Scientism? (reject, protestant, faith, verse, philosophy)

[JerryL]

Nice dodge. Valid = workable, effective, sound, etc. Truth = that which is true.

Cool. Please illustrate another working method to determine truth about reality.

Umm, not me. On the contrary, I claimed that divination, an empirical method, is a valid means of obtaining truth for some societies.

I was describing the claim you've made about "sciencism". I understand that you personally are also claiming divinition. Please show me how divination is a working method for determining the truth about reality.

Valid = workable, effective, sound, etc. Truth = that which is true.

I'm assuming that a method which does not lead to truth is non-workable. Please show me how divination is a workable method for determining truth about reality.

Look at the world through your own two eyes and you have perceived reality subjectively.

I agree. My perception of reality is subjective. Please show me, however, a subjective reality.

I provided a link. I have asserted all along that divination is an empirical study.

If divination is emperical, then how is this an example of how "sciencism" is wrong?

It wouldn't. You haven't listened to a word I've said, and in fact summarily dismissed everything I've said.

You've argued that this hypothetical "sciencism" is wrong. I've been asking you to proveit wrong by example. You have not given an example of a non-emperical method which works when determining truth about reality.

Thank you. I'm done with this thread.

Bye.

[JerryL]

Philisohpical and religious claims do not always have to be about what is true or false. Both incorporate morality. If you believe that there is a fixed external set of moral laws, then you can make a statement such as "It is a fact that it is immoral to do this".

And we can prove religion is not a valid method to determining such truths by noticing that religions all come to different conclusions on the matter. A system which is completely inconsistant in it's results regarding something which is assumed to be consistant in acutallty has proven itself invalid.

I can discern winning lotter ticket numbers by random guessing. I may sometimes be right, but random guessing is not a valid method for determining what numbers will win the lottery.

One can reject non-empircal subjective methods for obtaining truth without rejecting aspects of philosophy and religion that refer to morality.

Very true.

Now, almost certainly there are things that exist that we are not aware of at present. If they affect us in any way, then it will be possible one day to observe them in some way, and discover the truth about them. The notion of things that have a metaphysical existance seems an unnecessary distinction. If they affect us then we can learn about them, and they simply become physical. If they do not affect us in any way then there is no point in considering their existance.

Frubals to you.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Scientism isn't about the claims that science makes. It's about the claims that certain people make in the name of science.

I'm not sure eveyone participating in this thread is as clear on the distinction between science and scientism as you seem to be, Lilithu.

Originally Posted by JerryL

And we can prove religion is not a valid method to determining such truths by noticing that religions all come to different conclusions on the matter. A system which is completely inconsistant in it's results regarding something which is assumed to be consistant in acutallty has proven itself invalid.

Not trying to get off topic here, but is this your considered opinion? That is, are you seriously suggesting that all religions are alike in the method whereby they arrive at morals?

[JerryL]

Not trying to get off topic here, but is this your considered opinion? That is, are you seriously suggesting that all religions are alike in the method whereby they arrive at morals?

Hrm. I'm not sure if I'd answer "yes" or "no" there. I'm certainly hesitant to say "all" about anything.