Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • slimboyfat
    Of course I could have misunderstood Cofty and he actually does not know of those disciplines you have referred to.

    I never said Cofty was unaware of these disciplines. (A straw man if ever there was one)

    Cofty's question inevitably implies either: 1) these disciplines are included within "science" or 2) they don't count as knowledge at all. Neither of which seems sustainable.

  • scratchme1010

    Many theists keep trying to judge alternatives ways of thinking based on what they know and experience. They try to make things like people who believe in evolution and value science over the writings in books that they consider sacred, fit the mold of their religious practices.

    Many religions preach this black and white mentality (you're going to heaven/you're going to hell, you're good/you're bad, you're in favor of God/you're against God, you're in the right path/you're in a path of self destruction), and therefore, perceive anything that challenges or explains their believes in a different way that way too by labeling things as "Satanic", "Against God", etc. Furthermore, they even attach morality to different ways of thinking, such as the way the WT publicizes that people who challenge their teachings deserve to die and will die.

    They argue against atheism as if atheists are an organization or organized entity, as if all atheists are united and believe the exact same thing or have the same set of values. Same thing with that nonsense of "Scientism". It's just another interpretation from some theists, trying to make people who challenge their believes fit a mold and make it into some kind of entity that they can attack, label and place under the "will be destroyed by God" (or its equivalent in their denomination lingo). That way they can continue reinforcing their believes and continue dismissing other people's.

    To me, the fact that many (not all, of course) theists continue trying to start arguments over our morals based on what we believe (i.e., according to a person who posted here, we are not supposed to be upset for bad things happening because that's supposed to be part of the evolution process), makes no sense.

    I personally dismiss all that as a misguided attempt at making alternatives ways of thinking fit the mold of how they view, perceive and believe things.

  • cofty
    But it takes a pretty stupid person to argue that historical, poetic or political accounts of a river either don't matter or that they can be reduced to science. - SBF

    Yes it does. I have never met somebody so stupid which still leaves me wondering why the silly accusations of "scientism" keep getting thrown around.

    Cofty's question inevitably implies either:...

    No it doesn't imply either of those things.

    Rainbow Troll - Science gets around the limitations of our subjective senses. That is kind of the whole point of science.

    the exercise of reason has allowed me to solve many longstanding metaphysical question - such as the nature of consciousness and its relationship to matter - that I don't believe scientists will ever be able to arrive at using their methods

    Wow. I will be so excited for you when you get your Nobel Prize

  • slimboyfat

    How about an actual answer to the points I raised... ever?

  • Saethydd


    I would argue that there is a difference between believing something and knowing it. If you are unable to prove something you don't know it, you believe it.

    Philosophy is useful in forming beliefs more so than knowledge, in my opinion anyway.

    History is just belief unless the scientific method is applied to provide evidence of the supposed events.

    Poetry is highly subjective, so once again not knowledge in and of itself because it can't be proven correct or incorrect.

    Sociology is a actually a science, it's a branch of psychology. (Though one with an especially high margin for error in my opinion.)

    And an experience without proof that it happened could easily be fictitious.

  • cofty

    I want to come back to this statement which seems to me to be deeply hypocritical

    If you ask for scientific evidence to God then you are a follower of scientism. - John_Mann

    Theists constantly make claims about physical reality.

    • When a christian claims that there is some feature of living things that is so complex or unlikely it is evidence of a designer, that is a scientific claim.
    • When a christian prays to god or Mary or the saints with an expectation of it having some effect that is testable by the scientific method.
    • When people of faith claim that there is something about human consciousness that goes beyond biology that is a scientific assertion.
    • When believers point to near death experiences to support belief in an afterlife that is something that needs to be investigated by science.
    • John_Mann has stated that his faith rests in part on three specific Roman Catholic miracles. The details of what actually happened on those occasions is a matter for scientific investigation.

    It was Stephen Jay Gould who proposed "non-overlapping magesteria". It will never work. People of faith don't have enough faith to stay on their own turf.

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow Troll - Science gets around the limitations of our subjective senses. That is kind of the whole point of science.

    Yes, it tries and often succeeds brilliantly. My point is that it is nevertheless still bound by the limitations of the senses and it is demonstrably true that there are facts out there than cannot ever be arrived at through even the most refined sense organs or the most meticulous experiments. Even hardcore empiricist scientist Richard Dawkins has declined to answer certain questions presented to him because he admitted that he, as a scientist and not a philosopher, was not qualified to answer such questions.

    Wow. I will be so excited for you when you get your Nobel Prize.

    Wow. I give you a thoughtful reply to your question and the best you can come up with is a cheap shot at my intellect? For the record, I'm not claiming to be a genius. In fact, I later discovered that most of the conclusions I had arrived at were already reached over 300 years ago by a real genius: Wilhelm Leibniz. You know Leibniz? The guy who invented calculus, the binary system and was the to first conceive of and take practical steps toward creating an artificial intelligence? The fact that my little mind could reach the same conclusions as this genius demonstrates the power of logical thought to guide us toward the right answers.

    I'm glad you take science seriously. That already gives you an advantage over most human beings. But by dismissing metaphysics, you are only handicapping yourself in the search for truth.

  • John_Mann
    • John_Mann has stated that his faith rests in part on three specific Roman Catholic miracles. The details of what actually happened on those occasions is a matter for scientific investigation.

    Not exactly miracles:

    1- a personal paranormal experience.

    2- St. Anselm's ontological argument.

    3- Pascal's wager.

  • John_Mann

    Here's a great interview about philosophy of science:

  • cofty

    Rainbow Troll - Please give me a specific example of something that can be known without science.

    Not exactly miracles: - John_mann

    Yes that was specifically your claim.

    a personal paranormal experience

    Which of course can be investigated scientifically.

    St. Anselm's ontological argument.

    Smoke and mirrors. Even as a christian I knew this was nothing but sophistry.

    Pascal's wager

    Really? Pretend to believe just in case? How is that a way of knowing anything?

Share this