• In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 719 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:23 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
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 am not angry with the old testament god. I find it difficult to be angry with a figment of somebody's imagination. I am dismissive of god, and it may be this attitude which you are confusing with anger.
It sure seems that way, considering new atheists always seem to follow Dawkins, Shermer's steps when speaking of a god. It's always the god of the old testament that takes center stage. It's a harangue that's poorly framed.

Although I admire both of their work, they are poorly versed in theology. I can tell you that after having read just a couple of books I bought on Amazon.com. :D
Yeah, i would say that's the way to go. Show me that you know what you are talking about, and that your information is reliable, and that is all i need.
Can you give me some examples from physics in where the "goal posts" were moved to make a theory work?
Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
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

Most atheists do pick on the biblical God as opposed to the pantheistic type god. That's because the pantheist type god is is so nebulously defined as to be almost meaningless. The pantheist god is merely a placeholder for folks who don't want to quite rule out the existence of God altogether. It's a semantic dodge. Also, pantheists aren't trying to drag down everyone else (or fly planes into buildings) with the stupidity of their fundie religion.
-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's a semantic dodge
No it's not. They have entirely different meanings attached to them. You're stereotyping.

Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, etc all do not fly into buildings.
Stop with this broad-brush hate job. It's weak.
If a mad scientists produces a chemical in a lab to pulverize a people all for the sake of his country, that does not make all science evil.
It's some wako that did the heinous deed.
Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

ant:
Can you give me some examples from physics in where the "goal posts" were moved to make a theory work?
There is an important distinction here. Our description of the physical laws change every time they are found to be wrong. We adapt our current thinking to reflect the evidence and experimental results.

Is that moving the goal posts? No. That is correcting our incorrect assesment of the situation.

Newton's laws were approximately right and we used them for hundreds of years. (and we still use them when the more detailed assesment is unnecessary) When it turned out there were some matters which newton's laws did not fully describe, we knew there was a problem and that the law had to be amended. It was not the real world which changed, but our description of the world. We changed the law to be more accurate and to describe a wider range of natural phenomena.

Einstein didn't invalidate everything before him. His description of the world describes everything that Newton's did, and then some. And THAT is why we change our descriptions. to gain greater and greater insight into the function of the natural world.

So, when ultimately Einstein is found to be only approximately right, the new description of the world will describe everything that Newton and Einstein described PLUS something new. Integration with Quantum mechanics being a prominent target.

What example did you have in mind, Ant?
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
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

Our description of the physical laws change every time they are found to be wrong. We adapt our current thinking to reflect the evidence and experimental results.
I know what you're speaking of, Johnson. Your beliefs and understanding of the natural world change when science corrects itself to continue to move toward a more accurate understanding of whatever phenomena it is examining.

Your harangue on religion in general is aimed at a fringe group of extremists that choose not to develop a progressive, theological understanding of their place in the cosmos. People engaged in serious religious considerations are constantly finding new ways to evolve their beliefs to meet the changing needs of our time. You can clearly see that in the Bible, taken strictly as a literary work. From OT to NT, there is a development in the relationship between god and man. You often either intentionally or unintentionally choose not to make distinctions like these. When you don't make the distinction, you are being irrational.

People have a need to add meaning to their lives. They find it in religion. Some of these people are well versed in science, but science is not enough for the meaning they seek. And that's okay.

These ignorant, myopic morons who choose only to keep the ancient, oppressive status quo and nothing more are not symbolic of religion.
I need to call you to the carpet on this, my friend. Just as some fundamentalist, religious ideologists sound ignorant of science, you also sound ignorant when you state things like "it takes religion to fly into buildings."

Make the distinctions. How has science created harm to people and the environment? Think of some examples.
Should I start to opine that because science is destroying the environment, all scientists are bad, science is bad, and go from there? Of course not.
Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

ant wrote:
It's a semantic dodge
No it's not. They have entirely different meanings attached to them. You're stereotyping.

Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, etc all do not fly into buildings.
Stop with this broad-brush hate job. It's weak.
If a mad scientists produces a chemical in a lab to pulverize a people all for the sake of his country, that does not make all science evil.
It's some wako that did the heinous deed.
The semantic dodge comment is directed towards agnostic theists. It's the rigid fundamentalists who fly into buildings, not agnostic theists. I came up with a rigidity of belief chart some time ago. Let me see if I can dig it up. Here it is.

Image

Jeff Ellis, who runs the Thinker blog, borrowed this model for one of his posts. He's an agnostic theist.

http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=1091#more-1091

I say the two agnostic center positions are by far the most reasonable. So you as an agnostic theist and me as an agnostic atheist are actually far closer together than an agnostic and a fundamentalist. I should move those two dots closer together. Those who allow just the sliver (99.9999%) of doubt as to the existence of God are agnostic as well. Dawkins falls into this category as well by the way. He says so in the first chapter of The God Delusion.

I figure an agnostic theist is practically an atheist anyway. The only difference really is the atheist is slightly more intellectually honest. :wink:

You believe in God, right? So tell me about this god of yours.
-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 only difference really is the atheist is slightly more intellectually honest
You're truly joking, right?

There's nothing honest whatsoever by proclaiming you know with certainty a divine intelligence, likely beyond our limited comprehension, does not exist. That's intellectual arrogance. And yes, I know the counter accusation.

I like the chart.
You believe in God, right? So tell me about this god of yours.
I feel like someone has asked me to take off my clothes in public.
:P

All I can tell you here is that although I feel at this stage of my life I'm some weird combination of a theist, pantheist, Christian agnostic, I feel more comfortable around atheists than I do theists. That is not to say I've ever had a cup of coffee with a religious fundamentalist (which I haven't). Close, but...


By the way.., that question, "tell me about this god of yours" caused me to have this movie flashback

Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

I also want to point out that i am in no way trying to say that science is perfect, that there are no mistakes, or that scientists have some special privilage.

The opposite, in fact. Science is the best tool because it seeks out these inevitable faults in human understanding. We KNOW that we've got things wrong somewhere. We KNOW ideas cannot be accepted simply on the authority of the speaker. We KNOW that we are prone to self-deception and wishful thinking. That's what science is all about. Minimizing our self-deception, finding the inevitable errors, and fixing them.

About distinguishing between modern and traditional religion.

I am primarily concerned with literalists and creationists. Not just christians, but superstitious belief of all kind. And i call attention to them because of the tendancy to put opinion over evidence. To insist on an asserted myth over the abundant contradictory evidence. I am against those who want to push creationism into biology classes, underminding the real knowledge humanity has fought so hard to acquire with a non-sensical "he said" game. Baseless assertions are not on equal footing with sound investigation and where i see people trying to assert that they are the same i speak against it.

I do address the extremes and i always try to identify the specific behavior i am addressing. If you are not part of a group pushing inteligent design, it is reasonable to think i am not addressing you. If you do not assert a young earth based on biblical geneology then you can assume i am not directing my discussion of radiometric dating at you.

There is some unavoidable splash damage here. When i talk about substituting reality with a myth of our choosing, that really applies to all religion, exactly proportional to the amount of reality being displaced by our favorite myths.

So, be as offended as your particular magical thinking permits. Do you believe in virgin birth? Then be offended when i criticise it. Do you believe in a ressurected jesus flying to heaven? then be offended when i criticise that. Do you believe in ghosts, big foot neighbors, telekinetics? Then get upset when i slam them.

Moderate christians who don't believe the bible is literally true need not take offense. After all, i am not talking about them.

But the splash damage comes in when you consider why do people choose to be moderate christians? Why do they hold THIS particular story in such regard, if it is not the real word of god? Fine. It isn't the word of god, but just really great philosophical and moral guidelines written by exemplars of the past. If that's the case, then how is it we find so much that is contemptable in these books?

OK, maybe not THE greatest minds in history, but just good ones. Fine, but why put their work on a pedestal? There are better distilations of morality available that do not have ties to this mythical seed. What makes the writings of these particular anonymous authors automatically superior to contemporary moral understanding? Why fight so hard to salvage it? Why not gut it of the non-sense and take the good, leaving it on no more honored a position than the Illiad, or Hamlet? It goes back to the religious, sacred, and irational taboo of "holi-ness".

Moderates forsake the "true" divinity of the book yet hold onto the dictates of that aknowledged falsehood that it should be granted some special place in discussion.

The conversations we've been having lately focus on the presumed existence of god. Moderate definitions of god do vary wildly from traditional assertions, but their roots are born of the same dogma, or general magical thinking. What would lead anyone to assert a magical diety in the first place? What rationality is there other than the superstious myths passed down to us from people who didn't know any better? This is assertion of fantasy over reality and i will speak against it.

If the question is "could there be a god" instead of a statement of "there is a god", as i have said my answer is that it cannot be completely ruled out. But let soem qualifier be named about that god and you can check to see if it's true.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: What is scientism?

Unread post

You're truly joking, right?

There's nothing honest whatsoever by proclaiming you know with certainty a divine intelligence, likely beyond our limited comprehension, does not exist. That's intellectual arrogance. And yes, I know the counter accusation.
You're missing the agnostic part there, Ant.

Atheist doesn't mean "Absolute certainty there is no god."
Atheist just means does not believe. the word "atheist" doesn't make you a hardliner. It's the gnostic, or "Fundamentalist" in the chart, that makes you a hard liner. So an agnostic athest, such as myself, doesn't believe in god because there is not sufficient evidence. And like i say, it could be that there may be some permutation of a god out there, but all the ones described to me don't fit with reality.

If i were a Gnostic atheist, then you are talking about a person who claims with absolute certainty that there could not be a god, and no evidence could convince otherwise.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
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

Atheist doesn't mean "Absolute certainty there is no god."
Atheist just means does not believe.
Hrmmmmmmmmmmm..,

Really now.

So most of these New Atheists are really agnostics that choose to ridicule theists for believing in something they themselves are not certain exists or does not exist. It's all really just another form of prejudice.
Makes sense. Thanks
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”