Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Brian2]

That seems to be pretty common among some theists here (accusing people of "scientism").

Why is it an "accusation"? Is scientism seen as a bad thing if it is pointed out that it is what someone's philosophy is? Isn't it the same as saying that someone is a materialist or humanist?

Which doesn't seem to be a very common belief here at RF. So far, I've seen one or two members express that sort of view.

Yes the idea that science gives "truth" seems to be disagreed with. I think it is the type of truth/answers that science gives is seen as different qualitatively to the truth/answers that faith gives.
Certainly the route to religious faith would be different to the route to scientific faith/belief.
BUT it seems to me that the whole thing is about the methodology.
Someone who throws out the metaphysical but accepts the scientific has already chosen the route and the outcome also probably since they already know that science is not an appropriate tool or route to metaphysical truth. The faith is in the scientific method.
And of course it is interesting that people who have done that already know that the metaphysical is not accessible through the empirical but have great delight in trying to pull down the metaphysical by saying that the evidence for it is not real evidence because it is not empirical.
I suppose the real question is, "Why bother to come to a religious forum when all you want to do is say that religion is BS and that you won't accept any evidence for it?"

 

[Nakosis]

Every question? For example, do you think science is the only real method to answer the question "Is it art"?


Thanks for clarifying.


The question is whether you think science is the only way to answer all questions, regardless of what those questions are (e.g., Is it art).

Science is not the only way to answer questions. One could for example choose to use one of those magic 8 balls I recall playing with as a kid.

​

Science is a way to get the more reliable answer which can then be used in practical applications.
If one is not concerned with practical application then any method, any answer will do.

The answer to the question in a definitive sense is by definition.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

But I expect you are asking what is art in a subjective sense. In the subjective sense, anything can be art. Whether or not it is art to you depends on how it makes you feel.
This is being researched by cognitive science. Understand how the mind works. "Art" in the subject sense is a feeling. To most of us, what causes us to feel the way we do is a mystery. However, or feeling are actually a biochemical response in the brain. You don't need to know how this process works in order to feel something is art but, understanding why and how you feel can be answered by science IMO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Worthy of what?

Worthy of belief rather than a 1,700 year old book which carries material from even older books and does not provide even an iota of evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know why that is less pejorative and I don't know why the original was pejorative.
It boils down to the same thing really.

IMO, there is no truth in a definitive sense.
To accept something as the truth to me means to accept it without question. There should always be questions.

 

[Brian2]

Science is not the only way to answer questions. One could for example choose to use one of those magic 8 balls I recall playing with as a kid.

​

Science is a way to get the more reliable answer which can then be used in practical applications.
If one is not concerned with practical application then any method, any answer will do.

The answer to the question in a definitive sense is by definition.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

But I expect you are asking what is art in a subjective sense. In the subjective sense, anything can be art. Whether or not it is art to you depends on how it makes you feel.
This is being researched by cognitive science. Understand how the mind works. "Art" in the subject sense is a feeling. To most of us, what causes us to feel the way we do is a mystery. However, or feeling are actually a biochemical response in the brain. You don't need to know how this process works in order to feel something is art but, understanding why and how you feel can be answered by science IMO.

Science does not answer metaphysical questions however. How do you get metaphysical answers, or do you just not?

 

[Brian2]

IMO, there is no truth in a definitive sense.
To accept something as the truth to me means to accept it without question. There should always be questions.

There are always questions in science even if it might be closer to the truth than before science.
There are always questions in accepting Jesus as the truth and the way. Doing that does not mean we have all the answers and we go by way to Jesus to more truth. (Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth)
It is similar to accepting science as the way to getting closer to truths about the physical universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is scientism the confidence that science is the best way or is it that science is the only way to understand the world? The best way implies that there are other ways too.

Well, if we go for strong as only then yes, I didn't meet the criteria. The middle is the best and the weak one is overconfidence in science.

 

[Nakosis]

Science does not answer metaphysical questions however. How do you get metaphysical answers, or do you just not?

I don't see metaphysical answers anything reliable to base decisions on.
They're creative conceptualized theories based on limited information.
As likely to have the correct answer as the magic 8 ball.
Perhaps less likely as there are an infinite number of ways we humans can conceptualize an answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see metaphysical answers anything reliable to base decisions on.
They're creative conceptualized theories based on limited information.
As likely to have the correct answer as the magic 8 ball.
Perhaps less likely as there are an infinite number of ways we humans can conceptualize an answer.

Yeah, but that is only a part of the everyday world in practice. We are playing if there is a correct method to give all answers for in effect all of the everyday world.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but that is only a part of the everyday world in practice. We are playing if there is a correct method to give all answers for in effect all of the everyday world.

I suppose "correct" depends on what your goals are.
It if is practical application, then I'd have to go with science.
However, if one is more interested in supporting their feelings, then science is probably not the best way to go about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suppose "correct" depends on what your goals are.
It if is practical application, then I'd have to go with science.
However, if one is more interested in supporting their feelings, then science is probably not the best way to go about it.

Well, if you include sociology, psychology and even philosophy as knowledge and not just empirical knowledge, you can do feelings using science, but that is not just natural science.

 

[Brian2]

I don't see metaphysical answers anything reliable to base decisions on.
They're creative conceptualized theories based on limited information.
As likely to have the correct answer as the magic 8 ball.
Perhaps less likely as there are an infinite number of ways we humans can conceptualize an answer.

If you see metaphysical answers as all being made up by humans then fair enough.
I don't see it that way but interestingly that way is the scientific way of seeing it, with it naturalistic methodology which seems to be used in anthropology with the presupposition that younger religions copied from previous religions etc.
But that is a presupposition and presuppositions that say the supernatural is not true are not a good way to find out if they are true, but are a good way to write books that scientifically show that ancient religions are not true,,,,,,,,,,, especially for those people who believe that anyway and accept those presuppositions for all religions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you see metaphysical answers as all being made up by humans then fair enough.
I don't see it that way but interestingly that way is the scientific way of seeing it, with it naturalistic methodology which seems to be used in anthropology with the presupposition that younger religions copied from previous religions etc.
But that is a presupposition and presuppositions that say the supernatural is not true are not a good way to find out if they are true, but are a good way to write books that scientifically show that ancient religions are not true,,,,,,,,,,, especially for those people who believe that anyway and accept those presuppositions for all religions.

You use assumptions about science and what religions are, that makes you claim that all people with science and naturalism would claim that in effect all religious are wrong.
We have been here before. The science and naturalism of certain atheistic members are not the only version.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it an "accusation"? Is scientism seen as a bad thing if it is pointed out that it is what someone's philosophy is? Isn't it the same as saying that someone is a materialist or humanist?

Because it's usually given in a dismissive, condescending way. For example, in another forum I was debating a creationist who tried the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain this" tactic (thinking I had no answer), but after I showed how scientists had provided an explanation, rather than address that info the creationist just replied with basically "Well I guess you just think science answers everything" and then said I was engaging in scientism.

Yes the idea that science gives "truth" seems to be disagreed with. I think it is the type of truth/answers that science gives is seen as different qualitatively to the truth/answers that faith gives.
Certainly the route to religious faith would be different to the route to scientific faith/belief.
BUT it seems to me that the whole thing is about the methodology.
Someone who throws out the metaphysical but accepts the scientific has already chosen the route and the outcome also probably since they already know that science is not an appropriate tool or route to metaphysical truth. The faith is in the scientific method.
And of course it is interesting that people who have done that already know that the metaphysical is not accessible through the empirical but have great delight in trying to pull down the metaphysical by saying that the evidence for it is not real evidence because it is not empirical.
I suppose the real question is, "Why bother to come to a religious forum when all you want to do is say that religion is BS and that you won't accept any evidence for it?"

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science is not the only way to answer questions. One could for example choose to use one of those magic 8 balls I recall playing with as a kid.

​

Science is a way to get the more reliable answer which can then be used in practical applications.
If one is not concerned with practical application then any method, any answer will do.

The answer to the question in a definitive sense is by definition.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

But I expect you are asking what is art in a subjective sense. In the subjective sense, anything can be art. Whether or not it is art to you depends on how it makes you feel.
This is being researched by cognitive science. Understand how the mind works. "Art" in the subject sense is a feeling. To most of us, what causes us to feel the way we do is a mystery. However, or feeling are actually a biochemical response in the brain. You don't need to know how this process works in order to feel something is art but, understanding why and how you feel can be answered by science IMO.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer and explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Worthy of belief rather than a 1,700 year old book which carries material from even older books and does not provide even an iota of evidence.

Do you believe there are only two ways to answer questions....science or old books?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you believe there are only two ways to answer questions....science or old books?

No, I don't. A combination of old books, new books and science works better for me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Science explains human's evolution of his intelligence and wisdom. It does not explain all the answers, however. I wouldn't call myself an adherent to Scientism. Also, while being completely separate, Scientism sounds an awfully like Scientology and the two could easily get confused, despite being completely different by their principles.



Exactly. Science explains how we exist, not why. Religion explains why we exist. I have my own reason why people exist: to be benevolent. Science expands our curiosity, helps us understand the natural world (which to me is God), but rarely does science participate in active benevolence. Or maybe some organizations do and I'm just ignorant of the fact. Science increases the intelligence, knowledge and wisdom of people but that alone isn't necessarily benevolence. And I understand that not all religions practice benevolence. Sometimes their dogma actually goes against it. But I like to think that in general religion teaches us why we exist and science in general teaches us how.

It's best not to mix the two together, even as a spiritual naturalist as myself.

Beautifully balanced answer. Thanks for that.

I see science and religion as the two wings of a bird, which is humanity, without which the bird could not fly with only one wing. Religion needs science and reason applied to its teachings to avoid superstition and science needs a moral compass to only use its knowledge for the betterment of the world not its destruction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you believe there are only two ways to answer questions....science or old books?

For me, there is only one way. The other is your way which is bereft of any evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and science needs a moral compass to only use its knowledge for the betterment of the world not its destruction.

Science is not responsible for how humans use its knowledge. And humans are what they are. It is futile to think that a prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi will be able to change them.