Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Jose Fly]

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.

 

[The Hammer]

Scientism??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientism??

Scientism is as the OP stated the belief that science has the answer for everything. I see that accusation most often arising from creationists when trying to counter evolution. But evolution is clearly not a case of scientism. It says nothing about the existence of a God or not. It only deals with the origin of species and not morals or other complex problems. It is usually a false accusation and a red herring.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientism??

I just defined it in the OP: "the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering."

If you don't believe in or advocate that, then this thread isn't for you.

 

[MikeF]

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.

Hmmm. I don't think the OP reflects the use of the term 'scientism' out in the world, but I will address the OP as written and scientism as defined.

Since "all questions" include things like, "What should I have for lunch?", my answer would be an unequivocal no, science is not required nor the means to answer all questions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism"

I can't imagine any critical thinker agreeing with that comment, like any of the other straw men we see here misrepresenting the actual positions of atheists, humanists, empiricists, and anti-theists. I would not make either of those claims (separated by "or"), but I would make claims similar to those - the kind these critics turn into something like what you wrote. Your second comment, however, kind of puts a chill on any answer more than that. As I indicated, my position is similar to that, but different, any discussion of which goes toward defining scientism, which you don't want and which I will respect. So, you have my complete answer: not I.

 

[Heyo]

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 the best tool known to humans to learn about the physical world.
For anything unreal like ideals, morals, constructs, laws, stories, there are philosophy, jurisprudence, literary sciences, etc.

 

[Secret Chief]

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view

Not seen the declared religion of @Nakosis ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is the best tool known to humans to learn about the physical world.
For anything unreal like ideals, morals, constructs, laws, stories, there are philosophy, jurisprudence, literary sciences, etc.

And here we go. What is your evidence as evidence that there is such a physical property of being unreal?
And is all of the world physical?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Scientism??

I prefer science without the -'ism' personally myself.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not seen the declared religion of @Nakosis ?

No.

 

[Jose Fly]

And here we go. What is your evidence as evidence that there is such a physical property of being unreal?
And is all of the world physical?

Damn it, please abide by my request as stated in the OP!

"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."

 

[Heyo]

Damn it, please abide by my request as stated in the OP!

"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 wasn't going to discuss his kind of solipsism again anyway.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

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.

Scientism is as the OP stated the belief that science has the answer for everything. I see that accusation most often arising from creationists when trying to counter evolution. But evolution is clearly not a case of scientism. It says nothing about the existence of a God or not. It only deals with the origin of species and not morals or other complex problems. It is usually a false accusation and a red herring.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Damn it, please abide by my request as stated in the OP!

"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 just mentioned the motivation of some to use it. But just focusing on the claim of "scientism" I have never seen the accusation used properly here. I have a feeling that the people that use that claim do not understand the concept.

So I will ask: Does anyone know of valid accusations of scientism on this forum?

 

[Jose Fly]

I just mentioned the motivation of some to use it. But just focusing on the claim of "scientism" I have never seen the accusation used properly here. I have a feeling that the people that use that claim do not understand the concept.

So I will ask: Does anyone know of valid accusations of scientism on this forum?

This thread is specifically to allow those who believe in and advocate for scientism to identify themselves, nothing more.

If you want to discuss "valid accusations of scientism", please start a new thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 science teaches us how.

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

I would say that religion gives an answer. Actually it gives many different answers. The question is are any of them right? Generally the sciences are not a tool in discussing this. It may apply in some cases, but quite a few religions do not have a problem with testable reality. To decide if any of them are right a different tool than the sciences would be needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is specifically to allow those who believe in and advocate for scientism to identify themselves, nothing more.

If you want to discuss "valid accusations of scientism", please start a new thread.

Okay, but I think that you are on a wild goose chase. I doubt if there are any advocates of scientism here. The thread will quickly die if we leave it to that standard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it "scientism" if I believe that science has
many good answers, but not all? And that
religion has no useful answers...& can't
even get the questions right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it "scientism" if I believe that science has
many good answers, but not all? And that
religion has no useful answers...& can't
even get the questions right?

No!