Let's talk about "scientism"

[Jeremy E Walker]

Ah, death. Do you think the fear of death may motivate ancient man to manufacture stories in an attempt to reduce this fear?

Possibly.

But to turn this into an argument that because belief in God originated from some sense of fear of the unknown and therefore the belief is false, is to commit the genetic fallacy.

Hopefully, you will not try to do that.

 

[bhsmte]

Possibly.

But to turn this into an argument that because belief in God originated from some sense of fear of the unknown and therefore the belief is false, is to commit the genetic fallacy.

Hopefully, you will not try to do that.

Well, when I examine stories from thousands of years ago, one thing that floats around my mind is; potential motivations.

Motivations are the key to just about everything humans do or don't do, based on their own personal psychology.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

How true.

When you see this; science is a religion, it usually means, the one making the statement has run out of ammo and is in a bit of desperation mode.

Science is not perfect, but it is certainly rigorous enough to correct it's imperfections over time. I always ask myself the question; where would we be today without science?

Since I have never said science was a religion, I will assume you are talking about someone else.

Science is only as rigorous and honest as those who engage in it. Science tells us nothing. Scientists are the ones that relay to the general public what they believe their findings signify.

I am arguing against the belief that scientists are totally objective and free from bias. I am arguing against the belief that scientists are fundamentally different than every other human being in that they engage in their work free of presuppositions.

The method is like any other thing subject to use by humans. It can be used correctly, or abused.

Science by nature is reliable in the sense that it only seeks to examine the physical, natural, observable world that is subject to investigation via empirical means.

Science by nature is subject to abuse in that those who engage in it are prone, like in any other aspect, to interpret data according to their presuppositions.

Whenever scientists overstep their bounds and begin making authoritative pronouncements on domains outside of their area of expertise, they are abusing science and using their mantle of authority to cloak this from the unaware public.

 

[fireof god98]

hmm what an intriguing question.well science does a good job of explaining the material cause of an object but has a harder time with the final cause. for example,science is able to explain what chemical compounds make up the pages and the cover of a book and such but the sciences will never understand the meaning of a book. while the sciences will be able to explain the chemical make up of the art on the Sistine chapel they will never be able to explain what makes it beautiful. my point is that the universe has much more than the physical objects and events that the sciences can explain. im thinking of truth or beauty which is something only religion and philosophy can explain or at least try to explain. so science alone will never explain all of reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Since I have never said science was a religion, I will assume you are talking about someone else.

Science is only as rigorous and honest as those who engage in it. Science tells us nothing. Scientists are the ones that relay to the general public what they believe their findings signify.

I am arguing against the belief that scientists are totally objective and free from bias. I am arguing against the belief that scientists are fundamentally different than every other human being in that they engage in their work free of presuppositions.

The method is like any other thing subject to use by humans. It can be used correctly, or abused.

Science by nature is reliable in the sense that it only seeks to examine the physical, natural, observable world that is subject to investigation via empirical means.

Science by nature is subject to abuse in that those who engage in it are prone, like in any other aspect, to interpret data according to their presuppositions.

Whenever scientists overstep their bounds and begin making authoritative pronouncements on domains outside of their area of expertise, they are abusing science and using their mantle of authority to cloak this from the unaware public.

No human is without bias, none.

With that said, the scientific method, has a way of correcting bias over time and the culture of science, does not allow garbage to last for very long, before it gets exposed. History has proven this with science.

Where do you think we would be today, without science?

 

[fireof god98]

No human is without bias, none.

With that said, the scientific method, has a way of correcting bias over time and the culture of science, does not allow garbage to last for very long, before it gets exposed. History has proven this with science.

Where do you think we would be today, without science?

while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons

 

[BL2KTN]

Well, while science has been debated on an internet website that operates based on scientists' designs, we've created non-invasive retinal scanning for Alzheimer's detection, cured type 2 diabetes, and created the first 2 millimeter wide microphone that could revolutionize hearing aides.

Now we just need to invent a cure for Jeremy's under siege moments.

 

[BL2KTN]

while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons

Fire is used to warm villages and to burn them down. Based on our improved world, the better of the uses was employed more often.

 

[fireof god98]

Well, while science has been debated on an internet website that operates based on scientists' designs, we've created non-invasive retinal scanning for Alzheimer's detection, cured type 2 diabetes, and created the first 2 millimeter wide microphone that could revolutionize hearing aides.

Now we just need to invent a cure for Jeremy's under siege moments.

does this mean that science is capable of explaining everything in reality?

 

[bhsmte]

while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons

And, religion has given us people who kill others because they say God commanded them to, or people who think they are so superior to others that don't agree with their beliefs, that they make other people's lives miserable and they treat them with disrespect. Some use their beliefs in a positive way, some use them as a weapon.

Do we throw out everything in this world that can be used in a negative way? If so, nothing much would be left.

 

[fireof god98]

And, religion has given us people who kill others because they say God commanded them to, or people who think they are so superior to others that don't agree with their beliefs, that they make other people's lives miserable and they treat them with disrespect. Some use their beliefs in a positive way, some use them as a weapon.

Do we throw out everything in this world that can be used in a negative way? If so, nothing much would be left.

i agree but we must not make one method of understanding the truth to be superior or to think it is the one way to understand reality

 

[fireof god98]

Fire is used to warm villages and to burn them down. Based on our improved world, the better of the uses was employed more often.

yes you speak with wisdom as michio kaku said ``We have to realize that science is a double-edged sword. One edge of the sword can cut against poverty, illness, disease and give us more democracies, and democracies never war with other democracies, but the other side of the sword could give us nuclear proliferation, biogerms and even forces of darkness.`` this still does not give any credibility to scientism.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well, when I examine stories from thousands of years ago, one thing that floats around my mind is; potential motivations.

And you are right in thinking about these things.

When I read works from ancient Greek and Roman historians for example, or the works from Jewish historians, one of the things I think about is what their possible motives could have been for writing what they did.

Motivations are the key to just about everything humans do or don't do, based on their own personal psychology.

Everyone that does anything does so because they are motivated to do so.

Scientists who have been guaranteed a continuation of funding for their research programs if they publish reports on a particular investigation with certain "conclusions" may be motivated by the desire to secure funding for their research.

Clergy who have been guaranteed a continuation of power and authority if certain conclusions are reached regarding the investigation of whether or not the heavenly bodies revolve around the earth may be motivated by the desire to maintain and secure their positions of authority and power. Here I am thinking of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic Church.

Historians who desire to buttress their presuppositions about certain matters may be motivated to make pronouncements of historical data and documents that portray their own views in a favorable light.

So what do we do?

Do we throw our hands up and say that we can't know anything about anything because everything we reference could be potentially marred by the motivations of those in authority?

That is silly. We take a holistic approach and look at all sides of the issue while making sure WE are being as objective as possible.

 

[bhsmte]

i agree but we must not make one method of understanding the truth to be superior or to think it is the one way to understand reality

You are free to use any means you like to determine truth. If you are looking for truths in regards to understanding the natural world, if you have a better method than the science and it's reliance on empirical evidence, then please let us know what that is.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

hmm what an intriguing question.well science does a good job of explaining the material cause of an object but has a harder time with the final cause. for example,science is able to explain what chemical compounds make up the pages and the cover of a book and such but the sciences will never understand the meaning of a book. while the sciences will be able to explain the chemical make up of the art on the Sistine chapel they will never be able to explain what makes it beautiful. my point is that the universe has much more than the physical objects and events that the sciences can explain. im thinking of truth or beauty which is something only religion and philosophy can explain or at least try to explain. so science alone will never explain all of reality.

 

[fireof god98]

You are free to use any means you like to determine truth. If you are looking for truths in regards to understanding the natural world, if you have a better method than the science and it's reliance on empirical evidence, then please let us know what that is.

if you had read my earlier comments you would see that i agree science is the best way of understanding the natural world but science commits suicide when it goes into the area reserved for philosophy and so it can not understand all things.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And, religion has given us people who kill others because they say God commanded them to, or people who think they are so superior to others that don't agree with their beliefs, that they make other people's lives miserable and they treat them with disrespect. Some use their beliefs in a positive way, some use them as a weapon.

Do we throw out everything in this world that can be used in a negative way? If so, nothing much would be left.

So we see that both science and religion are capable of being beneficial and harmful to humanity.

St. Augustine enjoins us to not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

 

[bhsmte]

And you are right in thinking about these things.

When I read works from ancient Greek and Roman historians for example, or the works from Jewish historians, one of the things I think about is what their possible motives could have been for writing what they did.



Everyone that does anything does so because they are motivated to do so.

Scientists who have been guaranteed a continuation of funding for their research programs if they publish reports on a particular investigation with certain "conclusions" may be motivated by the desire to secure funding for their research.

Clergy who have been guaranteed a continuation of power and authority if certain conclusions are reached regarding the investigation of whether or not the heavenly bodies revolve around the earth may be motivated by the desire to maintain and secure their positions of authority and power. Here I am thinking of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic Church.

Historians who desire to buttress their presuppositions about certain matters may be motivated to make pronouncements of historical data and documents that portray their own views in a favorable light.

So what do we do?

Do we throw our hands up and say that we can't know anything about anything because everything we reference could be potentially marred by the motivations of those in authority?

That is silly. We take a holistic approach and look at all sides of the issue while making sure WE are being as objective as possible.

When did I say to throw your hands up?

I was simply stating, motivation is key in examining writings, especially ancient writings. Claims made in writings are a dime a dozen, but objective verification of the same is much harder to attain and sometimes completely absent. Multiple holy books make claims and the believers of the same hold tightly to those claims, because they have personal motivation to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

So we see that both science and religion are capable of being beneficial and harmful to humanity.

St. Augustine enjoins us to not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

This is common sense. Anything can be abused, by man.

I would judge the man who chose to abuse the tool and look for motivations as to why?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You are free to use any means you like to determine truth. If you are looking for truths in regards to understanding the natural world, if you have a better method than the science and it's reliance on empirical evidence, then please let us know what that is.

This is your error.

You think we are saying there is a better method or discipline for understanding the natural world than the natural sciences.

I know of no Christian philosopher of science who would hold this view and I certainly do not hold it nor does the gentleman you wrote this post to hold it.

The natural sciences are what we use to discover the wonders of nature and explain how it all works.

The Christian who desires to know all he can know about God uses as one means, science to uncover the marvelous wonders of this grand creation. The advent of modern science was facilitated by men who believed that the world in which they lived was rationally intelligible and that it was ordered which lent itself to investigation. The advent of modern science in the west flourished in a culture that was predominately theistic, not atheistic.