Let's talk about "scientism"

[bhsmte]

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.

Can you give me an example of science trying to understand things it can not investigate through natural means?

 

[fireof god98]

Can you give me an example of science trying to understand things it can not investigate through natural means?

please explain what beauty is and please use the scientific method. well scientism is the belief that science can solve everything

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Well, it must have been my error then.

The Christian does indeed require different mechanisms to acquire what they interpret as a personal understand of God, completely agree.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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?

No need to look far.

Greed, desire for power, desire for wealth, money, honor from men, prestige.

Wherever there is great authority, there is also potential for great abuse.

Those in positions of great authority and power in religious circles have the potential for great abuse. We see this rampant in the Catholic Church.

Those in positions of great authority and power in the the secular academic circles have the potential for great abuse. We see this in Hawking and Mlodinow's 2010 book entitled The Grand Design wherein they pronounce philosophy to be dead, and then spend 1/3 of their entire work in rank metaphysical speculation as to the origin of the universe, engaging in the very discipline they just claimed to be dead!

People believe them though because they are seen as "authorities" even though their philosophical arguments and conclusions have been roundly criticized by both theists and atheists alike.

 

[bhsmte]

please explain what beauty is and please use the scientific method.

Did I say science could explain beauty, or did I miss something?

You said, science gets in trouble when it gets into philosophical issues and I asked you to give an example, when science has tried to investigate and understand the same, using the scientific method.

 

[fireof god98]

Did I say science could explain beauty, or did I miss something?

You said, science gets in trouble when it gets into philosophical issues and I asked you to give an example, when science has tried to investigate and understand the same, using the scientific method.

perhaps when Stephan hawking when in the grand design said the universe dos not require a creator. or when he said gravity is the ultimate cause of the universe

 

[fireof god98]

may i make the statement that i am not against science but against the topic of the thread which is scientism

 

[Deidre32]

I do not seek to diminish the value of science but to show that science has a specific domain in which it is efficacious.

I also intend to show that a Judeo-Christian paradigm is the best paradigm when it comes to explaining the totality of human experience as compared with its competitors.

Part of my efforts revolve around demonstrating that the competing paradigms simply fail to account for the things we as humans hold to be most important. Scientism fails here because it is existentially deficient and self-refuting.

What we do is we check it off the list of proferred criterions of rationality. As we do this we by a process of elimination, reduce the live pool of viable hypotheses down to the few that have been consistently defended by philosophers of religion and science and have withstood the test of time.

I have as my signature a quote from one of the greatest scientists and astronomers of recent memory in which he states that it was science that led him to his conclusions about God.

I have utilized the findings of scientists in much of my apologetics as well. So to view me as someone who is anti-science is unwarranted and belies a bias on your own part of thinking that just because someone is a Christian, they necessarily have to be unscientific and superstitious.

Even my method for seeking the best explanation for a series of data is itself scientific in nature. I am coming to you on your own terms, on your own ground, using means that you think are reliable and efficacious in demonstrating to you the veracity of the central tenets of my worldview.

I am playing in your court, in your home town so to speak. I have never told you to just take my word that Christianity is the most comprehensive paradigm for accounting for our human experiences.

I have repeatedly asked you to debate. Repeatedly given you arguments, evidence, appealed to the findings of contemporary science and scientists and you still claim I am trying to diminish the value of science.

Why?

lol I've debated you, before. I admire your tenacity, and I will debate you, if you still wish to. Name the time. I was once a Christian, and I'm not too shabby in my understanding of 'Scripture.' So...as long as we agree to not dismiss each other's views 'during' the debate, I would be happy to debate you.

I appreciate you actually listening to me in this post, as sometimes in the past, you 'talk over' folks. lol Maybe we all do at times.

So...ball's in your court, professor.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well, it must have been my error then.

The Christian does indeed require different mechanisms to acquire what they interpret as a personal understand of God, completely agree.

Exactly.

Which is why the Christian apologist has the burden of showing that certain criterions of rationality such as scientism are self-refuting.

The apologist needs to be able to show that one can be rational in accepting claims even though the claims may not be subject to empirical verification or falsification.

He has to show that the atheist cannot use the fact that the central tenets of Christianity cannot be empirically verified or falsified as a valid reason for not accepting the central tenets of Christianity.

I have shown that the atheist does not use this criteria when assessing certain claims, and does not limit his beliefs to only those which can be verified or falsified.

 

[variant]

perhaps when Stephan hawking when in the grand design said the universe dos not require a creator. or when he said gravity is the ultimate cause of the universe

Is the cause of the universe ultimately a proper philosophical issue?

If you are going to accuse scientists of overstepping their bounds you should turn the same criticism on religious adherents and philosophers.

 

[Deidre32]

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?

scary thought!

 

[fireof god98]

Is the cause of the universe ultimately a proper philosophical issue?

If you are going to accuse scientists of overstepping their bounds you should turn the same criticism on religious adherents and philosophers.

the existence of god is not in the area of science

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly.

Which is why the Christian apologist has the burden of showing that certain criterions of rationality such as scientism are self-refuting.

The apologist needs to be able to show that one can be rational in accepting claims even though the claims may not be subject to empirical verification or falsification.

He has to show that the atheist cannot use the fact that the central tenets of Christianity cannot be empirically verified or falsified as a valid reason for not accepting the central tenets of Christianity.

I have shown that the atheist does not use this criteria when assessing certain claims, and does not limit his beliefs to only those which can be verified or falsified.

In accepting claims that can not be verified through objective verifiable means, would require; assumptions and faith and less reason, or a more liberal definition of reason to make the word fit.

I have no issues what so ever with someone claiming they believe on faith and they recognize and admit, their personal belief can not be verified through objective evidence that points directly to their desired belief. In fact, these are the believers that IMO, are most secure in their faith, vs the one's who are constantly battling to show they have objective means to believe what they do.

 

[variant]

the existence of god is not in the area of science

No one said anything about the existence of God, I was talking about how the universe started.

So, why aren't you upset when religions and philosophies try to answer technical questions about how the universe works? Is that really their place?

 

[Deidre32]

In accepting claims that can not be verified through objective verifiable means, would require; assumptions and faith and less reason, or a more liberal definition of reason to make the word fit.

I have no issues what so ever with someone claiming they believe on faith and they recognize and admit, their personal belief can not be verified through objective evidence that points directly to their desired belief. In fact, these are the believers that IMO, are most secure in their faith, vs the one's who are constantly battling to show they have objective means to believe what they do.

this post is brilliant...seriously. i really like how you said this. not because you're an atheist, but because it's true.

 

[fireof god98]

No one said anything about the existence of God, I was talking about how the universe started.

So, why aren't you upset when religions and philosophies try to answer technical questions about how the universe works? Is that really their place?

it still is not right for philosophy to go into the area of science. it goes both ways. so what point are you trying to make?

 

[variant]

it still is not right for philosophy to go into the area of science. it goes both ways. so what point are you trying to make?

Quite a few people don't have any problem with religions and philosophers trying to answer what are basically science questions.

Religion has tried to answer all types of questions for many millennia now.

 

[Vergil10]

You did not quote the entire sentence from Sorell's work.

You left out,"to the exclusion of other viewpoints." which goes directly after the phrase "human learning".

So you agree with part of what he defines as scientism. Why do you reject the later?

in all honesty? i had no idea what scientism was, so i googled it and found that definition and thought it was a good idea. the definition i found didnt have the last part, but re googling it shows that the wiki entry most certantly does. so it was excluded because i was a goof.

 

[fireof god98]

Quite a few people don't have any problem with religions and philosophers trying to answer what are basically science questions.

science can solve things in the natural world and events using the scientific method but as i said before it falls apart when it goes into philosophy. philosophy seeks after ultimate and final causes. i love science. scientism though is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge which is not logical

 

[bhsmte]

science can solve things in the natural world and events using the scientific method but as i said before it falls apart when it goes into philosophy. philosophy seeks after ultimate and final causes. i love science. scientism though is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge which is not logical

You said science commits suicide when it delves into non-natural means.

Can you give an example of science attempting to delve into non-natural means and committing suicide?