Need Help With Reading Comprehension

[phank]

From this paragraph alone, I think the author only considers evolutionary theory to be an example of scientism when used by a theologian as a source for a new religion. So, although I'm sure he does not like evolutionary theory, he doesn't call it scientism, at lease not in this paragraph.

Then I guess we disagree. I read him as saying evolutionary theory IS scientism. Yes, in the quoted paragraph it's being used as a source for a new religion, but that's not the point. The topic sentence says that "scientism" is science "that has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. Creating a new religion is simply one way this wading can be done, since a new religion is surely within the "doman of religion."

Otherwise, you are left arguing that brain studies and "ecothology" are also only "scientism" when deployed as part of a new religion. To me, the thrust is much more general - that where science dares to invade what the author regards as the private reserve of religion, it is ipso facto scientism.

[robrecht]

Then I guess we disagree. I read him as saying evolutionary theory IS scientism. Yes, in the quoted paragraph it's being used as a source for a new religion, but that's not the point. The topic sentence says that "scientism" is science "that has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. Creating a new religion is simply one way this wading can be done, since a new religion is surely within the "doman of religion."

Otherwise, you are left arguing that brain studies and "ecothology" are also only "scientism" when deployed as part of a new religion. To me, the thrust is much more general - that where science dares to invade what the author regards as the private reserve of religion, it is ipso facto scientism.

Evolutionary theory is only mentioned in this paragraph when used by a theologian as a source for this new religion. This is science wading into the domain of religion. Nowhere is it said here that evolutionary theory itself is wading into the domain of religion when it is not used as a source of a new religion. It all depends on whether we want to give the author the benefit of the doubt, which I am admittedly not generally inclined to do with AIG authors, and read his text without reading into it what we suspect might be the unworthy opinion of an AIG author. There is no reason to suspect that the AIG author considers all brain studies to be scientism, but rather the brain studies here mentioned that attempt to localize the part of the brain responsible for traditional religion. And ecotheology is itself a theological position akin to pantheism.

[Adrift]

The topic sentence says that "scientism" is science "that has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion.

I was wondering if people were getting a bit caught up in that first part where the author says "Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion." I read that as a clarification. Its not science per se that has waded into the domain of religion, but specifically a type of philosophical view concerning science, namely scientism. This is confirmed when we read the other article that shows that he seems to accept what he considers "legitimate science" which he says "depend(s) on observability, repeatablility and testability of all phenomena it would seek to explain".

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think it needs much reading between the lines. It's how I read it the first time and see no reason to change my mind, even though usually when lilpixie or shuny say something, you can take it to the bank.

Do you need another hug Darthy?

[klaus54]

Similar to Dawkins and the New Atheist scientists preaching a form of scientism, the latter being philosophy not science and not necessarily following from the former.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Evolutionary theory is only mentioned in this paragraph when used by a theologian as a source for this new religion. This is science wading into the domain of religion. Nowhere is it said here that evolutionary theory itself is wading into the domain of religion when it is not used as a source of a new religion. It all depends on whether we want to give the author the benefit of the doubt, which I am admittedly not generally inclined to do with AIG authors, and read his text without reading into it what we suspect might be the unworthy opinion of an AIG author. There is no reason to suspect that the AIG author considers all brain studies to be scientism, but rather the brain studies here mentioned that attempt to localize the part of the brain responsible for traditional religion. And ecotheology is itself a theological position akin to pantheism.

It is probably best if you read through more of AIG's works involving evolution, global warming and other science issues that AIG describes as scientism, or the result of scientism. AIG describes evolution, global warming and cosmology of billions of years, as the result of scientism, bad science, speculating on past events without adequate evidence. They describe good science as resulting in the technology of the modern world such as; computers, airplanes, and modern medicine.

[robrecht]

It is probably best if you read through more of AIG's works involving evolution, global warming and other science issues that AIG describes as scientism, or the result of scientism. AIG describes evolution, global warming and cosmology of billions of years, as the result of scientism, bad science, speculating on past events without adequate evidence. They describe good science as resulting in the technology of the modern world such as; computers, airplanes, and modern medicine.

Definitely not a good use of my time. I've already said what I suspect an AIG author might be thinking or believe or perhaps even say elsewhere, and it was in line with your reading of this paragraph, but I am content to read this paragraph for what it actually says, and I have no desire to engage any of my time, time being one of the most valuable of all commodities of all, if it even is a commodity, on any other writings by AIG. I prefer to read Genesis for the intent of the authors, and its interpretation by pivotal rabbis and theologians who respect the text in accord with good methodological premises.

[shunyadragon]

Similar to Dawkins and the New Atheist scientists preaching a form of scientism, the latter being philosophy not science and not necessarily following from the former.

K54

Your response is an example of a problem with definitions and use of the word 'scientism.' You describe the 'New Atheist scientists preaching a form of scientism . . .' It is more concise and accurate to simply say they believe in Methodological Natural. As far as a form of scientism, what form? since the AIG folks use it differently. This is the reason I consider the word 'scientism' vague and subject to misuse. The definition that wiki gives is equivalent to 'methodological naturalism,' the description given by a 'professor' is more vague and messy.

[robrecht]

Your response is an example of a problem with definitions and use of the word 'scientism.' You describe the 'New Atheist scientists preaching a form of scientism . . .' It is more concise and accurate to simply say they believe in Methodological Natural. As far as a form of scientism, what form? since the AIG folks use it differently. This is the reason I consider the word 'scientism' vague and subject to misuse. The definition that wiki gives is equivalent to 'methodological naturalism,' the description given by a 'professor' is more vague and messy.

What term would you propose as a derogatory characterization of an overreaching sceintific worldview that supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes even social sciences?

[Kbertsche]

I was wondering if people were getting a bit caught up in that first part where the author says "" I read that as a clarification. Its not science per se that has waded into the domain of religion, but specifically a type of philosophical view concerning science, namely scientism. This is confirmed when we read the other article that shows that he seems to accept what he considers "legitimate science" which he says "depend(s) on observability, repeatablility and testability of all phenomena it would seek to explain".

I parse it the same way as Adrift. I think what the author means is "what some would call science has waded into the domain of religion. But this is not really science per se, it is scientism, a metaphysical/philosophical position which is often confused with science, especially by the general public." At least, this is the way that I would have said it. Since the author is from a YEC organization, he may not have thought clearly enough about the topic to explain it in this way.

[Soyeong]

If the author thought science was scientism, then they wouldn't have specified that they were more accurately speaking about "scientism". A member of this group, who it is implied believes in scientism, suggested that evolutionary theory could be the source for a new religion, but that is not the same as saying evolutionary theory is scientism. Perhaps the author does think that, but that is not something that should be learned from this paragraph alone.

[Adrift]

If the author thought science was scientism, then they wouldn't have specified that they were more accurately speaking about "scientism". A member of this group, who it is implied believes in scientism, suggested that evolutionary theory could be the source for a new religion, but that is not the same as saying evolutionary theory is scientism. Perhaps the author does think that, but that is not something that should be learned from this paragraph alone.

Exactly, though it may be more precise to say that the members (according to the author) were guided by the ideology of scientism (knowingly or not), rather than that they were necessarily believers in scientism. At least, that was my reading, but maybe that's a distinction without a difference.

[shunyadragon]

What term would you propose as a derogatory characterization of an overreaching sceintific worldview that supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes even social sciences?

I avoid this kind negative judgment in this case because it is anecdotal, and in reality it is not likely a group world view that 'supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes social sciences,' I believe this represents individual scientists that have a bad attitude as you describe. The atheists and strong agnostics may be grouped as Metaphysical Naturalists if they believe that there is no other foundation for our existence other then the physical existence itself as understood by science.

[robrecht]

I avoid this kind negative judgment in this case because it is anecdotal, and in reality it is not likely a group world view that 'supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes social sciences,' I believe this represents individual scientists that have a bad attitude as you describe. The atheists and strong agnostics may be grouped as Metaphysical Naturalists if they believe that there is no other foundation for our existence other then the physical existence itself as understood by science.

Please note, I am not asking you if you want to apply such a label to anyone or any group in particular, but, for those who do, rightly or wrongly, what term would you propose as a derogatory characterization of an overreaching scientific worldview that supposedly denigrates or eschews philosophy or sometimes even social sciences? The term 'metaphysical naturalist' is itself something of an oxymoron. Do you intend it to carry a derogatory meaning? Metaphysicians who deny any value to metaphysics? Or, more neutrally, people who deny any value to metaphysics? And what of those who merely question or deny the scientific character of the social sciences or even biology? Do you deny the use of the label of scientism for those who, rightly or wrongly, fit in this category? I think you will find that trying to get everyone in the world to use your terminology, and only your terminology, is a futile and comical endeavor.

[Truthseeker]

Sounds like you're describing a sort of deism. As a Christian, how would you square that with Paul's words in Romans 1:19-20?

No, but it's possible I don't understand why you thought of deism.