As far as I can tell, the only user who accused you of scientism was a single (crackpot imo) theist, and I think they only did it once.
3 Likes
Metrologist accused you of scientism, he is a theist.
I shouldâve scrolled down.
1 Like
By using fallacious arguments, and sweeping unevidenced claims, and using yourself as an appeal to authority.
Your hubris is quite amusing, your arguments for a deity woeful, you remind me of WLCraigâŚhe has a PhD in philosophy apparently, and his apologetics are risible.
Focusing on the qualifications of the person making the arguments, rather than the argument itself, is what I would call superficial buffoonery, but then Iâm just a middling intellect with a mediocre formal education, I canât boast, and boy is boast the right word here, of being educated in philosophy.
Perhaps this is why I canât see the evidence you can for archaic superstitions and magic?
Iâd always assumed an argument should stand on its own merits, and not the grandiloquent self agrandising boasts of the person making the arguments.
Is it possible that someone can get a degree, even a Ph. D in philosophy and still create woeful arguments, well both you and WLC would suggest it is.
1 Like
On another site there was a retired professor who was a panentheist who had written what he called his âSynthesisâ about how he became convinced that the correct view of god and reality was a sort of Frankenstein monster constructed of panentheism and Christianity. If you ever pinned him down on anything his response was always an appeal to a single peak experience heâd had in âdeep mediationâ where god supposedly revealed himself to the man, always with a very strong subtext of âhow dare you question me, I have multiple degrees and am a retired professor!â
The conceit of such people sometimes is that being learned in field X makes you some sort of sage on all topics, which is the basis of the appeal to authority fallacy â not that referencing an authority with relevant expertise is a bad thing, but that the particular authority being appealed to doesnât transfer to the topic at hand, nor does it exempt the person from substantiating and evidencing their claims even within their area of expertise.
Since philosophy is about reasoning about fundamental questions of existence, knowledge and values, its weakness is that how you apply first principles (and which you wish to emphasize or de-emphasize) can result in very different conclusions. I think itâs important to distinguish observation from speculation. Since deities and their essential nature can be neither falsified nor proven, any hypotheses or conclusions about deities, their existence, their characteristics, their claims on humans â cannot, in my view, be taken seriously, as they are not subject to actual observation. No number of initials after your name can change that.
2 Likes
Regarding the real world, here are a few bits of insight and advice for you:
- Theory is an excellent tool, but data is king.
- If your hypothesis is not supported by data, it is only an hypothesis unsupported by data, a.k.a. speculation.
- If your hypothesis disagrees with data, you should reconsider the hypothesis.
- Philosophy might help you argue your case, but if you donât have data, you donât really have a good case.
- Shit in, shit out.
- Because this is very important: Data is king.
Whether Iâm smart or not is up for others to decide.
3 Likes
^^^^^ THAT ^^^^^
20, 20, 20 characters
1 Like
Whilst the post is spot on, I feel that point 5 is often overlooked when people try to table magic as an explanation for anything.
Kudos anywayâŚ
If youâre so against science then why do you use computers, use household appliances, drive a car, go to hospitals that depend on medical science, or use a cellphone? All of those things are products of science. Why not go live out in the woods out of a shack or go see a priest when you get sick? Youâre just coming off hypocritical with your argument if you ask me. For the reason youâre using the Internet and youâre on here arguing it at the same time.
The thread asks why people believe in a deity or deities, I donât think science is especially relevant, unless someone falsely claims there is scientific evidence for a deity.
Scientism isnât a blanket argument against science but a critique of an excessive reliance on it outside whatâs alleged to be its legitimate scope â a scope that the religious often find it necessary to try to restrict, yes, with their talk of ânon-overlapping magesteriaâ, etc., which basically says science should stick to science and leave the supernatural alone, as if it were a legitimate parallel field or something. As if there should be a gentlemanâs agreement that scientists should practice selective mutism when it comes to anything that might contradict religious dogma. In the extreme for example you have young earth creationists who would like science to shut up concerning inconvenient discoveries that contradict a literalist interpretation of the creation myths in the Bible.
I donât agree that scientism is a significant issue but I do agree that it is possible to think that science and science alone can solve all human problems by itself, and that some people have gone there now and again, particularly during eras of spectacular progress in the sciences.
What science needs either help with or deference to, depends on who you are talking to. In my case I would say that ethicists and philosophers and sociologists would generally provide the â[how/when] should weâ answers and science should provide the âhow do weâ answers. In other words science provides the explanatory frameworks and the application (technology) but not the guidance on what to do with them, and when (except in terms of attempting to predict or warn of knock-on consequences / side effects of using scientific discoveries).
Another major player in theory at least should be the people, through representative political systems (e.g., the question of [not] addressing the climate crisis). But this only works when people have some kind of respect for facts, evidence and logic. People have a tendency to avoid hard truths or facts that contradict their beliefs and plans (and their greed for short term profits), and then hilarity results.
This is not scienceâs fault. It is in fact in a very real sense, the fault of people holding various forms of magical thinking (and not just religiously mediated) in higher regard than scientifically literate thinking. I think at the level of technological ability we have, highest priority should be given to teaching critical thinking skills, throughout the school system from a young age. We havenât, and likely wonât, and so we will make decisions contrary to science on the regular. Religion is often a catalyst for this kind of thing, unfortunately.
1 Like
The real irony is that religions also try constantly to find scientific evidence for deities and the supernatural, many lie that such evidence exists.
The Templeton prize is an example of the double standard involved.
" The monetary value of the prize is adjusted so that it exceeds that of the Nobel Prizes; Templeton felt, according to The Economist , that âspirituality was ignoredâ in the Nobel Prizes."
2 Likes
Because Kurt Godel proved that a God-like object does exist.
No he didnât, he did produce a formal mathematical proof, an ontological proof that, if (note the word) its premises are accepted, logically demonstrates that a âgodlikeâ being must exist in some possible world.
That a godlike being is necessarily existent, is a conclusion based on accepting those specific starting points, not an empirical proof of existence. The validity of the argument depends on the acceptance of its starting axioms and definitions, if one does not agree with the initial assumptions, the logical conclusion is not binding. try using the argument and replace deity with powerful wizard, see if it loses anything.
Even were one to accept those, it gets you no closer to Jesus Allah or Yahweh, than it does to Zeus Apollo or the Aztec deity of gluttony.
So your work is all before you.
4 Likes
Thanks for that. I hadnât gone down the Godel rabbit hole. Glad I did. It had one of my favorite things - the peculiarity of language - specifically how one word can be stretched and shrunk depending on what point you are trying to make.
In this case, it was the word âperfectâ - which Godel said included imperfection! Gotta love it when folks do that. Sort of like Aquinasâs âUnmoved Moverâ.
3 Likes
Has to include partially to include all things (whole and partial).
Gibberish, were you ging to address your falsity above that I took the time to correct?
I think I already know the answer tbh.
Sheldon, a being that exists as perfect (ontological) must possess partial quantities. Demonstration: 1 + 1 = 2. The whole (2) possess both the perfect quantity (2) and partial quantities (1s).
@bsengstock20 Are you going to address my objections to your false claim above, if not then weâre done, I donât care to be preached at. Here it is with my objection. To be absolutely clear, this is your very last chance, if i get word salad or evasion I shanât bother with you again.
I am said deity so itâs kind of hard not to know it.
TrolltacularâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ.