The Folly of Scientism

I have lost track of the number of posts claiming that atheism is a religion, and while I am not here to debate that idea, I suggest that what many on my side of the ball are seeing as "atheism" is in reality "scientism". I first heard about scientism years ago and what it is is the idea that only "science" can answer questions of our universe and existence. I ran across an article the other day explaining scientism better than I can explain it.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

It reads in part:

"Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not. As a scientist, I would never deny that scientific discoveries can have important implications for metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and that everyone interested in these topics needs to be scientifically literate. But the claim that science and science alone can answer longstanding questions in these fields gives rise to countless problems.

In contrast to reason, a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.

Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition."

So, I would suggest to those of you who think atheism is a religion, are in reality seeing the superstition of scientism, as the author points out, which is no more rational or logical than whatever religion scientism advocates choose to point out. Scientism just happens to be the chosen religion of atheists, it seems.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

I don't think a lot of atheists would subscribe to this scientism, so I'm not sure in what sense it would be the "religion of atheists" (I'm also not sure whether scientism is a religion but I'm getting from the rest of the post that's not really a direction you're looking to go in). I'm sure there are those who do, and there are those who do it without knowing it, but that's not really the point.

While I agree with the words of what you're saying about scientism, I'm worried that you might be applying this to some cases which I wouldn't call scientism in the same way. Could you give some examples?

 

Nah. I like the scientific method too much to believe that science is always right.

 

This is something of a straw man argument, in my opinion. Very few working scientists would subscribe to scientism as a philosophy. Science has a particular purview: examining the workings of the physical world. At this it is very good.

 

Yeah, I'm sure there are people out there somewhere that subscribe to this sort of scientism, but very view scientists or atheists do.

Well, there is no reason why science could not, in principle, examine the non-physical world, if it exists, unless that non-physical world has literally no discernible effect on the physical world. If a certain god exists, for example, there are often physical predictions that would be associated with that god, such as detailed prophecies, which science could study.

 

I'm not talking about "scientists", I'm talking about atheists, and I thought I made that clear. Nometheless, had you read the article I linked to, the author gives examples of scientism among scientists.

 

The claim is often made that "science is self correcting", but even at that, somewhere along the line someone was putting out information that was not good.

 

Weren't able to convince anyone but yourself, eh?

 

LOL no (*)(*)(*)(*) that is the scientific method

 

So I have to wade through 15 pages of text before I can figure out what you're even referring to?

Very well, I read it. Some parts I definitely agree with, philosophy needs to (and will, I predict, if it hasn't already started to) make a come back.

Failure to do science correctly is as much of an issue if you believe science can answer everything as it is if you think science is limited to the things it normally concerns itself with. People failing to do science is not the same as science failing (and to the extent that it is, every method would fail similarly). The scientific method includes steps of rational deduction, if you irrationally confuse correlation and causation, you've failed to properly do science, which is not the fault of science as such.

He mentions some things that do not meet the falsifiability criteria postulated by science. This seems to me a bit of a straw man. It is true that in some popular science publications, it is displayed as "this is what scientists do", but in practice, I find that to be incorrect. For instance, I work in a field related to multiverse theories, yet as long as we have no evidence about it, and we thus lack falsifiability, we don't make claims about them. Often, we use them as thought experiments, and discuss various things in light of what they would look like in a multiverse. There is also some time invested in trying to find ways in which we could test them. This gives us insight into some aspects of reality even if indeed there isn't a multiverse. To think that discussing a multiverse is only interesting to the extent that there might be a multiverse seems incomplete to me. Similarly, with biology, ideas about evolutionary benefits of certain traits are usually not given as a proof that that is how it happens, but a justification for thinking that we're not incorrect in thinking that it would have happened at all. If I hypothesise that I have dropped my car keys in my house, I can conclude that I don't have to accept that my car keys are stolen, even if the reality is that I left them in my car (and dropping them in my house was false).

I have more comments, but it is very long, and I can't be bothered to put them all down, at least not now.

 

No, it isn't. Anymore than you can "prove" that "not playing soccer"...is a "sport."

 

The folly of Strawmanism.

 

That's not what I remember.

 

By countered, he means "agreed with."

 

The problem is that humans aren't infallible.

So, the fact that humans are involved means that self correction is needed. So, scientific method addresses that explicitly.

In religion, it is fundamental that the belief is absolutely correct. Then, human fallibility is taken care of by having large numbers of denominations and religions.

Religion has no way of testing whether a particular set of beliefs is correct - belief in absence of evidence is considered sufficient. So, people simply choose their beliefs, often going with the decision their parents made.

With science, if something can't be tested, we say, "I don't know." If tests prove a different answer, then the different answer is accepted.

 

News flash: In Christianity, at least, if we don't know something, we say so. Or at least I do. The problem is that non-believers expect us to "know" everything. They expect us to know things science doesn't know. They expect us to know why bad things happen to good people, they expect us to know why God does the things He does. Of course, you can give them an answer to something that has been taught for hundreds of years, and they still don't like it.

 

Funny. There was more than a year laughter going on where a christian answered that the reason no children, babies, or fetuses died in Noahs flood is because they were all cannibalized. And for that more than 1 yr, not one christian came in and said what a fool this other christian was for making such a ridiculous claim. A few even defended it.

So, pardon, I having been a christian for most of my life, call the BS, they will make stuff up or the other big answer, it's beyond all human understanding. Well darn, why did god make us humans? So we couldn't understand.

 

Uh, I was talking about teachers and preachers, not you.

 

AFAIK, there are no preachers or teachers in these forums.
Have you ever said, it is beyond all human understanding?

 

I know for a fact there

I know for a fact that there is at least one, and what I usually say is "It's a mystery".

 

It is a common canned response: claim that naturalism is flawed unless naturalists can answer every question you throw at them, but expect to be able to say "I don't know" or just make up whatever sounds good when supernaturalism is questioned.

 

Cool.....do Jews go to Heaven or Hell?

 

They are judged on their own individual deeds.

 

Where does it say that in the bible?

 

I guess only Christians can't be saved by works. God must be very complicated or confused.