Who Believes in Scientism?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby The Pixie on Tue May 24, 2016 4:43 am

Who Believes in Scientism? Not me, for one. Certain people on this forum have made claims about various scientists subscribing to scientism, so I thought a thread to explore those claims was in order.

I am kicking off the thread with a reply to three posts in the original thread (around page 24).
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2844&start=230

The first name throw in the hat was Sean Carroll.
Metacrock wrote:
Sean Carroll wrote:Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It's certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn't involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?i

He thinks science could disprove god so he thinks science answers all questions including metaphysical.
as the quote Iv just gave indicates.

No, the quote does not say that. There is nothing in that quote that indicates he thinks God can be disproved. Read what he wrote. Not what you want him to have written.

All he says is that science can potentially explain how the universe came to be, and do it without invoking God. Okay, that is a metaphysical question, but it is quite a reach to say that he thinks all metaphysical questions can be answered by science.

Especially given this quote where he specifically says science cannot give morality:

"Morality is not part of science, however much we would like it to be. "
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... 0NseuRTJks
je aslo says:
Sean Carroll wrote:One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe.[4

that is total bull shit the majority of scientists have always believed in God, and do now.

You think he subscribes to scientism because he gets the demographics of scientists wrong? Wow. Some seriously flawed logic there, Metacrock.
the cumulative view of the things he says shows his attitudes one of scientism, read my articles:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/02/are-all-cosmologists-atheists-answering_23.html

In that article you quote Carroll:

"The question we have addressed is, ”Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?” Although I don’t imagine I have changed many people’s minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality."

This is exactly what we are talking about on the other thread. Your "God" explanation is just a black box. Science, meanwhile, is getting a better and fuller explanation every year of the universe. He does not even claim science is right, and the theists are wrong, only that science is heading to a more comprehensive explanation.

And really, who can doubt that?
I've seen much galling statements by him I just don't have time to look for them.

Oh, I get it. He makes galling statements, so you need some insulting label for him.
And he clearly states morality is not part of science in this article:

"Morality is not part of science, however much we would like it to be. "
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... 0NseuRTJks

doesn't keep him from being scientistic, that just means he's aware of one issue. the first quote only means he' open ot other science not to religion.

Then you are re-defining scientism. Okay, I get you want to give this label to him, but I have to question your integrity if you have to engage in this sort of 1984-style doublethink to do so.

Back in the real world, where Metacrock does not get to redefine words to suit his arguments...

  • Scientism is the belief that science can answer all questions.
  • Carroll has made clear he thinks there is at least one category of questions science cannot answer
  • Carroll does not believe in scientism

I think the problem here is that metaphysics is traditionally (and almost by definition) an area science avoids, and so an area where religion can peddle its black box explanation. Now science is looking at the origin of the universe, and theists are getting anxious as their god-of-the-gaps loses another gap.



Next post...
Metacrock wrote:
Jim B. wrote:Aside from Hawking, Dawkins, E.O.Wilson, Lawrence Krauss, Dan Dennett definitely lean in that direction.

all of those guys are. Hawking's Grand Design was extremely scientisitc. Krauss says philosophy should not even be practiced that it's wrong, Dennett mocks belief in mind and calls bkeiefv:the spell: lkike it'snot even an idea.,

But no one can offer any evidence, can they?

Odd that.
I think we have to examine the de4fimnition of scientism. It's a serupticious thing, it's not an open label that one usews takes om omeself it's more an acuzatiom ofr haint an attitude.,

Oh, right. Now it is a attitude. That is a great idea. Now any scientist who galls you, you can say he has a bad attitude, so he subscribes to scientism.

It is a great example of theistic reasoning:

Scientist X has a bad attitude to religion
We can define scientism as having a bad attitude to religion
Therefore scientist X subscribes to scientism
Scientism also means a belief that science potentially answers all questions
Scientist X subscribes to scientism
Therefore scientist X believes that science potentially answers all questions
Science cannot answer all questions
Therefore scientist X is wrong
Therefore scientist X is discredited


Of course, it is flawed. And if I spell it out, everyone can see it is flawed. But I am confident the theists will turn a blind eye to that.



Next post...
Metacrock wrote:Px you wanted one person so here's another one Byron Jennings.

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Scientism-Insiders-View-Science/dp/0994058918

Congratulations, Metacrock, you found the scientist who subscribes to scientism. A guy so obscure he has to self-publish, and has yet to get a review on Amazon after more than a year...
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby Metacrock on Tue May 24, 2016 5:04 am

First of all you miss the obvious candidate you! that's why I said "exactly" when you said Carroll was just saying what you do. I can prove you are scientisitc,. name one area of knowledge that you agree is as good as science or as explanatory as science in its own domain?

Second scientism is a catch all term people who are conferenced about a certain attitude have invented to describe the attitude, it's not a self professed belief. It's a bias. saying :you are scientistic is like say8ing you are biased, it's not like communism where there are self professed scientismists.

Thirdly you ignored the obvious case, Jeninnings whose book I linked to on amazon. the book is In Defense of Scientism. (some do embrace the term as a gesture of defiance against religion and art and humanities). Jennings is a physicist. for the most part most sciemntistic types don't know the term)

fourth you can't see it because you are in it. you are looking thought, it's transparent to you.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby Metacrock on Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am

Fifth you are going to have to wait until the book comes out., it'll be as couple years but eventually the book will prove it. :mrgreen:
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby The Pixie on Tue May 24, 2016 5:27 am

Metacrock wrote:First of all you miss the obvious candidate you! that's why I said "exactly" when you said Carroll was just saying what you do. I can prove you are scientisitc,. name one area of knowledge that you agree is as good as science or as explanatory as science in its own domain?

Can we put that tired old straw man away? I have stated several times o the other thread that I do not believe science can tell us what is right or wrong. I would have rather more respect for the theists around here if they could remember that for more than five seconds.

Here are ten, yes ten, instances where I made my position clear (UK times):

Wed May 04, 2016 5:33 pm
science cannot answer moral questions

Thu May 05, 2016 11:52 am
The same with morality. Science cannot say what is right or wrong.

Fri May 06, 2016 3:34 pm
Who said we can prove morality? Certainly not me..

Sat May 07, 2016 8:36 am
Of course science cannot tell us what is right or wrong,

Sat May 07, 2016 1:35 pm
Sounds like you agree with me that God - like science - cannot in fact tell us how to be good or what is good.

Mon May 09, 2016 5:08 pm
It turns out that God - like science - cannot tell us how be good or what good is.

Tue May 10, 2016 8:34 am
Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong.

Tue May 17, 2016 8:28 am
Science cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong, and it is up-front and honest about it

Tue May 17, 2016 9:09 pm
It does not tell us what is right and wrong. I thought I had said science does not tell us what is right before. Several times.

Thu May 19, 2016 9:28 am
Science cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong, and it is up-front and honest about it
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby The Pixie on Tue May 24, 2016 5:35 am

Metacrock wrote:Second scientism is a catch all term people who are conferenced about a certain attitude have invented to describe the attitude, it's not a self professed belief. It's a bias. saying :you are scientistic is like say8ing you are biased, it's not like communism where there are self professed scientismists.

It is like the label "communist" in the US. You can label anyone with compassion a communist, and suddenly that person is evil.

It is a word to label people that you consider to be biased against religion, without having to explain what it is.

So what if Carroll is biased again religion? Does that invalidate anything he says? No. So you need to label him. It is the antithesis of reasoned debate. Hmm, maybe that is why it is popular here.
Thirdly you ignored the obvious case, Jeninnings whose book I linked to on amazon. the book is In Defense of Scientism. (some do embrace the term as a gesture of defiance against religion and art and humanities). Jennings is a physicist. for the most part most sciemntistic types don't know the term)

1. In what way is an obscure, self-published physicisist the "obvious" case?

2. If you check the end of the OP, you will see I did not ignore him.
fourth you can't see it because you are in it. you are looking thought, it's transparent to you.

So you supposedly have five reasons, except the first ansd fourth are the same, and the five is a secret. Colour me unimpressed.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby The Pixie on Tue May 24, 2016 5:39 am

Hmm, maybe I should label anyone biased towards theism as a fundamentalist?

Obviously fundamentalist has a specific meaning, but I can pretend it means biased to religion. It's kind of related right? And it has that derogatory overtone just like scientism.

Then, rather than having a reasoned debate, you guys can dismiss my posts as scientism and I can dismiss yours as fundamentalism. Even though they are obviously not. What do you think? Would that be good for the forum?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby Metacrock on Tue May 24, 2016 6:33 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:First of all you miss the obvious candidate you! that's why I said "exactly" when you said Carroll was just saying what you do. I can prove you are scientisitc,. name one area of knowledge that you agree is as good as science or as explanatory as science in its own domain?


Can we put that tired old straw man away? I have stated several times o the other thread that I do not believe science can tell us what is right or wrong. I would have rather more respect for the theists around here if they could remember that for more than five seconds.

:mrgreen:

ok let's forget labels and talk ideas.

Here are ten, yes ten, instances where I made my position clear (UK times):

Wed May 04, 2016 5:33 pm
science cannot answer moral questions

Thu May 05, 2016 11:52 am
The same with morality. Science cannot say what is right or wrong.

Fri May 06, 2016 3:34 pm
Who said we can prove morality? Certainly not me..

Sat May 07, 2016 8:36 am
Of course science cannot tell us what is right or wrong,

Sat May 07, 2016 1:35 pm
Sounds like you agree with me that God - like science - cannot in fact tell us how to be good or what is good.

Mon May 09, 2016 5:08 pm
It turns out that God - like science - cannot tell us how be good or what good is.

Tue May 10, 2016 8:34 am
Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong.

Tue May 17, 2016 8:28 am
Science cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong, and it is up-front and honest about it

Tue May 17, 2016 9:09 pm
It does not tell us what is right and wrong. I thought I had said science does not tell us what is right before. Several times.

Thu May 19, 2016 9:28 am
Science cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong, and it is up-front and honest about it



that's all great, and I am not going back on what I said about forgetting labels. But in fact scientism doesn't just mean thinking science tells us right and wrong. Be that as it may there are plenty of scientific types who think it can. Upchurch, E.O. Wilson, Harris.

I have a chapter onm that in the book. I'll give a link to my blog p[eice about it.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby Metacrock on Tue May 24, 2016 6:36 am

The Pixie wrote:Hmm, maybe I should label anyone biased towards theism as a fundamentalist?

Obviously fundamentalist has a specific meaning, but I can pretend it means biased to religion. It's kind of related right? And it has that derogatory overtone just like scientism.

Then, rather than having a reasoned debate, you guys can dismiss my posts as scientism and I can dismiss yours as fundamentalism. Even though they are obviously not. What do you think? Would that be good for the forum?


it's not merely a reasonable doubt to say things like there's NO reason to believe in God. ,or science disproves all the reasons to believe in god or science proves this big world view that doesn't need God. those not reasonable they are totalizing bull shit,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby Metacrock on Tue May 24, 2016 6:42 am

here are the things you did not answer:

Second scientism is a catch all term people who are conferenced about a certain attitude have invented to describe the attitude, it's not a self professed belief. It's a bias. saying :you are scientistic is like say8ing you are biased, it's not like communism where there are self professed scientismists.

Thirdly you ignored the obvious case, Jeninnings whose book I linked to on amazon. the book is In Defense of Scientism. (some do embrace the term as a gesture of defiance against religion and art and humanities). Jennings is a physicist. for the most part most sciemntistic types don't know the term)

fourth you can't see it because you are in it. you are looking thought, it's transparent to you.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Who Believes in Scientism?

Postby The Pixie on Tue May 24, 2016 7:53 am

Metacrock wrote:here are the things you did not answer:
...

See my post Tue May 24, 2016 11:35 am
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Next

Return to Adventure of Faith (Religion/Spirituality)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron