under the establishment
> clause even if it could be shown that a school board's motivations were
> primarily to promote atheism. This isn't because atheism or materialism are
> "scientific." It's because they don't possess the traditional indicia of a
> "religion." Here, for example, is how the Third Circuit has defined a
> "religion" for first amendment purposes, in Judge Adams' influential
> concurring opinion in Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3rd Cir. 1979) (a
> case, incidentally, that was argued by one of my former partners).
> Religions:
>
> 1) ponder such issues as the meaning of life, the afterlife, or man's
> place in the universe;
> 2) are extensive in scope and far-reaching in nature; and
> 3) are accompanied by the existence of certain formal and outside signs.
>
> Other courts have expanded on these factors. For example, in *United
> States v. Meyers*, 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1996), the Tenth Circuit
> determined that the defendant, self-described "Reverend of the Curch of
> Marijuana," could not escape conviction on drug charges under the Religious
> Freedom Restoration Act. The court mentioned the following factors
> concerning whether something is a "religion" for first amendment purposes
> (this is a long section to be quoting, but worth it for our present
> discussion):
>
> "1. Ultimate Ideas: Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions
> about life, purpose, and death. As one court has put it, "a religion
> addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and
> imponderable matters." Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. These matters may include
> existential matters, such as man's sense of being; teleological matters,
> such as man's purpose in life; and cosmological matters, such as man's place
> in the universe.
>
> 2. Metaphysical Beliefs: Religious beliefs often are "metaphysical," that
> is, they address a reality which transcends the physical and immediately
> apparent world. Adherents to many religions believe that there is another
> dimension, place, mode, or temporality, and they often believe that these
> places are inhabited by spirits, souls, forces, deities, and other sorts of
> inchoate or intangible entities.
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 9 14:01:58 2006