What has religious faith invented or innovated in (to make it easier for you) the past 100 years? There are no shortage of things science has invented or created new applications of, in the past year alone.
“Coming to know the world” is not merely coming to hold (certain, approved) beliefs about it.
Agreed.
Nothing. But I don’t think we should expect religion to innovate, anymore than we should expect fish to climb trees. That would be judging science and religion by the same benchmark - which would perhaps be the expression of a kind of scientism.
Some broad statements: I suspect there’s a connection between the environmental crisis and the privileging of practical knowledge over contemplative or speculative knowledge. We always ask, “what’s it useful for ?” We live in the era of homo faber, an era inaugurated in the scientific revolution.
I appreciate nature writers a lot, because they attend to the details of nature, and describe them in generally useless but delightful ways that not only help us to know nature more intimately, but help us to love and respect it. I myself enjoy a little birding…
Yes I think you are saying what I did in other words. Although I would say not so much practical over speculative or contemplative knowledge, as immediate benefits without effort expended, not in mere speculation, but cold hard extrapolation. People seldom have a timeline longer than the next business quarter, or at best, their own lifetime. Hence why we blew past the earth’s carrying capacity so to speak, decades ago, and still haven’t noticed, partly because of delayed reactions, partly because sometimes compensating tech becomes available or at least staves off the worst or most obvious consequences of our actions.
I agree that science can’t tell us what to do, but it is useful in warning us that we’re heading for trouble.
Agreed, and generally it is a denial of science that causes the hubris to ignore or deny the effects of climate change.
Again I can only agree.
A treatment for Huntington’s disease for example, a truly awful disease.
Here is what I posted before, but in reply to the right person, i.e. not myself.
Here is a statement of the view called scientism, attributed to French biologist and philosopher of science Félix Le Dantec in 1911:
“Je crois à l’avenir de la Science : je crois que la Science et la Science seule résoudra toutes les questions qui ont un sens ; je crois qu’elle pénétrera jusqu’aux arcanes de notre vie sentimentale et qu’elle m’expliquera même l’origine et la structure du mysticisme héréditaire anti-scientifique qui cohabite chez moi avec le scientisme le plus absolu. Mais je suis convaincu aussi que les hommes se posent bien des questions qui ne signifient rien. Ces questions, la Science montrera leur absurdité en n’y répondant pas, ce qui prouvera qu’elles ne comportent pas de réponse.”
Google translate does ok: “I believe in the future of Science: I believe that Science, and Science alone, will solve all questions that have meaning; I believe that it will penetrate even the depths of our emotional life and that it will even explain to me the origin and structure of the anti-scientific hereditary mysticism that coexists in me with the most absolute scientism. But I am also convinced that people ask themselves many questions that mean nothing. Science will demonstrate the absurdity of these questions by not answering them, which will prove that they do not admit an answer.”
This doesn’t address current common usage and understanding. It is one guy from 114 years ago, jockeying for a provocative stance that would make him stand out, if not exactly outstanding in his field, if you catch my drift.
It also ignores that in that era a lot of people were flush with a lot of new knowledge and the seeming triumph of industrialization were particularly susceptible to a common human folly: the arrogance of thinking not only that we are the apex of sentient beings but that we’ve reached the apex of human ability. That was the era when someone suggested the patent office in the US should be closed because there was nothing else to patent. Somehow such folks didn’t see people dying of cancer and common infections as problems still to be solved, I guess.
The fact remains that the only meaningful definition of scientism as a description of a real problem is the mindless embrace of technological progress for its own sake, untethered from any exploration of side effects, unintended consequences, and resource contention, and unguided by ethical frameworks, but rather just by unbridled capitalistic greed or perhaps just irrational exuberance for how far along we really are in understanding reality.
Whlie insufficient epistemological humility is a problem, I wonder in the real world how many actual scientists would think that science alone can solve all problems in a vacuum though.
Aren’t you a member of a death cult? (Christian)
No, it’s because with your definition,
you set it up with premises to which I disagree. Science (the natural science part) is historically based on old-school natural philosophy, and grew out of philosophy as an empirically based branch concentrating on the study of nature. Thus, denying philosophy as a legitimate branch of the academic tree of knowledge would be to deny and disown the very roots and origins of the natural sciences and natural philosophy. Thus, I cannot accept this definition.
I fully agree with this. But someone beholden to scientism might view this as mere history, not epistemologically significant today.
You remind me of another theist who obsessed about “scientism”.
Not to mention who also got shafted on here a while back. Are you his sock account by any chance?
It could just be coincidence, but your posts strongly reminded me of him.
Probably because religious apologists use an extreme definition of the word, to dismiss arguments with a type of poisoning of the well argument.
"The OED defines scientism as…
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists."
This is in stark contrast to how religious apologists use it, where I have only ever seen it used as pejorative term.
However even the most extreme version is has a more reasonable evidentiary basis than unevidenced religious claims for magic and the supernatural.
Here:
“…belief that science is the only source of reliable knowledge and that the methods of the natural sciences can solve all problems. It holds that scientific methods, like the scientific method and empiricism, are the only valid way to understand the world and are capable of explaining everything, including subjects typically addressed by philosophy, religion, and the humanities. This is often seen as an extreme form of scientific realism that can dismiss non-scientific fields of knowledge.”
It’s an objective fact that science has surpassed all other methods in it’s success at helping understand objective reality, it is a purely subjective claim that the supernatural exists, so even the most extreme definition of scientism has at least some evidence to support it, though most here would stop short of the claim above, at least in it’s entirety.
I still think philosophy has some use, unlike religion beyond it being a crutch to provide succour through wishful thinking, which often does more harm than good.
FWIW the original use of the accusation by @TheMetrologist, was in response to @Keith77’s post, where he made no such assertions, merely decried the religious claims around him as originated from archaic superstition, and hoped aloud that they would joint modern scientific era. Given that in some countries religions are anti-science and intellectualism wherever they perceive a conflict between their religion’s claims and science, often to the detriment of people who might benefit from say medical science, it is seems a reasonable enough post to me.
Modern alloy wheels with bearings and pneumatic tyres grew out of the idea of solid wooden wheels on a greased wooden axle, one can acknowledge the original design was a sound idea, while recognising that it has been far surpassed by better ones.
In much the same way that philosophy whilst useful, has long since been surpassed by science, as the most successful method of understanding objective reality.
Beyond a feel good factor through wishful thinking, I don’t see religions bringing much to the table at all, nothing that science and secular philosophy between them can’t provide.
Oh I like this…then go on then: : Demonstrate the existence of God (any god)
Waiting while buying pocorn online…
I would only caution that this is a little bit like saying that an automobile has far surpassed a teacup, they are not really in a direct competition. They are IMO, non-overlapping for the most part. I think some philosophers tried to take philosophy outside its own wheelhouse and that has put philosophy into something of a self-inflicted crisis, whereas science has done far better in that particular way.
None of this (or the fact that philosophy is often abused by theists) means that philosophy doesn’t have a legit and even indispensable role, and should be discarded as superceded in some way.
Agreed, and I never meant to suggest otherwise of course.
I am dubious this can be objectively demonstrated, I also note he has capitalised the word god, so this hubris extends beyond a hypothetical deity. I wonder who the unlucky losers are going to be, and why he hasn’t published?
Well it should be possible, if god were real…
exactly…
It’s really shocking to me how so many people on this site want to jump down your throat for making a simple comment. You folks have to be some of the most unfriendly people I’ve ever communicated with. You need to grow up more than religious believers. How can you accuse me of scientism when, first of all, I’m not a scientist and secondly I don’t worship science like a god. Give me a break! I’m beginning to wonder if ANY atheists want to be friendly with their fellow atheists. At least Christians want to be friends with each other. I suppose the next thing you’ll tell me is that I should go join a church if I’m looking for friends. You people are the reason there’s so much division in this country.
Hi @Keith77, I think you are referring to my comment - where I signal your statements as “scientism”. The excitement of my comment was not really directed at you… It’s just a topic I care about, and your statements were the occasion for a little enthusiasm. But almost everyone, and not just here, religious and non-religious alike, are, in my view, affected by the mindset I and others call “scientism”, sometimes to claim it as their own, sometimes to oppose it.
When I was a young teenager, I realized that everyone was fundamentally, culturally atheistic, even if in some part of their mind or thinking - perhaps the one they directed most of their attention to - they were religious. I especially noticed how most religious persons suffer from what is sometimes called cognitive dissonance. They hold various things as true that just don’t fit well together, and they have to do too much violence to themselves to believe.
This was one of the motivations for me to study philosophy. Another was that I happened to read Plato from a copy I borrowed in my high school library. I had a flash of insight: the kind of knowing being put forth here was complementary, and in some ways more penetrating, than anything I would ever learn in a science classroom… So, at 14, I embarked on my life’s journey to be both a scientist and a philosopher.
The folks here are not always what I hope to see in “professed” atheist: intelligent and interested in deep things. Much of the responses I get are superficial embittered buffoonery. But not all. And I love a good conversation.
As time allows, going forward, I will try to post some new threads about methods across the sciences. My agenda? To put bits and pieces of my professional scholarship on the open forum, to get insights from smart people who find their way here, but also, to offer what I think is a corrective. Namely, a better understanding of science, and how we come to know.