Pages

Monday, January 15, 2024

Are All Cosmologists Atheists?

v h



Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting



In the previous post I commented on Sean Carroll, astro-physicist and atheist soldier who wave the banner of scientism. He writes an article:"Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists" [1]Actually, he offers no data on the views of cosmologists. I offered reasons in the previous post as to why I think the title here is hyperballe. Good data shows that the majority of scientists believe in God [2]  While it may not be true of cosmologists I have no reason to believe it is not. But this is not the real issue. he real issue is that Carroll's arguments are merely ideological/ all he's doing is imposing a naturalistic ideology upon epistemology and then insisting that he has the mystique of science to back  it up. In other word it's just propaganda.

Let's start with his conclusion:

The question we have addressed is, ”Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?” Although I don’t imagine I have changed many people’s minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality.
That seems ok so far but here's where he wants to wind up:

 Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis — such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics — there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by scientific standards. It’s a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.

The problem is "what we know" means what we know by the methods that I choose, those methods are chosen because they yield the results I want; other forms of  knowledge I do not have to regard. He argues for a self contained paradigm and true to Thomas Kun's theory he absorbs anomalies into the paradigm so as not to admit that they are contradictions and he defends the paradigm like a political regime. My overall argument is that his rejection of theism is ideological not scientific.

In his abstract to the article he makes his purpose clear, that purpose I to rule out belief in God by moving it of the map as an issue. The way to do that is to assert science's role as the only form of knowlege:
Abstract
Science and religion both make claims about the fundamental workings of the universe. Although these claims are not a priori incompatible (we could imagine being brought to religious belief through scientific investigation), I will argue that in practice they diverge. If we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental pictures of reality,we are led to a strictly materialist conception of the universe. While the details of modern cosmology are not a necessary part of this argument, they provide interesting clues as to how an ultimate picture may be constructed. [emphasis mine] [3]
Why would we be led to be led to a meticulously materialist view just because we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental views? It sounds like he is saying that science can determine the truth between differing views. He actually says ifwe believe that it can He's aware that it can't. He knows all he's really doing is just advocating an ideological view point that blinds itself to other possibilities.

As further evidence of his commitment as a solider of atheism he opposes any sort of peaceful coexistence between science and religion:

One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe.[4]


He disavows any claim to statistical accuracy in the title saying, "The title ''Why cosmologists are atheists'' was chosen ...simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning." [5] That's a new one, I can make false claims about support because I don't mean them and somehow the fact that I'm advocating traditional views guarantees it's veracity. Talk about propaganda! This "common and venerable view" is outmoded and has been left behind by many in scientific circles. Stpehen J, Guild with his non overlapping magisteria found peace with religion by recognizing that religion and science have different purposes.[6] The National Science Teachers Association echos the same concept that science and religion cover differing domains of knowledge. “Explanations involving non-naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid scientific curriculum.” [7]

"Essentially I will be defending a position that has come down to us from the Enlightenment, and which has been sharpened along the way by various advances in scientific understanding. In particular, " No scientific understanding has ruled out God. He's appealing to tradition and the emotional investment he's made in enlightenment thinking. "Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are." I suspect that what he means by that is that religion offered an explanation of the workings of the physical world, such as the river floods because God is mad at us. I have a hard time thinking that Carroll really has a conception of what religion is about.  part of what I base that upon is the the things he thinks beat it out:
In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method,

Of course before one can say "X has overcome Y" she/he must know what Y is about. Since science doesn't talk about existential or phenomenological matters one cam only conclude that he must think religion is about explaining where the sun came from and why it rains. This especially so since view he is juxtaposing is cosmology. So he must think that understanding the nature of reality is jus a matter of understanding the cosmic layout, planets and stars.
The essence of materialism is to model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality. A materialist model may be said to consist of four elements. First, we model the world as some formal (mathematical) structure. (General relativity describes the world as a curved manifold with a Lorentzian metric, while quantum mechanics describes the world as a state in some Hilbert space.
Complete as a description of reality? That assumes of course that your methods are up to the task of probing all of reality. He speaks of a complete description and yet look at all that he leaves out/, First I refer the reader to my recent essay "can science prove the basis of modern physics?" [8] How can he claim a complete description when it can't tell us what the basic building blocks are made out of? Materialism has to rule out miracles. It will rule them out as a matter of course. That is an ideological imperative. Then in a move of pure circular reasoning it will appeal to it's own authority in declaring miracles to be scientifically disproved. All that really means is that they conflict with the ideological scheme of things. Miracles are a part of my reality. They are paert of other people's observations and have been documented scientifically.[9] [10]Any description of the universe that rules them out without genuinely disproving them is incomplete. Then of course there are issues of phenomenological and existential import.



sources

[1] Sean M. Carroll, "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists;" On line resource, Prepared for God and Physical Cosmology: Russian-Anglo American Conference on Cosmology and Theology, Notre Dame, January/February 2003. Published in Faith and Philosophy 22, 622 (2005). See also the pdf version. URL:http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/  accessed Feb 12, 2016.

Carroll is at the California Institute of Technology.

[2] Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America's College and University Professors.” SSRC, (published feb. 2007), PDF URL, accessed 9/4/15 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of thehttp://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf Association for the Sociology of Religion. 

They present a bar graph that show about 35% professor's ar elite research universities believe in God with no doubt. About 27% believe but sometimes have doubts. About 38% are atheists. That actually means that 60% are not atheists. True that's not cosmologists but there is good reason to think the majority of cosmologists are not atheists. The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers (50%), not physicists (among whose ranks cosmologists number).  “Contrary to popular Opinion, atheists and agnostics do not comprise a majority of professors..."
 

[3] Carroll, op. cit.

[4] Ibid. "Introduction."

[5] Ibid. all further quotes by Carroll are from this article.

[6]  Stephen Jay GouldRocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ,2002,

[7] Statement on Teaching Evolution, National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors on March 15, 1995. no page given, in Three Statememts in Support of Teaching Evolution From Science and Science Education Organizations, A National Science Teachers Association Position Statement (see fn 4) online URL http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/11#127 (accesed 1/26/2016)

[8] Joe Hinman, Can Science prove the basis of modern Physics?" Metacrock's blog,Feb. 1, 2016, URL:http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html accessed 2/14/16.
[9] Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28  all the page numbers given are from pdf

Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

[10] Jacalyn Duffin, Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing: Medical Miracles in the Modern World. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (November 21, 2008

from Bio on Amazon.com
 Jacalyn Duffin, M.D. (Toronto 1974), FRCP(C) (1979), Ph.D. (Sorbonne 1985), is Professor in the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen's University in Kingston where she has taught in medicine, philosophy, history, and law for more than twenty years. A practicing hematologist, a historian, a mother and grandmother, she has served as President of both the American Association for the History of Medicine and the Canadian Society for the History of Medicine. She holds a number of awards and honours for research, writing, service, and teaching. She is the author of five books, editor of two anthologies, and has published many research articles. Her most recent book is an analysis of the medical aspects of canonization, Medical Miracles; Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World, Oxford University Press, 2009. It was awarded the Hannah Medal of the Royal Society of Canada...

See also Doxa. miracles pages







 


28 comments:

  1. "Good data shows that the majority of scientists believe in God [2]"

    It does not. The "good data" you cite is a survey of teaching faculty at all kinds of colleges, including community colleges and undergraduate level 4-year colleges, in all fields of study, the majority of which are non-scientific. Really, Joe, you should try to read and understand the material you cite. This survey found that only about a third of the faculty at the more elite colleges believe in God. But this is not scientists. A Pew survey of actual scientists (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)shows a similar proportion of scientists (1/3) believe in God, but fewer in the fields of physics and astronomy. So maybe Carroll actually knows what he's talking about.

    And maybe you are the one presenting ideology-motivated propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is nit the sane source I claimed those are two different sources,in fact the one swing the majority of scientists believe in God really says hakfif all science degree holders believe in god.I was really not tryingto mislead, my mistaek even so the issue tata sizeable nuberor teachers beievein a good point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. from fn 2: They present a bar graph that show about 35% professor's ar elite research universities believe in God with no doubt. About 27% believe but sometimes have doubts. About 38% are atheists. That actually means that 60% are not atheists. True that's not cosmologists but there is good reason to think the majority of cosmologists are not atheists. The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers (50%), not physicists (among whose ranks cosmologists number). “Contrary to popular Opinion, atheists and agnostics do not comprise a majority of professors..."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "That is nit the sane source I claimed those are two different sources"

    What other source did you cite? The one you gave us says nothing at all about scientists. And did you see the source that I cited? The fact of the matter is that the majority of people with genuine scientific training do not believe in God. Furthermore, in every survey of this type that I've seen where they try to boost the number of believers in the scientific community, they rely on the well-known fact that MDs tend to be more religious than scientists as a whole, so they include MDs in the mix, which raises the number of believers, but still doesn't bring it to a majority.

    "This "common and venerable view" is outmoded and has been left behind by many in scientific circles. Stpehen J, Guild with his non overlapping magisteria found peace with religion"

    Gould's viewpoint is popular among religioinists, but it is not representative of the majority of scientists. The whole idea of non-overlapping magisteria is an admission that science does not support belief in God. If a scientist wants to hold to that, there are things that entail. The scientist must agree that there are aspects of reality that are off limits for scientific investigation, and that might include observable phenomena. There are many works that blur the boundary, such as Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, and dare I say The Trace of God. But this raises the question - where exactly is that boundary? And why should a serious scientists agree not to cross it? Is it just to keep religionists happy? And why do religionists keep trying to cross it? They seem to be saying "I'm allowed to use scientific tools to investigate this, but the scientific community can't, because it's off limits to them".

    Hypocrisy much?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers (50%)"

    You are misrepresenting what this study says. The numbers you quote apply to a specific group of teachers: "Looking at the top 20 BA granting fields ..." What they are talking about is a subset of teachers in popular undergraduate fields. Furthermore, those fields of study are for BA (bachelor of arts) degrees, not for BS (bachelor of science) degrees. The study does not include most fields of science because they are not even looking at hard science. And you should be aware that most biologists who do real science have degrees in science (BS, MS, PhD), not arts. So for you to try to pretend that these numbers represent the scientific community is just plain wrong. But we do see a hint here: In the more scientific-leaning fields that are included, there is less belief in God.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3:29 PM

    Yes all real cosmologists are atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:31 PM

    All intelligent people are atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. what joke. an atheist I argued with he other night said SMU is fictional it's not a real university, what a genius,

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:51 PM

    your god has been shown to be irrelevant as technology has become so advanced we can make the lame walk and give amputees the ability to handle things again. your miracles are bogus and your religion is a joke. We can explain everything in terms of the natural world and technology without tyour god

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:27 AM

    Atheism is the default position of any educated, civilized person. Christians bears the burden of proof by definition of who they are: religious people. Atheists are normal and sane and religious people are not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it quite amusing that you accuse Carroll of espousing the "ideology of scientism", when everything you write smacks of the ideology of religionism, as well as a very obvious bias against those who don't share your own ideological views.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous said...
    your god has been shown to be irrelevant as technology has become so advanced we can make the lame walk and give amputees the ability to handle things again. your miracles are bogus and your religion is a joke. We can explain everything in terms of the natural world and technology without tyour god


    That's a huge exaggeration. First they can't do all that, Second what we can do takes a lot of money, neither scientism nor atheism has a good philosophical rational for sharing. Religion does.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ps I know miracles are real because I've seen a few.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous said...
    Atheism is the default position of any educated, civilized person.

    No it's not. Christianity is. Christianity invented modern science modern logic and social conscience. More educated civilized people are God believers than atheists.

    Christians bears the burden of proof by definition of who they are: religious people. Atheists are normal and sane and religious people are not.

    You are just spouting the party line. you have no data or study results, in fact the studies show fewer religious people have mental problems than atheist's.

    ReplyDelete
  15. im-skeptical said...
    I find it quite amusing that you accuse Carroll of espousing the "ideology of scientism", when everything you write smacks of the ideology of religionism, as well as a very obvious bias against those who don't share your own ideological views.


    I am sure I have biases everyone does, the point is to deal with others well despite those biases. The is no one ideology of religion but there is a scietism. you assert because I am religious I must ideology of religion that does not necessarily follow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your religionism is an epistemological position that says you can (and do) know things by means other than the evidence of the senses, and that only by these other ways of knowing can you come to the truth. It says that people who rely on objective evidence are missing the "big picture". They are deficient because knowledge of God isn't part their epistemology. Because of that view, you hold them in contempt. You treat them as lowly beings, whose arguments are not worthy of serious consideration. When they speak, what you hear is an atheist espousing his "scientism". You don't pay any heed to the substance of the argument. You simply dismiss them as atheists espousing scientism. You hold yourself far above them beacuse you have knowledge of God and they don't. And so what we hear from you is religionism drowning out any rational analysis of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  17. im-skeptical said...
    Your religionism is an epistemological position that says you can (and do) know things by means other than the evidence of the senses, and that only by these other ways of knowing can you come to the truth.

    straw man argument, you assert all religious people see it this way that is not true, No argument that I have made uses that premise.



    It says that people who rely on objective evidence are missing the "big picture". They are deficient because knowledge of God isn't part their epistemology. Because of that view, you hold them in contempt.

    You hold religious people n contempt so you assert ew must hold you in contempt. that does not follow. God is not given in sense data but he is given in logic.


    You treat them as lowly beings, whose arguments are not worthy of serious consideration.

    I am answering your argumemts, therefore they mst be worth answering/

    When they speak, what you hear is an atheist espousing his "scientism". You don't pay any heed to the substance of the argument. You simply dismiss them as atheists espousing scientism. You hold yourself far above them beacuse you have knowledge of God and they don't. And so what we hear from you is religionism drowning out any rational analysis of the argument.


    the fact that I am answering them disproves that. WE all have ideological biases.

    4:26 PM

    ReplyDelete
  18. "you assert all religious people see it this way that is not true"
    - No. I assert you see it this way. And that is obvious.

    "No argument that I have made uses that premise."
    - That's what your whole mystical experience spiel, as well as your "a priori" schtick is based on. It's how you know God, and other matters, as well.

    "You hold religious people n contempt so you assert ew must hold you in contempt."
    - Joe, I attempt to have serious debates and discussions with you. An what do I hear from you? "Scientism!" Sean Carroll is not only highly intelligent, but he is well versed in philosophy. He is well regarded within the religious community because he has a good understanding of religious philosophical issues. He is not one of the "new atheists" that you despise so much, but you don't seem to know that. You don't address his arguments. Instead, you dismiss him with shouts of "Atheist!" "Scientism!" Your contempt is on display for all to see.

    "I am answering your argumemts, therefore they mst be worth answering"
    - Sometimes you have answers for the issues I raise. But you typically don't give them serious consideration. Especially on matters of science (a topic in which I am generally well versed). You always think you know more. You often answer with something like "I was in a doctoral program", as if that should settle the issue.

    "the fact that I am answering them disproves that. WE all have ideological biases."
    - You didn't answer Carroll in any meaningful way. And yes, I agree that we all have our biases. It's something we should be aware of when we dismiss the arguments of others.

    ReplyDelete
  19. im-skeptical said...
    "you don't know anything about my beliefs. you are just making a pastiche based upon bits and pieces."
    - You write about your beliefs all the time. Your problem is that I read what you say.

    Yes BUR I have not published a systematic theology

    "That doesn't mean that doesn't have an ideology."
    - We all have ideologies. The ideology you claim Carroll has is called "scientism". That's what you call it, and you think it prevents him from seeing the truth. And I said that you have an ideology called "religionism, and I say it prevents you from seeing the truth.

    I am not the only one who talks about scientism and I can give systemic example of the major ideas. You are only one with your coined term and I doubt you can offer a systemic reading



    "I;ve seen him say some pretty biased thigs"
    - I think your bias is far greater than Carroll's.

    He's your hero

    "I think my answer were on target ... the only way he can understand an explanation is for a scientific explanation which means reducing reality to just the physical workings of nature pure ideology."


    - Yes, he's a materialist. Most scientists are. But you miss his point altogether. He never said that's the only way to understand reality. He is looking at it both ways. And he said that you don't have to add God into the mix to have an explanation that works. You are the one who can see things only one way. And Carroll makes you angry, because you refuse to accept what he is saying. You don't want to even consider a scientific explanation. It goes against your hard-nosed ideology.
    9:16 AM

    It's obvious from the phrase about an explanation that he only looks at reality as a set of propositions about how nature works, that is too marrow.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Materialism is too narrow that's .why I am not one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Yes BUR I have not published a systematic theology"
    - So?? You have written extensively, and that provides a wealth of information about what you believe. It's the things you write that I base my comments on.

    "I am not the only one who talks about scientism and I can give systemic example of the major ideas. You are only one with your coined term and I doubt you can offer a systemic reading"
    - All words have been coined at some point. The word 'religionism' has been around since the 18th century, and its meaning is pretty much the religious counterpart to 'scientism' as you use it - an excessive religious fervor. It governs what you believe and how you live. Scientism is used mainly (by religionists) as a derogatory way to describe the epistemological views of empiricists. I see no problem in describing your epistemological views as 'religionist'. But I mean nothing deragatory by it. It is descriptive of someone who can't see or accept any reality that doesn't include God.

    "He's your hero"
    - Carroll is well respected, including by the religious community. You seem to hate him because he's not a religionist. But you haven't made an effort to understand what he's saying.

    "It's obvious from the phrase about an explanation that he only looks at reality as a set of propositions about how nature works, that is too marrow."
    - Too narrow, in your view, because it doesn't include God. I understand that this is quite disturbing to you.

    "Materialism is too narrow that's .why I am not one."
    - I think religionism is too narrow. Why? because there is no room for evidence-based beliefs. If the evidence doesn't lead to God, then you aren't interested in it. Truth be damned.


    ReplyDelete
  22. "Yes BUR I have not published a systematic theology"
    - So?? You have written extensively, and that provides a wealth of information about what you believe. It's the things you write that I base my comments on.

    getting it in bits and pieces doesn't really allow understanding in a systematic way then there things that come up here such as my views on bigfoot,

    "I am not the only one who talks about scientism and I can give systemic example of the major ideas. You are only one with your coined term and I doubt you can offer a systemic reading"

    - All words have been coined at some point. The word 'religionism' has been around since the 18th century, and its meaning is pretty much the religious counterpart to 'scientism' as you use it - an excessive religious fervor. It governs what you believe and how you live. Scientism is used mainly (by religionists) as a derogatory way to describe the epistemological views of empiricists.

    No you are totally wrong, your views are colored by your need to beat Christian apologists. First, religionism sounds illiterate but it is defined in dictionary so I guess I just don't see it that much. scientism is nit used mainly by religious people. I first heard that word from my brother back in the early 70s when we were both atheists the people he was reading were not Christian apologists.

    I see no problem in describing your epistemological views as 'religionist'. But I mean nothing deragatory by it. It is descriptive of someone who can't see or accept any reality that doesn't include God.

    Ok par for course

    "He's your hero"
    - Carroll is well respected, including by the religious community. You seem to hate him because he's not a religionist. But you haven't made an effort to understand what he's saying.

    I am put off by hi arrogance and by the jingoistic nature of his scientism.

    "It's obvious from the phrase about an explanation that he only looks at reality as a set of propositions about how nature works, that is too marrow."
    - Too narrow, in your view, because it doesn't include God. I understand that this is quite disturbing to you.

    90% of humans believe God and they dominate every culture on earth, but there's more to to than than that. Even as an atheist i was opposed to scientism

    "Materialism is too narrow that's .why I am not one."
    - I think religionism is too narrow. Why? because there is no room for evidence-based beliefs. If the evidence doesn't lead to God, then you aren't interested in it. Truth be damned.


    hw could religion be narrow when it includes everything? there are even Christians who do scientism, there is an incredible variety. Yes there narrow minded unread types. no shortage of them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "getting it in bits and pieces doesn't really allow understanding in a systematic way"
    - If you wrote an occasional sentence or two about bigfoot, I wouldn't claim to know much about your thoughts on the matter. But you write quite a lot about your religious beliefs, including hundreds of full articles, commentary, and even chapters from your books. That's not bits and pieces. With all that in mind, I can say that I have some idea about what you believe.

    "No you are totally wrong, your views are colored by your need to beat Christian apologists."
    - You're wrong, Joe. I don't need to beat anyone. I'm not at war with you or anyone else. I respond to what you write. I try to correct errors you make, especially in matters of science. When you write an article like this one, it clearly shows that you believe you're at war with atheists. And this is just one of many.

    "First, religionism sounds illiterate ..."
    - It sounds like something you don't want to hear. Perhaps it kind of echoes your constant shouts of "scientism", aimed at people like Sean Carroll.

    "scientism is nit used mainly by religious people. I first heard that word from my brother back in the early 70s when we were both atheists"
    - I first heard the word when I was an atheist, too. I heard it form people like you. I hear it all the time. And always from people like you. The dictionary defines it as a derogatory term, and that fits with the way you use it. Not that it can't be used occasionally in a non-derogatory sense. But it's really about epistemology. It's about sources of knowledge. And you try to define it in an overly narrow way, which you then use as a straw man to ridicule people like Carrtoll. I've seen your writing about how it makes no room for arts and humanity. You're wring. Carroll is an empiricist, and so am I. And there's plenty of room in our world for the things you say we are lacking. You're wrong, Joe.

    "I am put off by hi arrogance and by the jingoistic nature of his scientism."
    - I think you should look in the mirror.

    "90% of humans believe God and they dominate every culture on earth, but there's more to to than than that. Even as an atheist i was opposed to scientism"
    - Even as an atheist, you had no appreciation for the philosophical underpinnings of science and empiricism. To this day, you still don't.

    "hw could religion be narrow when it includes everything?"
    - I didn't say religion is narrow. I said religionism is narrow. Religion doesn't make you arrogant and hateful, but religionism does. Religion doesn't put you at odds with atheism. Religionism does.


    ReplyDelete
  24. "I first heard the word when I was an atheist, too. I heard it form people like you. I hear it all the time. And always from people like you. The dictionary defines it as a derogatory term, and that fits with the way you use it. Not that it can't be used occasionally in a non-derogatory sense. But it's really about epistemology."

    what do you mean people like " me? We have different experiences, mine is that I first heard that term in a secular context and I used it in a secular context before I was a Christian. At the risk of sounding egocentric I really believe that I am the one who got that word introduced into the internet evangelical apologetics milieu. It was when I was posing on CARM. I made a big splash at first and a lot of people started using it. Here is some documentation:

    quote:The economist Friedrich Hayek originally popularized the term 'scientism' in his 1952 book The Counter-Revolution of Science as a synonym for pseudoscience. The word later came to represent the expansion of science into domains where it really has nothing to say, such as evolution into atheism.Nov 5, 2019

    Science is a quantum phenomenon — 'scientism' is ... - Nature

    Nature Journal

    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. "what do you mean people like " me?"
    - I mean people who are religious or religionist. And I include the letter term here because the word 'scientism' has always been used in a pejorative sense.

    "We have different experiences, mine is that I first heard that term in a secular context and I used it in a secular context before I was a Christian."
    - You keep saying you were an atheist. But you always held onto the metaphysical underpinnings of theistic belief that were instilled in you as a child. If you ever renounced your belief in God, it was only temporarily (perhaps because of your fling with Marxism?). And you were primed for return to that belief, which is, of course, exactly what happened. Now, you say this word was found in a secular context, and used by you in that manner. But you haven't provided any context or citations to show that usage. It would be most useful to see that, so everyone can see for themselves how and where it was really used. I can say definitely that every time I have encountered the word, it was by a religious person who deplores the intrusion of science into the world or the supposed degradation of religious belief because of science (or by someone who is responding to those claims).

    "I am the one who got that word introduced into the internet evangelical apologetics milieu. It was when I was posing on CARM."
    - Perhaps you introduced the term to the folks at CARM. That's not a site known to be inhabited by high-brow academics. But don't claim too much credit. It has been around in other circles.

    "The economist Friedrich Hayek originally popularized the term 'scientism' in his 1952 book The Counter-Revolution of Science"
    - You should give some credit to George Bernard Shaw, who is also not without influence in our culture, going back to 1870. For Shaw, it was lashing out against "Darwinism" and the attendant decline in belief that God was the designer of the human species. But Hayek, too, took the stance of a "spiritualist", who fought against materialistic science. And by the way, he used the term 'scientism' in numerous writings going back to 1942. He equated it with pseudo-science because he rejected materialist direction of scientific advancement.

    "The word later came to represent the expansion of science into domains where it really has nothing to say, such as evolution into atheism."
    - Well, this quote definitely represents a religionist view. It goes along with the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, which claims that certain topics are out of bounds for scientific investigation. I don't buy that, and no real scientist does. If something is an observable part of our world, it is open to scientific investigation, regardless of the efforts of religionists to discredit that investigation with their screams of "scientism!".

    "Science is a quantum phenomenon "
    - Oh, I'd love to hear you explain what that means, even if you have to buy the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03387-6

    ReplyDelete
  26. Excuse me. You wrote a book about this, and I suppose that makes you the expert. So the research I did on this topic means nothing. But I'd still like to see your examples of where the word 'scientism' has been used in a way that wasn't somehow derogatory.

    ReplyDelete
  27. My argument was not that the term scientism isn't derogatory but that it isn't a religious term. It's used by more than religious people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's used by religious people and those who may claim not to be religious, but are pushing beliefs that are favored by religious people.

    ReplyDelete