Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 10 by Jester]

What does new atheism have to do with scientism?

[Jester]

What does new atheism have to do with scientism?

Many of the New Atheist writers have promoted the idea that science is the only reliable source of knowledge (i.e. Richard Dawkins' insistence that God's existence is a scientific, rather than metaphysical, question).

As such, (and whether it is intentional or not) they seem to have a tendency to support a scientistic approach to philosophical questions.

[help3434]

What does new atheism have to do with scientism?

Many of the New Atheist writers have promoted the idea that science is the only reliable source of knowledge (i.e. Richard Dawkins' insistence that God's existence is a scientific, rather than metaphysical, question).

As such, (and whether it is intentional or not) they seem to have a tendency to support a scientistic approach to philosophical questions.

Well, what is wrong with that? If people are going to insist that there is a literal, rather than just metaphorical God shouldn't there be some evidence for that? Sound philosophies are based on the foundation of real world knowledge.

[Jester]

Well, what is wrong with that? If people are going to insist that there is a literal, rather than just metaphorical God shouldn't there be some evidence for that? Sound philosophies are based on the foundation of real world knowledge.

What is wrong with scientism is that it assumes (for no reason anyone has ever been able to give me) that "literal" means "physical". If someone wants to make a case that there are no literal facts that are not physical facts, that person is welcome to do so.

The New Atheists, however, have not made that case. They've simply asserted that "evidence" means "physical evidence" and have played off of the deep respect given to science in order to advance that non-scientific assertion.

Is completely unwarranted to demand scientific evidence when the subject being discussed isn't science. This is over and above the fact that there are good arguments that there is more to reality than the physical.

So, I oppose that mentality in debate because it is unsupported, refuted, and pointlessly blurs lines of distinction. As such, I think it is a hindrance to clear thinking.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 14 by Jester]

I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "God". How can you believe in a literal God that does not interact with the physical world? If someone that God created the universe or caused a miracle or anything else physical then those are in the realms of science.

[Jester]

I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "God". How can you believe in a literal God that does not interact with the physical world? If someone that God created the universe or caused a miracle or anything else physical then those are in the realms of science.

First, the claim that a literal God would have to be physical needs to be supported. From a personal point of view, it is a reasonable question. In terms of the debate, however, it is not insignificant that the New Atheists have not defended this claim.

But, to answer the question, I'll agree that it is very difficult to imagine God as non-physical, but stress that we shouldn't think that this is a point against the truth of the claim.

Moving on to reasons that God should be understood this way, it is not unreasonable at all to think that the creator of time, space, matter, and energy would not be composed of these things.

Perhaps it would also be worthwhile to point out that Thomas Nagel (who is a respected atheist philosopher, for whatever that's worth) has presented some very strong arguments that the mind cannot be reduced to the physical as "physical" is understood in science.

If this is the case, then we have a visceral example of something that is at least partially non-physical interacting with the physical.

As to miracles, it is not any lack of physicality that the events could be investigated, but their unpredictability and questions of interpretation that make the matter difficult. If one insists on sticking to science alone, for instance, then one is committing one's self to giving only physical explanations (thereby ignoring, rather than addressing, the theists' claim).

So, it is not that God does not interact with the physical, but that he does not interact with it in a way that science can, by definition, look for.

Also, even if it could be shown that science were applicable in some cases (I personally think it is), this does not remotely show that non-scientific means of investigation are, therefore, irrelevant.

But it is this latter inference that is the key point in scientism, and the basis of nearly all of the New Atheists' arguments.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 16 by Jester]

When have the new atheists said that non scientific forms of investigation are irrelevant? Aren't they just against arbitrarily limiting the role of science?

[Jester]

When have the new atheists said that non scientific forms of investigation are irrelevant? Aren't they just against arbitrarily limiting the role of science?

I've never known the New Atheists, or any of their fans I've encountered, to accept any support other than scientific evidence.

Moreover, insisting that God's existence is a scientific hypothesis (as Dawkins does) is treating non-scientific investigation as irrelevant.

Nor am I aware of anyone in the debate over God's existence asking for an arbitrary limitation to science. The investigative limits of science have been well defined for centuries. Those who argue that science is far from the best tool for answering this question are simply pointing out those long-standing limits.

That is to say:
1. To make claims about the likelihood of God's existence based solely on scientific considerations,
2. to insist that sensory evidence is the only legitimate support for theistic claims, or
3. to act as if science can be expanded to answer metaphysical questions
is to adopt a scientistic attitude.

And these are all common approaches among the New Atheists.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 18 by Jester]

Forget solely. Is there any scientific evidence of God's existence at all?

[Jester]

Forget solely. Is there any scientific evidence of God's existence at all?

I'd say so (with certain caveats needed for any cross-topic demonstration), but this is not the question at hand.

Rather, my point is that this is the only question the New Atheists seem to be interested in. Indeed, they seem to think one can justify a rejection of belief in God based on answering "no" to this question.

And that is scientism.

There are extremely strong non-scientific arguments for God's existence, yet the New Atheists tend to dismiss these arguments without giving any reason at all. The general approach is simply to insist that we move to the topic of whether or not there is scientific evidence and ignore the more pertinent subjects.

Personally, my real answer to "is there any scientific evidence of God's existence?" is: "Who cares?". This is not a scientific topic.

No one is demanding metaphysical evidence for quantum mechanics, or historical evidence of String Theory. But both of these make as much sense as asking for scientific evidence for metaphysical claims, such as "God exists".