Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Need Help With Reading Comprehension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need Help With Reading Comprehension

    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!
    16
    Yes
    43.75%
    7
    No
    56.25%
    9

  • #2
    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.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        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.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          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?

          Comment


          • #6
            It's written by AIG, that should tell you everything you need to hear.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  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.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Your poll doesn't have an option for "heck if I know".
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            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.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree with DE. It seems to me the author is saying something akin to:

                              "His shirt was yellow, or more accurately, orange..."
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              52 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              256 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X