Need Help With Reading Comprehension

[Adrift]

In another thread, shunyadragon is convinced that the following paragraph from this article on AIG's website is saying that science is scientism, and specifically that evolution is here described as scientism.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-creation-evolution-controversy

Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm certain that shunyadragon is incorrect, and that he is misreading what the paragraph actually says.

Instead, it appears to me that the article's author is referring to a conference in which the members, guided by the philosophy of scientism (so the author assumes), were thinking up a new religion guided by various scientific theories. It is not saying that science or evolution is scientism, but that the scientistic worldview guided the discussion about the creation of a new religion in the future.

Just for clarification, shunyadragon was the one who linked this paragraph from AIG's website. I don't support the aims of AIG, nor the conclusions of the article's author. I just wanted to figure out if shunyadragon's reading is correct or if I'm going crazy.


Thank you for time!

[robrecht]

The perspective of the fundamentalist AIG website seems to be that when science interferes in the realm of religion it is scientism, which I generally understand to be a pejorative term. Presumably AIG considers evolutionary theory to be science interfering in what it considers to be the proper domain of religion.

[Adrift]

The perspective of the fundamentalist AIG website seems to be that when science interferes in the realm of religion it is scientism, which I generally understand to be a pejorative term. Presumably AIG considers evolutionary theory to be science interfering in what it considers to be the proper domain of religion.

So you believe that shunyadragon's reading is correct, and that the paragraph supports his assertion in the other thread that, "It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'"?

Maybe I am going crazy.

[robrecht]

So you believe that shunyadragon's reading is correct, and that the paragraph supports his assertion in the other thread that, "It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'"?

Maybe I am going crazy.

That's the generally pejorative usage that I'm familiar with, but I have not read the link you described thus:

"Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself."

That seems to be a positive appreciation of scientism, but, like I say, I have not yet found or read this particular link yet.

[Adrift]

That's the generally pejorative usage that I'm familiar with, but I have not read the link you described thus:

"Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself."

That seems to be a positive appreciation of scientism, but, like I say, I have not yet found or read this particular link yet.

I'm well aware that scientism can be used as a pejorative, and Professor Shook discusses this in the link I provided, but Shook also believes that scientism is something that ought to be embraced when accurately understood.

At any rate, what in the AIG article makes you believe that the author believes that science itself is scientism (shunya's view) rather than the philosophy that drove those at the conference (my view)?

When the author writes, "The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future.", I take it that the author disagrees with that premise. As a supporter of AIG I imagine he's probably anti-evolution, but does that mean that he's necessarily anti-science? Or that he believes that science inevitably leads to the creation of new religions?

[lilpixieofterror]

It's written by AIG, that should tell you everything you need to hear.

[robrecht]

Shook is clearly aware of this pejorative sense of scientism:

Friends of religion or spirituality are heard to cry “Scientism!” on occasion. Cultural opponents to scientific or technological strides have used “Scientism!” as a clarion call for resistance as well. Quieter voices have been asking, “Is scientism what I think it is?” The label of scientism may be irretrievably lost to rhetoric and polemic, but it does involve science, which deserves far better. Let us try to speak to this thing called scientism.

... it has acquired a pejorative stench in certain areas of public discourse. One just mentions it, to arouse distaste among one’s audience, to win every argument for one’s side.

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2...entism-a-to-z/

He goes on to describe many different senses of what might be called science/scientism, but I am not sure he embraces this label for himself here. It may just be too problematic of a label. Among the many different senses of a science worldview that he presents, he does say that there are "real ideas and serious positions on this alphabetic list."

In the other quote you gave, I at first assumed that he was using scientism somewhat pejoratively but only because I presume that he does accept the legitimacy of the biological and social sciences:

Source: LECTURES ON SCIENCE AND NATURALISM

Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

It's written by AIG, that should tell you everything you need to hear.

So, you also believe that the paragraph cited says that science is scientism?

Wow. Well I guess its my reading comprehension that needs work.

[robrecht]

I'm well aware that scientism can be used as a pejorative, and Professor Shook discusses this in the link I provided, but Shook also believes that scientism is something that ought to be embraced when accurately understood.

At any rate, what in the AIG article makes you believe that the author believes that science itself is scientism (shunya's view) rather than the philosophy that drove those at the conference (my view)?

When the author writes, "The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future.", I take it that the author disagrees with that premise. As a supporter of AIG I imagine he's probably anti-evolution, but does that mean that he's necessarily anti-science? Or that he believes that science inevitably leads to the creation of new religions?

I don't think the AIG author is equating science with scientism, but he is thinking that when science wades into the domain of religion then it becomes scientism. And, as an AIG author, I presume that he considers the theory of evolution as science wading into the domain of religion.

[Adrift]

Shook is clearly aware of this pejorative sense of scientism:

Friends of religion or spirituality are heard to cry “Scientism!” on occasion. Cultural opponents to scientific or technological strides have used “Scientism!” as a clarion call for resistance as well. Quieter voices have been asking, “Is scientism what I think it is?” The label of scientism may be irretrievably lost to rhetoric and polemic, but it does involve science, which deserves far better. Let us try to speak to this thing called scientism.

... it has acquired a pejorative stench in certain areas of public discourse. One just mentions it, to arouse distaste among one’s audience, to win every argument for one’s side.

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2...entism-a-to-z/

Yes, I mentioned that in post #5.

He goes on to describe many different senses of what might be called science/scientism, but I am not sure he embraces this label for himself here. It may just be too problematic of a label. Among the many different senses of a science worldview that he presents, he does say that there are "real ideas and serious positions on this alphabetic list."

He is defending scientism from its critics. It seems to me that he embraces the label for himself, but maybe you're right. In this article he suggests that Exclusivist Liberal Scientism is one of the seven viable varieties of naturalism, but ultimately believes that there are only two great naturalisms, Reductive Physicalism (which basically sounds like scientism to me) and Perspectival Pluralism.

In the other quote you gave, I at first assumed that he was using scientism somewhat pejoratively but only because I presume that he does accept the legitimacy of the biological and social sciences:

Hmm. That isn't the impression I got. I had assumed that he was simply pointing out that debate between naturalists exists, but it appears my reading comprehension might not be what I thought it was.

[Adrift]

I don't think the AIG author is equating science with scientism, but he is thinking that when science wades into the domain of religion then it becomes scientism.

I think that's probably accurate.

And, as an AIG author, I presume that he considers the theory of evolution as science wading into the domain of religion.

But to be precise, the paragraph does not say that. The paragraph suggests to me that the author believes that scientism leads to talk about new science based religions that may use evolutionary theory (and ecotheology) as a source, not that evolutionary theory itself is the result of scientism.

[Cow Poke]

Your poll doesn't have an option for "heck if I know".

[Adrift]

Your poll doesn't have an option for "heck if I know".

I honestly didn't think the paragraph was that hard to parse, but I'm beginning to rethink that.

[Darth Executor]

In another thread, shunyadragon is convinced that the following paragraph from this article on AIG's website is saying that science is scientism, and specifically that evolution is here described as scientism.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-creation-evolution-controversy

Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm certain that shunyadragon is incorrect, and that he is misreading what the paragraph actually says.

Instead, it appears to me that the article's author is referring to a conference in which the members, guided by the philosophy of scientism (so the author assumes), were thinking up a new religion guided by various scientific theories. It is not saying that science or evolution is scientism, but that the scientistic worldview guided the discussion about the creation of a new religion in the future.

Just for clarification, shunyadragon was the one who linked this paragraph from AIG's website. I don't support the aims of AIG, nor the conclusions of the article's author. I just wanted to figure out if shunyadragon's reading is correct or if I'm going crazy.


Thank you for time!

You are correct. "Science, or more accurately “scientism,” " is a snide remark that implies the individuals involved in the subsequent meeting are not real scientists.

[Littlejoe]

I agree with DE. It seems to me the author is saying something akin to:

"His shirt was yellow, or more accurately, orange..."