Scientism and origin

[Syne]

Scientism

"Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method."

Scientism is essentially equivalent to god of the gaps.

""God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

Both seek to assert an explanation in a manner not warranted by its nature. Scientism asserts science where no evidence supports the assertion, even though the scientific method requires evidence to rate as science at all. God of the gaps asserts no evidence to be evidence of god, which is trivially contradictory.


Origin

There are really only three broad options for an origin to the universe.

• A creation-like event (singular origin) that opens the door to positing a creator
  
• An infinite regress that just avoids an actual answer
  
• Just accept it as is because some things are forever beyond our understanding
  

You could also categorize these as only two options, beginning or eternal, with beginning having the two further options of created or self-generated.

Scientism generally posits that we can, and will eventually, understand all. That can only occur in the case of a beginning, since no one can fully understand either an infinite regress nor the unfathomable. The possibility further implies that there may already be a being that does understand all.

[Secular Sanity]

C C quoted Phillip E. Johnson regarding this issue, who in turn quoted Samuel Johnson.  Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, C C.

Phillip E. Johnson: Science is a wonderful thing in its place. Because science is so successful in its own territory, however, scientists and their allied philosophers sometimes get bemused by dreams of world conquest. Paul Feyerabend put it best: "Scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method, they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal -- argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying -- to achieve their aims." Samuel Johnson gave the best answer to this absurd imperialism. "A cow is a very good animal in the field; but we turn her out of a garden."

However, Samuel Johnson’s remark wasn’t directed towards scientism.  It was directed towards Methodism, which was seen as a threat to the established Church. Six Methodist students were expelled from Oxford University in 1768 because they would not desist from publicly praying and exhorting. Oxford was the training ground for Anglican priests and Johnson thought that the expulsion was ‘just and proper’.  Those who were not Anglicans could not be awarded degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, nor could they serve in the armed forces, or hold political positions.

Johnson: Sir, that expulsion was extremely just and proper.  What have they to do at a University who are not willing to be taught, but will presume to teach.  Where is religion to be learnt but at a University?  Sir, they were examined, and found to mighty ignorant fellows.

Boswell: But, was it not hard, Sir, to expel them, for I am told they were good beings?

Johnson: Sir, I believe they might be good beings, but they were not fit to be in the university of Oxford.  A cow is a very good animal in the field; but we turn her out of a garden.

But sacred cows, on the other hand, demand traditional rights to graze and shit in everyone’s garden. A little bit of compost may be good for your garden, but with the increased number of these sacred cows comes the corresponding bullshit production affecting the environment. The overgrazing causes erosion, reduces the productivity of the land, and introduces invasive and noxious weeds.

Put on your big boy pants, Syne. 

[Syne]

Put on your big boy pants, Syne. 

Your obvious trolling is tiresome and boring. Please seek help to address the chip on your shoulder.

---

Was there anything there that refuted the OP? Maybe I missed it in all the anti-religious trolling.

[C C]

C C quoted Phillip E. Johnson regarding this issue, who in turn quoted Samuel Johnson.  Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, C C.

Yes, but purely to clarify: Phillip Johnson in the review of Dennett's book was correlating the quote a level up to the aggressive extension of authority in general ("imperialism" or whatever selected hypernym), of which today's label of "scientism" would just be one of many different members in / candidates for the set (including religious forms of tyranny).

- - -

---

[...] Scientism is essentially equivalent to god of the gaps. [...]

Randal Rouser, an analytic theologian, contends that "god-of-gaps"(GoG) is or can be considered a subcategory of "metaphysics of gaps": Scientism and MoG. But regardless, scientism folk themselves such as Alex Rosenberg[PDF] and E.O. Wilson would at best only concede their expectations (of consilience and scientific explanations resolving epistemological breaks and concerns of the humanities) as only temporarily being equivalent to metaphysics of gaps.

The ideology or religiosity (Lehar below) of the scientism thought orientation itself would also have to be dispelled by such future success. The provisional or open-ended vulnerability / revision attributed to scientific knowledge seems to make those optimistic accomplishments elusive by definition. Also, a plague of multiple natural explanations for _X_ and inability to cull them out would also leave them adrift in the metaphysical genre (like the interpretations of QM).

Scientism (Steven Lehar)

[...] But the term Scientism is most often used pejoratively, as a contradiction in terms, because the belief in this more general form of Scientism is not itself a scientific conclusion but just a belief, as unproveable as any other belief system. To quote Michael Shermer (http://www.skeptic.com/scientism.html), "Scientism ... is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless." The key point of my thesis is that yes, I acknowledge that Scientism is a religion, in the sense that it is an initial assumption that seems to make intuitive sense to me, but which I cannot prove beyond a doubt, and the readers should decide for themselves whether or not they find this belief credible. So science can be seen in some sense as the latest generation of religious belief, a belief in the triumph of reason over mysticism, as the most proven and reliable path toward the objective truth. But science has not replaced religion entirely, and that is because there is something that religion offers which is outside the scope of science. Religion offers a system of values, right and wrong, good and evil, a code of morality, and that is why even many scientists choose a religious belief to guide their lives. Although science is unquestionably the best tool to answer any question one might choose to ask, science offers no hint as to which questions are important to ask. Questions of value are totally outside the scope of science. Unfortunately religion snatches its moral imperatives seemingly out of thin air....
(PDF) http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Scientism.pdf

For those interested in supposed outward indicators:

Six Signs of Scientism (Susan Haack)

Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”
etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,
of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line
between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”
imposters.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific
method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
inquiry, such as poetry or art.

(PDF) https://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2...7-2009.pdf

- - - - - -

Going back to the Steven Lehar paper... I've certainly seen anti-supernaturalists and non-theists that are pro-capitalism, but not his confidence that scientism is inherently such and against anti-Left stances. Bill Nye and others would be examples which shoot in the foot such a notion of scientism being politically uniform. Like so many, however, Lehar was apparently filling in the broad idea of "scientism" with specific details and the direction it should have, tweaking or prescribing his own version prior to passages like this:

[...] The political ideology favored by Scientism is the one manifest in nature, and that is the law of free market capitalism and the survival of the fittest. Perhaps if our educational institutions taught the secular religion of Scientism, instead of the naive liberal dogma and idealistic twaddle that currently dominates the discussion in government and academia, perhaps our democracy will finally work as intended by the Founding Fathers, as a check and balance against the natural tendency for a capitalist system to degenerate into a corrupt and wasteful oligarchy. It is telling that the liberal policies are always intolerant to diversity of ideas -- individuals are not permitted to opt out of the social security, welfare, or universal health-care systems even if they agree to forgo their "benefits", the liberal welfare state is imposed on everyone whether they like it or not, whereas in the free market system individuals are free to choose their own level of life insurance, health insurance, and private charitable contributions, and nobody is ever coerced into buying insurance they don't want either for themselves or for their neighbor against their will. This is a system that works, because it promotes a diversity of different strategies, and may the best insurance companies or charitable organizations, or schools or corporations or individuals win, based on their demonstrable results. This is the way that nature works, success is rewarded by success, failure is punished by failure. The liberal welfare state, and the public-private partnerships of the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and now the major banks and automobile manufacturers, are the beneficiaries of monstrous government largess, and they return the favor by campaign contributions that ensure the continuation of this oligarchic scheme. We know that things have gone too far when the average taxpayer pays almost half of what he earns in taxes, hard working people are indentured slaves who labor for half of their working lives to support the other half of the population who pay no income tax at all.

I dream of a day when Scientism and reason will finally triumph over dogma and ignorance, and become the dominant philosophical belief or religion of our culture. One day a Church of Scientism will collect charitable donations from contributing members, to fund the establishment of educational institutions at home and around the world, to compete directly with the religious schools and madrasses around the world, to spread the good word of science and reason, and make the world a better place for everyone. I dream of a day when the Church of Scientism will be wealthy enough to fund space exploration, beyond government control, to expand humankind, and our trans-human descendants to spread throughout the solar system and beyond, to extend the tendrils of vibrant life out beyond our ancestral home planet. We expand into space not only as an essential back-up copy in case of global disaster, but also by the missionary imperative to expand life upward and outward as far as it can go, as life has always done. Because we believe that Life is Good, and that is the most noble and lofty goal that we as living creatures can pursue. If Scientism is morally right, that truth will eventually be proven so objectively, by the forward-teleology of future generations who will find that it works and helps them thrive and propagate to the farthest reaches of the universe. Those future generations will hopefully look back historically at this birth of the faith of Scientism, and declare that it was good.

(PDF) http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Scientism.pdf

[Syne]

Great reading, CC.

Yeah, I agree that scientism doesn't reflect any sort of political uniformity. The doe-eyed optimism in science seems to leech into optimism for any other ideological preference the person may hold...even contrary to current science. After all, the science "could" change to support their ideologies.

One benefit the religious have is that they do not reasonably expect science to eclipse belief...so they have little motive to twist science to suit their agenda.

[Secular Sanity]

Yes, but purely to clarify: Phillip Johnson in the review of Dennett's book was correlating the quote a level up to the aggressive extension of authority in general ("imperialism" or whatever selected hypernym), of which today's label of "scientism" would just be one of many different members in / candidates for the set (including religious forms of tyranny).

Yeah, I gathered that much.  

Thanks, C C.

I'm curious. Are you all for capitalism?

---

God of the gaps 

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Syne]

God of the gaps 

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yeah, that's so trivially true (at least to the religious) that it's no wonder it took a demagogue like Tyson to act as if it were profound. Being a purveyor of scientism himself, Tyson doesn't realize that even those would do argue god of the gaps only do so in regard to materialist evidence claims. The notion that god is nothing more than those gaps is laughably ignorant.

[C C]

I'm curious. Are you all for capitalism?

Humans abuse or take advantage of any system. But in terms of the dark extremes of a couple of familiar rivals, it's probably easier to squirm out from underneath the thumb of a mogul or robber baron's reach / manipulations than it is the ruling party of a whole country whose handful of poseurs serve as representatives of the interests and dictatorship of the proletariat.  

Take away the context of war and replace it with the other issues or overall mindsets that those two factions of "I'm A Little Bit Country" and "I'm A Little Bit Rock&Roll" might exemplify, and that 100th South Park episode might reflect the imperfect yin / yang (dualistic conflict) of worldviews that I'm willing to abide for lack of anything better to keep the potential despotism of either side bridled.

- - -

[Secular Sanity]

Yeah, that's so trivially true (at least to the religious) that it's no wonder it took a demagogue like Tyson to act as if it were profound. Being a purveyor of scientism himself, Tyson doesn't realize that even those would do argue god of the gaps only do so in regard to materialist evidence claims. The notion that god is nothing more than those gaps is laughably ignorant.

I’m not so sure that it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that was the first to point out the obvious. The demagogue could have easily been Dr. Francis Collins. A much earlier version of those exact same sentiments are found on the website of his organization BioLogos, which all began with this scientist and his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

Taken from the video below:

"The problem is the widespread view that science and faith are compatible.  The reason this view is pervasive and problematic is best demonstrated by one of the most famous scientist in the United States, Dr. Francis Collins, who is the director of the National Institutes of Health.  He also happens to be an evangelical Christian, who founded this organization called Biologos, which is explicitly meant to reconcile science and evangelical Christianity.  This is just one of the many organizations in the United States that is devoted to reconciling science and religion.  A lot of these organizations are funded by this rather nefarious organization called the John Templeton Foundation (wikipedia.org)."

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Ekc2Nn03IVM

[Syne]

Yeah, that's so trivially true (at least to the religious) that it's no wonder it took a demagogue like Tyson to act as if it were profound. Being a purveyor of scientism himself, Tyson doesn't realize that even those would do argue god of the gaps only do so in regard to materialist evidence claims. The notion that god is nothing more than those gaps is laughably ignorant.

I’m not so sure that it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that was the first to point out the obvious. The demagogue could have easily been Dr. Francis Collins. A much earlier version of those exact same sentiments are found on the website of his organization BioLogos, which all began with this scientist and his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

Except I see nowhere that Collins implies that god is no more "than just where science has yet to tread".

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o