Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Brian2]

You use assumptions about science and what religions are, that makes you claim that all people with science and naturalism would claim that in effect all religious are wrong.
We have been here before. The science and naturalism of certain atheistic members are not the only version.

No I don't say that all people with science and naturalism claim that all religions are wrong. Some however just use science to find out stuff and demand empirical evidence for metaphysical things and end up believing life is chemical based because that is all that science can test, chemicals, so all the evidence (acceptable evidence) points to chemical based life.

 

[Brian2]

Because it's usually given in a dismissive, condescending way. For example, in another forum I was debating a creationist who tried the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain this" tactic (thinking I had no answer), but after I showed how scientists had provided an explanation, rather than address that info the creationist just replied with basically "Well I guess you just think science answers everything" and then said I was engaging in scientism.
.

I cannot comment on the situation you describe but one way of ending the dismissive and condescending way "scientism" is used is to accept the title gladly. "Atheist" I hear was used in that way once and now that title is accepted gladly and is just a description and not a put down.
If you want empirical evidence for God and metaphysical stuff then "scientism" is probably an accurate word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cannot comment on the situation you describe but one way of ending the dismissive and condescending way "scientism" is used is to accept the title gladly. "Atheist" I hear was used in that way once and now that title is accepted gladly and is just a description and not a put down.
If you want empirical evidence for God and metaphysical stuff then "scientism" is probably an accurate word.

Which would mean that theists are probably more guilty of scientism than atheists. Countless times I have seen Christians or Muslims claiming scientific evidence for God and utterly failing to provide any. They want that "scientific" label of approval but they do not know how to earn it.

 

[Heyo]

Which would mean that theists are probably more guilty of scientism than atheists. Countless times I have seen Christians or Muslims claiming scientific evidence for God and utterly failing to provide any. They want that "scientific" label of approval but they do not know how to earn it.

That's why I call them greedy. On the one hand they dismiss science as inferior to faith on the other they still want the "scientific" label. They just want it all and leave nothing behind.

 

[We Never Know]

Which would mean that theists are probably more guilty of scientism than atheists. Countless times I have seen Christians or Muslims claiming scientific evidence for God and utterly failing to provide any. They want that "scientific" label of approval but they do not know how to earn it.

"scientific evidence for God"

God is supposedly supernatural.
Supernatural is beyond science.

So scientifically speaking... What scientific evidence do you expect for a god that science cannot study?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"scientific evidence for God"

God is supposedly supernatural.
Supernatural is beyond science.

So scientifically speaking... What scientific evidence do you expect for a god that science cannot study?

I am not the one trying to make the claim of scientific evidence for God. You are asking the wrong person. Ask the people that believe that such a thing exists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Worthy of belief rather than a 1,700 year old book which carries material from even older books and does not provide even an iota of evidence.

Millennia old books may not provide evidence (evidence of what btw?), but if they didn’t provide wisdom, they wouldn’t be read centuries after their authors committed them to the page.

 

[Heyo]

Millennia old books may not provide evidence (evidence of what btw?), but if they didn’t provide wisdom, they wouldn’t be read centuries after their authors committed them to the page.

Who reads books of wisdom? Only a few nerds (who, admittedly, love their books and are likely to preserve them). What is read mostly is entertainment. I think that is what preserved the Bible. Sex, violence and magic are entertainment, not wisdom.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Who reads books of wisdom? Only a few nerds (who, admittedly, love their books and are likely to preserve them). What is read mostly is entertainment. I think that is what preserved the Bible. Sex, violence and magic are entertainment, not wisdom.

There you go then, something for everyone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Millennia old books may not provide evidence (evidence of what btw?), but if they didn’t provide wisdom, they wouldn’t be read centuries after their authors committed them to the page.

Evidence of hat they are saying. Agree, it is part wisdom, part BS. One has to choose, cannot be taken as God's own word.

 

[cladking]

People need to consider why these old books say what they do. What possessed the authors to record myth and beliefs and how did the ideas arise in the first place?

It is mere hubris that we discount virtually everything in them.

 

[Jose Fly]

For me, there is only one way. The other is your way which is bereft of any evidence.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Jose Fly]

I cannot comment on the situation you describe but one way of ending the dismissive and condescending way "scientism" is used is to accept the title gladly. "Atheist" I hear was used in that way once and now that title is accepted gladly and is just a description and not a put down.
If you want empirical evidence for God and metaphysical stuff then "scientism" is probably an accurate word.

You just answered your own question. Why would I accept a title that doesn't apply to me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just answered your own question. Why would I accept a title that doesn't apply to me?

I don't know that.
Tell us all what science is? What knowledge is and if there is a best method for it? What the world and reality is and how you know that, if you know that? There are even more questions. Like what is the most useful human activity? What is the meaning of life and how do you know that?

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know that.
Tell us all what science is? What knowledge is and if there is a best method for it? What the world and reality is and how you know that, if you know that? There are even more questions. Like what is the most useful human activity? What is the meaning of life and how do you know that?

Again, no interest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, no interest.

So it is your word for it, but nothing else. Okay.

 

[Jose Fly]

So it is your word for it, but nothing else. Okay.

No, I just have no interest in trying to demonstrate anything to a solipsist (especially one who's clearly fishing for an argument).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I just have no interest in trying to demonstrate anything to a solipsist (especially one who's clearly fishing for an argument).

Well, I am not a metaphysical solipsist. But I am a strong universal skeptic. I in effect do that same as with methodological naturalism. I have faith that objective reality is epistemologically fair.
So I do act as if you and I are real.

All I know of you is that you claim to understand science. But I have noticed no posts, where you show that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, I am not a metaphysical solipsist. But I am a strong universal skeptic. I in effect do that same as with methodological naturalism. I have faith that objective reality is epistemologically fair.
So I do act as if you and I are real.

Ok.

All I know of you is that you claim to understand science. But I have noticed no posts, where you show that.

If you'll notice, I've been posting here for 15 years, while you've posted here for 4. So it's highly likely you've missed a lot.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok.


If you'll notice, I've been posting here for 15 years, while you've posted here for 4. So it's highly likely you've missed a lot.

Okay. That is fair. So maybe you will explain it by yourself and I will notice it.