Page 2 of 8

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:37 am
by Dexter
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.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:48 am
by geo
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.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:01 am
by ant
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.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:04 am
by ant
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."

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:27 am
by Dexter
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.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am
by ant
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.
Part of my point is that even godless people can commit crimes against humanity. They don't need a God to worship or commit sacrifice too. It's an ideology they kill for.
That's not difficult to see or admit, unless the emotion behind "religion is bad!" is too strong to overcome in favor of objectivity.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:35 pm
by geo
ant wrote:
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."
Reverence for nature and the idea of being stewards of the planet are not religious tenets at all. Buddhists hold a reverence for nature as well. Ideas of universal love are also seen as a Christian ideal. But you don't need to believe in Christ to accept the notion of universal love. These are basic cultural ideas that exist outside of religion.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:49 pm
by geo
ant wrote:
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.
Part of my point is that even godless people can commit crimes against humanity. They don't need a God to worship or commit sacrifice too. It's an ideology they kill for.
That's not difficult to see or admit, unless the emotion behind "religion is bad!" is too strong to overcome in favor of objectivity.
There are usually many complex conditions on the ground that lead to violence, even when religious differences are specifically cited. Certainly religious intolerance is a contributing factor in matters of hatred. Here in North Carolina, the religious right are furiously pushing a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. It's weird to me that this would be a religious issue at all. Why do pastors and ministers feel that it's their domain to define marriage in society? This is another example of religion overstepping its bounds. Why do we deem men of the cloth to be arbiters of our morality? What special training or knowledge do they have? It's what happens when people stop thinking for themselves, passing of their own moral responsibility to group-think.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:26 pm
by ant
But you don't need to believe in Christ to accept the notion of universal love. These are basic cultural ideas that exist outside of religion.
That is a reflexive response from atheists who believe theists in general feel religion is necessary in order to feel a reverence and universal affinity for the natural world. That simply is false and I do not believe anyone here made that assertion.

Christian, Buddhist, Taoist tenants all express an admiration and reverence toward nature. An even hand would recognize that.
Not saying you aren't even handed. Just highlighting that aspect of religion.

Re: What is scientism?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:19 pm
by ant
There are usually many complex conditions on the ground that lead to violence, even when religious differences are specifically cited.
Yes, the world is a highly complex arena, with and without religious factors considered. To finger a literalist, extremist facet of religion and broad brush it as being responsible for "people flying into buildings" or "drugging the masses" is simplistic.
Why do we deem men of the cloth to be arbiters of our morality? What special training or knowledge do they have? It's what happens when people stop thinking for themselves, passing of their own moral responsibility to group-think.
I do not support men of cloth influencing legislation. I support fair, balanced laws governing society.
Group-think is inherent in all institutions, including the scientific/political arena. It can not be avoided.

Here are some examples of group-think in play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The Space Shuttle disaster can be seen as one also.

For the sake of the argument, let's both agree that religion is a detriment to society.
How would you go about resolving this problem?
Besides beating the "separation of church and state" drum, what else would you do?