Is "scientism" not science the problem where religion is concerned?


Some like to insult the perception that science and religion are against each other or at least that science is against religion by calling it Scientism in a derogatory sense. Scientism is thought to be not truly science but like it. It is seen as an ideology and thus intolerant.
Religious people label any science they don't want to hear as scientism!

Science is about basing yourself on well checked evidence.  It is that simple.  Because this rules out religious guesses posing as credible beliefs many have made up a strawman called scientism.  For that lot, science is science if it says nothing against a religion or religion in general.  If it does it is scientism. 

Scientism is a fiction.  It is an untruth that seeks to affirm the evidence of science and ring fence this from religious claims.  To dismiss evidence in any category is to dismiss all evidence.  It turns the affirmation of evidence by religion into mere talk.

Scientism is thought to mean that all you care about is natural mundane causes and reject the supernatural just because you have no way of examining it.  Ignoring the supernatural is also rejecting it for it means you don't take it seriously.  All science does this despite religion telling it to consider that there is more than material things.  All science has to do it. 

Laws can be blind or set up by agents. When religionists think of laws they mean laws set up by God. When atheist scientists think of laws they mean blind regularities. So do we have an overlap them for both sides can test to see what temperature or so is there like they can test anything of a science nature? The overlap is only in the method not the theory. There is no way to think of anything that is there or real without bringing a theory into it. What the religious person does then is NOT science - but a simulation.

Science cannot be expected to say the laws come from a personal agent such as God for even if God won't change them science cannot assume he won't.  Science then would be unable to trust today's proven findings to apply tomorrow.  The method of science is based on assuming the laws are just there and nothing put them there and that is why they stay there.  IT NEEDS STRESSING: LAWS ARE TRUSTED BY SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THERE AND THEY ARE PERMANENT FOR THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE THEM.

In science, you test things with experiments not arguments. But that does not mean arguments are totally out of the equation. The machines are arguments as it were in physical form.

Everybody's starting point and the starting point of all disciplines such as psychology and philosophy and theology and science is that logic and mathematics are to be presupposed to be correct.

Science is the best tool for exercising logic and mathematics and discovering truth. Science supposes that science and mathematics and logic all go together. They all verify each other. They are three things in one. A sort of holy trinity in one God!


Against this people give examples of truths that cannot be proven scientifically or shown to be probably true by scientific means.

• Logical and mathematical truths. It is said that science cannot prove that 1 is not 2. But in fact it can. Logic and mathematics are ultimately about one thing how a is a. An apple is one apple and it so obvious that a test or experiment is not needed. In fact looking IS THE EXPERIMENT AND THE EVIDENCE!  Science depends on experiments for the not so obvious and the rest is its own experiment in a way. It is said that "reasoning is not the same thing as philosophy for that would make everybody a philosopher." But it does. They are not professional dedicated philosophers but they are still philosophers. Not every carer is a nurse.

• Metaphysical truths. If you know that the world around you is real that is a metaphysical truth. But is it? Metaphysical seems to be about magic and the supernatural. Knowing the world is there does not require metaphysics but physics and testing with your hands and eyes. Metaphysics is about what is non-natural or magical.

• Ethical truths. Science cannot show that you are being immoral if you kill sick babies. But it does show that babies can be sick and be killed. That is more important than showing killing them is wrong. The wrongness depends on it being the truth that a baby can be killed. You cannot prove it is wrong to kill a baby unless you can prove the baby can be killed. If you save a baby because a baby can live who cares if you are not doing it because you think it is morally good? Science is actually better than morality.

• Aesthetic truths. Science cannot prove that a painting is beautiful. Aesthetic truths are subjective and not real truths. A flower that is beautiful to one can be ugly to another.

Last but not least we have

• The truths of science as won through testing and experiment meaning science is the most reliable way to know anything. The scientific method uses experiments and tests to show the truth. But there is no scientific way of proving that some evil spirit is not manipulating the tests and making the universe look organised and regular to us when it is not.
Also it is said that to define science as the best or only reliable way to know things is a statement that science cannot verify for it is a philosophical statement not a science one. What experiment can you set up to test that what experiments show you really is the only reliable truth or probably is?
The answer to that is if you test water to see if it is drinkable you do not need another experiment to show that the way you have tested is right. Also, the experiment being of value is a philosophical idea one way but not in another. It does not matter if science cannot verify the philosophy side. Does it matter that mathematics cannot show that Napoleon was an emperor? The philosophy is irrelevant.
Scientism is supposed to say that only science gives knowledge while the softer view is that it gives us not the perfect way to know but THE NOT A reasonably accurate way.

Hard scientism says that there is nothing known except what science has demonstrated. This is supposed to be going too far. If it is or if it isn't it is still the case that religion in method is against science. Religion gives no tests to even ensure that your spiritual experiences are real. It has no tests at all never mind a scientific one. Science does not need hard or soft scientism in order to be against or a threat to religion.

In reality, hard scientism is not held by anybody at all.  The scientist knows there is more to truth than what is already known which is why she or he keeps searching to learn more.
Suppose it were real and refuted religion.  It is clear then that soft scientism, and that is the one that stands out as true to most of us, is another refutation of religion.  This however is only science.  It is not scientism.

I mean that you cannot say God is as important as the rock in front of you.  Hard scientism says he is not important at all.  Soft scientism, the nickname of valid science, says he cannot be regarded as very important until evidence comes up.

A religion that undermines science is self-refuting.  Be pro science.  Scientism is religion accusing people of a view they do not hold to undermine them and insult their work. 

No Copyright