Atheism or God? - our perception of reality.

[ReliStuPhD]

You think all the names listed there are theists? Look into their bibliographies and I think you'll be surprised.

Maybe, but I can engage Wikipedia at my leisure. What do you think?

Yes, both personally and professionally, I believe scientism is a very real thing.

It's definitely coming down the academic pipeline.

Not this one.[/quote]
You work in the physical sciences, right? Physics, iirc?

[uwot]

Yes, both personally and professionally, I believe scientism is a very real thing.

Same as the other thread: can you provide examples?

[ReliStuPhD]

Yes, both personally and professionally, I believe scientism is a very real thing.

Same as the other thread: can you provide examples?

As you read the Wikipedia article, you'll come across some. We can just stick with those for now since you won't know any of the students I teach, etc.

IMPORTANT EDIT: I just came across the "other thread" you were talking about (I really only follow this subforum). I think you misunderstand the word. Though it's certainly possible for a scientist to be a "scienticist" (I agree, the -isms get silly after a while), the word does not mean that scientists are necessarily that. Instead, the word is used more to describe those for whom science operates in a manner similar to religion, such that it's used to answer questions far beyond the scope of scientific inquiry (e.g. metaphysical ones) or becomes a sort of authoritarian force in a person's life. Almost by definition, it means the person doesn't understand what the scope of scientific inquiry actually entails, and so misused science (and that misuse often operates in the way religion does).

[Ned]

You are doing it again, Mr. PhD!

Sucking people into discussing your religion as if it was a subject that had anything to do with reality (other than an anthropological and psychological phenomenon).

You figure, as long as we talk about it, we keep the subject alive and make it appear real!

It's the same tactics used by the climate change deniers -- as long as they talk about the 'controversy', people might believe that there is actually one.

No, my friend, the only thing a rational mind can do with believers and their imaginary friend is make merciless fun of them.

I will return to it now.

See you later!

[uwot]

As you read the Wikipedia article, you'll come across some.

Are we reading the same article? Where are the examples?

[ReliStuPhD]

As you read the Wikipedia article, you'll come across some.

Are we reading the same article? Where are the examples?

"Relevance to science/religion debates" would be one section.

Also, I want to be sure you didn't miss my "Important Edit" in the previous response.

[ReliStuPhD]

Thomas Lessl's argument is a good one to be aware of as well.

Also, as you have the time, work through the bibliography on the Wiki site. There are some good works there. As I come across others in either my own work or that of colleagues, I'll try to remember to post them here (though my focus is Islamic Studies, so this sort of debate tends to happen in spurts for me. At conferences, etc.)

[Ned]

science operates in a manner similar to religion, such that it's used to answer questions far beyond the scope of scientific inquiry

The only things beyond the scope of scientific inquiry are:

- superstitions
- delusions
- religions

and even those are dealt with by science in the branches of anthropology, psychology and pathology.

[uwot]

"Relevance to science/religion debates" would be one section.

Also, I want to be sure you didn't miss my "Important Edit" in the previous response.

IMPORTANT EDIT noted. I don't really see the relevance to anyone other than theists of something that no one can cite a specific example of.

[ReliStuPhD]

David Albert's review in the NYT of Lawrence Krauss's book helps sketch these outlines. In the very first paragraph, his quote of Dawkins starts the ball rolling:

Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.

Krauss's response in the The Atlantic only doubles-down on this scientistic approach:

That's a good question. I expect it's because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then "natural philosophy" became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.

And even though I'm using Krauss here, I don't want this to come across as some critique of scientists at large. In my experience, the vast majority of scientists I've met have understood quite well the boundaries of scientific inquiry. And even if they didn't find the idea of God particularly compelling, they were aware of just how much input science had on that question. Where scientism really seems to have the run of things is in the public arena.

[ReliStuPhD]

I don't really see the relevance to anyone other than theists of something that no one can cite a specific example of.

Could you point out what in theory behind the Wikipedia article strikes you as an incorrect so we can get at why you don't find the examples included therein to be, well, examples? Also, I've responded above using Krauss and Dawkins as examples.

[Ned]

the vast majority of scientists I've met have understood quite well the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

Sounds like you restricted yourself to those scientists who play lip service to uncertainty, to have access to funds that are largely controlled by the fundy-dominated congress and senate. Pun intended!

[Ned]

This phenomenon is described beautifully by Sam Harris in his book: “The Moral Landscape – How Science Can Determine Human Values”.

He describes a scientific congress where scientist after scientist made conciliatory remarks to the fundies, to make sure that their funding would not be reduced or cut off.

As I have said before: we are on our way back to the middle ages when heresy was a very dangerous thing to be accused of.

Remember Galileo!

[uwot]

Could you point out what in theory behind the Wikipedia article strikes you as an incorrect so we can get at why you don't find the examples included therein to be, well, examples? Also, I've responded above using Krauss and Dawkins as examples.

I'm cooking pancakes as I write this, so it doesn't have my full attention, but what is 'Scientism' other than a misrepresentation of empiricism?

[uwot]

To clarify; who other than religionismists use the term? In what circumstances is it not pejorative?