Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh?

So... theology doesn't address questions such as how to build relationships with the gods, methods of worshiping the gods, attributes of the gods, and other various matters about the gods?

It certainly tries to. However, until the basic existence of a god has been established, anything that relies on the existence of that god (e.g. opinions about the god's attributes) is just navel-gazing, not based on anything.

Interesting. One must wonder how theology as a discipline came to exist, then. And yet it does. How did that happen?

It's not exactly a unique situation. There are "disciplines" related to all sorts of things based on nothing of substance: homeopathy, reiki, dowsing, etc.

As far as theology goes, you only need to take a few unfounded premises as given to have all sorts of arcane implications that can be explored. You can see something similar when you ask sci fi fans whether the USS Enterprise or a Star Destroyer would win in a fight.

 

[shunyadragon]

Huh?

So... theology doesn't address questions such as how to build relationships with the gods, methods of worshiping the gods, attributes of the gods, and other various matters about the gods?

Interesting. One must wonder how theology as a discipline came to exist, then. And yet it does. How did that happen?

Historically theology evolved to explain things outside the objective world they could observe without science, The problem is over the millennia by far most 'things' have been explained by science, and ancient tribal religions knowledge without science lacks grounding in today's world. Philosophy deals with the evolving 'thinking' human speculation on the nature of knowledge. It changes more over time then the theology of ancient religions.

Those that cling to ancient religious world views often feel threatened, because over time our physical world has an increasingly firm foundation and explanation in science and accusations of scientism reflect this insecurity. The extreme negative reaction often aggressive and hostile to atheism which many wrongfully associate with science reflects this insecurity.

 

[Quintessence]

It certainly tries to. However, until the basic existence of a god has been established, anything that relies on the existence of that god (e.g. opinions about the god's attributes) is just navel-gazing, not based on anything.

Okay, I guess all the arts and humanities are just navel-gazing and not based on anything. Cool, sounds great! Let's demolish all those from all of our educational institutions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, I guess all the arts and humanities are just navel-gazing and not based on anything. Cool, sounds great! Let's demolish all those from all of our educational institutions.

Sounds like you made a few leaps that I probably wouldn't agree with. Care to step through your thought process here?

 

[Quintessence]

Historically theology evolved to explain things outside the objective world they could observe without science, The problem is over the millennia by far most 'things' have been explained by science, and ancient tribal religions knowledge without science lacks grounding in today's world. Philosophy deals with the evolving 'thinking' human speculation on the nature of knowledge. It changes more over time then the theology of ancient religions.

Those that cling to ancient religious world views often feel threatened, because over time our physical world has an increasingly firm foundation and explanation in science and accusations of scientism reflect this insecurity. The extreme negative reaction often aggressive and hostile to atheism which many wrongfully associate with science reflects this insecurity.

This is quite an oversimplification and assumption train going on. We can do better.

 

[Quintessence]

Sounds like you made a few leaps that I probably wouldn't agree with. Care to step through your thought process here?

Not really. Just look into some philosophy of ontology and epistemology and figure it out from there. Then use it to casually dismiss literally every field of human knoweldge you don't like because you feel like it. It can be done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. Just look into some philosophy of ontology and epistemology and figure it out from there.

Is this your way of saying that you think these disciplines have proven the existence of gods?

Then use it to casually dismiss literally every field of human knoweldge you don't like because you feel like it. It can be done.

Not every field; just the baloney.

Effectively, theology is just a niche subspecialization within cryptozoology, but one that's very light on the biology.

 

[exchemist]

There's no such thing a scientism. It is a yet another strawman from creationists. Of course not all questions can be answered by science. But zero questions can be answered by theology.

No, there is such a thing, though it’s fairly rare. It is when someone tries to treat science as the only legitimate form of enquiry. Dawkins came close, though he has now mellowed somewhat I think.

Where I agree with you is that the term is often bandied around inappropriately, by creationists and others with an animus against science, as a lazy pejorative label.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would not conclude that zero questions cannot be answered in theology

If theology means the study of things that only believers believe like the right way to baptize or the right way to pray as opposed to academic pursuits such as comparative religion, the historical impact of Christianity, or the Bible as literature, and if answers means demonstrably correct answers that can be used to predict outcomes rather than unfalsifiable claims, then I agree that theology answers no question. I don't consider theology as I've defined it philosophy or an academic pursuit.

 

[PureX]

No, there is such a thing, though it’s fairly rare. It is when someone tries to treat science as the only legitimate form of enquiry. Dawkins came close, though he has now mellowed somewhat I think.

Where I agree with you is that the term is often bandied around inappropriately, by creationists and others with an animus against science, as a lazy pejorative label.

There are a lot of people on this site that believe science is the only valid, or by far the most reliable method of determining the truth of reality. And they say so all the time. Which is 'scientism' by definition. And yet they constantly deny that it's a thing even as they engage in it. They have melded science, empiricism, and logic into a kind of mighty oracle of truth that they can then use to reject and dismiss any other means of acquiring wisdom, like philosophy, art, and religion. They mistake facts for truth and knowledge for wisdom. And that's dangerous.

This is a very narrow-minded ideology that feeds it's own bias and blinds it's adherents. Much like the fundamentalist religions that these people so often rail against.

 

[Audie]

Theolgy is inherently absurd-
Pretending to study the nature of that
which cannot even be shown to exist.

 

[Quintessence]

Is this your way of saying that you think these disciplines have proven the existence of gods?

Nah, partly I was short on time, and partly I just have no interest in entertaining naysayers. Anyone can more or less go around and say they think some particular field of study is invalid for any number of reasons. This has no bearing whatsoever on those who take interest in that field of study and pursue it. Obviously, those who deny the reality of the gods aren't going to see validity in studying the gods, just as those who deny the reality of biological evolution aren't going to see the validity in studying evolutionary biology, just as those who decide poetry is more or less made up nonsense aren't going to see the validity in studying poetry. It's a game humans play with themselves. Crapping on other people's fields of study just serves no productive purpose, in my view.

 

[exchemist]

There are a lot of people on this site that believe science is the only valid, or by far the most reliable method of determining the truth of reality. And they say so all the time. Which is 'scientism' by definition. And yet they constantly deny that it's a thing even as they engage in it. They have melded science, empiricism, and logic into a kind of mighty oracle of truth that they can then use to reject and dismiss any other means of acquiring wisdom, like philosophy, art, and religion. They mistake facts for truth and knowledge for wisdom. And that's dangerous.

This is a very narrow-minded ideology that feeds it's own bias and blinds it's adherents. Much like the fundamentalist religions that these people so often rail against.

Yeah yeah, but you are one of the people I had in mind when I referred to an animus against science, so I think readers are entitled to aim off a bit when reading what you have to say on the subject.

 

[PureX]

Yeah yeah, but you are one of the people I had in mind when I referred to an animus against science, so I think readers are entitled to aim off a bit when reading what you have to say on the subject.

I have no animus against science, only against scientism. And the fact that you can’t see the difference is telling.

 

[exchemist]

I have no animus against science, only against scientism. And the fact that you can’t see the difference is telling.

Yeah yeah.

 

[Audie]

There are a lot of people on this site that believe science is the only valid, or by far the most reliable method of determining the truth of reality. And they say so all the time. Which is 'scientism' by definition. And yet they constantly deny that it's a thing even as they engage in it. They have melded science, empiricism, and logic into a kind of mighty oracle of truth that they can then use to reject and dismiss any other means of acquiring wisdom, like philosophy, art, and religion. They mistake facts for truth and knowledge for wisdom. And that's dangerous.

This is a very narrow-minded ideology that feeds it's own bias and blinds it's adherents. Much like the fundamentalist religions that these people so often rail against.

But just too shy to ever identify a
specific person or example.
Being the which of why we call bs.

 

[MikeF]

But just too shy to ever identify a
specific person or example.
Being the which of why we call bs.

I think @PureX (and others) would hold me up as an example of a scientismist, or one who exemplifies what he and others imagines scientism to be, given the number of times my posts have been characterized as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nah, partly I was short on time, and partly I just have no interest in entertaining naysayers. Anyone can more or less go around and say they think some particular field of study is invalid for any number of reasons. This has no bearing whatsoever on those who take interest in that field of study and pursue it.

But you do agree that there are fields of study that are invalid, right? I mentioned a few of them. Dowsing is nonsense, for instance.

Obviously, those who deny the reality of the gods aren't going to see validity in studying the gods, just as those who deny the reality of biological evolution aren't going to see the validity in studying evolutionary biology, just as those who decide poetry is more or less made up nonsense aren't going to see the validity in studying poetry. It's a game humans play with themselves.

Poetry is categorically different. The "validity" of poetry doesn't depend on factual accuracy.

OTOH, what's theology if the core question of the existence of gods can't be settled?

And it isn't just a matter of accepting the existence of gods or not. People can make up nonsense - even internally consistent nonsense - about things that actually exist.

Crapping on other people's fields of study just serves no productive purpose, in my view.

@Khabeni412 raised a valid point in the context of the thread. Everything since then has just been responding to questions and comments you've made.

 

[Audie]

I think @PureX (and others) would hold me up as an example of a scientismist, or one who exemplifies what he and others imagines scientism to be, given the number of times my posts have been characterized as such.

People say all kinds of things.

 

[blü 2]

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view. So, to clear this up I'm starting this thread for all of you RF members who do. If you are an advocate for "scientism", please reply to this post with something like "Yes, I am an advocate for scientism as you have described it".

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism", whether gods exist, evolution/creationism, or anything else. The thread quite literally has a singular purpose and I'd like to keep it that way.

Scientism has two meanings. The first is the application of scientific method, or belief in the efficacy or scientific method.

The second is as a term of abuse, much as @Subduction Zone said in #3, the accusation that a blind faith in scientific method is a mark of folly ─ as indeed blind faith often proves to be.

Me, I believe reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method and informed common sense form part, is unchallengably the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain objective reality (a notoriously god-free domain).