Science as religion

[rug]

November 13, 2011 - 10:55PM
Barney Zwartz

For centuries thinkers have been trying to reconcile religion and science. At first the imperative was to make a space for science in a dominant religious understanding; today it is to make space for religion amid a dominant scientific understanding (in the West, at any rate).

This effort is not confined to theists. Atheist physicist Alan Lightman had an interesting interchange with atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett in Salon magazine last month. Dennett, who will be at the atheist convention in Melbourne next year, is one of the so-called four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse and has an ideological commitment far beyond Lightman's.

Lightman’s thesis is here, Dennett’s reply is here, and Lightman’s response to that is here. Lightman's first piece is quite long. So, by blog standards, is this thread.

It is axiomatic among many philosophers that the foundations of our various worldviews, the first principles, have to be assumed for the project of our reasoned lives to operate, and these principles are often unprovable. For theists, this tends to be the existence of God (that’s not to say there are no reasons for belief, which I could not concede, but that religious commitment does not depend purely on reasons). For atheists, the first principle tends to be a commitment to reason or to science.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-religious-write/science-as-religion-20111113-1ndra.html

[Jim__]

1. A calm rational discussion of the topic - a refreshing change. - n/t

[MarkCharles]

2. Interesting how believers, theists, followers of a religion, want to

turn logic, observations and mathematical relationships of the physical world into yet another "religion". They want to claim that such human mental disciplines and procedures as logic, observations, measurements, and mathematical descriptions and sound predictions should be seen as some sort of "central doctrine", to be equated with any OTHER religion. But those religions never possessed such procedures; they only had a set of "beliefs", based upon "faith".

The discipline of scientific inquiry in human experience is not one based upon "faith" as the article mistakenly claims it is. It never has been. Indeed, there is no such thing as a "leap of faith" in science, and any "central doctrine" in science is always open to question and challenge, unlike many faith-based religions. Any scientific assertion, "theory", "principle: or "law" is ALWAYS open to stricter scrutiny in science, always open to critical peer review, refinement, and re-statement. That is the essence of the scientific method: to ALWAYS keep an open mind to new discovery and refinement, to attain more accurate approximations of the truth.

Ah, but the author insists a "central doctrine" of established and accepted physical laws is equivalent to some sort of religious "doctrine". Mistaken as he is in his description of the nature and methodology of science, then and only then, can he proceed to tear science down, both because (he claims) physical laws are equivalent to "doctrine" and supposedly because Newton and Einstein both didn't know everything about what gravity and quantum mechanics is.

Science is a religion because science is incomplete and evolving? Nice freaking try, but big FAIL.

Folks who fail to see the difference between a scientific approach to solving problems, making predictions, and advancing human kind, versus a dogma of authoritarian beliefs proved only by "faith" are folks who misunderstand the nature and purpose of science.

That Australian religious writer from the OP is one of those, sticking his nose in the door in a poorly rationalized plea for us not to forget all those Christian and other nice belief systems.

Oh, and here we have it, right there in black and white: "that science is not the only avenue to knowledge, there are interesting questions beyond the reach of test tubes and equations"

Interesting questions, yes, but still not a single definitive answer nor prediction, nor fragment of incontrovertible truth coming only from any faith-based belief system, without the assistance of science to prove any religious assertion.

And, oh, look at how many many times faith-based belief systems have been proved absolutely disastrous, deadly, and WRONG!

Science as religion: PfffT!

[rrneck]

3. I wonder

why you find it necessary to use literary devices to express what is clearly a passionately held fondness for the scientific method?

[MarkCharles]

11. Why thank you! As a rational human being, I have a "fondness" for

science, perhaps even a passionate one, although I would argue such my "fondness", (your word) is more a rational appreciation.

What literary devices did you find I used there?

[rrneck]

12. "Sticking his nose in the door"

and Pffft.

Can you quantify your "rational appreciation?"

On edit:
For what exactly did you thank me and can you quantify that?

On edit edit
And quantify that thank you while you're at it.

[MarkCharles]

19. I have a "fondness" for puppies and kittens and full grown cats, and maybe

a few other household pets. I am even "passionate" in my fondness for MY dog and MY cat.

I have a rational appreciation for hard work, and lifetimes spent in dedication to the pursuit of truth over wishful thinking and daydreams.

The rest of your post makes little sense to me. Frankly, I doubt it makes much sense to anyone, nor would the question "can one quantify one's belief in a deity? Certainly there is no quantifiable "rational appreciation" of a deity either.

[rrneck]

22. Ah. Another way of knowing.

You do have knowledge of your feelings, do you not?

[Goblinmonger]

25. So figurative language and onomatopoeia is "another way of knowing"?

That's just silly. Both are pretty solidly based in experiential understanding.

I'm an English teacher and love literature, but it's not "another way of knowing."

And I'm not even getting into the great leaps brain science has made in understanding our emotions and why we have them.

[rrneck]

26. I know his feelings on the subject. nt

[Goblinmonger]

64. Not sure I even know what that means, but OK.

:yoiks:

[rrneck]

66. LOL! Nobody does dawg.

That's what keeps shrinks and artists in business.

Religion had a lock on it for a long time but they're falling behind fast. There are just too many other places to get what religion offered now.

[Odin2005]

4. unrec.

The distinguishing feature of science as opposed to religion is that science rejects blind faith, science is based of FALSIFIABILITY rather than blind faith.

[MineralMan]

5. How is science a religion? That's ridiculous.

Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith-based. They could not be more different.

Faith and evidence have nothing in common. In fact, they are completely incompatible as ways to look at the world.

A waste of mental energy, this is.

[bananas]

13. No, it's not ridiculous.

From the article in the OP:

Where Lightman really impressed me was his acknowledgement that science, as a philosophical commitment rather than the specific practice of it, also requires a leap of faith. He talks of the "Central Doctrine of science": "all properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the universe. Although scientists do not talk explicitly about this doctrine, and my doctoral thesis advisor never mentioned it once to his graduate students, the Central Doctrine is the invisible oxygen that scientists breathe."

Thus, the doctrine goes, though we do not know all the fundamental laws now, and what we do know may change (as Einstein’s law of gravity replaced Newton’s), they exist and are in principle discoverable by humans. But of course, as Lightman admits, this cannot be proved. It is, as I said, a leap of faith.

This is also called Scientism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.<1> The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism<2><3> and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,<4> philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,<5> and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam<6> to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.<7>

<snip>

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson<18> detects two main broad themes:

- It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

- It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

<snip>

E. F. Schumacher in his A Guide for the Perplexed criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn’t be counted, in other words, it didn’t count." <21>

<snip>

Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.<24>

<snip>

[Warpy]

16. Science relies on facts and alters when new facts come to light

Religion relies on faith and rejects any facts that conflict with dogma. It also has the conceit that its truths are eternal and unchanging.

They are completely different. However, human beings aren't light switches, at least most of them aren't, and can generally accommodate both.

[MarkCharles]

17. If one has an understanding of the discipline of science, and one did not

have to quote the OPINIONS of others as any sort of "proof"...one might have more credibility here in presenting an argument.

I'd really appreciate thoughts about what constitutes a "religion" before one draws absurd comparisons leading to a singular, (albeit copied from others), incorrect conclusion.

Simply because people agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green doesn't make them members of the SKYBLUEGRASSGREEN religion.

[MineralMan]

33. How silly. Scientism is not science.

How odd that you'd be confused about that.

You are pushing this beyond reason. That will never work. But, you're welcome to try, I suppose.

[Towlie]

42. Yes, it IS in fact ridiculous. Science and religion are opposite in many ways and are incompatible.

Debate: John Haught vs. Jerry Coyne on "Science & Religion: Are They Compatible?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VlQ1TunESn8#t=1574s

[bananas]

48. No, they're not incompatible. nt

[darkstar3]

50. Free inquiry vs. divine mandate. Yes, they are incompatible.

[humblebum]

6. It's become a religion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=314927&mesg_id=314927

[MineralMan]

9. No, it hasn't. Your link demonstrates nothing of the sort.

[bananas]

14. People make religions out of the darndest things.

Science is just a tool, but some people think it's more than that.
For those people, it has become, for all intents and purposes, a religion.

[trotsky]

18. Name one person for whom science has become a religion,

and give specific reasons why.

[cleanhippie]

20. Oh, I'm sure s/he can give a "bunch" of reasons, but s/he will never actually give them.

You would have to be bananas to think otherwise.

[LeftishBrit]

63. 'Science' as such is very rarely treated as a religion.

Of course, some researchers get tempted to treat *their own* results and methods as a form of religious dogma, and regard critics as heretics. But this gets in the way of good science. And in any case is no different from the form of egocentrism that makes some people think that their way of making a bed or cooking spaghetti or selecting a computer is the only possible way and that anyone who does things differently is an obstinate fool!

There *are* some people who treat some aspects of science as a religion, in terms of thinking that it can prescribe morality; but these are very rarely good scientists. An example is the 'evolutionary psychologist' Kanazawa, who for example regards feminism as 'evil' because it conflicts with the sex roles that have evolved to our benefit, in exactly the same way that a religious right-winger might regard feminism as 'evil' because it conflicts with divinely-ordained sex roles. But let us note that Kanazawa has rather little respect from the scientific community as a whole, and that he works in a university department of *Management* - not biology, experimental psychology, or any other science.

On the whole, however, those who claim that 'science is just another religion!' are rejecting the whole concept of basing findings on evidence, in the cause of pursuing a particular ideology. The people who do so, apart from certain philosophers, tend in my experience to be either (a) creationists; (b) more general religious right-wingers; or (c) anti-vaccinators.

I certainly consider that science cannot tell you what moral principles or goals you should have. It may possibly tell you what methods are most likely to achieve these goals, but not what these goals should be. And people who justify the status quo on the grounds that 'that is how we evolved and you can't change human nature' are doing the same thing as those who do so on the grounds that 'that is how God created us and you can't change human nature'. But good scientists rarely do think that science can tell you what moral principles or goals you should have - and those who claim to do so are usually either bad scientists to begin with, or have been corrupted by a desire for publicity.

[MineralMan]

31. Very few people in the sciences confuse science with religion.

Very few, indeed. Those who do confuse the two are rarely really scientists. I'd be interesting in hearing the names of some scientists who confuse science with religion. Do you know any such names? Let's see them.

[MarkCharles]

38. I am will int bet that NOT ONE OF THOSE "people in the sciences" thinkers, leaders

teachers, researchers, writers, astronauts, etc etc etc, NOT ONE of them thinks of science as a religion.

Religious folks, beset with challenges to their way of believing, (based upon faith and NON-scientific disciplines), want SO MUCH for science to be equal to their way of mentally dealing with the world.

I bet lots of religious folks wish science would just take a place next to Islam, Buddhism, or some other belief system, something they could mock as much as they mock other real belief systems that are no better nor worse than their own.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Prove it.

We'll wait.

[NMMNG]

55. Wait, but don't hold your breath

We don't want to lose you.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Why how kind :)

Thank you.

I actually have provisions stored away for just such an occasion.

[saras]

7. Science itself says "we don't know" a lot. People who use it as religion say "it can't be" a lot

[MineralMan]

8. Religion itself says "God did it" a lot. People who use it to explain

things haven't a clue.

[darkstar3]

10. Science and religion approach hypotheses from two very different directions.

When scientists see a phenomenon, they work toward finding a clear explanation for it. When religious adherents see a phenomenon, they posit a grand explanation for it (God) and then ignore that which does not fit their canned answer.

The two are so mutually exclusive as to make any comparison of them ridiculous. To claim that science is a religion is to remove any credibility the claimant might have.

[rug]

23. Odd then that the scientific method is used to measure scriptures.

You know, heing so mutually exclusive and all. Close to a ridiculous exercise.

[MarkCharles]

28. Sort of makes anything written in the scriptures totally false, unprovable

a ridiculous exercise for those who want to believe everything, or just whatever they want to believe, pick and choose, (without any proofs) whatever they choose to believe in the Bible.

[darkstar3]

30. NOMA doesn't work when scriptures make reference to scientifically testable phenomena.

[humblebum]

34. Where in scripture does it mention or reference "scientifically testable phenomena?" nt

[darkstar3]

43. You cannot possibly be serious.

Your holy book is fraught with such verses.

[humblebum]

52. You did not answer my question. The Bible does not make the claim

to be absolutely subject to scientific testability.

[darkstar3]

81. Your question was predicated on a falsehood, namely, that you don't already know the answer.

[humblebum]

35. Trying to discredit NOMA is one more example of atheism being

anti-freethinking. Absolute hypocracy.

[NMMNG]

36. Define "freethinker"

[humblebum]

37. Um? The ability to think uninhibited and the existence of an environment

conducive to that end. Organized atheisism is definitely the antithesis of that. Just a buzz word.

[NMMNG]

39. Bzzzzt Wrong.

That's where you guys always err. "Freethinker" has a specific meaning. When you use it to suggest it means people are open to anything and everything to the point that their brain falls out of their head, then claim atheists are not "freethinkers" because they aren't buying whatever illogical/mystical/unsubstantiated twaddle you're pimping, it just shows your ignorance.

For the record: Freethinker

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

[humblebum]

41. That seems to fit my definition quite well.

"one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority" - yep, that works for me. And, "especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma." That works for me too. It doesn't say "exclusively: one who doubts or denies religious dogma."

You asked ME to define freethinker, not to look up the definition. Yours is the skeptic/atheists' definition, and the one commonly used, but not mine. The word "free" is the determinant to me. Look it up. Reason can also be used to point to the existence of diety. And my ideas are not dependent upon your atheistic dogma, nor any religious dogma. Your ways are far too narrow. Atheistic "dogma" includes prescribed ridicule for those who do not agree, and seems to represent group thinking over free thinking.

[NMMNG]

44. As usual

You want to apply to others definitions you pull out of your ass rather than the actual ones. That way you can pretend they're not what they say they are. It must be interesting living in a world entirely of your own creation.

You're going back on ignore. Your lunacy makes my brain hurt.

[humblebum]

45. i have noticed that many atheists do have trouble with people thinking freely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc

[darkstar3]

46. The word you meant to use was "sloppily".

If you believe that you are in any way thinking "freely", then the only word that can be used to describe this belief is "delusion".

[humblebum]

47. Point proven. My thought processes do not depend on your assessment of them.

You fit the example to a tee. Your approved thinking is too regimented, mechanical, and exclusive for me.

[darkstar3]

49. Oh, you proved a point, but not the one you think.

;)

[humblebum]

51. There you go again, telling me what I think. nt

[beam me up scottie]

53. There you go again, telling us what we think and redefining atheism to suit your agenda.

I find atheistic reasoning to be too restrictive, limited to operating within its own prescribed parameters. It rejects more than it accepts. Hardly the defintion of "free." Reason is NOT the possession of atheism. Atheism is forced to deny other epistemologies, such as ontology and teleology, in order to justify its credibility in trying to assess only material existence. And, that is also how a skeptic or an atheist can claim only one way of knowing - by denying that other ways exist.

Telling people what they believe or don't is religious bigotry.

[humblebum]

56. So then, you are telling me that

Reason is the possession of atheism, and that it accepts as valid other epistemologies, such as ontology and teleology, and that it does not deny the validity of other ways of knowing?

Interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Fail. I'm telling you that redefining atheism and telling me what I believe and don't is intolerant

Classic religious intolerance on display.

[humblebum]

62. I believe you were the one that chimed in here. And if you think

atheism is free from criticism, think again. And, I have no regret for those characterizations, as I believe them to be true. There is no redefining. BTW, that was in the form of a question. I put no words in your mouth.

[beam me up scottie]

67. You are the one who redefined atheism to validate your bias, how does that not affect me?

I find atheistic reasoning to be too restrictive, limited to operating within its own prescribed parameters. It rejects more than it accepts. Hardly the defintion of "free." Reason is NOT the possession of atheism. Atheism is forced to deny other epistemologies, such as ontology and teleology, in order to justify its credibility in trying to assess only material existence. And, that is also how a skeptic or an atheist can claim only one way of knowing - by denying that other ways exist.

Atheism does not DENY anything, it is simply a lack of belief.

The lack of religion has no need to "justify its credibility" because it makes no positive claims.

Your religion, otoh, has always lacked credibility, anti-atheist bigotry just makes it look even more desperate.

[humblebum]

68. "The lack of religion has no need to "justify its credibility" because it makes no positive claims."

For making no positive claims, many atheists here sure do spew a lot of anti-religious language. Far more than any anti-atheist criticism. And as I said before atheism is not free from criticism. I would suggest you get used to it.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Telling us what we believe and calling us liars when we object is not "criticism".

It's bigotry.

And now you tell me I should "get used to it"???

Sorry, 'bum, that's not going to happen, we don't accept intolerance and we never will.

[humblebum]

71. You might want to stop considering every bit of criticism as bigotry. Otherwise

you will become a very unhappy person. "we don't accept intolerance" - Yes, radical and organized atheism is well known for its toleration of religious beliefs. LOL

[beam me up scottie]

72. "radical and organized atheism" only exists in the minds of paranoid religionists.

Keep looking over your shoulder, 'bum.

Hurry inside now, before it gets dark.

BOO!

[humblebum]

78. And on TV, radio, newspapers, internet, on the street, in the history books,

at conventions, in parades, and on DU. Besides that it's hard to find. when Hitchens exhorted his audience to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt for religion", he must've been standing alone in the shower, no doubt. LOL

[beam me up scottie]

79. SQUIRREL!!!

If 'religion' doesn't like ridicule, hatred and contempt maybe it should stay the fuck out of our private lives.

[humblebum]

80. And the truth comes out. nt

[darkstar3]

82. Deal with it. Private lives are none of your or your religion's business.

[humblebum]

83. Ya mean like when Dawkins signed the petition to make it illegal

to teach religion to children under 16 in the home?

[beam me up scottie]

86. So you think Richard Dawkins = "radical and organized atheism"

:rofl:

[humblebum]

87. Well considering he is more radical than some and less than others,

and that he is considered one of the leaders of the New Atheist movement, I think that can be safely implied.

http://2010.atheistconvention.org.au/

[beam me up scottie]

89. Oh noes! The "new" atheist movement!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

84. Yep-eventually religionists won't be able to force the rest of us to live according to their beliefs

Sorry if that terrifies you.

[humblebum]

85. Sorry. The world has seen how that works in reality before. And it wasn't religion

forcing itself. And I'll check and see if I'm terrified and get back to directly.

[beam me up scottie]

88. That's right, it wasn't religion, it was religionists. And they're still doing it.

The Vatican instructs its priests to lie about condoms to its most vunerable followers, which means millions of people will needlessly suffer and die.

Christians in this country actively work to deny human rights to lgbt people, to criminalize birth control and abortion and to finally restore the United States to the christian country that it was always meant to be.

And you're in a snit because people ridicule your religion?

Cry me a river.

[humblebum]

90. Are you foaming at the mouth yet? BTW, still waiting to see where i called

an atheist a liar. Um? You know what that makes you, don't you?

[NMMNG]

57. But he can't be engaging in religious bigotry

Only atheists do that, or so we're constantly told--by him, of course.

[beam me up scottie]

59. I love how he keeps pulling this stuff out of

the rift.

[NMMNG]

61. And what a mighty rift it is n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

32. Is it so used? Perhaps you'd show me some referenced to people

using the scientific method to "measure" scriptures. I'd be fascinate to look into that.

[bananas]

15. Good article, thanks. nt

[MarkCharles]

21. Actually that is a very sloppy, illogical, and irrational article, that

mischaracterizes what is the essence of science. Science an open-ended, open-minded, testable, repeatable, or refutable claims by rational minds, working with the most data available. Nothing is part of science if it can be disproved. Science never asserts anything as final, as do religions.

Religions, no matter how much they WANT to look like science, have none of those characteristics.

The article was sloppy, and drew in the gullible, once again, those who WANT to believe science is a religion, in order to reject it, or, at the very least, to make science less worthy or less valued than their own faith and belief system.

A disservice to the pursuit of truth, to equate the discipline of science to a religion.

[rug]

24. I don't think it was sloppy. No unecessary capitalizations for one thing.

[MarkCharles]

27. If you cannot distinguish logic and rational thought from

misstatement of facts,what kind of sloppy details are you willing to accept?


Seriously, you don't find mischaracterizations "sloppy"? What kind of precision other than capitalizations are you attuned for?

You did not find the mention of Newton and Einstein and how Einstein amplified what Newton's discoveries had been a gross misstatement of the history of science? You did not find the argument that since the first scientist didn't have everything right, and since science is incomplete, it must be a religion, didn't find that argument a bit specious?

[rug]

29. Actually I do find mischaracterization to be sloppy. Maddeningly so.

I find little of it in this article. But I find lots in this particular Forum.

[Iggo]

65. It's just that religions get their asses handed to them so often....

....that they've decided to call everything else a religion so that they can get in on the fun.

[GliderGuider]

70. It's a difficult topic. IME people on both sides of the divide conflate science and scientism.

That conflation results in a lot of nonsensical arguments.

Science is not a religion. Given a set of initial assumptions about the nature of reality, science is simply a framework for a) generating hypotheses; b)determining whether a hypothesis is testable; c) performing experiments to test the hypothesis; and d) analyzing the results to determine if they support or reject the hypothesis. A key element is independent validation of experimental results.

As the article more or less points out, the difference between a scientific view of reality and a religious one lies in the initial assumptions and the testability and independent validation of experimental results.

Of course, not every hypothesis can be tested by experiment. For example, the hypothesis that reality consists of 10 or 26 dimensions can't be tested, and in fact runs counter to what I see as part of the initial assumptions of science - that reality consists of only three physical dimensions and time. So the question remains of how to classify hypotheses that are un-testable, either because we don't currently have the means or because they are fundamentally beyond the reach of experiment. Do they form part of the scientific view of reality or not?

Scientism, however (and here I'm not using the term pejoratively, so hold your knee just for a second) might legitimately be called a "religious" position.

Scientism

Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.

"Scientism" can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case the term is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority.
   
   
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."

The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.

I use the term in the sense of point #2 above. In that sense scientism implies a belief that the initial assumptions about reality as adopted by science are true in an absolute sense, and that subjective conclusions about reality are outside the boundary of scientific acceptability. Those beliefs seem to be what distinguish scientism from science.

When one conflates the process or framework of science with beliefs about the assumptions and processes of science as represented by the (semantically loaded) word "scientism", vague and foggy arguments are inevitable.

Some scientists are scientistic, some are not. Some lay people are scientistic, some are not. By the same token, some in both groups are religious (or at least spiritually inclined to one degree or another), and some are not. I might add that religious people are rarely scientistic, though I personally know one example of that uncomfortable mix.

IMO the argument is not between religion and science, but between religion and scientism. As such, it's not really worth expending a lot of energy on.

OK, you may let go of your knee now. :-)

[rrneck]

77. It seems to me that

it is very difficult for anyone to separate what we know from what we feel.

And to understand how we feel about what know.

And to know how we feel.

It can make anyone a little dizzy.

[Taverner]

73. Religion as Plumbing Grease

Seriously - the comparison is about the same

[GliderGuider]

74. Ah, but then who is the plumber? And who is the plugged toilet?

:evilgrin:

[Taverner]

75. Ice cream has no bones

[GliderGuider]

76. :-) nt