Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult? (page 4)

John_Mann

I replied that christians constantly make claims about the real world. Therefore it is reasonable to ask for scientific evidence to support those claims.

Yes.

I admit Christians make a lot of nonsense claims. Actually I can only defend the official claims made by Catholic Church. Most of the christian denominations have serious logical flaws in their very fundamentals (like sola scriptura for instance).

There are physical evidences about Eucharist miracles (like Buenos Aires miracle) but they can't be called scientific evidence because repeatability.

Repeatability is the great science limit because we know there are rare events in the universe.

Scientism doesn't make any difference between the types of evidence. Their default evidence is the scientific one to anything.

We will all die just once so it's impossible to talk about death as first person experience in scientific terms.

But humans are very knowledgeable beings and they are not limited by scientific method to get knowledge from the universe.

That's alone must be considered when the vast majority of humans have a very intuitive knowledge about life after death. This is testimonial evidence and is accepted in Law for instance.

I don't need to prove to you this intuitive knowledge. I'm sure you have it. If you think about your own death someway somehow your mind tells you that's not the end.

How to explain this intuition only by evolution? Where are the evolutionary traces of this human feature in other species?

cofty

John your excuses are dishonest unless official Catholic dogma denies totally that God is not and never has been active in the world.

But you already claimed that your god performed at least three miracles. Those claims can be investigated by science.

Are you really claiming that every time a Catholic prays for God to act on behalf of themselves or others they are going against official Catholic doctrine? What a pointless God you worship!

You hypocritically appeal to evidence for your God one minute and yell "scientism" the next.

Do you actually stand by your assertion that every time someone asks for evidence of God they are guilty of "scientism"? That is perhaps the most extraordinary claim I have read by any theist.

John_Mann

The problem is about the type of evidence.

I don't think is possible to have scientific evidence about God. I can't put God in a vial so I can't make any scientific experiment about God.

But there are physical evidence, testimonial evidence, logical evidence and metaphysical evidence (like visions, prayers, intuition, etc).

Miracles produce physical evidence but they can't be replicate in any scientific method. So the cause of miracle or the cause of physical evidences can't be scientific.

We have Eucharist turned to flesh and blood but the event of transformation itself can't be approached scientifically.

Basically I'm saying there are several types of evidence and not just scientific evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

cofty

You are still avoiding the questions.

Please look at my previous post and address my questions specifically.

konceptual99

I don't think is possible to have scientific evidence about God.

Which is convenient.

But there are physical evidence, testimonial evidence, logical evidence and metaphysical evidence (like visions, prayers, intuition, etc).

You mean evidence which is baseless interpretation, highly subjective, carries a high risk of confirmation bias, difficult to independently verify, not subject to peer review and so on. In other words, everything that scientific method has been developed to avoid.

John_Mann

You mean evidence which is baseless interpretation, highly subjective, carries a high risk of confirmation bias, difficult to independently verify, not subject to peer review and so on. In other words, everything that scientific method has been developed to avoid.

Taking out the "baseless" is exactly what you said.

Scientism bias makes people forget there are several types of evidence beyond scientific evidence.

Testimonial evidence is accepted as valid in Law for instance.

konceptual99

Testimonial evidence is accepted as valid in Law for instance

A witness saying "I saw that man in the dock rob the bank" is not the same as "I prayed for something nice to happen to me today and then someone put a £50 through my letterbox therefore God answered my prayer."

John_Mann

Which is convenient.

Not if you consider the concept of God and the concept of scientific method.

I consider the St. Anselm's concept of God which is much older than the concept of the scientific method.

Catholicism never needed to adapt official concepts of God because the scientific method.

A witness saying "I saw that man in the dock rob the bank" is not the same as "I prayed for something nice to happen to me today and then someone put a £50 through my letterbox therefore God answered my prayer."

Exactly.

That's why I said Christians make a lot of nonsense claims.

Ruby456

scientism is alive and well - if one only takes evidence from science and applies this to all areas of life and recommends that science is the only field of knowledge worth investigating for reality then they are practicing scientism. Even scientists don't do this. But you know for someone coming out of religious tyranny science can be like a strong dose of effective medicine. the danger comes in taking this too far.

cofty

But I have never encountered anyone who does that Ruby.

That is why when JM and others say it it is just a convenient insult.

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

Share this