Your Belief...

[Nakosis]

Has no value in determining what is true.

One can use what they believe in an argument but what you believe cannot support whether your argument is true or not.

One can believe whatever they feel is truth but don't expect your personal belief to provide any proof to any claim about what is true.

Imagine if each of us as individuals could cultivate a scientific attitude of rigorous critical thinking and curiosity in our personal lives, and could experience an exhilarated feeling of discovery whenever we find we have been wrong about something important. Perhaps it’s time to stop talking admiringly about faith and belief as if these were virtues.
What Actually Is a Belief? And Why Is It So Hard to Change?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that there are different beliefs about what true is, just like with God.

You can't point to God, facts or true, because they are all complex abstracts in brains. Indeed that facts and truth matter, is not a fact and not true. It is an belief.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Has no value in determining what is true.

One can use what they believe in an argument but what you believe cannot support whether your argument is true or not.

One can believe whatever they feel is truth but don't expect your personal belief to provide any proof to any claim about what is true.

Imagine if each of us as individuals could cultivate a scientific attitude of rigorous critical thinking and curiosity in our personal lives, and could experience an exhilarated feeling of discovery whenever we find we have been wrong about something important. Perhaps it’s time to stop talking admiringly about faith and belief as if these were virtues.
What Actually Is a Belief? And Why Is It So Hard to Change?

I am aware your OP is not just about God, but i think this could shine a light on a few of the isdues anyway.

RELIGION
How the Baha’i Writings Describe God
Share|Tweet

KENNETH E. BOWERS | JUN 5, 2015

PART 40 IN SERIES GOD SPEAKS AGAIN

The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the official views of the Baha'i Faith.

In his writings Baha’u’llah affirms many ancient truths, sheds light on age-old questions, and opens new vistas of understanding. Through them, he infuses a fresh spirit into the religion of God and provides guidance for the individual and for humanity as a whole.

In the next several essays in this continuing series, let’s review some of Baha’u’llah’s basic teachings about spiritual reality. It should be emphasized at the outset that this is only a summary. The purpose here is to touch upon the fundamentals as a means of encouraging further personal investigation.

Baha’u’llah taught that there is only one God. He stated that “God in His Essence and in His own Self hath ever been unseen, inaccessible, and unknowable.” – Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 118. The Baha’i teachings describe God as neither male nor female, although the limitations and conventions of our language and many others have led us to refer to Him in the masculine. The Baha’i writings say God is personal, meaning that He is conscious and rational and has a will and a purpose. Although He is not a person, He is also not some mindless force, as some people believe.

The Baha’i teachings say that God is eternal, omniscient, almighty, and omnipresent. He is not the same as His creation, but distinct and transcendent. He is infinitely exalted above human conception:

To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtle, the All-Perceiving.” – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 46-47.

 

[AlexanderG]

It seems like a lot of religious people are indoctrinated with a certain epistemology. Namely, the more you want a claim to be true due to its personal emotional appeal, the more likely that this claim is in fact true. As far as I've seen, this is the basis for faith. It is also a terrible way to determine what is true or not.

This is why all the MAGA folks believe the 2020 election was stolen. It is emotionally appealing to believe that their side wasn't repudiated, and so in their minds that makes it true. It's why people believe in a flat earth and young earth creationism. The horrible epistemology from their religious indoctrination is smoothly transferred to their non-religious ideologies. And we're all worse off for it.

We need less religion and more critical thinking, or things will continue to get worse before they get better.

 

[George-ananda]

I claim my beliefs to be only my most rational assessment of 'all things considered'.

I try not to hold beliefs for emotional reasons which I think is what the OP is getting at, and I would generally agree with.

The problem I have with 'scientism' is the acceptance of only experiences reproducible through the physical senses. With all the information I have come across from so-called psychic, spiritual and paranormal events I think 'scientism' is an impoverishing philosophy. We definitely live in a deeper universe than what can be explored by today's science. And I believe people can experience things that are real but not explorable by mainstream science at this time.

 

[MikeF]

I claim my beliefs to be only my most rational assessment of 'all things considered'.

I try not to hold beliefs for emotional reasons which I think is what the OP is getting at, and I would generally agree with.

The problem I have with 'scientism' is the acceptance of only experiences reproducible through the physical senses. With all the information I have come across from so-called psychic, spiritual and paranormal events I think 'scientism' is an impoverishing philosophy. We definitely live in a deeper universe than what can be explored by today's science. And I believe people can experience things that are real but not explorable by mainstream science at this time.

I find it fascinating that it seems every time the word scientism is used, it appears to need either single or double quotes. What's up with that?

Why do you use the phrase "so-called" in reference to psychic, spiritual and paranormal events? Should those things be called something else?

Scientism isn't a philosophy, a least not anything anyone self-identifies with. Instead, it is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.

What is science but the concerted effort to mitigate human error and fallibility in the investigative process. What could be wrong with that? What is clear from our vast historical experience is that one should never rely solely on ones personal experience. Since we are, all of us, flawed and fallible in a variety of ways, anything we experience can be influenced or tainted by our particular mix of flaws and fallibilities, hence the need to identify and mitigate those flaws and fallibilities.

To say that "we definitely live in a deeper universe than what can be explored by today's science" would, in my opinion, be an emotional declaration, despite your efforts to "try not to hold beliefs for emotional reasons".

When you say there are things that are not explorable by mainstream science at this time, you seem to imply there are means outside of mainstream science. Is that your position? If that is the case, all you are saying is that you want to take error catching and error correcting fetters off the inquiry process and fully indulge in ones imperfect personal perceptions and emotions.

 

[PureX]

Your Belief ...

Has no value in determining what is true.

Neither do facts.

It's context that determines truthfulness for we humans.

 

[stvdv]

virtues.
What Actually Is a Belief? And Why Is It So Hard to Change?

Hence "uselessness of religious debating"

 

[George-ananda]

I find it fascinating that it seems every time the word scientism is used, it appears to need either single or double quotes. What's up with that?

Why do you use the phrase "so-called" in reference to psychic, spiritual and paranormal events? Should those things be called something else?

Those are just stylistic choices I make on the fly while typing. Psychic, spiritual and paranormal are probably a list of things lumped under blanket terms.

Scientism isn't a philosophy, a least not anything anyone self-identifies with.

Did you notice the OP I was replying to has 'Scientism' listed as their 'Religion'?

Instead, it is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.

That is a clearly wrong definition based on everything I've heard.

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

What is science but the concerted effort to mitigate human error and fallibility in the investigative process. What could be wrong with that?What is clear from our vast historical experience is that one should never rely solely on ones personal experience. Since we are, all of us, flawed and fallible in a variety of ways, anything we experience can be influenced or tainted by our particular mix of flaws and fallibilities, hence the need to identify and mitigate those flaws and fallibilities.

Understand, that I am pro-Science but anti-Scientism. Science is a great thing.

To say that "we definitely live in a deeper universe than what can be explored by today's science" would, in my opinion, be an emotional declaration, despite your efforts to "try not to hold beliefs for emotional reasons".

I consider it a 'rational' position because my position was arrived upon through rational analysis of things like the quantity, quality and consistency of these spiritual and paranormal claims versus the chance for an inside-the-box explanation. I have to rationally conclude that this universe has things deeper than current science can investigate.

When you say there are things that are not explorable by mainstream science at this time, you seem to imply there are means outside of mainstream science. Is that your position?

Actually I do believe there are senses in man beyond the known physical ones that can tell us real things about reality.

If that is the case, all you are saying is that you want to take error catching and error correcting fetters off the inquiry process and fully indulge in ones imperfect personal perceptions and emotions.

No, what I am saying is that what can be proven by mainstream science should be accepted. Beyond that we may consider what other sources of information have to say but they cannot be proved through mainstream science so should be left as 'hypotheses' for science. And at this time mainstream science may not have the tools to investigate these hypotheses.

Given enough paranormal events and a consistency of extra-sensory based theories on a claim, I might rationally think a theory likely has considerable truth to it.

 

[MikeF]

Did you notice the OP I was replying to has 'Scientism' listed as their 'Religion'?

ETA: No, I hadn't noticed.

Let's query the OP.

@Nakosis
It has been noticed that you have indicated scientism as your religion on your member information page. Is your choice sincere or sarcastic?

How do you define scientism, as it applies to you and your belief system?

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
Instead, it (scientism) is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.​

That is a clearly wrong definition based on everything I've heard.

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Did you read the Wikipedia article in its
entirety?

From Wikipedia:
This is the rest of the opening paragraph following your snippet above:

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".​

From Merriam-Webster we learn that "originally" means:

First Known Use of scientism
1870, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Definition of scientism
1: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
​

Continuing on from the Wikipedia article:

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson detected two main general themes:

1. It is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
2. It is used, often pejoratively,[27][28][29] to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to term as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

Given all of the above, I think my description of scientism based on my experience holds up quite nicely.

My question would be, if scientific inquiry simply means that one is making a concerted effort to actively mitigate human fallibility in the investigative process, what does that tell us about those who throw the scientism label around and wish to exempt their belief from scientific scrutiny?

 

[George-ananda]

MikeF said: ↑
Instead, it (scientism) is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.​

So that's the MikeF definition:

(scientism) is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.


In standard English things like Webster's dictionary are what are used to understand word meaning. When I used the word 'Scientism' I was using it in the sense of an established meaning:

2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Scientism isn't a philosophy, a least not anything anyone self-identifies with. Instead, it is a pejorative term applied to science in general, used by those who feel professional scientific inquiry is a threat to some belief that the user feels should be shielded from scientific inquiry.

...

In my culture there are 7 different kinds of science and natural science is only one.
Scientism in the descriptive term is the belief that reason, logic AND evidence can be used on all aspects of life.

 

[MikeF]

Let me start by saying that my initial response to you was to in no way intended to challenge your beliefs. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply point out my perception of an incongruity in your post#5, specifically between the claim to not hold beliefs for emotional reasons and your assert of a deeper universe than can be understood by science.

I see the claim of a deeper universe as an emotional one.

Understand, that I am pro-Science but anti-Scientism. Science is a great thing.

I don't think you can be both. Human beings are flawed and fallible creatures. Any human inquiry, or investigation, or process of knowledge acquisition (however you want to describe it), will be influence or impacted by these inherent flaws and fallibilities. To say that steps to mitigate human error should not be applied to certain disciplines or certain types of inquiry seem ridiculous to me.

In instances where someone overstates our collective scientific understanding in regards to a particular problem or area of study (which is touted as an example of scientism), this, to my mind, is not scientism or even a problem with science, rather it is an example of human error. One simply has to point the error out and support ones argument. This is how science works, the capacity for challenge and correction.

I consider it a 'rational' position because my position was arrived upon through rational analysis of things like the quantity, quality and consistency of these spiritual and paranormal claims versus the chance for an inside-the-box explanation. I have to rationally conclude that this universe has things deeper than current science can investigate.
Actually I do believe there are senses in man beyond the known physical ones that can tell us real things about reality.
No, what I am saying is that what can be proven by mainstream science should be accepted. Beyond that we may consider what other sources of information have to say but they cannot be proved through mainstream science so should be left as 'hypotheses' for science. And at this time mainstream science may not have the tools to investigate these hypotheses.
Given enough paranormal events and a consistency of extra-sensory based theories on a claim, I might rationally think a theory likely has considerable truth to it.

All I will say here is that there is no distinction between a mainstream science and unspecified other types of science. Science is science, without exceptions or caveats or set-asides.

I certainly agree that we can create hypothesis, speculate, and imagine, however without sufficient supporting evidence they remain as such and should be regarded as such.

If we are technically incapable of gathering the required evidence, then all one can do is wait until such capacity is available.

Last point: you state that we should consider other sources of information that are outside of science. I would simply challenge this idea of things being "outside of science". Whatever the source of information or data, it needs to be evaluated critically and in a manner that actively tries to mitigate the influence or impact of human fallibility, human error.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Human beings are flawed and fallible creatures. Any human inquiry, or investigation, or process of knowledge acquisition (however you want to describe it), will be influence or impacted by these inherent flaws and fallibilities. To say that steps to mitigate human error should not be applied to certain disciplines or certain types of inquiry seem ridiculous to me.

...

Yeah, I agree, but we don't agree on the steps.

 

[George-ananda]

Let me start by saying that my initial response to you was to in no way intended to challenge your beliefs. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply point out my perception of an incongruity in your post#5, specifically between the claim to not hold beliefs for emotional reasons and your assert of a deeper universe than can be understood by science.

I see the claim of a deeper universe as an emotional one.



I don't think you can be both. Human beings are flawed and fallible creatures. Any human inquiry, or investigation, or process of knowledge acquisition (however you want to describe it), will be influence or impacted by these inherent flaws and fallibilities. To say that steps to mitigate human error should not be applied to certain disciplines or certain types of inquiry seem ridiculous to me.

In instances where someone overstates our collective scientific understanding in regards to a particular problem or area of study (which is touted as an example of scientism), this, to my mind, is not scientism or even a problem with science, rather it is an example of human error. One simply has to point the error out and support ones argument. This is how science works, the capacity for challenge and correction.



All I will say here is that there is no distinction between a mainstream science and unspecified other types of science. Science is science, without exceptions or caveats or set-asides.

I certainly agree that we can create hypothesis, speculate, and imagine, however without sufficient supporting evidence they remain as such and should be regarded as such.

If we are technically incapable of gathering the required evidence, then all one can do is wait until such capacity is available.

Last point: you state that we should consider other sources of information that are outside of science. I would simply challenge this idea of things being "outside of science". Whatever the source of information or data, it needs to be evaluated critically and in a manner that actively tries to mitigate the influence or impact of human fallibility, human error.

Let me distill what I am trying to say.

I am pro-science and accept the understandings of physical science. However, I am also interested and influenced in my worldview by things that cannot be directly studied by the tools of today's science and that includes the spiritual, the psychic, the paranormal.

My use of the term 'scientism' is directed at those that consider only mainstream physical science as important in our understanding of the full reality

2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)


I have come to also appreciate and consider things like Vedic (Hindu) Science and Theosophical studies that rely on (yes, alleged) direct psychic examination of the greater reality. Based on all I've seen and heard from my years of interest in the paranormal and spiritual I think they are on some right tracks, and it is impoverishing to give mainstream physical science an exaggerated position of importance.

One of the dictionary definitions for the word 'Science' that I use when I say 'Vedic (Hindu) Science'.

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject:

 

[Nakosis]

ETA: No, I hadn't noticed.

Let's query the OP.

@Nakosis
It has been noticed that you have indicated scientism as your religion on your member information page. Is your choice sincere or sarcastic?

How do you define scientism, as it applies to you and your belief system?

I'm making fun of myself for the most part. So I guess it is there mostly for sarcasm.

 

[MikeF]

I'm making fun of myself for the most part. So I guess it is there mostly for sarcasm.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm making fun of myself for the most part. So I guess it is there mostly for sarcasm.

I seem to recall we debated reason, logic and evidence to that effect as the only correct method and I said, that is scientism in a sense.

 

[Nakosis]

I seem to recall we debated reason, logic and evidence to that effect as the only correct method and I said, that is scientism in a sense.

In the non-pejorative sense it is my mostly my view.
Least I don't have an argument against the view.
However in the pejorative sense it reminds me to not make too many faith based claims about science.