Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[help3434]

If scientists find an effect, wouldn't they wonder why they can't find the cause? Should they assume it is non-physical and give up, or try finding it forever?

They should indeed wonder this. That is, they should wonder it until the question is answered. If there is a specific, logical reason why the cause is not physical, then it makes no sense to keep looking through physical means.

But this doesn't mean that one should "give up", rather it means that one should try looking with the correct means.

Wait, are you saying that scientists can determine that there is a specific, logical reason why the cause is not physical? Doesn't that contradict your earlier contention that science can't even determine if a cause is nonphysical?

It seems to me that even with a generous reading, taking into a account that it was written for people thousands of years ago, and that it may contain poetic language, that Genesis still conflicts with what we know.

It doesn't seem this way to me.

To make the claim that science is applicable here is to make the claim that your impression is correct. So far, I've not seen that view well supported.

Of course science is applicable to the creation of the world! I don't see how Genesis getting the order of things wrong can be chalked up to poetic language. Genesis has Light, Earth, and plants getting created before the Sun and stars. It has birds getting created before land animals.
[/quote]

Occam's Razor is important. If the plain meaning of a myth has to be twisted around to fit the facts, and it is still claimed that somehow it is a revelation of God, you might as well claim that we live in the Matrix and that nothing we see is real.

This strikes me as a very strange argument. Why on Earth should we assume that the "plain meaning" is the way the text tends to strike a modern person interested in literal scientific facts? Most cultures in history did't write or read this way.

Why did God go into detail about what day He created what thing if He didn't mean it? That strikes ME as a very strange argument. Most other cultures in history have myths that we don't believe. Why are you putting the Bible on their level?

And, as a relevant side point, Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle, not a scientific discovery. To use it as if it has force is to agree that there are ways of knowing things other than the scientific.

Occam's Razor is a tool for determining which explanation that fits the known facts is the most likely. It is unlikely that a revelation from a transcendent, all knowing God would contain such basic errors. It is not a logical discovery, not a scientific one, but it has to be used in science in order to form scientific theories.

But I'd say that Richard Dawkins' demand that the question of God's existence is a scientific one, Christopher Hitchens insistence on "extraordinary evidence", and Sam Harris' claim that science answers moral questions are very strong evidence that scientism is at least a tendency in this group.

God's mere existence in another universe is not a scientific question (since we can't probe other universes,yet), but the claims about what had has done in our universe that all of the world religions make is. I agree with Hitchens that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Christianity makes extraordinary claims. I don't know anything about Harris and what he says about moral questions, can you go into more detail about he said? Science itself doesn't answer moral questions, but it can inform us in the quest to answer moral questions.

Generally, God is taken to be the teleological cause of physical events. That is, he causes a rainstorm more in the way a writer would cause a dark and stormy night than the way sunlight causes evaporation.

The idea here is that God oversees the entire physical order, not that he pushes around on particular things within that order. As such, the study of physical "pushes" is not relevant to looking for God.

Okay, now I get what you are saying here. The problem is that many of the events themselves that are described in the Bible are counterfactual. The creation story and Noah's flood are two huge examples.

[Jester]

Wait, are you saying that scientists can determine that there is a specific, logical reason why the cause is not physical?

This is demonstrable in some cases, yes.
But, I don't expect a scientist to be particularly well trained in making that determination. That is the provence of philosophers.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier contention that science can't even determine if a cause is nonphysical?

No. It is a philosophical determination.
Particular scientists may have enough understanding of this to make that determination, but science itself is not the means for doing so.

Of course science is applicable to the creation of the world!

I didn't claim that it was not. I claimed that it was not applicable to interpreting scripture.

I don't see how Genesis getting the order of things wrong can be chalked up to poetic language.

The fact that the Bible isn't a science book might be pertinent here.

I have no idea why anyone would be confident that the point of this passage is to give a literal account of Earth's formation. But, if that idea can't be supported, then the argument from science fails.

Genesis has Light, Earth, and plants getting created before the Sun and stars. It has birds getting created before land animals.

It doesn't take knowledge of modern science to know that the sun is the source of daylight. This isn't meant literally; to read it that way is to miss the point.

Why on Earth should we assume that the "plain meaning" is the way the text tends to strike a modern person interested in literal scientific facts? Most cultures in history did't write or read this way.

Why did God go into detail about what day He created what thing if He didn't mean it?

It was not the point being made.
This seems rather like asking why Jesus went into all the detail about the Samaritan who saved the traveller if "He didn't mean it". The point wasn't to report literal facts, but to teach people about right living.

Most other cultures in history have myths that we don't believe. Why are you putting the Bible on their level?

I wasn't remotely.
I was pointing out that people often write non-literal things. This has nothing to do with whether or not we believe outside claims.

And, as a relevant side point, Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle, not a scientific discovery. To use it as if it has force is to agree that there are ways of knowing things other than the scientific.

Occam's Razor is a tool for determining which explanation that fits the known facts is the most likely.

I agree, but my point is that it is a metaphysical tool.

If you agree that it is useful, then you are claiming that scientism is false.

It is unlikely that a revelation from a transcendent, all knowing God would contain such basic errors.

If you are going to push the idea that this passage must absolutely be taken literally, I need an argument for that. So far, I've simply heard the assertion that this is the case.

It is not a logical discovery, not a scientific one, but it has to be used in science in order to form scientific theories.

Why are we trying to use scripture to form scientific theories? This is what fundamentalists do.

Rather, we should be careful to keep in mind the genre of the writing before assuming that it should be read as an attempt at science.

But I'd say that Richard Dawkins' demand that the question of God's existence is a scientific one, Christopher Hitchens insistence on "extraordinary evidence", and Sam Harris' claim that science answers moral questions are very strong evidence that scientism is at least a tendency in this group.

God's mere existence in another universe is not a scientific question (since we can't probe other universes,yet), but the claims about what had has done in our universe that all of the world religions make is.

That is not what Richard Dawkins said. He claims that God's existence is a scientific question, and that is a clear sign of scientism.

I agree with Hitchens that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Christianity makes extraordinary claims.

That, too, is scientism–whether we agree with it or not.

Personally, I find materialism an equally extraordinary claim–and with far less evidence than Christianity, but that is off this topic.

I don't know anything about Harris and what he says about moral questions, can you go into more detail about he said?

I'm not sure that I need to. The fact that he claims science can discover morality is, itself, a sign of scientism (again, whether one happens to agree or not).

Generally, God is taken to be the teleological cause of physical events. That is, he causes a rainstorm more in the way a writer would cause a dark and stormy night than the way sunlight causes evaporation.

The idea here is that God oversees the entire physical order, not that he pushes around on particular things within that order. As such, the study of physical "pushes" is not relevant to looking for God.

Okay, now I get what you are saying here. The problem is that many of the events themselves that are described in the Bible are counterfactual. The creation story and Noah's flood are two huge examples.

Many do indeed take these as direct efficient causation. I'm not sure if that is correct, as many don't take these literally in the first place.

So I don't see how this can give us a scientific test for whether or not God exists.

Whatever position one ends up taking, the question of God is a metaphysical one.

Okay, that's definitely long enough.
Best to you out there.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 62 by Jester]

Jesus told his disciples when he was telling a parable, and then explained the meaning. The same can't be said of the parts of the Old Testament that are presented as theories. Also, you seem to have conflicting ideas on what scientism is. You say that if I agree that philosophy outside of science has value I am rejecting scientism, but if I but something in the scope of science that you don't think belongs there then I am embracing it. What if I do both?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 62 by Jester]

If Genesis is not supposed to be literal history, then what is it? What is the metaphorical meaning of creating plants on the third day, and the sun, the moon, and the stars on the fourth?

[Jester]

Greetings once again!

Jesus told his disciples when he was telling a parable, and then explained the meaning. The same can't be said of the parts of the Old Testament that are presented as theories.

Mainly, this is an argument from ignorance stance. The passage isn't literal until proved otherwise.

But, yes, it is just an example. We need to look at the genre, which was my point.

Also, you seem to have conflicting ideas on what scientism is. You say that if I agree that philosophy outside of science has value I am rejecting scientism, but if I but something in the scope of science that you don't think belongs there then I am embracing it. What if I do both?

Then I'd say that the position taken is inconsistent.

If Genesis is not supposed to be literal history, then what is it? What is the metaphorical meaning of creating plants on the third day, and the sun, the moon, and the stars on the fourth?

1. That God is the creator of all things.
2. That God is a rational God who creates orderly systems
3. That God participates in work (i.e. work is not a curse as many cultures have believed).
4. That God is deeply interested in creation
5. That God is greater than the celestial bodies
6. That the celestial bodies are simply objects, and not to be worshiped as gods.
7. (Probably) a great deal of other things I haven't yet noticed.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 65 by Jester]

The God is deeply interested in creation, but doesn't bother to get the order of things right?

[Jester]

The God is deeply interested in creation, but doesn't bother to get the order of things right?

I'm not sure what standard of "right" you are using here, nor what particular goals you think God has. Once again, this is assuming, not demonstrating, a literal interpretation. We've not yet seen any reason to take this passage literally.

In fact, I'm not sure how this question either:

1. Supports scientism, or
2. Supports the idea that the New Atheists don't tend toward scientism.

Presumably, it is the former. But, if anything, this serves to highlight that proper theology is vital to the conversation.

That being the case, I think we are beginning to see why scientific evidence is not really the issue–regardless of the fact that the New Atheists tend to assert this.

[Goat]

The God is deeply interested in creation, but doesn't bother to get the order of things right?

I'm not sure what standard of "right" you are using here, nor what particular goals you think God has. Once again, this is assuming, not demonstrating, a literal interpretation. We've not yet seen any reason to take this passage literally.

In fact, I'm not sure how this question either:

1. Supports scientism, or
2. Supports the idea that the New Atheists don't tend toward scientism.

Presumably, it is the former. But, if anything, this serves to highlight that proper theology is vital to the conversation.

That being the case, I think we are beginning to see why scientific evidence is not really the issue–regardless of the fact that the New Atheists tend to assert this.

And, of course, when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics you are so fond of of thinking they can actually answer questions about reality ..

Without a method of verification, how can you show that the assumptions and the conclusions of metaphysics have anything to do what so ever to how things are in this little thing known as reality??? That is one question I have yet to see answered. Could it be that Ayer is right about metaphysics??

[help3434]

Hi, Jester. Thank you for participating in this thread even though you are otherwise retired from the forum.

Also, you seem to have conflicting ideas on what scientism is. You say that if I agree that philosophy outside of science has value I am rejecting scientism, but if I but something in the scope of science that you don't think belongs there then I am embracing it. What if I do both?

Then I'd say that the position taken is inconsistent.

What is inconsistent is our views on what we think scientism is. Your view is that the first cause will never be found out by science. My view is that we don't know if it can or not, but we won't ever found out if we don't try.

Do you think that God is the direct cause of the Big Bang, or could the Big Bang have a physical cause?

It is not a logical discovery, not a scientific one, but it has to be used in science in order to form scientific theories.

Why are we trying to use scripture to form scientific theories? This is what fundamentalists do.

Rather, we should be careful to keep in mind the genre of the writing before assuming that it should be read as an attempt at science. [/quote]

I guess I am assuming that it is supposed to be a revelation from God about what He did and what happened. The Pentateuch has lot of long lists of begats, which seems to show that it is meant to read as history. I am not sure what you mean by "attempt at science". An all knowing God revealing truth through revelation is not the same thing as finding out information though the scientific method. However, science could verify that the supposed revelation is accurate.

But I'd say that Richard Dawkins' demand that the question of God's existence is a scientific one, Christopher Hitchens insistence on "extraordinary evidence", and Sam Harris' claim that science answers moral questions are very strong evidence that scientism is at least a tendency in this group.

God's mere existence in another universe is not a scientific question (since we can't probe other universes,yet), but the claims about what had has done in our universe that all of the world religions make is.

That is not what Richard Dawkins said. He claims that God's existence is a scientific question, and that is a clear sign of scientism. [/quote]

If Dawkins is right, and the existence of God is a scientific question, then scientism would still be false because there would still be things that fall outside the scope of science.

Personally, I find materialism an equally extraordinary claim–and with far less evidence than Christianity, but that is off this topic.

Well, I don't "claim" physicalism, (it is my understanding that the term "materialism" is considered out of date) but I don't see any reason to believe that there is anything more (I mean logically rather than emotionally)

I don't know anything about Harris and what he says about moral questions, can you go into more detail about he said?

I'm not sure that I need to. The fact that he claims science can discover morality is, itself, a sign of scientism (again, whether one happens to agree or not).

Science can't discovery morality, but it definitely can inform morality. Was he really that clumsy with his wording?

Many do indeed take these as direct efficient causation. I'm not sure if that is correct, as many don't take these literally in the first place.

So I don't see how this can give us a scientific test for whether or not God exists.

Whatever position one ends up taking, the question of God is a metaphysical one.

The question of what "God" means is a metaphysical one. The claims made about God can be within the scope of science.

[help3434]

The God is deeply interested in creation, but doesn't bother to get the order of things right?

I'm not sure what standard of "right" you are using here, nor what particular goals you think God has. Once again, this is assuming, not demonstrating, a literal interpretation. We've not yet seen any reason to take this passage literally.

Well, since I have not heard of any symbolic meaning behind saying that God created the Earth and the plants before he created the sun, how else am I supposed to read it? Are all the "days" just filler to make the creation story longer? Why would God inspire such confusing books, and then not tell people how to read it? It seems that contary to what 1 Corinthians 14:33 says, the God of the Bible is the God of confusion.

In fact, I'm not sure how this question either:

1. Supports scientism, or
2. Supports the idea that the New Atheists don't tend toward scientism.

Presumably, it is the former. But, if anything, this serves to highlight that proper theology is vital to the conversation.

You presume incorrectly. I am discussing scientism as a pejorative. It is by definition fallacious. The issue is what is part of this fallacy, and what is not.

I know that you have said that you are moving on from this forum, but I invite you to participate in my "Non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible" thread in the Christianity and Apologetics forum and justify your belief in the Bible.