The 'Truth'

[Hope]

Unfortunately for you readers are at liberty to check definitions of scientism to see if they tally with your meaning or mine.

Thought I'd make it easier for all by just quoting the Oxford Dictionary definitions

scientism

1  Thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
         1.1  Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions.  They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.

[Rhiannon]

But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?

[Hope]

But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?

It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life.  It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'.  Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.

I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.

[Gordon]

It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life.

It just does those bits that are amenable to its underlying methodology - nobody has claimed otherwise, so this is a straw man.

It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'.  Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.

Nobody has said this in the way you imply it, so this sounds like another straw man. Even so, much of what humans feel subjectively does involve our biology.

I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.

Yet another straw man - a trio of them in a single post, so well done you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?

Scientism isn't science particularly the scientism demonstrated here by many on this forum, as Hope has pointed out.

[Sassy]

But science is testable, reasonable, logical. Creationism...well, it isn't, is it?

SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.

I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.

No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.

[Sassy]

It just does those bits that are amenable to its underlying methodology - nobody has claimed otherwise, so this is a straw man.

Nobody has said this in the way you imply it, so this sounds like another straw man. Even so, much of what humans feel subjectively does involve our biology.

Yet another straw man - a trio of them in a single post, so well done you.

You mean it gives you a few breadcrumbs you just imagine a whole loaf.

Well that is about it, isn't it. You can follow the trail of breadcrumbs you never get to the loaf, do you?

[floo]

SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.

I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.

No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.

Given a lot more time science will probably come up with the answer, which will be tested, and a lot more logical than the creation myth!

[Gordon]

You mean it gives you a few breadcrumbs you just imagine a whole loaf.

Well that is about is, isn't it. You can follow the trail of breadcrumbs you never get to the loaf, do you?

Love the last sentence - it shall be my sig for just one week.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions.  They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.

That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?

As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...

...which leads us to Trollboy, who just caricatures the term to mean something like, "science will eventually find out everything and nothing else can" whereas it more properly means, "science is the only means we have that regularly and reliably allows us to access and investigate the world as it appears to be, mediated by intersubjective experience". I've no idea whether there are absolute truths, and nor for that matter whether science is a reliable guide to what they might be. I do though know that it creates with remarkable success models that have explanatory power and that enable us to build things like power stations and satellites that actually work. And I know that because intersubjective experience tells me so.

By contrast those who would posit "God" and place it outwith the purview of science by calling it immaterial offer instead to demonstrate their claims what exactly? Assertions? Bad logic? Trollboy-style pathological dishonesty?

See, that's your problem. Rather than lie about what science actually entails in the hope that no-one notices that the cupboard of methods to investigate religious claims is bare, isn't it for the theist who presumes to evangelise to provide an alternative method of his own to do the job? You can refer to "experience" as much as you like, but as we all know that personal experience is notoriously one of the most unreliable methods of determining cause, it's all a bit thin I'm afraid.

[Stranger]

It is only testable to a degree; as has been said on a number of occasions, science doesn't 'do' a number of aspects of human life.  It is therefore limited to those areas it does 'do'.

No, science is based on testable evidence; full stop. Not "to a degree". The fact that science doesn't address every aspect of human life doesn't stop it being exclusively based on the testable.

Yet there are those here who believe that it is the sole arbiter of what human life involves.

Can't say I've noticed anybody saying anything like this - examples would be useful.

I am in no way decrying science - I believe that it has a very important part to play in the lives of all humanity; but I do question the belief exhibited by some here that scientific knowledge and techniques are the be-all and end-all.

Who, where...?

[Stranger]

Scientism isn't science...

     Is this your new mantra? Got bored with "methodology isn't ontology"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Is this your new mantra? Got bored with "methodology isn't ontology"?

And presumably bored too with the atheism = anti-theism lie.

[john]

SCIENCE TESTABLE.... REASONABLE, LOGICAL... but it cannot answer the main question.
Where life first came from and without that there is no basis of truth for which to be able to test science when it comes to life and the universe.

I guess your beliefs requires more blind faith than any religion.

No wonder you lost your faith... it has more answers than you could handle.

OKAY THEN SASSY

You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?

It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.

[Shaker]

Thought I'd make it easier for all by just quoting the Oxford Dictionary definitions

There would certainly be a few here who would seem to fit the second of these definitions.  They exude the same degree of confidence in scientific knowledge and techniques as some exude in creationism.

There's a reason why this confidence - and to my amazement, in choosing to use the word confidence you chose exactly the right one - is a perfectly reasonable stance vis-a-vis science and utterly irrational bobbins vis-a-vis creationism.

Let's see how long you can ignore those who tell you why this is the case.

[Sassy]

OKAY THEN SASSY

You have hooked your audience. Just answer me this; If God made everything who made God?

It is a simple question so please take the time to answer.

What is God?  Please take your time to answer...

[john]

Yipeeee I got her.

Shes cracked!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?

As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...

...which leads us to Trollboy, who just caricatures the term to mean something like, "science will eventually find out everything and nothing else can" whereas it more properly means, "science is the only means we have that regularly and reliably allows us to access and investigate the world as it appears to be, mediated by intersubjective experience". I've no idea whether there are absolute truths, and nor for that matter whether science is a reliable guide to what they might be. I do though know that it creates with remarkable success models that have explanatory power and that enable us to build things like power stations and satellites that actually work. And I know that because intersubjective experience tells me so.

By contrast those who would posit "God" and place it outwith the purview of science by calling it immaterial offer instead to demonstrate their claims what exactly? Assertions? Bad logic? Trollboy-style pathological dishonesty?

See, that's your problem. Rather than lie about what science actually entails in the hope that no-one notices that the cupboard of methods to investigate religious claims is bare, isn't it for the theist who presumes to evangelise to provide an alternative method of his own to do the job? You can refer to "experience" as much as you like, but as we all know that personal experience is notoriously one of the most unreliable methods of determining cause, it's all a bit thin I'm afraid.

All definitions are available online Hillside.........are you getting yours from the great soviet encyclopaedia or something?

Floo has provided a fine example of what I speak...........but you knew that didn't you you old satirical pirate you.

[floo]

Yipeeee I got her.

Shes cracked!

Nice one, LOL!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

That's clearly not true - it's fundamental to the methods of science that its theories include a falsifiability test precisely because those who develop them are not confident to the absolute degree that creationists are. What falsifiability tests do creationists offer, or for that matter do you propose in respect of your "God" claim?

As Daniel Dennett says:"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism"...

And which scientific theory did you have in what you quaintly refer to as your "mind"?

[Hope]

There's a reason why this confidence - and to my amazement, in choosing to use the word confidence you chose exactly the right one - is a perfectly reasonable stance vis-a-vis science and utterly irrational bobbins vis-a-vis creationism.

Let's see how long you can ignore those who tell you why this is the case.

It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes.  Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.

[Shaker]

It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes.  Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.

It's up to those who think that there are "supernatural issues" to present a case as to why they think so and why anybody else should take it even remotely seriously. There aren't "supernatural issues" just because somebody asserts that there are without evidence or commits any number of howling logical fallacies in their (lack of) reasoning; a proper case must be made.

We're still waiting.

This isn't scientism - which term no doubt you've picked up from Vlad - but another sort of -ism, namely scepticism.

[Rhiannon]

It's not a matter of ignoring, Shakes.  Its a matter of noting that science doesn't address supernatural issues, so those who follow scientism and try to make out that there is a dichotomy between science and religion are placing too much confidence in science.

But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo) so nobody it 'making out' that there is a dichotomy between it and science - it's inevitable because as you rightly say, science doesn't address the supernatural.

So show how the supernatural exists outside of personal subjective experience and there's something to discuss. Otherwise this is just another story.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)

Is it? Is it really!

Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?

Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

Is it? Is it really!

Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?

Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material

Gonnagle.

But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.

I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.