• In total there are 45 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 44 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am

The six signs of "Scientism"

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond 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
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

ant wrote: Here is a quote from one of my favorite militant atheists, Richard Dawkins:
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
ant wrote:That's of course even if we can scientifically call it a meme.
It seems a cheap way to explain something away in "scientific terms" to add credible authority.
Dawkins does generally take a hard line against organized religion and I'm not going to argue that he doesn't. But you're basically cherry-picking quotes out of context. If you'd read this within its context, you would know he uses the idea of memes as an analogy. Memes are used as an illustration of how genes work. Dawkins doesn't discuss memes as a scientific theory and is actually very clear on this point. You would know that if you'd actually read this book. You do go on about memes, but I don't think you really understand them. Nor do take the time to learn.

He use the example of blind faith ultimately to explain the concept of a memeplex and so, by analogy, a geneplex:
To take a particular example, an aspect of doctrine that has been very effective in enforcing religious observance is the threat of hell fire. Many children and even some adults believe that they will suffer ghastly torments after death if they do not obey the priestly rules. This is a peculiarly nasty technique of persuasion, causing great psychological anguish throughout the middle ages and even today. But it is highly effective. It might almost have been planned deliberately by a macchiavellian priesthood trained in deep psychological indoctrination techniques. However, I doubt if the priests were that clever. Much more probably, unconscious memes have ensured their own survival by virtue of those same qualities of pseudo-ruthlessness that successful genes display. The idea of hell fire is, quite simply, self perpetuating, because of its own deep psychological impact. It has become linked with the god meme because the two reinforce each other, and assist each other's survival in the meme pool.

Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.

Blind faith can justify anything.(7) If a man believes in a different god, or even if he uses a different ritual for worshipping the same god, blind faith can decree that he should die -- on the cross, at the stake, skewered on a Crusader's sword, shot in a Beirut street, or blown up in a bar in Belfast. Memes for blind faith have their own ruthless ways of propagating themselves. This is true of patriotic and political as well as religious blind faith.

Memes and genes may often reinforce each other, but they sometimes come into opposition. For example, the habit of celibacy is presumably not inherited genetically. A gene for celibacy is doomed to failure in the gene pool, except under very special circumstances such as we find in the social insects. But still, a meme for celibacy can be successful in the meme pool. For example, suppose the success of a meme depends critically on how much time people spend in actively transmitting it to other people. Any time spent in doing other things than attempting to transmit the meme may be regarded as time wasted from the meme's point of view. The meme for celibacy is transmitted by priests to young boys who have not yet decided what they want to do with their lives. The medium of transmission is human influence of various kinds, the spoken and written word, personal example and so on. Suppose, for the sake of argument, it happened to be the case that marriage weakened the power of a priest to influence his flock, say because it occupied a large proportion of his time and attention. This has, indeed, been advanced as an official reason for the enforcement of celibacy among priests. If this were the case, it could follow that the meme for celibacy could have greater survival value than the meme for marriage. Of course, exactly the opposite would be true for a gene for celibacy. If a priest is a survival machine for memes, celibacy is a useful attribute to build into him. Celibacy is just a minor partner in a large complex of mutually-assisting religious memes.

I conjecture that co-adapted meme-complexes evolve in the same kind of way as co-adapted gene-complexes. Selection favours memes that exploit their cultural environment to their own advantage. This cultural environment consists of other memes which are also being selected. The meme pool therefore comes to have the attributes of an evolutionarily stable set, which new memes find it hard to invade.
[/quote]

http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/ ... memes.html
Last edited by geo on Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-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: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

That's of course even if we can scientifically call it a meme.
It seems a cheap way to explain something away in "scientific terms" to add credible authority.

Ultimate authority -

Hey, you have the delusional "God" as an authority. I have Science as mine.
Yours is a meme, mine is not.
I win and you lose.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

geo wrote:I'm sure I veer off occasionally into "scientism," especially #4 above. But that's usually in response to real world claims made in the name of religion. Sometimes we take a harder line approach in response to hard line claims from the other side. It's probably good to check oneself in that regard.
Some of those are committed by both sides. Ant, for example, is often preoccupied with the demarcation between science and non-science. But he's obviously not guilty of scientism. This makes me want to read her chapter on cynicism(the author addresses both sides of the divide).

I might be guilty of number 6. I don't see hermeneutics as a valid form of inquiry. Other forms, such as 'history or legal' inquiry, can be too interpretive and biased without the filters commonly found in science. Yet they are still legitimate forms of inquiry. I have no problem with the second part, I love the arts.
The meme for militant atheism that wishes to promote the belief that religion is bad for society and that people of faith should be "deconverted" by quashing their beliefs in the public square can accomplish nothing more than polarization.
I agree with the polarizing effects. I think many militant atheists are also aware. Typically, the mindset is similar to that of punishment. It's for the next generation, to educate them. And I think it's been working. Those who already believe will become polarized. But younger generations who are just becoming familiar with the debate now see two vocal sides, rather than one vocal sacred side and one outcast side. It's no longer taboo to be an atheist in many circles, and that's precisely the point.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

I enjoyed De Waal's article in The Salon. Thanks for posting. He makes some good points.

It is interesting to see how undogmatic people are in predominantly atheist countries like Sweden and Finland. (De Waal is actually from The Netherlands). Americans seem especially inclined towards polarization in both politics and religion. I wonder why that is.

I have always wanted to read De Waal's book THE INNER APE and PRIMATES AND PHILOSOPHERS: HOW MORALITY EVOLVED. I have the latter on my shelf.
-Geo
Question everything
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

ant wrote:the belief that religion is bad for society
let's make it specific, rather than general.

i assert that the belief that the new testament should be taken literally is damaging to people's growth in enjoyment of life.

as an example, little tommy timkins has been told that unless he believes in jesus then as the wretched poor pitiful sinner he is... well, god will have to reluctantly burn his soul in hell for ever and ever and ever.

let's take another example, the doctrine of predestination as taught by some religious folk.

you are born predestined to heaven or hell and nothing you do can alter that.

no amount of good you do can save you if you are predestined to hell
no amount of evil will damn you if you are predestined to heaven

one could go on but sufficed to say that literalist religion is a recipe for at best idiocy and at worst ...well i shudder to behold.
ant wrote:people of faith should be "deconverted" by quashing their beliefs in the public square can accomplish nothing more than polarization.
well people of the above cited examples of "faith" number in the millions and they are very dull of mind not to have realised that they need deconverting desperately, they need to deconvert themselves by actually thinking, by being their own prophet priest and king, no doubt they'll get better at it with practice.

polarisation is not always a bad thing.

critical thinking might be considered a polar opposite of gullibility

see you all at the north pole :lol:

people talk of "god" and "science", but rarely do i see these words defined clearly and usefully.

you tell me what god means specifically and i'll tell you what i think.
you tell me what science means specifically and i'll tell you what i think.

without the specifics we have vague abstract notions that could mean anything.

specifically lets look at an example Charles Darwin quotes in descent of man
The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: ?The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts?and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ?struggle for existence,? it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed?and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.?


as an irishman i readily state i would not piss on mr greg if he were on fire.

:lol:

so to "science" and "god" i say the same thing

show yourself

define yourself

specifically

and i will see if you meet my current criteria for acceptability, for "god" and "science" are for me, whatever i allow them to be.

as Thomas Paine said
for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.


well, i am youkrst Governor of youkrst

ant is Governor of ant

interbane is Governor of interbane

etc etc

undefined and non specific concepts can kiss my fine irish ass.
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: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/893 ... arbarians/

I agree with what some of the Rabbi claims in this article, but not all of it.

Here is something that caught my eye:
Richard Dawkins, whom I respect, partly understands this. He has said often that Darwinism is a science, not an ethic. Turn natural selection into a code of conduct and you get disaster. But if asked where we get our morality from, if not from science or religion, the new atheists start to stammer. They tend to argue that ethics is obvious, which it isn’t, or natural, which it manifestly isn’t either, and end up vaguely hinting that this isn’t their problem. Let someone else worry about it.
The new atheists blindly follow the lead of atheistic scientists like Dawkins who do not bother with ethical / moral aspects of our nature that can not be explained away by ape behavior; radical altruism is a good example here. It is deeply ungratifying to see love as simply a biological drive to continue the species when reduced to animalism. Or why the raping and murder of children is morally abhorrent universally.

There is a deep intellectual shallowness here. The new atheists (present company excluded) who look to science as the only source of knowledge fit this description to the last letter:
‘On the surface, he’s profound, but deep down, he’s superficial.’
If belief in God is and has been nothing more than a delusion it certainly is the most important thought mankind has ever entertained. Our most valued "pathological" lie to ourselves.
What if we were to erase from our history belief in God from the mind of Man? How much art, poetry, literary works, GOOD deeds (yes, there's always a flip side). What would be left to treasure? What would the atheist have for us? What magnificent works does he have for us?

How would communities have been built? And what role did the atheist play in community fellowship in history )and moving forward)?
What value is the "rational" atheistic meme to us in the future if its presence is essentially all but absent from what I've mentioned above?

Superficial debates about the mechanics of nature are useless without the ability to transcend our animal natures with the Purpose that Belief in something greater than ourselves has given us. That is the radical difference between Man and Ape. That is something which the atheist remains tone def too and continues to ignore and or explain away unconvincingly.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

The new atheists blindly follow the lead of atheistic scientists like Dawkins who do not bother with ethical / moral aspects of our nature that can not be explained away by ape behavior; radical altruism is a good example here. It is deeply ungratifying to see love as simply a biological drive to continue the species when reduced to animalism. Or why the raping and murder of children is morally abhorrent universally.

There is a deep intellectual shallowness here. The new atheists (present company excluded) who look to science as the only source of knowledge fit this description to the last letter:
Although it’s deeply ungratifying to see love as a biological drive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a biological drive. The rape and murder of children is universally morally abhorrent because not only do we deeply love our children, but we have empathy as well. We know the love others feel for their children, and upon hearing of incidents, we make the association with our own. Giving voice to the mechanisms does not undo their impact or their efficacy.

Causation here is also very complex, and is the opposite of intellectually shallow. What is intellectually shallow is the less complex answer – morals come from some supernatural source, needing no mechanisms in order to be effective. I’m not sure how that moral compass manifests in everyone’s mind… I suppose it’s magic. That's an answer without any depth at all.
What if we were to erase from our history belief in God from the mind of Man? How much art, poetry, literary works, GOOD deeds (yes, there's always a flip side). What would be left to treasure? What would the atheist have for us? What magnificent works does he have for us?


Let’s say the answer is; none at all. We’d be left with barely a single percent of all these good products. I’d ask what your point is? For one, that doesn’t say anything about whether or not there is a god, let alone whether or not Christianity is true. For another, the human capacity for the arts would likely fill the void in some other way in this alternate history. Just because religion is what produced these large amounts of art doesn’t mean it is the only way mankind would find to express himself artistically. This point is proven by atheist artists all around the world.
Superficial debates about the mechanics of nature are useless without the ability to transcend our animal natures with the Purpose that Belief in something greater than ourselves has given us. That is the radical difference between Man and Ape. That is something which the atheist remains tone def too and continues to ignore and or explain away unconvincingly.
Explain what you mean by “explain away”. Do you think explanations double as dismissals?

I transcend my animal nature with purpose, but that purpose isn’t born from a belief in something greater than myself. Why do you think that’s the only source of purpose in a man’s life? Why do you hang on to this old canard when it’s been so thoroughly destroyed? Are you reading creationist or theological blogs and repeating their arguments? It seems that your points are all pulled from a six foot deep hole, but you won’t accept that their heartbeat has long since faded.

In fact, we've had this exact same discussion over atheist purpose on this forum. Refresh your arguments by perusing the archives here rather than googling whatever belief you want confirmed.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
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: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

We've tried to pin down ant before without success. So let's try again, this should result in abandoning the thread. Which of the following do you want to defend regarding religion:

1. Specific religious claims about the world, man's relationship to God, and purpose in life
2. Deism or some kind of Chopra-style new age belief that has no relevance to real-world religion and all the effects that you are attributing to religion
3. Agnosticism, which also doesn't get you any actual content regarding morality, purpose, etc.
4. False religious beliefs because they have positive effects on well-being, moral guidelines, community, art, etc.

You accuse atheists of "deep intellectual shallowness," so you must have something else.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

He likes to put things in those terms...

"shallow understanding"

Like when he said i had a shallow understanding of entropy, and by insinuation wasn't qualified to comment on what it meant for evolution...

You could be forgiven for thinking Ant may not always know what he's talking about. Even in general terms.
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?
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The six signs of "Scientism"

Unread post

ant wrote:If belief in God
which god?
ant wrote:has been nothing more than a delusion
which delusion?
ant wrote:it certainly is the most important thought mankind has ever entertained.
really!?! which thought exactly? and why is it the most important thought? have you any specifics at all?
ant wrote:How would communities have been built?
i don't know let's ask the booktalk community.

ahem, booktalk community how were you built without belief in god?

i suspect people just liked hanging out together and chatting, comparing thoughts and just communing with each other for the fun of it.

i certainly dont need a god to tell me it's more fun having a community than not having a community. community is just natural to me.

i have seen bad religion severely damage community.
ant wrote:something greater than ourselves
seems very vague to me.

a hurricane can knock me of my feet but i dont worship it
many people can beat me at chess but that's because i'm a lazy chess player, i dont worship them.

there are so many things greater than me in so many ways but none of them are particularly worthy of deification.

should an ant worship a man because he can capture many ants in an antfarm?

man is so much greater than the ants, man is a god, fear man ants, worship man or i will destroy you all.

all you ants need man for i am greater than you and without man you will have no sense of community!

but the ants will be oblivious and carry on regardless they don't need man to do what they do best.

i like ants

i never burned them with a magnifying glass like some of my crueller fellow deities :lol:
Last edited by youkrst on Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”