Scientism is the word used by people who want their faith-based proclamations about reality taken more seriously than empiricists take them. Their complaint is that some place too much emphasis on science or have an excessive trust of it, but I hear them as saying that they want their religious proclamations taken seriously, and religion recognized as a legitimate path to truth not accessible to science - a nonoverlapping magisterium.
Critical thought rejects all of that and its claims of truth for itself, which is the source of the objection. I'm a typical empiricist who has been accused of this on these threads, and I never make (nor read except from theistic apologists misrepresenting people like me) the claim that science can answer all questions. The empiricist's position is more nuanced than that, but the theist is correct that he rejects all claims that are based in faith. Thus, there is not an excessive reliance on science - what would that even look like? - just no reliance on faith.
Both science and magic can function as a religion.
How about religion? Can it function as a religion? Apparently, that's a bad thing to Lewis, or why would he be bringing it up in a criticism of science?
Lewis makes the same mistake as most other apologists, who have a double standard for their beliefs and science and think nobody notices. I was just on another thread where a creationist was explaining that abiogenesis is a faith-based hypothesis. His worldview is a faith-based hypothesis. Lewis is doing the same - attempting to undermine the confidence in science by calling it religion-like, a laughable type of apologetics. From Amanda Marcotte:
"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."
And no, Mr. Lewis, science does not function as a religion. Christianity does. Science doesn't invoke magic. Christianity does, and it's very jealous of competing magic, hence its condemnation of Harry Potter and Ouija boards.
science training does not give someone the right to dictate moral decisions to the rest of society
No, that's the job of religions like Christianity, or so they think. Of course, science isn't making moral proclamations anyway. This is yet another scurrilous attack on science by Lewis. When does he tell us the good parts of his faith-based beliefs, or is his argument only that the alternative, empiricism, is worse? It's like the Republicans today. They have nothing to promote, so all they can do is attack the alternative.
Both science and magic encourage gullibility, or a lack of skepticism.
Science encourages gullibility? But not religion, right? LOL.
This is what I mean about Lewis' apologetics. Like all the rest, he has no argument in support of his beliefs, so his case is to try to undermine the alternative to faith, empiricism. He just keeps attacking it because what else can he do? What can any Abrahamic theist do? What do they have to show to make their religion seem more appealing or correct or useful? Nothing, apparently, or we'd be hearing about that instead - or at least in addition to the dishonest attacks on science.
I would suggest to the likes of Lewis that they just get used to the fact that there is no place in science or critical thought for his religion, and that if he wants it respected, he'll need to present the respectable things that it does. If he wants his religious "truths" respected alongside scientific truth, he'll need to show that they are true. That's not going to happen, is it? Instead, we can expect a steady flow of this kind of dishonest apologetics worthy of no respect.
Scientism is code for "I want respect for my faith-based way of thinking, and I want its unevidenced proclamations to be given equal status and respect as science."
