Scientism

[1137]

Speaking as an experienced meditator and a mystic and quite knowledgeable in these areas, what you are saying here is not exactly accurate. If we are talking about actual meditation practice, and not merely "pondering an idea" sort of use to the word "to meditate upon an idea", but where one rather engages in a practice of sitting still and entering into altered states of consciousness through various techniques, the ones which involve focusing on deity forms and/or mantra chants is actually not the highest forms of meditation. They are powerful, to be sure, but on the scale of types of meditation practice, deity mysticism comes in second up on the ladder. First is nature mysticism, then deity mysticism above that, then causal mysticism above that, and finally nondual mysticism at the top.

I wouldn't begin to put forth the highest forms of meditation myself, and I trust you when you say these are not the highest. I believe that to be irrelevant. Though. What the data seems to be suggesting is that a mantra based on Kundalini rising should be more effective than the mantra "I'm made of atoms". What you're saying about mysticism is fascinating to me, but it isn't really the point with the mystical meditation. I actually think the term may be "spiritual" mediation and I got it wrong, but that would ust cause the same issues anyways, hah.

What it sounds like you are describing is not mysticism nor meditation at all, but simply "beliefs". Mysticism is not a belief. It's experienced states of consciousness itself in progressive stages. What you are talking about is before any actual mystical states and deals in the area of someone who has a God belief, who maybe prays to their deity. Belief is at the bottom rung, faith is a rung above that, direct firsthand experience is above that (mysticism), and adaptation or integration is the top rung on that ladder. What you are talking about is dealing with belief and faith, not mysticism. You are describing the difference between having faith and not having faith. You are saying that faith is better than no faith, equating no faith with a general pessimistic view of life.

Fair enough. In that case, it seems that faith/spiritual based meditation has more positive benefits than secular meditation. Also, I am not necessarily equating no faith with a pessimistic world view. I was an no spirituality atheist for a long time and it helped make my view of the universe even more poetic than before, more glorious. I certainly didn't see meaninglessness or any related topic as negative, I found it freeing. What is being said here is simply that meditation best on faith or spiritual ideas seems superior to meditation that does not. Based on the studies, that's about all we can say right now.

I'll add here, that if you are talking about actual meditators, there is not one I could imagine who would ever say a practice that does not involve a deity form (Buddhism would be one), see the universe as meaningless. If you hear them speak of "Emptiness", that absolutely does not mean a "blank" a "zero" or devoid of any meaning. It simply means it is Formlessness from which all forms arise. "It" is "empty" of value in the sense it is the Source of all value, not "a value". It is Truth itself, out of which all relative truths arise. That is not at all the same as saying the universe is meaningless! It is to know and rest in the causal Source of all meaning, as opposed to hanging onto this belief or that belief as a substitute Ground. Very, very different meaning that what I hear you describe. This not at all the same as someone who calls themselves an atheist, debating about whether Jehovah God is real or not. It goes way beyond a debate about beliefs.

I didn't mean to imply that no god equates to meaninglessness, I was simply giving an example. Buddhism would probably fall under spiritually based meditation because of its ideas of nirvana and such. I agree that "emptiness" is not a term inherently negative, and I understand equating emptiness with Truth.

Very interesting article. The article seems to suggest, however, that the benefits of R/S can be correlated with natural/physical stimuli. For example, prayer can be assumed to help people battling cancer. But, this is not necessarily or even reasonably associated with God helping the patient, but instead with the fact that prayer is beneficial physically to the patient (which is pretty common knowledge in psychotherapy). The act of communicating, the presence of hope, and the belief that life does not end at death causes a person to heal more quickly, not because of God's help (or at least we shouldn't just assume this without more evidence, as the benefits can easily be explained by medicine), but because a positive attitude can improve one's condition immensely. Just read The Secret and you will see countless examples of this.

I never tried to say anything about the existence of God or not related to R/S, nor did the studies provided try and prove/disprove the existence of anything spiritual at all. The point is to see how spiritual practice impact our every day lives.

Well, whether religious belief provides benefits to the believers, is itself a scientific claim ameneable to objective inquiry. It is entirely possible. And probably this is one reason why religious belief has been naturally selected to populate the brains of most members of our species.

But of course, even if true, that would not say anything about the ontological plausibility of the object of the belief. For instance, kids who believe in Santa are probably happier than kids who don't. Who knows?

But all this would just prove that believing in possibly imaginary realities makes them feel better. Period.

Ciao

- viole

That is a valid if vague way of putting it. I mean, you wouldn't knock someone for taking antidepressants when they help, would you? Yes, the usage has to be monitored by professional but that already describes the medical industry (to an extent).

 

[leibowde84]

I wouldn't begin to put forth the highest forms of meditation myself, and I trust you when you say these are not the highest. I believe that to be irrelevant. Though. What the data seems to be suggesting is that a mantra based on Kundalini rising should be more effective than the mantra "I'm made of atoms". What you're saying about mysticism is fascinating to me, but it isn't really the point with the mystical meditation. I actually think the term may be "spiritual" mediation and I got it wrong, but that would ust cause the same issues anyways, hah.



Fair enough. In that case, it seems that faith/spiritual based meditation has more positive benefits than secular meditation. Also, I am not necessarily equating no faith with a pessimistic world view. I was an no spirituality atheist for a long time and it helped make my view of the universe even more poetic than before, more glorious. I certainly didn't see meaninglessness or any related topic as negative, I found it freeing. What is being said here is simply that meditation best on faith or spiritual ideas seems superior to meditation that does not. Based on the studies, that's about all we can say right now.



I didn't mean to imply that no god equates to meaninglessness, I was simply giving an example. Buddhism would probably fall under spiritually based meditation because of its ideas of nirvana and such. I agree that "emptiness" is not a term inherently negative, and I understand equating emptiness with Truth.



I never tried to say anything about the existence of God or not related to R/S, nor did the studies provided try and prove/disprove the existence of anything spiritual at all. The point is to see how spiritual practice impact our every day lives.



That is a valid if vague way of putting it. I mean, you wouldn't knock someone for taking antidepressants when they help, would you? Yes, the usage has to be monitored by professional but that already describes the medical industry (to an extent).

It would be interesting to get more specific with the physical benefits of R/S. If we were to localize them, we might be able to duplicate them more easily without the patient's necessary belief in the supernatural.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It would be interesting to get more specific with the physical benefits of R/S. If we were to localize them, we might be able to duplicate them more easily without the patient's necessary belief in the supernatural.

This.

I welcome this research. I would absolutely like to understand the underlying mechanisms and produce positive outcomes for as many as possible.

 

[Typist]

Words are useful when not mistaken as Truth itself. A finger pointing to the moon is useful.

I would agree that words which offer simple, practical, widely accessible instructions on how to have the experience often called meditation are useful. Simple words, words which one high school kid could share with another.

All explanations of such experience are really steps away from the experience. All explanations of that experience are really a way of claiming that the experience itself isn't enough, which imho, isn't true.

A similar situation exists in Christianity. Imho, the genius of Christianity is that the experience of love is enough. The ideological structure of Christianity is really a claim that the experience of love isn't enough, that it's weak, that it needs embellishment, additions, improvements and so on. The ideological structure of Christianity is really a lack of faith in love.

We don't like the ruthless simplicity of meditation and love being enough. We just don't like it, especially we philosophers. Such simplicity leaves us with no excuses, no place to hide, no way to put things off, no becoming ladder to climb, no mountain to conquer, no big accomplishment to look forward to, no way to be an expert, no way to be right or superior or any of that.

We're silent. Or we're not.

We love. Or we don't.

Ruthlessly simple.

And bad news for we philosophers.

The real key is to have the mystical experience, and then we can talk about it.

The real key is to be silent, and/or to love, and be happy with that.

Silence and love are two sides of the same coin, surrender.

People usually come to silence and love when they discover that not surrendering isn't working out very well for them.

We try thinking a bunch of stuff and it makes us nutty. When we get nutty enough our minds open to silence.

We try making everything all about us and it makes us nutty. When we get nutty enough our minds open to love.

Talk is cheap, and this post is worthless, an argument with itself, but I guess it's fun to hear the keys go clickety clack, clickety clack, clickety clack.

 

[Windwalker]

I wouldn't begin to put forth the highest forms of meditation myself, and I trust you when you say these are not the highest. I believe that to be irrelevant. Though. What the data seems to be suggesting is that a mantra based on Kundalini rising should be more effective than the mantra "I'm made of atoms". What you're saying about mysticism is fascinating to me, but it isn't really the point with the mystical meditation. I actually think the term may be "spiritual" mediation and I got it wrong, but that would ust cause the same issues anyways, hah.

I think there is still some confusion in terms as what you're saying about mantras and meditation doesn't fit correctly. I'll try to help you a little with what I hear you saying. First a clarification of terms. A mantra is not a belief, or something you tell yourself over and over, such a philosophical materialism view that we are nothing but atoms. That's a very colloquial/political use of the word "mantra", such as "he repeats that same mantra of trickle-down economics all the time". That is not a mantra as understood when speaking of a religious practice! I know of no one, except maybe some strange clown making fun of religion who sits in a lotus position with his prayer beads repeating, "I'm made of atoms. I'm made of atoms. I'm made of atoms" 108 times as he focus on a statue of Richard Dawkins with a devotional candle in front of it.

An actual religious mantra may or may not have a deity form in it. Om mani padme hum, is the most familiar mantra in the world, and roughly translates "Jewel in the Lotus". Mantra are richly symbolic of various sought after qualities, such as compassion, love, peace, etc. Om Shanti Om, is simply chanting "Peace". A mantra could actually be anything you want, for that matter as long as it had some depth of meaning to if, if your focus is on the qualities. But it could also even be just be a totally made up word! The point of the matra is the practice itself. It's the repetition, letting the discursive mind that thinks about things relax and sink into the movement, the sound, the repetitive vocalizing. It carries one into meditative states of consciousness. I really is not about the "Ideas" in the words, it's about the vocalizing and concentration on the sounds. Talking in tongues actually is a type of mantra, and it's effects are quite similar. I like calling them "jazz mantras".

So again, a mantra is not so much about a conceptual ideas, thinking and pondering its meaning to come up with a better idea about them, but a focal point to relax one into meditative states. And neither is meditation. Meditation is not thinking on an idea. Meditation is getting rid of your ideas! The exact opposite.

Fair enough. In that case, it seems that faith/spiritual based meditation has more positive benefits than secular meditation. Also, I am not necessarily equating no faith with a pessimistic world view. I was an no spirituality atheist for a long time and it helped make my view of the universe even more poetic than before, more glorious. I certainly didn't see meaninglessness or any related topic as negative, I found it freeing. What is being said here is simply that meditation best on faith or spiritual ideas seems superior to meditation that does not. Based on the studies, that's about all we can say right now.

I think you are making some mistakes in how you understand these studies. Let's step back a minute. Meditation is very specific. So is faith. One can believe in God and derive benefit from that exercise of faith, without ever once in their whole lives do any actual meditation work. The studies about the effects of having a belief, are not talking about an actual meditation practice. That's very different. If some average person who goes to a church regularly looks up to God in prayer, what they are doing in effect is a certain type of meditation through a focused intention. The focus the mind upward to God, and it focuses their positive energies in their own bodies and their own minds, which has a positive effect on them. But that of course depends on the type of prayer. Someone who prays "Give me, give me, give me, Jesus," is focusing on themselves narcissistically. That's not reaching upward beyond yourself, but is an infantile seeking for mommy's breast to satisfy their cravings with. That is not going to have the same effect psychologically or spiritually.

Now that's just the exercise of faith through the practice of prayer. But meditation is a full-blown, all out, technology of mind transformation. And those all have the same effects, because anyone who is engaging in those is in fact on a path of seeking higher mind. Their intention, or faith, is inherently a part of the practice itself because you are devoted to something higher that you are seeking towards. Inherent in it is faith, regardless of being a theist or an atheist. So again there truly is no such thing as "secular meditation," unless of course you're just talking the Walmart version of meditation, the consumerist feel good, Buddha in a box form of meditation that takes things like Yoga and turns them it exercise centers with your Yoga attire. That is the only thing I would consider as "secular", inasmuch as it is not about spiritual transformation. I equate that "secular meditation" with cheezie commercialism.

Now, if your studies are citing meditation as well, which I would hope they do, that's an entirely different animal on a different scale and of a different magnitude. But again, it may or may not be theistic, may or may not include mantras, because at this point your swimming in the ocean, not simply "believing in it". Believing in it has a benefit, but once you're swimming, you've left your beliefs like clothing on the shore next to your towel as you swim naked freely in its Infinite waters.

I didn't mean to imply that no god equates to meaninglessness, I was simply giving an example. Buddhism would probably fall under spiritually based meditation because of its ideas of nirvana and such. I agree that "emptiness" is not a term inherently negative, and I understand equating emptiness with Truth.

Again, you are mistaken that meditation is about ideas. All meditation is about spiritual release. It's about moving beyond the secular into the higher dimensions of reality realized in the self. It's all spiritual. None of it is secular.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If I may inject? Why is mythology/symbolism being reduced to an "explanatory system"? Are you suggesting there is nothing in myth or symbolism other than ways to explain the natural world? Isn't it also a way to express human experience? It's also way to express human aspiration, and spiritual awakening? Is everything under the sun a matter of scientific inquiry, including the nature of human love and relations, spiritual desire and expression, art, poetry, dance,

Finally ready to respond to the above. See your quote below.

I think there is still some confusion in terms as what you're saying about mantras and meditation doesn't fit correctly. I'll try to help you a little with what I hear you saying. First a clarification of terms. . .
.

You have a definitive idea of what these terms and concepts are, and what they should be. Does everyone who shares mystical experiences share those same terms? Why should they be "clarified?" Should they?

I would say yes, you're right. There is no way to intelligently understand these things without some clarification of terms, as you put it.

But if it's impossible to pin anything down, you won't ever agree on anything. I think you have it pinned down for yourself. . . But unlike scientific inquiry, no one but you will ever understand it or have any shared methodology or language to agree with it. A rejection of a shared methodology assures it.

 

[lovemuffin]

But if it's impossible to pin anything down, you won't ever agree on anything. I think you have it pinned down for yourself. . . But unlike scientific inquiry, no one but you will ever understand it or have any shared methodology or language to agree with it. A rejection of a shared methodology assures it.

I think you're too pessimistic. There is a fairly extensive body of literature that speaks about mysticism or religious experience in similar ways as windwalker does, and a fair amount of philosophical development of those themes in comparative religion. It's true that much of the language is vague and polysemic, but that's par for the course for many fields which end up developing a more technical and academic vocabulary. It may be true that from the perspective of the mystic the language will never be entirely adequate, but it's certainly also true that from the perspective of a sociologist or psychologist studying religion, or religious studies, or philosophy of religion, linguistic clarification is possible.

From a methodological standpoint, you could see some of the writings of Raimon Panikkar on inter-religious dialogue and its methodology.

 

[1137]

It would be interesting to get more specific with the physical benefits of R/S. If we were to localize them, we might be able to duplicate them more easily without the patient's necessary belief in the supernatural.

I agree, I'd love to be a part of such a field of study.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think you're too pessimistic. There is a fairly extensive body of literature that speaks about mysticism or religious experience in similar ways as windwalker does, and a fair amount of philosophical development of those themes in comparative religion. It's true that much of the language is vague and polysemic, but that's par for the course for many fields which end up developing a more technical and academic vocabulary. It may be true that from the perspective of the mystic the language will never be entirely adequate, but it's certainly also true that from the perspective of a sociologist or psychologist studying religion, or religious studies, or philosophy of religion, linguistic clarification is possible.

From a methodological standpoint, you could see some of the writings of Raimon Panikkar on inter-religious dialogue and its methodology.

I agree with you 100%, but it supports the OP. Thanks for the link.

 

[Windwalker]

Finally ready to respond to the above. See your quote below.

You have a definitive idea of what these terms and concepts are, and what they should be. Does everyone who shares mystical experiences share those same terms? Why should they be "clarified?" Should they?

When speaking mantras and meditation these a technical terms, so yes, they should be defined. This has absolutely nothing to do with mythology and religious symbolism. Those are by their very nature open meant to be open to interpretation. They are not technical language.

Care to try again?

I would say yes, you're right. There is no way to intelligently understand these things without some clarification of terms, as you put it.

Then they cease to be myth! I very highly suggest you read this wonderful article that should put fine point on this for you. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

Here's a section from it that says very well the problem you seem to be having here between understanding myth versus technical language:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.
​

All I can say as I read this is, amen! He nails it.

But if it's impossible to pin anything down, you won't ever agree on anything. I think you have it pinned down for yourself. . . But unlike scientific inquiry, no one but you will ever understand it or have any shared methodology or language to agree with it. A rejection of a shared methodology assures it.

Nope. Please read the article I linked to.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Intriguing but can you define for me the difference in secular V mystic meditation and further, are you referring to any particular form of mystic meditation? I agree that spirituality has a definitive place in the realm of science and what we do. My interest, of neccisity, lies in healthcare applications. Even now, medicine has embraced spirituality as having a place in the care of people. Can you explain what you mean by your definitions please?

 

[JoStories]

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.

I strongly disagree. I have studied mysticism for quite some time and found it to have been a part of the human condition for millennia. If mysticism, as you say is so unscientific, can you explain its presence in all forms of culture and most faiths or religions since time began?

 

[JoStories]

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.

I am not sure I would go that far leibowde. I would say there are some theories and concepts that, of neccisity, have to be studied qualitatively and do not lend themselves to scientific experimentation. There are plenty of ideas from psychology that must be studied in such a fashion as not to breach ethics. Consider the experiments by Watson with the boy Albert. How about work with dreams?

 

[JoStories]

When speaking mantras and meditation these a technical terms, so yes, they should be defined. This has absolutely nothing to do with mythology and religious symbolism. Those are by their very nature open meant to be open to interpretation. They are not technical language.

Care to try again?


Then they cease to be myth! I very highly suggest you read this wonderful article that should put fine point on this for you. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

Here's a section from it that says very well the problem you seem to be having here between understanding myth versus technical language:

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.
​

All I can say as I read this is, amen! He nails it.


Nope. Please read the article I linked to.

Another great article windwalker. I have bookmarked it for later and I agree, it's excellent. Thanks!

 

[JoStories]

I understood you. Scientism is adherence to the scientific method above all other sources of inquiry. I still don't understand how this is a perversion of the purpose of science or how it negatively effects creativity.

Can you kindly answer my questions specifically? I am interested in your responses to each. Being general about the idea is not going to provide me with any kind of understanding, as my point is that, imho, your generalization is flawed.

What if the scientific method fails to answer the questions? I know you loathe things that cannot be proven but there are many concepts that have no explanation as yet. And yes, I freely admit there could and easily may be explanations forthcoming. But what of them leibowde?

 

[lovemuffin]

I very highly suggest you read this wonderful article that should put fine point on this for you. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

It might be asking too much to expect anyone to read this, but the synchronicity of events amusing me. I wrote a blog on this topic a few days ago. It's probably not as good as this article, but it captures how I think about it: Thoughts on Biblical Interpretation | Ἐν Αἰνίγματι

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Art is a mode of human inquiry.

No it is not. It is a means of human expression. The aim of art is not to obtain and objective understanding of reality, but to express thoughts, ideas and experiences.

It's a way of exploring the world around us as much as the sciences are,

Absolutely not. Science is specifically for dealing with objective facts - art deals (almost exclusively) with the subjective and metaphorical.

and it's a mode scientism rejects as it only accepts empiricism and reason. Art is the antithesis of both of these things; it's an exercise in subjectivity and visceral emotion.

Again, you're creating a false dichotomy. One can exalt empiricism and reason as the best methods of inquiry while still seeing the importance of, and respecting, artistic expression. No conflict whatsoever exists between these two things.

It throws fact out the window for the purpose of telling a good story or making something beautiful.

Which is exactly why it isn't a method of inquiry and exactly why it doesn't run contrary to a the scientism world view as you defined it. Science deals with facts, and is the best method we have for understanding said facts, while art does not deal with facts - so the two are not in conflict.

This is unacceptable to the philosophy of scientism. Things must be scientific, or they lack value and merit.

It says no such thing in the definition you provided. The definition you provided simply states that scientism is believing that science is the best method we have for understanding objective facts, and should be the first option when attempting to understand facts. If art does not deal with objective facts (as you yourself has stated) how are they in conflict? How does a scientism-ist world view necessarily mean that art "lacks value and merit"?

If your favorite color is green just because it pleases you, that's not good enough. There has to be an empirical reason for your favorite color being green, and scientism will not accept "just because." It refuses to allow for magic and mystery, or for storytelling that suspends fact.

You're simply creating a false dichotomy where a conflict simply doesn't exist. I'll put it this way - here are two positions:

1) I believe that the scientific method is absolutely the best way of understanding objective reality that is available to us. If we wish to truly understand the facts about reality, we should utilise the scientific method. No other more reliable method exists for analysing and reaching objective conclusions about reality than the scientific method. All subjects can be understood and analysed scientifically, no matter how seemingly complex or subjective, and science is the best method we have for objectively understanding anything about reality and our experiences in it. (Note that this is practically the definition of scientism you provided earlier)

2) I believe art is a valuable form of expression which enriches our lives by allowing us to experience things that we may not normally experience, through embracing fiction, imagination and creativity. It colours our lives and permeates almost every aspect of our culture. It is an excellent means for conveying thoughts, emotions and ideas, but is also an invaluable tool for pure entertainment, giving us brief respite from our daily lives but also allowing for deeper, somber ideas to run deep into our brains. It challenges us to think, and manipulates our emotions to create experiences that - while not real - live with us in our minds until we die.

Now, I'm telling you right now: I hold both of these positions. Precisely where is the conflict?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What if the scientific method fails to answer the questions?

This seems a rather odd question to ask, considering science is a progressive method that is constantly self-improving. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that science could *never* answer a specific question, so there's no reason to assume it could "fail" to answer a particular question. If science cannot answer a particular question, that doesn't mean it never can or will - it just means it doesn't have an answer yet.

I know you loathe things that cannot be proven but there are many concepts that have no explanation as yet. And yes, I freely admit there could and easily may be explanations forthcoming. But what of them leibowde?

I'm afraid I can only repeat your own question back at you: "What of them?"

 

[Typist]

Again, you are mistaken that meditation is about ideas. All meditation is about spiritual release.

Um, that's an idea, isn't it?

Why not just let nothing be nothing? Why keep trying to turn it in to a something?

 

[Windwalker]

If science cannot answer a particular question, that doesn't mean it never can or will - it just means it doesn't have an answer yet.

This sound strangely like the promissory notes issue by the religious, saying God holds all the answers, and when we die God will reveal all to us which escapes our understanding today. Kind of like God answers all prayers, yes, no, or wait. Ironic when compared this way, isn't it? Makes it sound like just shifting what we are placing our faith in, from God to Science when looked at in this light.