• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 742 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:59 am

What is scientism?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

I'm not sure why Shermer is trying to rescue the word "scientism." My understanding is that it is a perjorative term.

Perhaps some advocates of science sound a little arrogant and overconfident. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. They are not asking us to believe things without good reason. If they are, then you shouldn't listen -- they are not threatening eternal damnation either.

The contest between religion and science for understanding the world is not even a close match.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

Like geo, I prefer 'materialist,' to capture some of the idea of 'scientism' (without the pejorative part). With materialist, it's more clear that the term applies to specifics and is not a description of personality. Way back when modern science was revving up, some English Romantic poets worried that science would overwhelm us with its materialist view, robbing nature of what they viewed as transcendence. Wordsworth expressed some of this in his famous sonnet "The World Is Too Much With Us". The later American Romantics, who called themselves Transcendentalists, agreed. Even as keen a scientific mind as Thoreau's insisted that research and fact were meaningful only in the context of a being called Nature.

The problem with science, for me, comes down to reductionism misapplied. Reductionism has been essential to the physical sciences, but in the different areas of human culture and history it never seems to work. Trying to reduce culture to natural law or measurement often destroys what we're looking at. We run into another problem labeled by Wordsworth: "We murder to dissect." In perennial wisdom, the idea that materialism doesn't suffice has long been captured in the Bible adage, "Man does not live by bread alone."
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

Dexter wrote:I'm not sure why Shermer is trying to rescue the word "scientism." My understanding is that it is a perjorative term.

Perhaps some advocates of science sound a little arrogant and overconfident. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. They are not asking us to believe things without good reason. If they are, then you shouldn't listen -- they are not threatening eternal damnation either.

The contest between religion and science for understanding the world is not even a close match.
But again, don't they address different domains (or magisteria, to use Gould's word)? I see science as the pursuit of objective knowledge. Using the scientific method we now understand germ theory and we know how antibiotics work and we know how to treat cholera. Real world matters (medicine, technology) are clearly the domain of science.

Religious belief is meaningful to many individuals, so it can be viewed as part of a personal spiritual journey. It's a way of seeing the world.

Where the two come into conflict is when believers attempt to push their beliefs on others. Believers who disparage science or reject science altogether in order to make room for their beliefs are being irrational. This is the problem, not the religious belief itself. As Gould argued, even rational people of science can respect the metaphorical value of religion because it's outside the realm of science.

And, yes, it works the other way too. By disparaging people's religious beliefs, religious skeptics are saying that believers are wrong while they are right. But because religious belief is a subjective experience, it can't be wrong. It's like arguing with someone about whether they enjoyed a movie or not.
Gould wrote:Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.
So I guess I don't see it as a "contest" between science and religion. Clearly a large percentage of people derives meaning and pleasure from theological beliefs. It's only when we cross the line into other people's domains that problems occur. Or in the case of religion, it's equating personal religious experience with objective truth that invites confrontation.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

The contest between religion and science for understanding the world is not even a close match
I don't think that is a productive way to view science and religion as being in a contest between each other. Actually, this is the very attitude that keeps the warfare thesis alive.

I don't believe the two are at odds with each other, or should be. Religion should not be a means to examine the materialistic nature of the natural world. Science, is not, nor should not be required to give meaning to our lives. That is a theological matter.

Theism has certainly had a positive, meaningful impact on humanity. Religious discourse as fabulation has assisted in establishing moral foundations for people to guide their lives by. It lays out values. It's tales share with us what is seen as "good," which can be implicit in the core of a story, reinforced by a moral attached to a story, or can be set forth in a list of what to do and what not to do. Theism can be seen as a motivation for good behavior. I know the reverse has been in the spotlight of late, but that is due largely to those who hold extremist positions that have allowed their religion to act as an uncompromising, cruel despot who's authority should not be questioned. Theism becomes poisonous when it is used to keep a harmful status quo in place at any cost.

For those who care to take an intellectually honest, empathetic view, theism/religion should be recognized as having played a prominent role in both the past and present time. It has held cultures together, provided meaning, comfort, reassurance, and hope to people throughout time.

Religion, much to the dismay of some hardcore militant atheists, is not going anywhere anytime soon.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

It's only when we cross the line into other people's domains that problems occur.
Clearly, there have really been only two major paradigms in human history - religion and science.., theistic and materialistic looking glasses.
No doubt there exists a conflict between the two because, as Thomas Kuhn might say, there is simply little to no communication possible between paradigms.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

geo wrote: But again, don't they address different domains (or magisteria, to use Gould's word)? I see science as the pursuit of objective knowledge.
And, yes, it works the other way too. By disparaging people's religious beliefs, religious skeptics are saying that believers are wrong while they are right. But because religious belief is a subjective experience, it can't be wrong. It's like arguing with someone about whether they enjoyed a movie or not.
But religious belief is not merely a belief about the meaning of life. It is making (false) claims about how the world works, and about historical events.
ant wrote: Theism has certainly had a positive, meaningful impact on humanity.
I don't believe this is certain. I would concede that it provides comfort to people, and that it has had a role in influencing moral beliefs. It has also had a role in countless wars and murders and intolerance.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

DWill wrote:Like geo, I prefer 'materialist,' to capture some of the idea of 'scientism' (without the pejorative part). With materialist, it's more clear that the term applies to specifics and is not a description of personality. Way back when modern science was revving up, some English Romantic poets worried that science would overwhelm us with its materialist view, robbing nature of what they viewed as transcendence. Wordsworth expressed some of this in his famous sonnet "The World Is Too Much With Us". The later American Romantics, who called themselves Transcendentalists, agreed. Even as keen a scientific mind as Thoreau's insisted that research and fact were meaningful only in the context of a being called Nature.

The problem with science, for me, comes down to reductionism misapplied. Reductionism has been essential to the physical sciences, but in the different areas of human culture and history it never seems to work. Trying to reduce culture to natural law or measurement often destroys what we're looking at. We run into another problem labeled by Wordsworth: "We murder to dissect." In perennial wisdom, the idea that materialism doesn't suffice has long been captured in the Bible adage, "Man does not live by bread alone."
This is so eloquently put and I feel it elevates this discussion to a different level by actually showing the power of metaphor and poetic language. "We murder to dissect" really stays with you. I'm going to read some Wordsworth today. Thanks, DWill.

I've always thought that the study of evolution if anything allows us to see ourselves as part of nature while many religions have only worked to foster the delusion that we are apart from nature. And, yet, it cannot be denied that many people need that spiritual perspective. I still feel the ultimate solution is to understand these separate roles played by science and religion. The pretense that religion is somehow an alternative to science or competes with science is an incredibly negative force in our culture.

More later. On the road today.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

It has also had a role in countless wars and murders and intolerance.
This is the standard line that atheists utilize when they attempt to indict religion as being largely responsible for the evils committed by mankind.

It's a bit morbid to think there exists some informal body count as to which "side" is more culpable - religion or secularism. It's certainly true beyond a shadow of doubt that secularism has played a major role in war, murder, genocide, intolerance, and other barbarous behaviors. But that is by and large ignored because the underlying emotion here is not outrage against the atrocities committed by man collectively, it is the disdain toward religion specifically.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

I've always thought that the study of evolution if anything allows us to see ourselves as part of nature while many religions have only worked to foster the delusion that we are apart from nature
I like this. So very well put.

But Christ did in fact have an appreciation of nature:
“ See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."
Last edited by ant on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant wrote:
It has also had a role in countless wars and murders and intolerance.
This is the standard line that atheists utilize when they attempt to indict religion as being largely responsible for the evils committed by mankind.

It's a bit morbid to think there exists some informal body count as to which "side" is more culpable - religion or secularism. It's certainly true beyond a shadow of doubt that secularism has played a major role in war, murder, genocide, intolerance, and other barbarous behaviors. But that is by and large ignored because the underlying emotion here is not outrage against the atrocities committed by man collectively, it is the disdain toward religion specifically.
That's because wars are not fought for "secularism," but they are sometimes fought for religion. The standard line for theists is that Hitler and Stalin were killing people because of atheism, but that makes no sense. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”