Like I said, this isn't something I see regularly in academics (though I do see it, see above), but more in lay 'skeptics'.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How good is science as a religion?
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I don't see how correcting creationists on a fundamental error is at all the same as believing that science is the only or best way to answer every question in life.
Sorry, I don't see how that relates to "scientism" at all.
All I'm asking for are examples of people who believe that science is the best or only way to answer all the questions in life. As I said, I've never once encountered anyone like that in any setting, be it academic, public, religious, skeptic, or otherwise.
So if you have specific examples, I'm really interested to see them.
Saying humans are monkeys isn't a fundamental error and hasn't been considered one for decades. That's my point.
From the article:
You could try looking at logical positivism or any thread where 'spiritual knowledge' gets breathed. Or Google around 'soft science vs hard science.' Or look into pop philosophers like Sam Harris who said science is all you need to establish moral values. (Particularly in 'The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.')
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Taxonomically, it is. Humans are in the Superfamily Hominoidea, whereas monkeys are in Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea.
Chimps, Humans and Monkeys: What's the Difference? (janegoodall.org)
So I'm just going to conclude that you don't have any specific examples of people who believe that science is the best or only way to answer all of life's questions.
I'll also restate how odd it is that something that's allegedly common is apparently difficult to provide examples of.
Monkey isn't a taxonomic term and cladistics doesn't have one independently branching from the other without being part of the former grouping. It is equally taxonomically correct to say that humans are monkeys (as are their simiioform ancestord) as they are fish (chordata, fish are also not a taxonomic group.
The absurdity of natural history – or, why humans are 'fish')
To save time, I'll just post the AronRa video, since it breaks it down more thoroughly than i have time or inclination to:
Or I just tire of 'gotcha' tactics where incurious skeptics are more interested in 'winning' than learning.
I literally gave you specific examples, including a high profile person highly influential to the 'skeptic' community.
Scientism of Today
Scientism today is alive and well, as evidenced by the statements of our celebrity scientists:
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos
“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” –Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes
“We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” –E.O. Wilson, Consilience
While these men are certainly entitled to their personal opinions and the freedom to express them, the fact that they make such bold claims in their popular science literature blurs the line between solid, evidence-based science, and rampant philosophical speculation. Whether one agrees with the sentiments of these scientists or not, the result of these public pronouncements has served to alienate a large segment of American society.
Both have some potential.
Scientism
Last year (2018), the journal published an article by Professor Etzel Cardeña of Lund University, in which he carefully and systemically reviewed the evidence for psi phenomena—examining over 750 discrete studies—and concluded that there was a very good case for their existence.
As a commentary on the article from the British Psychological Society reported, “on this basis, it is arguable that, as much as any other field of psychology, there is at least something meriting investigation.”
However, in June of this year, the journal published an online rebuttal of Cardeña’s article by Arthur Reber and James Alcock. The authors take an unusual approach, based on theory rather than evidence. Rather than engaging carefully with the evidence presented by Cardeña, they put forward a theoretical argument for the non-existence of psi.
As they write, “Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true…
Last year (2018), the journal published an article by Professor Etzel Cardeña of Lund University, in which he carefully and systemically reviewed the evidence for psi phenomena—examining over 750 discrete studies—and concluded that there was a very good case for their existence.
As a commentary on the article from the British Psychological Society reported, “on this basis, it is arguable that, as much as any other field of psychology, there is at least something meriting investigation.”
However, in June of this year, the journal published an online rebuttal of Cardeña’s article by Arthur Reber and James Alcock. The authors take an unusual approach, based on theory rather than evidence. Rather than engaging carefully with the evidence presented by Cardeña, they put forward a theoretical argument for the non-existence of psi.
As they write, “Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true…
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
By that logic, humans are prokaryotes (and so is everything else).
Um no, you did not provide an example of someone who believes that science is the best or only way to answer all questions in every aspect of life. Just a hint: people arguing about "soft science vs. hard science" isn't that, nor is someone saying science can establish moral values.
Also FYI, asking someone to provide examples of something they said exists is not a "gotcha tactic". It's a perfectly normal and rational thing to request.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That's metaphysical naturalism, not scientism.
Neither is that.
Neither is that.
"Scientism" is the view that science is the best or only way to answer every question. It is not metaphysical naturalism, it is not atheism, it is not skepticism about religion, it is not nihilism.
A 2004 paper in the journal Physical Review Letters offers a physics analysis of the optimal size of the inner ear of mammals, for the purpose of detecting sounds.1 Fair enough. The paper implies, though, that mammals all having inner ears close to this optimum supports Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. Huh? Contrast the lack of any direct connection to evolution with the importance of the paper’s physical theories (mechanics of motion, angular momentum, viscous fluid dynamics, structural mechanics). To imply that this analysis provides evidence for the validity of those physical theories would not even cross the mind of a competent reader. Why then, do references to evolution appear in five separate places in this physics paper? It is because of scientistic metaphysics.
Monopolizing Knowledge: Science vs. Scientism - Article - BioLogos
Monopolizing Knowledge: Science vs. Scientism - Article - BioLogos
I could go down a deep hole of comparing how various people use the word "scientism" but I don't find that a productive use of my time.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That doesn't make sense. Are physicists supposed to ignore the reality of evolution and how it's responsible for the structure they're writing about?
How in the world does "the homology of these structures supports evolution" = "scientism"?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Science asks what and how something in existence behaves. Only religion asks why things are the way they are. Most world religions also do a poor job at answering why.
You are not going to answer why things are the way they are through science. Nor does science have any answers for the meanings and purposes to life.
Philosophy is the only other method of asking why things are the way they are, and the meaning of life and it's purpose.
Everyone that opposes religion does so with their own philosophy.
Scientism is that some people feel that science can answer all questions about reality, being and existence.
The only place where science crosses into religious territory is with the dispelling of ancient claims involving nature found in various scriptures. Otherwise never the two have anything to do with each other.
Capitalism has no moral compass. It's not a moral system. If anything capitalism is the wild. There's nothing civil about capitalism. Government and law is the only recourse people have for their moral concerns.
Religion v. philosophy is where the arguments are. Naturalism, physicalism, reductionism vs. religion.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well in this thread, it's been defined as the belief that science is the best or only way to answer all questions from every aspect of life.
To repeat, I've never seen or heard anyone espouse that view. Yet some here seem to be saying it's actually quite common (despite not being able to provide examples).
Prokaryote is not a monophelytic grouping. It's more like mammals did not suddenly become not synapsids when they became mammals. If monkey is something you would call the taxonomic group platyrrhines and their Catarrhini descendents then humans and all apes did in fact descend from monkeys and still are monkeys. (Also worth noting that distinguishing between ape and monkey isn't even a thing outside of most non-english languages)
*points again to Sam Harris book literally describing just that.*
Sure we can pretend that's what you were doing. Even though someone who wasn't already primed to reject anything would have just, if they were actually interested, looked at 'spiritual knowledge skeptic' 'rejection of 'soft sciences' or 'quotes from logical positivism'.
Often times skeptics aren't really looking for examples, they're looking for essays. It's a gishgallup tactic. If someone doesn't hold their hand through everything, they shoot back 'oh well you must not have an argument then.' It's as obnoxious as it is reductive.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
And by the same token, neither are old/new world monkeys and hominids (each have ancestors that are not shared with the other).
Platyrrhines and Catarrhines are sister groups, and Catarrhines (old world monkeys) did not descend from Platyrrhines (new world monkeys).
Again, "science can be used to set morals" is not the same as "science is the best or only way to answer all questions from every aspect of life".
Oh for the love of....
Dude, all I did was ask for examples of what had been presented as common, i.e., people who believe that science is the best or only way to answer all questions from every aspect of life.
If you see that as some sort of "gotcha tactic" or "Gish gallop", then all I can say is you're waaaaaaaaaaay off base. And if you see "can you provide examples" as obnoxious, I have to wonder what the hell you're doing in a debate forum. Were you expecting everyone here to just take your say-so as unquestioned gospel or something?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Really!!! Three out of four of those who support science on this very forum use science as a religion.
Out of one side of their mouth they say science can't prove anything and out of the other they say nature obeys laws that are known which can only be interpreted (has the meaning) that science knows everything. Just look at the evidence or if you don't understand evidence ask a Peer and every question is answered.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Just wait till you start losing this argument real bad and they'll be around to support you.