How good is science as a religion?

[ADigitalArtist]

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?

No, I expect what you would normally see in unmoderated debate forums. Bad faith positions and reductivism.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I expect what you would normally see in unmoderated debate forums. Bad faith positions and reductivism.

So when you asserted "Scientism absolutely exists and is adhered to by many self identified skeptics who overestimate the utility of science and empiricism as the only or best way to accrue knowledge in every aspect of life", no one should be allowed to question it nor be allowed to ask for examples?

IOW, it is so simply because "ADigitalArtist at ReligiousForums said so", and anyone who dares question it is doing so in bad faith?

Wow.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So when you asserted "Scientism absolutely exists and is adhered to by many self identified skeptics who overestimate the utility of science and empiricism as the only or best way to accrue knowledge in every aspect of life", no one should be allowed to question it nor be allowed to ask for examples?

IOW, it is so simply because "ADigitalArtist at ReligiousForums said so", and anyone who dares question it is doing so in bad faith?

Wow.

No, however anyone who chronically partially quotes or discards examples given based on reductive reasoning with a sea lioning faux curiosity is.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, however anyone who chronically partially quotes or discards examples given based on reductive reasoning with a sea lioning faux curiosity is.

So you're accusing me of inaccurately quoting you and ignoring examples you provided of people who believe "the only or best way to accrue knowledge in every aspect of life".

What part of your post did I omit that would have changed the context of what I asked for?

What examples of people who believe "the only or best way to accrue knowledge in every aspect of life" did I ignore?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Just wait till you start losing this argument real bad and they'll be around to support you.

I'm not here to win battles for atheism, natural sciences or otherwise. And with you idea of what constitutes 'losing,' honestly I think spending time arguing creationism is a waste of time that only serves to entrench people in their own beliefs.

So no, not likely.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think that science is the best religion rational people can agree to and capitalism fails as a moral system.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Oh yeah and,
Made you respond.

 

[sun rise]

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"?

No true Scotsman?

 

[MikeF]

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…

Do you see questions related to telepathy, near-death experience, telekinesis, and homeopathy as questions to be addressed by science?

 

[sun rise]

I think that science is the best religion rational people can agree to and capitalism fails as a moral system.

Knowledge based on the scientific method is a religion? Do you pray and make burned offerings to your computer every time you use it?

 

[sun rise]

Do you see questions related to telepathy, near-death experience, telekinesis, and homeopathy as questions to be addressed by science?

That's what the paper was all about. The point was that if there were methodological issues with the study, that's a valid response. To dismiss them as of course false because they can't be true is scientism.

 

[Jose Fly]

No true Scotsman?

Sorry, not following you.

 

[MikeF]

That's what the paper was all about. The point was that if there were methodological issues with the study, that's a valid response. To dismiss them as of course false because they can't be true is scientism.

I would certainly agree that one should not dismiss a study out of hand without evaluating the methodology. And of course, the results of any one particular study are only significant if that study's methodology is sound and the study repeatable.

That being said, the author of the scientism article seemed to be addressing the issue from a non-neutral stance, in my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How good is science as a religion?

Not good at all
Lacking the essence
Science needs Spirituality

Why does science need spirituality? How would spirituality add or detract from E = Mc^2?

Science knows hydrogen and oxygen
BUT...Who created hydrogen and oxygen?

You have made two unwarrented assumptions here:

1. That elements require creation (rather than having always existed, or being the result of purely natural processes of which you know nothing), and
2. That if they required "creation," it would have to be a "person" (you asked "Who") who did it.

Water is the effect, hydrogen and oxygen are the causes

You have left something out -- energy is required. Hydrogen and oxygen just hanging around are not going to fill your swimming pool. And yet, energy isn't a "person," either, and probably not very bright, nor purposeful.

Nothing can exist without a cause. The effect gradually changes.

This is your own trap, and you set it yourself. If nothing can exist without a cause, and a cause is something, then the cause can never exist. Therefore, we are not engaged in this conversation.

That which changes is science. The changeless cause is spirituality.

So, what, in your experience here, on this planet, in your body, where you live -- and even in your own "spirituality," is changeless -- has never changed?

 

[sun rise]

Sorry, not following you.

You were looking for examples of scientism. You denied any of the examples I provided were examples of scientism, I have an anonymous person on the internet disagreeing with serious examples proffered in reputable outlets. It appears to me that you are going to find there are no true examples of scientism no matter the source and that's close to if not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

You were looking for examples of scientism. You denied any of the examples I provided were examples of scientism, I have an anonymous person on the internet disagreeing with serious examples proffered in reputable outlets. It appears to me that you are going to find there are no true examples of scientism no matter the source and that's close to if not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Can you explain how physicists acknowledging that the homology of the structures they studied supports evolution is an example of scientism ("the belief that science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge")?

 

[Orbit]

Why limit your question to Christianity?
.

Because I thought the person asking was limiting it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

Science sucks as a way for maintaining control over people. It also tends to undermine tribalism.

... so science is pretty crappy as a religion.

 

[gnostic]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

What in the bloody Hades do your threaf topic have to do with your OP???!!!

Natural sciences have nothing to do with religions and nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism have to do with with government policy over commerce and trading, and ownership of businesses, which outothe realm of natural sciences.

I am not a "Social Science" person (eg psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc), but capitalism may be covered in Political Science and Economics, which are Social Science disciplines.

Social Sciences differ from Natural Sciences.

Natural Sciences cover areas in physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy & life sciences (anything relating to biology).

Social Sciences, OTOH, concern with everything relating to humans behaviours, human cultures & human activities.

Social Sciences include psychology, behaviour science, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, human demographics, political science, economics, laws and legislation, etc. There are lot more, but these are the common branches of Social Sciences that I can think of at the top of my head.

While human biology, like study of human brain would fall under biology, hence it belong inside Natural Sciences, but how humans think and behave is outside the scopes of Natural Sciences.

So capitalism isn't cover in Natural Sciences.

In social sciences, falsifiability and scientific method aren't very important

As to religion, they have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Religions generally fall under the study within Humanities, like arts, literature, music, history, etc, but religions may also be considered cultural endeavors, so religions may be cover as parts of anthropology and sociology, which are study of human cultures and social activities

But religions and natural sciences have nothing with each other.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It's funny....in my 20+ years of working in science, discussing science with the public, and debating science with various groups, I've not once come across anyone who holds that view.

For a viewpoint that's allegedly common, it sure is hard for me to find anyone who adheres to it. I guess I need to get out more?

Is it controversial to think that we can know things without science?