Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[YoursTrue]

Your question does not make sense, because it assumes something that is not true. You seem to think that only a fundamentalist literalist creationist can find God. That is not the case. Most people who accept science, including Big Bang, evolution, etc., believe in God.

I've noticed that few here who claim to believe in God -- including those claiming to be Christian or Jewish profess any real belief or adherence to the Bible. (Or Tanakh.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've noticed that few here who claim to believe in God -- including those claiming to be Christian or Jewish profess any real belief or adherence to the Bible. (Or Tanakh.)

Although I personally DO believe in God, theism is not a criteria to be a Jew. There are many Jewish athiests. This is because, unlike Christianity which is a religion, the Jews are a People.

 

[MikeF]

But once we've done that. We still might be left with questions. Questions about ethics. Questions about aesthetics. Questions about what purpose our life should serve. These don't need to involve any sort of religious BS (and in my case, they don't). But (in my case) science hasn't answered these questions to my satisfaction. A proponent of scientism would say: "Hey vulcan, don't bother trying to use your brain and/or logic to answer any of those questions. The only answers that count are empirically verifiable ones. No need to take any other approach."

But there's plenty of reasons to think that (carefully) thinking about a subject --such as literature-- can produce insights and knowledge. I could study Leo Tolstoy and come away with a bit of truth. Not a kind of reliable truth that I can tell others to believe. But also not some "personal truth" that only can be believed from a certain perspective. Literature and philosophy can hold aloft many universal truths that are simply not in the purview of science.

This all relates to subjective preference, not to things that are objectively true independent from what anyone thinks. Sure, a subjective preference is "true" for the subject that hold it, but it is in no way universal nor objective.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although I personally DO believe in God, theism is not a criteria to be a Jew. There are many Jewish athiests. This is because, unlike Christianity which is a religion, the Jews are a People.

I understand that. To a degree. Likewise, some are called Christian who do not believe what the Bible says about Jesus for the most part. oh well...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand that. To a degree. Likewise, some are called Christian who do not believe what the Bible says about Jesus for the most part. oh well...

It is very difficult to know where to draw the line in the sand and say "inside this circle are Christians and those outside the circle are not." What are the criteria? Christains themselves cannot even agree on what makes a person a Christian, so how am I as an outsider supposed to know? Some say Christians are those who profess the Nicene Creed. Some say Christians are everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father Son and HS. Some say Christians are people who have had a transformative emotional experience where they "invited Jesus into their heart."

Since I'm an outsider, i try to make the circle as large as I can without the word Christian becoming meaningless. For my own purposes, I consider Christian anyone who believes Jesus is the messiah who died for their sins. That would include i.e. non-Trinitarians, and liberals who don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible. I think if I made the circle any larger than that, the word Christian would essentially become worthless.

 

[vulcanlogician]

This all relates to subjective preference, not to things that are objectively true independent from what anyone thinks. Sure, a subjective preference is "true" for the subject that hold it, but it is in no way universal nor objective.

I like where you're coming from. And I feel like I generally know your approach to knowledge, Mike. And I like it. At the very least, I get it. And furthermore I probably 99% agree with it, Mike.

But you are calling things subjective, simply because it doesn't square with science. Objective knowledge is certainly a real thing that exists. And it is, of course, inferior to subjective knowledge. You're correct about all of that.

But what about aesthetics? Let's consider that for a moment.

Let's consider a painting of Raphael as compared to a crayon drawing of a kindergartener.

Of course the parents of the child may like the crayon drawing more. They think, oh I love my child so much. Any art they produce makes me feel pleasure. But does that in any way contribute to the artistic value of the art? I say no. I say, when we get away from bias (like parents of kindergarteners have) then we get into the essence of what makes a piece of art good. And, under those circumstances, Raphael is obviously better that most snot-driveling toddlers. We can see that objectively.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is very difficult to know where to draw the line in the sand and say "inside this circle are Christians and those outside the circle are not." What are the criteria? Christains themselves cannot even agree on what makes a person a Christian, so how am I as an outsider supposed to know? Some say Christians are those who profess the Nicene Creed. Some say Christians are everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father Son and HS. Some say Christians are people who have had a transformative emotional experience where they "invited Jesus into their heart."

Since I'm an outsider, i try to make the circle as large as I can without the word Christian becoming meaningless. For my own purposes, I consider Christian anyone who believes Jesus is the messiah who died for their sins. That would include i.e. non-Trinitarians, and liberals who don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible. I think if I made the circle any larger than that, the word Christian would essentially become worthless.

Here is what I think and believe and have been saying: if a person believes in the theory of evolution, they simply cannot believe what the Bible says in many ways, primarily right now pertaining to this discussion in what I am thinking about. Namely the genealogy from Adam all the way to the nation of Israel including Moses, Hosea, Daniel, Isaac and later that lineage leading to Jesus Christ. So they have to throw it all out in order to pass over it and go into evolution as true.

 

[vulcanlogician]

@MikeF

I edited my post several times in ways that affected the meaning of what I was saying. Sorry to confuse.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is very difficult to know where to draw the line in the sand and say "inside this circle are Christians and those outside the circle are not." What are the criteria? Christains themselves cannot even agree on what makes a person a Christian, so how am I as an outsider supposed to know? Some say Christians are those who profess the Nicene Creed. Some say Christians are everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father Son and HS. Some say Christians are people who have had a transformative emotional experience where they "invited Jesus into their heart."

Since I'm an outsider, i try to make the circle as large as I can without the word Christian becoming meaningless. For my own purposes, I consider Christian anyone who believes Jesus is the messiah who died for their sins. That would include i.e. non-Trinitarians, and liberals who don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible. I think if I made the circle any larger than that, the word Christian would essentially become worthless.

OK, in reference to Jesus dying for sins, that's a rather detailed discussion since it also involved the Law. I can't really say much because prophecy has yet to be fulfilled -- I do leave the judging to God but there are certain things about the consistency and logic of one's belief that I have questions about -- sometimes.

 

[Brian2]

Is science looking for a god? The best I know, all that can be said is that no evidence for the supernatural has been found and determined to be evidence of the supernatural. Thus no evidence that can be definitively shown to be evidence of God or gods.

What we see in nature and science can be subjective evidence for a God for us. iow it is a matter of faith.
Some people look at the same things and claim that science has shown that God/s are not needed. These people accept only what science can tell them about reality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Here is what I think and believe and have been saying: if a person believes in the theory of evolution, they simply cannot believe what the Bible says in many ways, primarily right now pertaining to this discussion in what I am thinking about. Namely the genealogy from Adam all the way to the nation of Israel including Moses, Hosea, Daniel, Isaac and later that lineage leading to Jesus Christ. So they have to throw it all out in order to pass over it and go into evolution as true.

Your summary, although I understand it, I cannot agree with it. The reason is because your analysis makes no attempt to understand genre. Your ASSUMPTION is that Genesis is history, and so anyone who does agree is "rejecting" Genesis. That is NOT the case. I do not think Gandalf ever existed, but I greatly value The Lord of the Rings both as a terrific story and also as a source for moral thought. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, because they do not have a literal reading of Genesis they way you do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, in reference to Jesus dying for sins, that's a rather detailed discussion since it also involved the Law. I can't really say much because prophecy has yet to be fulfilled -- I do leave the judging to God but there are certain things about the consistency and logic of one's belief that I have questions about -- sometimes.

I remember you said that you were unaware that you sometimes give more than one reply to a post. I just thought I'd point out that this is the second reply to the same post. It's not a big deal, so don't sweat it. It's just an unusual trait.

 

[Brian2]

Your question does not make sense, because it assumes something that is not true. You seem to think that only a fundamentalist literalist creationist can find God. That is not the case. Most people who accept science, including Big Bang, evolution, etc., believe in God. In fact, among scientists themselves, only 30% are atheist.

Most people who follow the evidence are not just following the evidence of science.
Pure science does not conclude "God".
Many follow the science only and so end up saying that it looks like there is no need for God/s, "nature alone is sufficient."
But of course that is a statement of faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

I remember you said that you were unaware that you sometimes give more than one reply to a post. I just thought I'd point out that this is the second reply to the same post. It's not a big deal, so don't sweat it. It's just an unusual trait.

It's my computer I think. I'll try to wait and see what happens when I press post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most people who follow the evidence are not just following the evidence of science.
Pure science does not conclude "God".
Many follow the science only and so end up saying that it looks like there is no need for God/s, "nature alone is sufficient."
But of course that is a statement of faith.

Once it seems to some that there must be God then it can become another problematic situation. Because then one must ask, which God? And what is the truth about God? Now naturally no one has all the answers. Except, of course, God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I remember you said that you were unaware that you sometimes give more than one reply to a post. I just thought I'd point out that this is the second reply to the same post. It's not a big deal, so don't sweat it. It's just an unusual trait.

oh oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, sometimes I give one answer to a point in a post and then give further points in response to the same post. You're right.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most people who follow the evidence are not just following the evidence of science.
Pure science does not conclude "God".
Many follow the science only and so end up saying that it looks like there is no need for God/s, "nature alone is sufficient."
But of course that is a statement of faith.

Pure science says nothing about God at all, neither affirming nor denying his existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This post is directed at Penguin, but I felt I needed to add PureX's quote for context.

Penguin, you could go on and on about the merits of empiricism and I would agree with you on every point. I bet there isn't one thing about empiricism that we disagree upon. So you could list one-by-one the things that make empiricism reliable and how it always supplies certainty, and I'd keep agreeing and agreeing.

You are correct. Empiricism is great. It's dependable. If empiricism determines that something is true, then it's probably true. Let's start the conversation by saying that science gives us the most reliable information we have. Period. There's no disputing that.

And let's also say that many disciplines and ways of drawing conclusions that are pseudo-scientific can be rejected on that basis.

All, I'm saying is: once we've gathered all our evidence... once we've drawn the proper logical conclusions that follow from that evidence... once we've ruled out the things that are obviously false and said most of the information that science gives us is very much more reliable than any contrary information is... once we've done ALL of that. We can pause. And we can soak up as much of that correct and reliable empirical information that we can. And that's what we should do.

But once we've done that. We still might be left with questions. Questions about ethics. Questions about aesthetics. Questions about what purpose our life should serve. These don't need to involve any sort of religious BS (and in my case, they don't). But (in my case) science hasn't answered these questions to my satisfaction. A proponent of scientism would say: "Hey vulcan, don't bother trying to use your brain and/or logic to answer any of those questions. The only answers that count are empirically verifiable ones. No need to take any other approach."

But there's plenty of reasons to think that (carefully) thinking about a subject --such as literature-- can produce insights and knowledge. I could study Leo Tolstoy and come away with a bit of truth. Not a kind of reliable truth that I can tell others to believe. But also not some "personal truth" that only can be believed from a certain perspective. Literature and philosophy can hold aloft many universal truths that are simply not in the purview of science.

Yeah... I get all that. If you went back a post earlier, you would have seen that I was trying to get clarification from @PureX as to whether this is the point he was trying to get at. He chose to insult me instead of giving a real answer.

Does that make those disciplines better than science at getting to the truth? No. You and I probably agree that science is the best truth-producing discipline we got. But knowledge doesn't end where scientific discoveries end. We can get to the truth other ways. Science isn't the ONLY way. It's simply the most dependable and accurate way... to get to the truth.

Like I pointed out to @PureX , science is just inference from observation done with rigor.

Pursuits that aren't empirical are complimentary to science, and while you can make non-rigorous inferences from observation, a lack of rigor raises significant doubts about the validity of any conclusions.

@PureX hasn't told us yet if he's been trying to argue for some magical or "supernatural" realm that interacts with the physical world but is somehow exempt from empirical investigation.

Someone who argues in favor of scientism says more than "it's the best and most reliable way to the truth." They go one step farther. They say it's the only way. And THAT (and only that) is why I reject scientism.

Yeah... I've never come across anyone like that. I tend to only see "scientism" used as an epithet by people whose beliefs don't stand up to rigor, directed at people who insist on rigor.

 

[MikeF]

I like where you're coming from. And I feel like I generally know your approach to knowledge, Mike. And I like it. At the very least, I get it. And furthermore I probably 99% agree with it, Mike.

But you are calling things subjective, simply because it doesn't square with science. Subjective knowledge is certainly a real thing that exists. And it is, of course, inferior to subjective knowledge. You're correct about all of that.

But what about aesthetics? Let's consider that for a moment.

Let's consider a painting of Raphael as compared to a crayon drawing of a kindergartener.

Of course the parents of the child may like the crayon drawing more. They think, oh I love my child so much. Any art they produce makes me feel pleasure. But does that in any way contribute to the artistic value of the art? I say no. I say, when we get away from bias (like parents of kindergarteners have) then we get into the essence of what makes a piece of art good. And, under those circumstances, Raphael is obviously better that most snot-driveling toddlers. We can see that objectively.

Well let's think about it. In considering a Raphael and Kindergartener's drawing, what is the criteria by which we are making the determination as to which one is better and who gets to decide the criteria? Who is evaluating the choice? Is it a group of Art History professors or a class of Kindergarteners?

What if the comparison was between a Mark Rothko and Raphael? What if the comparison was between a hyperrealist painting and a Raphael?

What about the medium of art? Are oils better than watercolor? What about pastels, are they just fancy crayons? Is sculpture better than paint? Which sculpture medium should be considered the most prestigious and why?

Switching art forms, would I be wrong to prefer Mozart's opera The Magic Flute over the Chinese classic Peking opera Drunken Concubine? Why? What are the criteria by which to judge and who decides the criteria and why do they get to choose?

No, I say all is in the eye of the beholder. There is no standard but one's own heart. It is all subjective, personal, and heavily influenced by cultural conditioning. There is no "better", simply what one likes, for whatever reasons.

 

[vulcanlogician]

@9-10ths_Penguin

So, given all that, would you say that you agree with scientism or not?