Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
My suggestion to you is only specify the type of evidence when you're talking about the concept of God.
Don't say only evidence but qualify it by saying scientific evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, logical proof, etc..
I will consider ANY sort of evidence - as I have told you repeatedly.
But considering your position is very easy to imply you are talking about scientific evidence
There is your error right there!
Scientific evidence for god's actions in the physical world would be just one example.
I have never changed my position on this which is what makes your repeated childish insults so pathetic. Is it that you refuse to read what I write or you are just too arrogant to bother?
That's a lie .
Quote and link please.
Everything we know, we know because of science.
You keep confusing or intentionally mixing up scientific evidence and physical evidence.
And by now you already said that you use evidence as any evidence like a universal evidence.
What can be said about this position?
Well I don't claim any superior knowledge, I also harbor no illusions this thread will make neither Cofty nor John Mann shed their clothing....but the O.P is:-
" Scientism- Nothing But a Childish Insult?
Personally I think if anybody reads this thread, and it's 82 replies, well quite frankly I think your time would have been better spent going to the memorial. Or is that a " Childish insult"
Like all people that have an opinion, i hope we can continue to live in a world where we are not executed for our opinion...however John _Mann, If I moderated on this board I would not be so tolerant.
The conversation is over.
John_Mann will continue to ignore my repeated statements about scientific evidence being just one of many types of knowledge and throw around the same vacuous insult over and over.
The logical conclusion of scientism is what can't be submitted to scientific method can't exist at all.
That's why followers of Scientism deny the existence of God and even consciousness.
To scientism consciousness is just another illusion and nothing more than a bunch of cheap tricks.
If you are talking about physical evidence I'd already showed to you a lot of them:
There are physical and testimonial evidence to the Our Lady of Zeitoun and Our Lady of Fatima.
Just going to leave this here (from the very article in the link)
"Even if they have been investigated and approved by the Church, the Church does not give any absolute guarantee to their authenticity."
John_Mann, I agree that what you consider scientism does exist, but actually calling it 'scientism' is very provocative towards scientists who don't necessarily fit that label. It's kind of like calling Roman Catholics 'Mary Worshippers' even though it is not part of official Catholic dogma to worship Mary and most Catholics do not actually do it.
What you describe as scientism sounds a lot like the philosophical positions of radical empiricism and logical positivism. If you used one of those terms instead of 'scientism', I think you would get a much warmer response from scientists and might actually be able to engage in a dialogue with them.
John_Mann uses the "scientism" insult for the explicit purpose of shutting down dialogue.