Scientism

[1137]

I’ve been criticized a lot for using the term “scientism”, and I would like to argue that this criticism is unwarranted and mistaken. When I do a quick Google search for the definition of scientism I see that it is “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques”. I do not think this definition does it much justice. More appropriately, scientism is a religious exaltation of science and anti-theism.


I want to give an example of what I am talking about here. Say that you are presenting a research experiment that found mystical meditation benefits one more than secular meditation ((Pargament, K.), A. (2013, March 22). What role do religion and spirituality play in mental health? Retrieved fromhttp://What Role Do Religion and Spirituality Play In Mental Health? What does this mean? Does it imply that mysticism is true? Absolutely not. Does it tell us that god exists? Nope. What it tells us is that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular. The logical conclusion then, if you are going to meditate, is to engage in mystical meditation, even if you’re simply feigning belief. I, who fall under “scientism”, tell you that you are absolutely wrong that mystical meditation is more beneficial. It is impossible because no benefits can come from religion. Mysticism is pseudo-science and, as such, should be avoided at all costs.


Do you see what happened there? I reject empirical evidence based on experimental research because it contradicts with my belief that there can be no benefits from anything religious of any kind. This is the religious anti-theistic side of scientism. Another example is gnostic atheism, the belief that one knows there is no god. A major problem when it comes to science and spirituality is that the spiritual realm is, by definition, beyond science. The gods exist beyond the dimensions of time and space. We are simply third-dimensional beings on one planet with all information being gathered by a single, rather moronic species. To claim then, based simple on a lack of evidence (which itself is a pseudo-scientific route) that one knows that there is not something beyond detection is a pure – and rather massive – leap of faith. This is scientism, a religious exaltation of science.


Anyways, this is something I tend to see more and more. I have no idea if there are any sort of studies on it or anything, I’m just giving my two cents.

 

[Laika]

Do you see what happened there? I reject empirical evidence based on experimental research because it contradicts with my belief that there can be no benefits from anything religious of any kind. This is the religious anti-theistic side of scientism. Another example is gnostic atheism, the belief that one knows there is no god. A major problem when it comes to science and spirituality is that the spiritual realm is, by definition, beyond science. The gods exist beyond the dimensions of time and space. We are simply third-dimensional beings on one planet with all information being gathered by a single, rather moronic species. To claim then, based simple on a lack of evidence (which itself is a pseudo-scientific route) that one knows that there is not something beyond detection is a pure – and rather massive – leap of faith. This is scientism, a religious exaltation of science.

I'm finding Marxism has this problem because it claims to be "Scientific" and is necessarily a form of gnostic/strong atheism. In the "small print" of the ideology there is a conflict over the definition of "false consciousness" which is basically an attack on Anti-Theism and more broadly on philosophical idealism. Specifically, there is a question that attributing the cause to a religious or spiritual source is an illusion, but the evidence itself exists independently of what a person believes. Consequently, in your example, the mental health benefits of meditation would be attributed to a psychological process rather than a spiritual one.

Marxism combines a political component to anti-theism (in which religion retains the existence of the ruling class and therefore systems of exploitation) and a scientific one (in which religion is an illusion). Typically, the political side won out and attempts to investigate religious, spiritual and paranormal phenomena to find rational/material/secular causes didn't gain much credence as it was implicitly assumed there always were such causes even if they were not understood.

The idea that science cannot attain knowledge in certain areas is the result of a form of strong agnosticism, in which certain subjects becomes "unknowable" by definition because these things are not immediately obvious to sense-data or the senses are assumed to be at fault. Marxism goes round this problem by insisting that everything is 'material' and there is no spiritual realm beyond our perception. This therefore means everything in existence has objective properties which can be observed and known and hence scientifically studied. I'm still figuring out how it deals with the subject of consciousness (and the spirit which is derived from it), but it appears that materialism is taken to be a self-evident proposition based on a reliance on sense-data and asserting their reliability, where as religious positions are an "error" in abstract reasoning.

 

[Mycroft]

I've found that the word 'scientism' is most often deployed when someone spiritual or religious has no way of backing up their claim scientifically. It's a filibuster.

 

[philbo]

What it tells us is that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular. The logical conclusion then, if you are going to meditate, is to engage in mystical meditation, even if you’re simply feigning belief.

That isn't a logical conclusion without a similar study of people feigning belief: what you think is going to happen plays a strong part in the placebo effect, and it's a reasonable assumption that the same might be true for mystical vs secular meditation.

I, who fall under “scientism”, tell you that you are absolutely wrong that mystical meditation is more beneficial. It is impossible because no benefits can come from religion. Mysticism is pseudo-science and, as such, should be avoided at all costs.

Sounds a bit like what you describe as "scientism" is fundamentally unscientific. Because mysticism is not so much pseudo-science but fundamentally unscientific, almost the antithesis to science, means you shouldn't use it for, say, working out what the spec for a beam should be based on a known structural load; but if it can be shown to have mental health benefits for those who believe then "avoided at all costs" is a bit draconian.

Science goes where the evidence leads.

ISTM that an accusation of "scientism" may simply be a lack of understanding of what the science is.& an attempt to avoid scientifically sound conclusions.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

[IQUOTE="1137, post: 4256615, member: 54069"]’ve been criticized a lot for using the term “scientism”, and I would like to argue that this criticism is unwarranted and mistaken. When I do a quick Google search for the definition of scientism I see that it is “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques”. I do not think this definition does it much justice. More appropriately, scientism is a religious exaltation of science and anti-theism.[/QUOTE]

There is one word in that definition - "power." What do you think that means? There is difference between thinking that you have an accurate description of something and believing that description has power.

[IQUOTE="1137, post: 4256615, member: 54069"]
I want to give an example of what I am talking about here. Say that you are presenting a research experiment that found mystical meditation benefits one more than secular meditation ((Pargament, K.), A. (2013, March 22). What role do religion and spirituality play in mental health? Retrieved fromhttp://What Role Do Religion and Spirituality Play In Mental Health? What does this mean? Does it imply that mysticism is true? Absolutely not. Does it tell us that god exists? Nope. What it tells us is that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular. The logical conclusion then, if you are going to meditate, is to engage in mystical meditation, even if you’re simply feigning belief. I, who fall under “scientism”, tell you that you are absolutely wrong that mystical meditation is more beneficial. It is impossible because no benefits can come from religion. Mysticism is pseudo-science and, as such, should be avoided at all costs.[/QUOTE]

This is a link to an interview. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal article.

Who is making the claim that empirical evidence is wrong? Pargament claims that empirical research has often ignored the positive and negative psychological effects of religion, and suggests that they should be explored using the same standard of scientific inquiry. Sounds good.

Not sure I understand the problem, other than the fallacy of assuming that anyone who is not religious is automatically going to discount any research that suggests a positive impact of religious belief. Making such a claim would be a strawman and I know you aren't trying to do that.

 

[LuisDantas]

The interpretation of Scientism that the OP proposes is just unworkable, IMO.

It fails to address in any clear way what it understands "secular meditation" to be. It relies on a concept that is too vague to be useful ("religion"). And it more than slightly suggests a failure at understanding what science is (to say nothing of anti-theism).

Scientism as I understand it is the derangement shown by the "intelligent design" movement and by kardecist spiritists, among others, who invoke the word "science" with no functional understanding of what it means - mainly to yield it as a mystical talisman of sorts.

It is a very serious problem, but it is not "secular". And it is not "exaltation of science", but rather the defacement and misrepresentation of it.

 

[Windwalker]

The interpretation of Scientism that the OP proposes is just unworkable, IMO.

It fails to address in any clear way what it understands "secular meditation" to be. It relies on a concept that is too vague to be useful ("religion"). And it more than slightly suggests a failure at understanding what science is (to say nothing of anti-theism).

I too find my head spinning in discerning the use of terms in the OP. I have no idea what "secular meditation" versus "mystical meditation" means. I'm not even sure the use of the word meditation is being understood. What the hell is "secular meditation"? Does this mean "non-theistic" in the sense of say Buddhist meditation? I would never call Buddhism "secular", as it is in fact a religion. And regardless whether meditation involved deity forms or none, it leads to "mystical" states of awareness, the sense of oneness of all things, the ineffability of life and reality. So it's all mystical when you enter into these states of consciousness. Such divisions of secular and mystical are meaningless.

Scientism as I understand it is the derangement shown by the "intelligent design" movement and by kardecist spiritists, among others, who invoke the word "science" with no functional understanding of what it means - mainly to yield it as a mystical talisman of sorts.

That is not what Scientism can be reduced to! That's absurd. Scientism is really quite simple. It's not science. It's a belief. It's a belief that Science, used with a capital S, is the single Authority to be looked to and called upon to answer all questions surrounding the nature of Reality, with a capital R. It is really a taking of science and elevating it to be a replacement for Church Authority. If not claimed in name as a belief, certainly in practice many are doing just this, trying to reduce all of life to questions that science alone can be the Final Authority. That is not doing science, that is a philosophical and even a religious belief.

I'm not sure why reasonable people cannot see that there are plenty of people who co-opt the role of science this way, making into a religious belief as opposed to being simply a very powerful and well-respected tool? Maybe it's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge? I don't know why, since it does in fact exist. It doesn't mean everyone who embraces science is guilty of Scientism. I certainly and not guilty of that, but I engage with plenty who are.

It is a very serious problem, but it is not "secular". And it is not "exaltation of science", but rather the defacement and misrepresentation of it.

Why is it not an "exaltation of science"? It most certainly is for the reasons I stated. It's really like a form of Positivism. Your argument to the contrary offers no valid counter points.

 

[leibowde84]

I’ve been criticized a lot for using the term “scientism”, and I would like to argue that this criticism is unwarranted and mistaken. When I do a quick Google search for the definition of scientism I see that it is “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques”. I do not think this definition does it much justice. More appropriately, scientism is a religious exaltation of science and anti-theism.


I want to give an example of what I am talking about here. Say that you are presenting a research experiment that found mystical meditation benefits one more than secular meditation ((Pargament, K.), A. (2013, March 22). What role do religion and spirituality play in mental health? Retrieved fromhttp://What Role Do Religion and Spirituality Play In Mental Health? What does this mean? Does it imply that mysticism is true? Absolutely not. Does it tell us that god exists? Nope. What it tells us is that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular. The logical conclusion then, if you are going to meditate, is to engage in mystical meditation, even if you’re simply feigning belief. I, who fall under “scientism”, tell you that you are absolutely wrong that mystical meditation is more beneficial. It is impossible because no benefits can come from religion. Mysticism is pseudo-science and, as such, should be avoided at all costs.


Do you see what happened there? I reject empirical evidence based on experimental research because it contradicts with my belief that there can be no benefits from anything religious of any kind. This is the religious anti-theistic side of scientism. Another example is gnostic atheism, the belief that one knows there is no god. A major problem when it comes to science and spirituality is that the spiritual realm is, by definition, beyond science. The gods exist beyond the dimensions of time and space. We are simply third-dimensional beings on one planet with all information being gathered by a single, rather moronic species. To claim then, based simple on a lack of evidence (which itself is a pseudo-scientific route) that one knows that there is not something beyond detection is a pure – and rather massive – leap of faith. This is scientism, a religious exaltation of science.


Anyways, this is something I tend to see more and more. I have no idea if there are any sort of studies on it or anything, I’m just giving my two cents.

I think this is a mis-characterization at best. The ones that you are complaining about are not against anything religious, but those things must present the same objective evidence. In your example, "scientism" is not being anti-religious, but, instead, would not merely "settle" with a supernatural explanation. They would keep searching, being OK with the fact that they just haven't figured out the reasoning yet. Those that do "settle" (those that see some kind of religious miracle or supernatural cause) seem to have given up on the search. I think that is a horrible thing, impeding to the gaining of human understanding of the world around us.

I am a theist, but I admire the scientific process for this reason. It is not satisfied with assumptions, and it never settles on some lack of ability for human understanding.

 

[1137]

I've found that the word 'scientism' is most often deployed when someone spiritual or religious has no way of backing up their claim scientifically. It's a filibuster.

Not only do I disagree, I'd say this seems to be the minority of cases.

 

[leibowde84]

Not only do I disagree, I'd say this seems to be the minority of cases.

Wasn't that your whole point, though. That spiritual truths shouldn't have to be backed up scientifically?

 

[1137]

That isn't a logical conclusion without a similar study of people feigning belief: what you think is going to happen plays a strong part in the placebo effect, and it's a reasonable assumption that the same might be true for mystical vs secular meditation.


Sounds a bit like what you describe as "scientism" is fundamentally unscientific. Because mysticism is not so much pseudo-science but fundamentally unscientific, almost the antithesis to science, means you shouldn't use it for, say, working out what the spec for a beam should be based on a known structural load; but if it can be shown to have mental health benefits for those who believe then "avoided at all costs" is a bit draconian.

Science goes where the evidence leads.

ISTM that an accusation of "scientism" may simply be a lack of understanding of what the science is.& an attempt to avoid scientifically sound conclusions.

As I read this you seem to say one thing and reach a separate conclusion. The very point of scientism is that it is non-scientific. You might not involve mysticism in building a structure, but you wouldn't use biology either. This doesn't make biology automatically useless. Maybe mysticism is a tool of psychology same a hammer is a tool of construction?

 

[1137]

The interpretation of Scientism that the OP proposes is just unworkable, IMO.

It fails to address in any clear way what it understands "secular meditation" to be. It relies on a concept that is too vague to be useful ("religion"). And it more than slightly suggests a failure at understanding what science is (to say nothing of anti-theism).

Scientism as I understand it is the derangement shown by the "intelligent design" movement and by kardecist spiritists, among others, who invoke the word "science" with no functional understanding of what it means - mainly to yield it as a mystical talisman of sorts.

It is a very serious problem, but it is not "secular". And it is not "exaltation of science", but rather the defacement and misrepresentation of it.

You call something against science scientism? Haha that would be like if Christianity worshiped everyone but Christ or Buddhism hated Buddha! Secular meditation is a pretty straight forward idea. Are you praying in meditation? Opening chakras? Astral traveling? As for the definition of science, those who need a hand holding explanation of what science is tend to give poor responses anyways.

I'd say that fideism is what you're thinking of. The rejection of science/fact in favor of faith. Then again, I guess those who fit under scientism are fideists themselves.

 

[leibowde84]

As I read this you seem to say one thing and reach a separate conclusion. The very point of scientism is that it is non-scientific. You might not involve mysticism in building a structure, but you wouldn't use biology either. This doesn't make biology automatically useless. Maybe mysticism is a tool of psychology same a hammer is a tool of construction?

I think this is the problem. If supernatural reasoning is the best explanation available, then the information or evidence is merely lacking. It doesn't prove the supernatural belief in any way, it merely demonstrates that the person is not able to make an educated judgment as of yet.

 

[Looncall]

I too find my head spinning in discerning the use of terms in the OP. I have no idea what "secular meditation" versus "mystical meditation" means. I'm not even sure the use of the word meditation is being understood. What the hell is "secular meditation"? Does this mean "non-theistic" in the sense of say Buddhist meditation? I would never call Buddhism "secular", as it is in fact a religion. And regardless whether meditation involved deity forms or none, it leads to "mystical" states of awareness, the sense of oneness of all things, the ineffability of life and reality. So it's all mystical when you enter into these states of consciousness. Such divisions of secular and mystical are meaningless.


That is not what Scientism can be reduced to! That's absurd. Scientism is really quite simple. It's not science. It's a belief. It's a belief that Science, used with a capital S, is the single Authority to be looked to and called upon to answer all questions surrounding the nature of Reality, with a capital R. It is really a taking of science and elevating it to be a replacement for Church Authority. If not claimed in name as a belief, certainly in practice many are doing just this, trying to reduce all of life to questions that science alone can be the Final Authority. That is not doing science, that is a philosophical and even a religious belief.

I'm not sure why reasonable people cannot see that there are plenty of people who co-opt the role of science this way, making into a religious belief as opposed to being simply a very powerful and well-respected tool? Maybe it's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge? I don't know why, since it does in fact exist. It doesn't mean everyone who embraces science is guilty of Scientism. I certainly and not guilty of that, but I engage with plenty who are.


Why is it not an "exaltation of science"? It most certainly is for the reasons I stated. It's really like a form of Positivism. Your argument to the contrary offers no valid counter points.

Interesting. So, what other method reliably produces actual, verifiable information about reality?

 

[leibowde84]

You call something against science scientism? Haha that would be like if Christianity worshiped everyone but Christ or Buddhism hated Buddha! Secular meditation is a pretty straight forward idea. Are you praying in meditation? Opening chakras? Astral traveling? As for the definition of science, those who need a hand holding explanation of what science is tend to give poor responses anyways.

I'd say that fideism is what you're thinking of. The rejection of science/fact in favor of faith. Then again, I guess those who fit under scientism are fideists themselves.

If something cannot be proved using the scientific method of observation and experimentation, then it most likely shouldn't be considered a fact or truth.

 

[1137]

Wasn't that your whole point, though. That spiritual truths shouldn't have to be backed up scientifically?

Not at all. My main concern with scientism is the raising of science to an almost divine level. On one side we have tons of evidence showing benefits to religion, meditation, ritual, belief, and so on and on the other people denying this because they religiously dislike religion and believe everything is scientifically understandable.

Sorry my friend, but you quite missed the point!

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all. My main concern with scientism is the raising of science to an almost divine level. On one side we have tons of evidence showing benefits to religion, meditation, ritual, belief, and so on and on the other people denying this because they religiously dislike religion and believe everything is scientifically understandable.

Sorry my friend, but you quite missed the point!

Nope. I nailed your point actually. You just proved it with the claim that "Scientism" "believes that everything is scientifically understandable." You seem to think that certain things are not scientifically understandable, correct?

 

[Quintessence]

You might like this a bit better, 1337.

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

Here's the most relevant excerpt from it:

Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.

Drives me up the bloody wall, it does.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Feel free to take a single study on mystical meditation at face value if you like, but one of the main goals of scientific questioning is to question the answers to make sure that the answers are the truest and best answers that we can get. It would be anti-scientific to just rest on our laurels and accept that one study as being worth very much.

Just off the top of my head, there are plenty of studies into the Placebo Affect that would make me question the outcome of the hypothetical study that you used. Given what we know about Placebo's, couldn't the argument be made that your mystical mediation was only more beneficial than secular meditation BECAUSE the belief in mystical meditation was legitimate? And that's just one "out". There are plenty of others.

The only way that your analogy works is if you decide to stop questioning in pursuit of truth. Once you've stopped questioning, and allowed your biases to take over, then sure... Sure, you can believe that mystical meditation is more beneficial than secular mediation, shallowly implying that there is actually something mystical that happens during meditation; always holding out hope for some sense of validity to your belief that the supernatural is a real thing.

 

[leibowde84]

You might like this a bit better, 1337.

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

Here's the most relevant excerpt from it:



Drives me up the bloody wall, it does.

Why does it "drive you up the wall"? I feel like it is pretty reasonable to rely completely on empirical evidence, refusing to take anyone's word for anything without sufficient evidence. It's not the way that I choose to live my life, but I think it is completely understandable ... especially with all of the harm that religious beliefs seem to be causing these days.