"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Audie]

Well they said many, and so I'm not going to accept one, especially since it wasn't an example of scientism, and didn't exist when they made the claim. I'm a fair man, but it seems reasonable to me that in a debate forum a claim like the pejorative in the OP is justified by something beyond bare assertions.

Im being generous with donation and
the request for a single example.

 

[PureX]

The original meaning was an excessive belief in science.... Yes?

Is that such a bad mindset?

I mean to say, some folks think that God looks human and created trillions of star systems and billions of galaxies yet particularly favours us, on this tiny little planet.

Now which would be the daftest of those two?

I think it's the fact that you are making this comparison, and having to decide which is the more daft, is what's significant.

 

[PureX]

Ah so! Evidence for the VIce of Scientism is subjective! No wonder you can detect it anywhere!
That we may learn the wisdom, wouldnt you
just give one example.?
Some of us cannot learn from just words, we need to be shown.

Some of you won't learn at all, regardless of examples, words, or anything else.

 

[lukethethird]

Some of you won't learn at all, regardless of examples, words, or anything else.

However, examples would go a long way.

 

[Audie]

Some of you won't learn at all, regardless of examples, words, or anything else.

Ha, ha, and ha.
Lashing about with crude insults wont
make your vacuous claim more credible.

 

[Audie]

However, examples would go a long way.

Its risky. If he did then that claim would be disproved. Such a dilemma, if the left dont get him the right one will.

 

[Augustus]

I don't understand it. It is all confusing, for example what does "...the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge ..." actually mean?

While it is true the examples in the OP are not exactly the clearest, scientism is basically and excessive faith in the scope and accuracy of scientific methods.

Scope in this sense means the range of things scientific methods can be effectively applied to, for example "Scientific" theories of morality.

Any person who favours the use of reason in human affairs should be against scientism.

 

[Windwalker]

What if someone claims they use faith to believe you are wrong? can you point to any belief that cannot be held on faith alone? If not then faith is pretty useless.

They certainly can say that. But if you're aiming to disprove something they claim, you have to address their basis for that belief. You can't just say, 'well it's my opinion you are wrong'. That's worthless. They can say 'my faith says something different', and that's fine. That's not a challenge to my views.

Can I point to any belief that cannot be held on faith alone? Certainly. Any belief that has evidence to support it, such as actual experience. Faith is useful, in that it inspires and opens people to possibilities. One doesn't have to have all the data in hand, in order to act. A good bit of inspiration does just fine. Call that faith.

Wet feet is evidence it might be raining, is it compelling evidence, or are you standing in a puddle?

Of course yes, there may be other understanding as to why you have wet feet, but "I have wet feet" is evidence of 'something'. It's not just blind faith. It's experience. "It's raining" might be debatable. Wet feet is not.

Interesting comparison, one unevidenced and unfalsifiable idea is much the same as another I think.

The comparison was the difference between claiming belief that God exists, versus bigfoot. God is not a physical beast, but "spirit", so the means with which one investigates such claims would be different. You could you science to investigate if bigfoot exists, since it's an animal. You can't use science to investigate God, unless you believe God is a critter of some sort. Some do, of course. I think that's what I lot of atheists imagine, in essence. They always think of God as an "entity".

So if someone makes a bare claim to have personally experienced bigfoot or ET this becomes evidence? I have to disagree.

Yes of course claims of encounters should be considered as evidence. How much veracity there it to the claim, is a different issue. That has be considered case by case. But to simply say "God doesn't exist, so therefore any claim of experiencing God must be disregarded," is not doing science. That's doing religion.

They are imagined ideas, and bare claims for personal experience usually. Have you even one example of such claims originating without a functioning physical human brain? I can imagine an invisible unicorn, this does not make it real. Nor can you disprove what I have imagined.

Love is an imagined idea? That's a curious response. Try saying that to your lover sometime. See how quickly you find yourself alone, not actually believing what you say.

Well the scientific method can't examine invisible unicorns either, does this lend some credence to the concept?

Unicorns are horses with horns. So science should be able to confirm their existence. Do you believe science is the right tool to understand what love is? Do you pull out a scale and some test tubes to determine understand what your mother means when she says she loves you? Or do you use your heart? If so, that's not very scientific of you.

God is more along the lines of love, not like a horse with horns. You don't use test tubes to understand love, or God. You use the heart, so say all the poets and mystics. Unless you think they know nothing because you have science...

Except they are similar concepts precisely because no objective evidence can be demonstrated to support them. It is the one thing such concepts have in common.

Not true. Objective evidence of the experience of the divine can be observed and demonstrated. But finding hair samples or hoofprints, you won't. Love can be demonstrated objectively, even though you can't ever find a love specimen in the fossil record.

Knowledge? What knowledge, all I see are bare subjective claims?

Ah, here comes that logical positivist, scientism voice. So, only objective observation that can be measured and verified by independent study is considered knowledge or truth? What of the rest of the humanities, such as art and poetry, philosophy, love, dance, song, mysticism, and all those things that go beyond reason and concepts and ideas? Is that not knowledge? Is that not what gives live meaning? Does anyone who claims rationality as their god, actually live life true to that? Or are they living hypocritically?

I have no problem with anyone believing anything, even if they have zero objective evidence to support the belief, but I reserve the right to disbelieve such claim.

You keep saying "zero objective evidence". Why do you say this, when I've pointed out that experiences, when taken together and considered, do in fact count as objective evidence? It's not 'merely' subjective (as if that means subjective evidence is nothing), but when 100 people all report similar subjective experiences, that is now objective. It's something that can be looked at and examined by 3rd person observation.

And yes, you can reserve the right to reject such objective evidences, but do realize, that is purely a subjective response.

Continued in next post...

 

[Windwalker]

Well it depends what is being claimed, and of course what baggage the claim tries to insist is justified. Not all theistic beliefs are innocuous. What I believe is what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, but I also can wave that if the claim isn't important. If theists stopped at what they believed, and didn't try to claim their morals and ideas were not theirs but were divine diktat, then I might just ignore theism.

You and I agree with this. Yes, there is baggage that comes along with it, and that needs to be addressed as a thing in itself. But what I don't find rational, is to just lump everything as prerational nonsense because of that baggage. That's not very scientific. It's not a dispassionate consideration of the 'baby in the bathwater'. The challenge is to be able to recognize the difference.

I don't have any idea of "what any deity is", because I'm an atheist see. That concept of a deity came form theists I have encountered.

Yes, your idea of a deity is the one you've adopted from the theists you've been exposed to. This is affirming you have an idea of a what a deity is. You detailed that idea in your post. When you imagine what God is, you have an idea in your mind, regardless of where it came from.

Well that's an unevidenced claim, however I would point out that science cannot examine what does not exists, however this is not a limitation of the method necessarily.

What do you mean it's unevidenced? Science itself knows its own limitations, that it can't address everything. It's not that these thing don't exist, and therefore science can't address them. They do exist. It's just that science is not the right tool for looking at them. For instance, do you use science to tell you the meaning of Shakespeare's Hamlet? Do you science to tell you the meaning of life? Are you saying these things don't exist?

So if you are claiming something exists beyond what science can examine, then again you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for this claim, before I would give it any credence.

If you want to learn how to experience love and connection and joy in your life, do you read a science book? Does science teach you the meaning of your life? Does science help you become a better person? Does science teach you how to ride a bicycle? There is knowledge in life that does not come from books, or the minds of others. It comes from experience and life itself, directly. Have you ever meditated?

I have heard this claim many times, and I am very dubious, but please demonstrate some of this objective measurable evidence. Only it never ever materialises.

There are plenty of scholars and researchers who have done the work in mapping out these patterns you see. I can give you one to begin with:

https://www.amazon.com/Stages-Faith...639539&sprefix=stages+of+faith,aps,162&sr=8-1

A brief reference to the various stages of meditation that have been mapped out based upon reaserach of various practitioners showing recognizable patterns:

STAGES OF MEDITATION

Another based upon research:

https://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Re...638639704&sprefix=William+jame,aps,182&sr=8-1

So when I say this is objective, that is exactly what I mean. Subjective is when only one person is reporting it. Objective is when you take all of these reports and map out similarities and patterns. That's beyond just "mere subjectivity". When you see patterns emerge, (taking into account cultural influences and whatnot), that's the eye of science.

However, to truly understand what those are, you have to experience them yourself. And there are tried and true injunctions for practitioners to develop these stages. Stages of development, are objective in nature, even if the experiencing of them themselves are subjective in nature.

So when someone describes a "God-experience", you get to the underlying experience, and don't get hung up on the 'baggage', such as "This proves Jesus is real!". And so forth. There is objectively "something there", But how we interpret these things, is often relative to the interpreter.

Well I've tasted an orange, seen oranges, can see them grown, can even see the science that enables the propagation of the best strains, I just don't see what that has to do with bare subjective claims for personal experience of a deity.

They're not bare subjective claims, as I've explained about. They are shared experiences by many people, throughout many cultures. But if you can't get over, "But Noah's Ark isn't real", distractions, then of course you'll be stuck imagining none of these can possibly be real, because we all know the earth is not 6000 years old. That's not doing science at all. That's just an irrational reaction to a religious allergy.

Why does this deity need theists of wildly different deities to approach me with cryptic arguments, claiming that it can only reveal itself through navel gazing? Especially when they claim to be adherents of religions that claim this deity has revealed itself to other evolved mammals?

Well, just as the empiric sciences are the best tool for examining the nature of rocks and the natural world, meditation is the best and correct tool to examine the nature of being itself. You have to look within, for one very simple rational reason. You ARE as subjective being. If all you ever do is try to understand the nature of your own being, by looking at the outside, and ignoring the inside, it's only ever going to present a flat, two-dimensional reality, a facade, not knowledge of the Self, from the inside.

Now, as far as the 'different deities' and such go, those are simply tools for the mind to bridge the gap between language and experience. They are, for one major example, "Symbols of Transformation", as Carl Jung rightly termed them. They are not literal 'gods'. But they represent something deep within ourselves, that pulls out out of this limited world we create to touch something within ourselves that is Eternal, that which ties all life and creation together. This is what mystical experiences opens to us, and all the rest, gods, and goddesses, and whatnot, are just expressions of that Mystery for our minds to bridge that gap between our fleshly existence, and that Ground of Being that exists within us and all of creation.

The empiric sciences at their best can only see these patterns emerge, but to gain knowledge of them for yourself, you have to look through the telescope to see. The tools of quieting the mind and entering into this space within ourselves, does in fact reveal something. And it's not just subjective to the person alone. It's commonplace among those who do that same thing. But none of that "proves your God idea" is reality. That's just mistaking your own finger pointing at the moon, as the moon itself.

 

[PureX]

Agreed. But I'd also add that it is not necessary to understand the reality beyond consciousness. It doesn't matter. What matters is the conscious experience. A map of expected reality that helps one make decisions that result in desired outcomes is not only all that is possible, it's good enough.

I recently offered the analogy of a video racecar game, compared to an actual car race. The virtual driver can make the same assumptions the actual driver makes about what actions will result in what outcomes, and get equally acceptable results. The gamer pushes the joystick right, and the car on the screen turns right, just like in an actual car. The gamer can imagine he's moving the wheels on his vehicle rightward, and that traction on a physical surface will allow him to make that turn.

And if the actual racecar driver were to find out that his map of what is going on outside his mind that has always worked when driving before is all just an illusion, and that he is just a vat in a brain, he can go on driving as before and expect to experience the same results as before he knew the truth. The point is, it doesn't matter that the objective reality of the video game is circuits rather than actual cars and roads if one can still control outcomes (keep the car moving, on the road, and winning races or beating previous best times) just like the guy on the track.

That's a pretty good argument in favor of theism: how it functions and why it works for us.

Not to me. Faith in the religious sense is unjustified belief - nothing more, nothing less.

Fortunately for the rest of us, that absurd bias is your own problem to deal with. By the way, who is justifying our belief, and by what criteria? Would that be YOU?

That which is undetectable even in principle can be treated the same as the nonexistent.

Only if we're too stupid to understand and recognize the difference. The difference being that existence is not dependent upon nor defined by our detection of it.

The supernatural as suggested by theists is an incoherent concept. Take God and heaven as examples of the supernatural. What is being proposed is that there is a realm that is causally connected to the natural such that one can get to it after death, and it can affect the natural world as with performing miracles and answering prayer, but somehow, remains undetectable in the natural realm.

How is this idea incoherent?

This is verbal sleight-of-hand to allow the theist to say that this realm actually exists and can affect the natural world, but you shouldn't expect to find it not because it is difficult to find, but impossible. So, no evidence possible means nonexistence or causal disconnection. Causal disconnection is not one way. It's like saying that the trailer is connected to the car, but the car is disconnected from the trailer. If one is disconnected from the other, they are both disconnected from one another.

That's not what it's saying. To continue the analogy, it's saying that the trailer is connected to the car, and is being pulled along by the car, but the car is not detectable from within the trailer. The movement is detectable, but the source and purpose of the movement are not. I don't see why you think this is an "incoherent" conceptual scenario.

As I said, the idea is incoherent, such as the idea of omniscience and free will existing simultaneously.

Simultaneous omniscience and free will are not incompatible. Knowing that I will choose to turn left at the next intersection does not preclude me from choosing to turn left at the next intersection. Nor does it preclude me from choosing to turn right or go strait, because I've already chose to reject those options. So I'm not seeing any incoherence, here.

But there are others reading along who do possess those skills, and for whom a comment like this one might be thought-provoking, people willing to be convinced that the idea is incoherent if they see this inconsistency in the definition of the supernatural that they hadn't noticed before.

No offense, but I don't see how your incoherence argument is going to convince anyone.

 

[PureX]

Dang, we've been outed.

 

[Audie]

If only.

To save the embarrassment of having no
examples of ye "scientism" chimera?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Fortunately for the rest of us, that absurd bias is your own problem to deal with.

That's not a rebuttal. That's you dismissing with the wave of a hand. The statement stands unrebutted.

Did you want to take another try, and this time explain why you disagree? It's already known that you do, but you haven't addressed why. I have no reason to change my view on this if you can't give one. It needs to explain specifically why that formulation is incorrect in your estimation, and what disadvantage it entails for those who accept it. If you can't do that, well, why answer at all?

The difference being that existence is not dependent upon nor defined by our detection of it.

Not relevant. My argument is that if something can be said to exist but not be detectable even in principle, it can be treated the same as if it didn't exist. Why would one be interested in something said to be undetectable by any means? Imagine the claim that another universe exists, but cannot have any detectable effect on this one. Why should such a thing be believed to exist, or treated differently from things known to not exist? Can you give a reason? I don't think you can. You'll have to move the goalposts to a place where this other domain is detectable to give it relevance, and then move it back into the shadow of undetectability when others ask you where it is, and why they should believe in such a thing or treat it like it exists? Now, suddenly, it's causally disconnected, but only until you want to reattach it so that it can effect this world.

How is this idea incoherent?

I explained it in my last post, and in the paragraph above again.

To continue the analogy, it's saying that the trailer is connected to the car, and is being pulled along by the car, but the car is not detectable from within the trailer. The movement is detectable, but the source and purpose of the movement are not.

The car is detectable from the trailer because it is not causally disconnected from it. If you feel that you are moving, you have detected it, even if you can't identify what you have detected yet, as when dark matter was detected. It is causally connected to ordinary matter through it's DETECTABLE gravitational effects.

Omniscience and free will are not incompatible.

Yes, they are. One requires a deterministic universe, and the other allows an undetermined act of will to exist anyway. You are positing a deterministic universe with indeterminism, sort of a married bachelor, or an imperfect perfect God.

I've already explained that I don't expect anybody but a theist to make such a claim, and why they need to do so incoherent or not. The theist's agenda is to try to make his faith-based beliefs seem reasonable, and for most, seem supported by evidence. So, he won't even try to understand the incoherence of his position. You usually can't make a person see what they have have a stake in not seeing, and so, the opinions of people who think like that - decide by faith what they want to believe, and then try to retrofit some specious argument to it to make it appear as if their faith-based belief is a conclusion arrived at by impartially considering evidence.

I call this a pseudo-conclusion, since it's actually an unsupported premise. It didn't flow from a chain of reasoning. It preceded it. This is people who sidestep reason paying homage to reason by trying to make their beliefs seem reasonable. So, they say things like, "Omniscience and free will are not incompatible," and try to make that seem reasonable, usually by simply denying that their beliefs are incoherent as you just did, and restating their unsupported claim that these things can coexist in the same universe.

Why not just say that there is no reason a bachelor cannot also be married? If anybody tries to point out the incoherence there analogous to causally connected yet undetectable even in principle, or deterministic yet undetermined in some times and places, fail to rebut their argument (dismissing it out of hand with a statement of disagreement but no argument is not a rebuttal), and just repeat yourself.

Why do you suppose that only theists are claiming what you claimed? Why do you suppose that when we had this discussion on RF about two weeks ago in a long thread we had only theists arguing for this incoherent position, and only people who reject faith for reason were disagreeing with them? Are only the faith-based thinkers reasonable, and only those that prefer reason unreasonable? It's that or the opposite. I say it's the opposite, and I reject faith. You say it's the other way around, or at least imply it when you argue with the other theists against the reasoning of the critical thinkers. Is that the position you'd like to take? Do you want to imply that people that respect reason and make valid arguments (sound conclusions FOLLOWING fallacy-free reason) are wrong, and those that decide what they wish were true and then attempt to make it look like they came to that position imitating reason are correct?

 

[Sheldon]

All is subject to opinion, incl shape of the earth

This shows where " philosophy" will get you.

I'm going to examine the underlying spiritual trend of the esoteric direction that I think the sentence was heading, and subject it to my personal spiritual testimony.

I'll let you know how that goes, as long as you respect the belief I glean from the spiritual vibrations it produces. I'm done with people offering opinions that my opinion of their rigid opinion is too stringently rigid for their opinion to be given a fair shake.

That's just too rigid a bigotry for me dude....or them...wait? Something....I mean yeah, scientism does my head in...

 

[Sheldon]

PureX said: ↑
I was just reading some of the more recent additional information on wiki about "scientism", and could not help but notice the striking resemblance between many of the 'atheists' that participate on this site, and the characterizations being offered on wiki regarding "scientism".

Yes, I've noticed that too.

Excellent, perhaps you can offer a few of these "many examples", as PureX couldn't quote a single one?

This is a relief, I'd hate for my bigoted view that all claims should be treated the same to go unchallenged.

 

[Sheldon]

atheists love to snuggle up to science

Oh your god, that's horrendous.

I'm glad you pray'd that to everyone, and didn't just use electricity a computer, and the internet, as they'd leap all over that nonsense.

You know what those atheists are like, with their acceptance of science, the sheer cheek does my head right in....

 

[Sheldon]

but more particularly that science somehow proves (or justifies, or something) their own atheism.

Does science justify your atheism in all the thousands of deities you don't believe are real? Only I'd hate for us to be using different methods and all?

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists (like most people) aren't always paragons of intellectual consistency.

As opposed to theists you mean?

Straw man fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

How can anything be proven without use of logic? And how can logic be "proven" (or justified) without circularity or by appeal to intuition?

 

[Sheldon]

From the OP:

PureX said: ↑It's quite puzzling, and it gives me the impression of there being some sort of cult-like phenomena involved.

Dang, we've been outed.

Oi!

First rule of atheist club, don't talk about atheist club.