Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Brian2]

The evidence for God need not be scientific, though that would be nice. The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for any God. I am not limiting the lack of evidence to scientific evidence.

What do you mean by reliable?

 

[Heyo]

I don't see Christians and Muslims as dismissing science as inferior. Science is just a different way to attain knowledge and it attains knowledge about different things and in different ways.

There are believers who can separate religion from science, who accept NOMa.
And then there are people like Kent Hovind who are telling the scientists that they don't know science and the only "real" science is what confirms his beliefs. Those are the ones I call "greedy" and there are some of that kind here on RF.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by reliable?

There are all sorts of ways that evidence can be reliable. Repeatable evidence is reliable since one can observe it again and again. But there are probably nonrepeatable events that would qualify as well. You could always ask about what you think is or is not evidence. People would gladly help you, not just me, but man other atheists. If it is a religious person one from another religion may be able to explain why some of your evidence is not reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are all sorts of ways that evidence can be reliable. Repeatable evidence is reliable since one can observe it again and again. But there are probably nonrepeatable events that would qualify as well. You could always ask about what you think is or is not evidence. People would gladly help you, not just me, but man other atheists. If it is a religious person one from another religion may be able to explain why some of your evidence is not reliable.

As long as you understand the limit of evidence as per observation as external sensory experience, we can agree.

 

[Brian2]

There are all sorts of ways that evidence can be reliable. Repeatable evidence is reliable since one can observe it again and again. But there are probably nonrepeatable events that would qualify as well. You could always ask about what you think is or is not evidence. People would gladly help you, not just me, but man other atheists. If it is a religious person one from another religion may be able to explain why some of your evidence is not reliable.

Something like fulfilled prophecies are one off events that serve as evidence, but of course are repeatable in the sense that Bible prophecies have repeatedly been shown to be correct.
But of course they can be said to be not reliable because many people say that the prophecies must have been written after the events or the story made up to fit prophecies.
The only way left with that one is to study Biblical prophecies about events that are predicted to happen after Jesus death.
Even these, as in the Temple destruction, is said to have been written after the event by skeptics and things that have happened since are said to be too vague to call prophecies. But not all of them are. It is a matter of whether you are open to hearing the prophecies and seeing the events or the tide of history imo.

 

[Ella S.]

Something like fulfilled prophecies are one off events that serve as evidence, but of course are repeatable in the sense that Bible prophecies have repeatedly been shown to be correct.
But of course they can be said to be not reliable because many people say that the prophecies must have been written after the events or the story made up to fit prophecies.
The only way left with that one is to study Biblical prophecies about events that are predicted to happen after Jesus death.
Even these, as in the Temple destruction, is said to have been written after the event by skeptics and things that have happened since are said to be too vague to call prophecies. But not all of them are. It is a matter of whether you are open to hearing the prophecies and seeing the events or the tide of history imo.

It would be news to me if the Bible contained precise, accurate prophecies of future events that we could demonstrate were written before the prophesied events. That would still not be strong evidence for the existence of God on its own but it could form the basis of a larger argument for one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something like fulfilled prophecies are one off events that serve as evidence, but of course are repeatable in the sense that Bible prophecies have repeatedly been shown to be correct.
But of course they can be said to be not reliable because many people say that the prophecies must have been written after the events or the story made up to fit prophecies.
The only way left with that one is to study Biblical prophecies about events that are predicted to happen after Jesus death.
Even these, as in the Temple destruction, is said to have been written after the event by skeptics and things that have happened since are said to be too vague to call prophecies. But not all of them are. It is a matter of whether you are open to hearing the prophecies and seeing the events or the tide of history imo.

I do not know of any proper examples of that. I know of several failed prophecies in the Bible.

This is one of the better articles on biblical prophecies and it lays out some very good standards that allows one to judge whether a prophecy has been fulfilled or not:

Biblical prophecies

 

[Brian2]

I do not know of any proper examples of that. I know of several failed prophecies in the Bible.

This is one of the better articles on biblical prophecies and it lays out some very good standards that allows one to judge whether a prophecy has been fulfilled or not:

Biblical prophecies

Certainly the prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled but I'm not sure of the others. I have heard that there is evidence of an Egyptian exile and of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly the prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled but I'm not sure of the others. I have heard that there is evidence of an Egyptian exile and of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt.

Are you serious? It was not. Tyre wss the island . Nebuchadnezzar failed. Ezekiel even admitted that if you read the whole thing and then he went on to make another failed prophecy. The Tyre prophecy is one of the Bible's worst failures.

 

[Brian2]

Are you serious? It was not. Tyre wss the island . Nebuchadnezzar failed. Ezekiel even admitted that if you read the whole thing and then he went on to make another failed prophecy. The Tyre prophecy is one of the Bible's worst failures.

The Tyre prophecy is used by skeptics as an example of failed prophecy but the reality is different and it all depends on how the prophecy is read.
There are parts of the prophecy which could not be guessed at but which happened and it is strange that if a prophecy happened and so must have been written after the event, that they could have got it wrong.
But anyway here are a couple of sites with explanations of the prophecy and what happened to Tyre.

The Destruction of Tyre (Fulfilled Prophecy) - Engage 360 Ministries

Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Tyre prophecy is used by skeptics as an example of failed prophecy but the reality is different and it all depends on how the prophecy is read.
There are parts of the prophecy which could not be guessed at but which happened and it is strange that if a prophecy happened and so must have been written after the event, that they could have got it wrong.
But anyway here are a couple of sites with explanations of the prophecy and what happened to Tyre.

The Destruction of Tyre (Fulfilled Prophecy) - Engage 360 Ministries

Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research

Sorry, no rational person takes Christian apologetics seriously. Like it or not it is a failed prophecy. It is also a test of one's own honesty.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

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 do not believe scientism holds all the answers. I believe there are many ways to cook an egg but it depends how we want it cooked.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

I, personally, would say that science is the means to answer all the questions that I think important. If that is scientism, I am an advocate for it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I, personally, would say that science is the means to answer all the questions that I think important. If that is scientism, I am an advocate for it.

Really? Science answers all the questions you care about?

You don't ask yourself things like: "What political system is the most just or ideal?"... "Should my country remain a democracy?"... because science can't answer questions like that. But I suspect you care about those things to some degree.

 

[Astrophile]

Really? Science answers all the questions you care about?

You don't ask yourself things like: "What political system is the most just or ideal?"... "Should my country remain a democracy?"... because science can't answer questions like that. But I suspect you care about those things to some degree.

Only to some degree. I am a scientist, not a politician, and, so far as I am concerned, these are not the most important questions. Also it may be possible to apply the scientific method to them.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Only to some degree. I am a scientist, not a politician, and, so far as I am concerned, these are not the most important questions. Also it may be possible to apply the scientific method to them.

I think the scientific method has already proved quite beneficial in making the world more just. In any and all cases where science helps us answer political questions, it should be copiously depended upon as a resource. But I doubt that science alone can resolve these issues. There are questions that are important to us that science can't answer. I reject scientism on those grounds.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Science is a means to answer all questions. It is not the only means. It is imo the best means we know of so far. There may exist some, as of yet to be discovered, better way to go about answering questions.

 

[cladking]

Science is a means to answer all questions. It is not the only means. It is imo the best means we know of so far. There may exist some, as of yet to be discovered, better way to go about answering questions.

Science will never be able to answer any of the important questions. It will merely be able to make increasingly accurate predictions about more and more things. It will never be able to predict on the small scale or the long term.

 

[Nakosis]

Science will never be able to answer any of the important questions. It will merely be able to make increasingly accurate predictions about more and more things. It will never be able to predict on the small scale or the long term.

So, how do you go about answering the important questions?

 

[syo]

"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.

Scientism is a religion???

Ok.

I am an omnist.

Do I include scientism???

What???