|
But the writer of this piece is completely wrong ....
1) 'Scientism' is a word conjured by theists to identify science as a theology ... There is no 'Scientistic movement' as of yet, and that is the point of many in the 'Beyond Belief' group; that perhaps science SHOULD present itself in the guise of 'religion' and utilize the tendencies of human beings to naturally follow such movements .... As of yet: There is no movement of any significance known as 'Scientism' ..... If there is: where do I sign up ? ...
2) The source of moral behaviours CAN be defined and explained OUTSIDE of a theological context, and fully explored within SOCIAL contexts alone ... AGAIN: a main point of this meeting ...
3) The statement "scientism--the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured" - first: it is assumed that MANY things are 'real' which arent yet known: science doesnt discount the possibility of something being 'real', it simply doesnt CONCLUDE something is or isnt 'real' until it is shown, empirically and measurably, to exist in concrete reality ... One may posit 'a priori' that something is 'real' because rationality may presume that something SHOULD exist, but until such a thing is ACTUALLY observed, and experienced in a empirically quantifiable method, a posieriori, then such 'a priori' assertions cannot be the foundation of reality ...
4) Notions of aesthetic philosophy are founded on 'human experience' - One cannot appreciate the aesthetic of a 'David' without first comprehending marble, curve, human, white, hair, arm, finger, leg, etc ..... SOME form of empirical interaction is REQUIRED before a human being can understand 'art' .... Art is founded on concrete human experience
5) Secular consciousness : Even the very religious must break eggs to make an omelet .... in other words: the MOST pious among us must also accept and experience their own humanity .. their own animal passions and needs .... they live a 'secular' existence OUTSIDE of prayer and holiness : they must, or they could not survive the concrete world .... so arguments against 'secular consciousness' are not exclusive to atheists or agnostics, because ALL humans have a secular, non-theological part of themselves .... As an atheist, I possess all the secular attributes, but none of the theological attributes ..... you divide them, but you cannjot deny your own secular, non-religious needs and demands as a human being ... Secularity is seen by many, including the founding fathers of the enlightenment, as a means of denying religious division and strife that is so prevalent in history .... I believe in a secular state as being the ONLY viable democratic state : freedom of thought and religion could NOT be obtained in a NONsecular nation ...
6) "Why do I say it's a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system" - Because their is no actual 'Scientistic' movement, there is no organised push to incorporate science as a 'belief system' ... You are free to reject science COMPLETELY .... but that isnt your problem : you wish those who accept science and scientific principles to STOP promoting Science at the exclusion of religion, and to just shup about there being insubstantial evidence for belief in an existent god ... I say > I will not shut up ...
7) "The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable." <---- Isnt this a tad circular ? ... To break the circle for the convenience of this argument: Science is only built of those ideas that are born of the Scientfic Method ... The presumption is that you CAN see, hear, smell, taste and touch: can you not ? ... Sense information DEFINES empiricism .... We pull out a yardstick and measure the rock: "yes, it is 36.2 inches long" ... YOu are free to reject that measurement, you are free to remeasure with YOUR yardstick, you are free to measure with a meter stick, you are free to measure using cowpie/widths, shoe sizes, spittoon diameters, half-a-leap spans, or just eyeball it to come up with YOUR definition:
What you CANT do is insist that your definition is correct, to the exclusion of all others, UNLESS you can show, empirically, that YOUR definition is empirically valid ....
The conclusions of science are reached by investigation and consensus .... YOU are free to reject those conclusions and ignore that consensus: what you cannot do is deny another the right to accept them .... THAT is what religion tries to do ....
The author of this passage is using common, fallacious misdirections and word equivocations, strawman and non sequiturs, to try and deny science its place as a means of gaining concrete knowledge, and placing it into the dark chambers of a Abbey, Chapel, or Manse .... Science is NOT a religion, unless you want it to be reduced to such ...
This piece is hogwash ....
|