Do you believe in Scientism?

[Maranatha]

From Wikipedia:

Scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all wisdom and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of wisdom, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument.

If you answer 1, you believe, that if science advances far enough, it will be able to prove the existence of God with the scientific method. Please explain how that would be possible.

If you answer 2, you believe that everything that exists is a rational part of this universe. Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

If you answer 3, you believe that there are more things in heaven and earth than are explainable by the scientific method. Is this rational?

If you answer 4, you believe that there is more to the universe than what science can discover but it is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God (pantheism, Gnosticism, Wicca, etc.).

Of course, if I’ve missed anything please explain.

 

[cheddarsox]

I’m sorry I am having a hard time reconciling your choices and your explanations.

I do not believe in the Christian concept of God.

I believe that everything that exists in the universe is rational, but that does not exclude the divine. I do not believe that the divine ever does anything outside of the “laws of nature”. I have never experienced anything that seems absolutely outside of the possiblities of nature. The findings of science cannot explain everything we experience, but that does not mean that what is experienced is supernatural, it may mean our understanding is limited.

I believe that the truths revealed by science will never contradict the divine. I also believe that the abilities of humans to decipher all there is of the universe is limited.

I am a pantheist, but I didn’t feel that any of the poll choices really fit with what I believe.

I am a scientist. I think science is a really useful tool, but not the only tool, to help us understand the universe, and not the best tool in all situations.

cheddar

 

[Maranatha]

cheddarsox:

I’m sorry I am having a hard time reconciling your choices and your explanations.

I do not believe in the Christian concept of God.

I believe that everything that exists in the universe is rational, but that does not exclude the divine. I do not believe that the divine ever does anything outside of the “laws of nature”. I have never experienced anything that seems absolutely outside of the possiblities of nature. The findings of science cannot explain everything we experience, but that does not mean that what is experienced is supernatural, it may mean our understanding is limited.

I believe that the truths revealed by science will never contradict the divine. I also believe that the abilities of humans to decipher all there is of the universe is limited.

I am a pantheist, but I didn’t feel that any of the poll choices really fit with what I believe.

I am a scientist. I think science is a really useful tool, but not the only tool, to help us understand the universe, and not the best tool in all situations.

cheddar

Thanks for your response.

Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means “God is All” and “All is God”. It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of ‘God’.

We live in an imperfect universe. If God is the universe, how do you explin that imperfection?

 

[cheddarsox]

Maranatha:

We live in an imperfect universe. If God is the universe, how do you explin that imperfection?

Imperfect by whose definition? Our own. When things are not the way we wish they would be, we call them imperfect. That is our judgement of the situation, a human judgement from out limited perspective.

The universe is. The divine is. They are what they are. We sometimes wish they were different. That does not make them imperfect, simply inconvenient from our standpoint.

Whenever in my foolishness, I sat down and designed a “perfect” universe, and, stayed with my idea long enough for it to follow it for a few “generations”, my ideas were pathetic and more troublesome than the real, actual awesom universe that I am a part of. My limited capabilities could never overcome and deal with the vast complexity of things, it is way out of my league.

So rather than look at creation and dare to label it imperfect. I look at it with awe and realize it is bigger, better, more complex and wonderful than I could ever hope to imagine. And I accept my limitations and worship the truth.

Even when really horrendous things happen to me, the universe is still the wonder that it is, and my situation will pass, and the wonder of the divine will continue. My inability to comprehend it does not render it imperfect.

cheddar

 

[Nan_S]

Hi, Cheddar,

Having read your postings for a while, I still wonder what exactly YOU mean when you say you are a pantheist.

• Do you mean that all of nature is “god/the divine”, that you, as a part of nature, are an aspect of “god/the divine”, and that if you truly want to find “god” you only need to look within yourself? If so, how do you reconcile this with being yourself inadequate and imperfect?

-or-

• Do you mean that “god/the divine” is over all of creation, but that the truth of “god/the divine” is not accurately portrayed by any organized religious groups, and that you find the reality of “god/the divine” needs to established by distilling and combining little kernels of truth from every religion and elsewhere? If so, how are you the one able to distill this accurately, being yourself just a solitary, inadequate and imperfect being?

-or-

-Do you mean something else entirely?

 

[cheddarsox]

Nan S:

Hi, Cheddar,

Having read your postings for a while, I still wonder what exactly YOU mean when you say you are a pantheist.

**The term “divine” usually refers to what people see as being ulitmately powerful and unchanging. That which has control.

Using this definition, I refer to what I see fulfilling that role in the universe as divine. For me, these are the “laws” and forces that make everything in the universe cooperate and behave as they do to create the reality we experience.

Because these laws and forces are everywhere in the universe, and perhaps even the substance of what the universe is, I refer to them as the divine. They are pervasive, thus pantheism. The divine as infused, and permeating the universe, intrinsically a part of the all.**

• Do you mean that all of nature is “god/the divine”, that you, as a part of nature, are an aspect of “god/the divine”, and that if you truly want to find “god” you only need to look within yourself? If so, how do you reconcile this with being yourself inadequate and imperfect?

**If I look only within myself, I will experience only a tiny bit of the divine. **
**
In what way am I inadequate? For what purpose do you suppose I was created that I do not fulfill? Again, I may not fit the human idea of “perfection” (though I doubt you could get two humans to agree on what that would look like) But I am as I was created.

In my faith, there is not a specific “purpose”, an outside game plan that I must conform to. Things are what they are.The term perfect and imperfect do not apply.

Personally, I have goals, ideals, ethics that I strive to fulfill, but that is my agenda, the divine is without agenda. The divine needs nothing from me.
**
-or-

• Do you mean that “god/the divine” is over all of creation, but that the truth of “god/the divine” is not accurately portrayed by any organized religious groups, and that you find the reality of “god/the divine” needs to established by distilling and combining little kernels of truth from every religion and elsewhere? If so, how are you the one able to distill this accurately, being yourself just a solitary, inadequate and imperfect being?

**The divine is pervasive, yes, it is all over creation. But I do not believe that any religion can or does portray the divine as it really is. I don’t think that the whole truth of the divine is knowable. Nor does it matter. The divine does not require anything of us. The universe was here before us, is more complex and larger than we can know, and does it’s thing with no reguard for us or our whims.

I think we all experience the divine constantly. We learn its nature through our experience. Religion is an attempt to explain what we experience, and also a cultural and social institution. Religions develop and evolve according to the times and cultures that they serve. I think that we can come to a better understanding of our relationship to the divine by practicing a religion, by experiencing the divine in community with our culture and society. Religion is for us, to help us live the best lives, in community. It is not for the divine.The teachings, laws, morals, ritual of religion enhance our lives and communities.

I think some religions serve their followers better than others, and some are so much nonsense.

**

cheddar

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maranatha:

From Wikipedia:

Scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all wisdom and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of wisdom, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument.

If you answer 1, you believe, that if science advances far enough, it will be able to prove the existence of God with the scientific method. Please explain how that would be possible.

IMNSHO, this suggestion is demented, for God is not “Divinity-in-general”, but of a particular character. I’m not interested in proving the existence of a supreme Something, but in faith in a particular Someone. And that Someone cannot be known as that Someone, except by revelation, & faith. Knowing that God exists, does not of itself reveal God as the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, the God revealed in Jesus Christ. IOW: the only God available is the only God there is; the God made known to us in Jesus Christ. Knowing that Americans or lions exist, does not itself tell one much about them: so with God.​

Science cannot prove that there is a God, still less that God is the One revealed in Jesus Christ: any more than one use cooking to prove the wisdom of a political strategy, or use any other things with nothing in common as a means of proving something about one of them. Politics, not cooking, is the means by which to talk about the wisdom of a political strategy. And the empirical sciences (as the word “science” is understood today) are no more competent to pronounce on theology or faith, than cooking is, to pronounce on politics. Sciences influence one another - but they are formally distinct. Geology has a bearing on the age of the world, which relates to evolution, which relates to the doctrine of creation: but this doesn’t give the Magisterium any expertise in geology. If the bishops want to talk with any authority on geology, they have to consult with those who are qualified to do so. But thinking about geology no more makes a bishop a geologist himself, than a physicist becomes a theologian by thinking about matters which have implications for theology. ##

If you answer 2, you believe that everything that exists is a rational part of this universe. Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

If you answer 3, you believe that there are more things in heaven and earth than are explainable by the scientific method. Is this rational?

It is - because one is allowing for the likelihood that what is known about the universe at any time, is less than can be known about it. To deny this, implies that scientific discourse after a given date (1950, say) is not rational - which means that nanotechnology (for instance) is irrational. Imagine the question, had it been asked in 1850 - it would imply, that all science since then is irrational. Choice 3 allows for scientific progress, intellectual humility, and co-operation between different types of knowledge; & it avoids treating what is known in one’s own time as absolute or final - it makes idolatry less likely than otherwise it might be.​

If you answer 4, you believe that there is more to the universe than what science can discover but it is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God (pantheism, Gnosticism, Wicca, etc.).

Of course, if I’ve missed anything please explain.

You don’t allow for polytheism - nor that God (or gods) may be unknowable ​

 

[Andrew_11]

I believe science will eventualy prove the existence of God, within our lifetime.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

If you answer 2, you believe that everything that exists is a rational part of this universe. Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

History. Mankind has found a rational explanation for almost anything. I see no reason, why this should end before all that can be known is known.
Furthermore, postulating gods to explain things either raises more questions than answers or explains nothing. Most specific god images of existing religions are even illogical and contradictory. Those, which are not, are mainly void of attributes, so there is no point in believing or worshipping them either.

 

[Maranatha]

Gottle of Geer:

Choice 3 allows for scientific progress, intellectual humility, and co-operation between different types of knowledge; & it avoids treating what is known in one’s own time as absolute or final - it makes idolatry less likely than otherwise it might be. ##

That was well put.

You don’t allow for polytheism - nor that God (or gods) may be unknowable​

##
What addtional poll option could have been asked to cover this?

 

[Maranatha]

Andrew_11:

I believe science will eventualy prove the existence of God, within our lifetime.

Why do you have such faith in science? There are better, stronger rational proofs that science will not be able to discover all the truths of or existence.

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist:

History. Mankind has found a rational explanation for almost anything. I see no reason, why this should end before all that can be known is known.

Almost is the key word there. It is not a clear statement. There have been many events and many phenomena that have not been explained. Science is your god.

Furthermore, postulating gods to explain things either raises more questions than answers or explains nothing. Most specific god images of existing religions are even illogical and contradictory. Those, which are not, are mainly void of attributes, so there is no point in believing or worshipping them either.

That is the beauty of the Catholic Christian tradition. God is neither illogical, contradictory or devoid of specific attributes.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

Almost is the key word there. It is not a clear statement. There have been many events and many phenomena that have not been explained.

Sure, but there was a time, when we could not explain lightnings, so a god must have thrown them. We know better now, it will happen with yet unexplained phenomena too.

Science is your god.

Of course, I believe science is a sentient being, and every evening I pray to it. On Sundays I dance around a wafer, then it turns into the embodiment of science and I eat it.

That is the beauty of the Catholic Christian tradition. God is neither illogical, contradictory or devoid of specific attributes.

In your opinion yes, but I regard your god to be very illogical and contradictory. Science is not.

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist:

Sure, but there was a time, when we could not explain lightnings, so a god must have thrown them. We know better now, it will happen with yet unexplained phenomena too.


Of course, I believe science is a sentient being, and every evening I pray to it. On Sundays I dance around a wafer, then it turns into the embodiment of science and I eat it.

Sorry I changed definition of god on you. We use the term god sometimes when referring to something that is central to your being. Some people have money, power, sex, drugs, alcohol, gambling, ect. as their god. For you it’s science…

In your opinion yes, but I regard your god to be very illogical and contradictory. Science is not.

Since you made the accusation, can you back it up with examples?

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

We use the term god sometimes when referring to something that is central to your being. Some people have money, power, sex, drugs, alcohol, gambling, ect. as their god. For you it’s science…

That’s the problem, shifting the meaning of words. I’d rather understand the term “god” in the strictest sense, and not in a broadend one. That only leads to misunderstandings. It is like, when Catholics are accused of worshipping Mary like a god by some Protestants. Then you react the same way.
Furthermore, science is hardly central for my life. As an epistemologic tool it is the only valid one (IMO), therefore perhaps central in the way to gain objective knowledge. But it is a far fetch to give it godlike qualities, even in a non-personal manner.

Since you made the accusation, can you back it up with examples?

It was not meant as an accusation, to me it is a mere fact without any moral judgement. I could give you examples, but I fear that would hijack the thread. And it will ultimately lead to the very same discussions in other threads about Free Will vs omniscience/omnipotence, mathematically impossible omni-anythings, biblical contradictions about the nature of God, and the general strangeness of Christian belief.

 

[Shlemele]

AnAtheist:

…biblical contradictions about the nature of God, and the general strangeness of Christian belief.

Science has some controdictions as well. Not the least being the theories of spontanious generation (life canot come from non-living matter) and what some believe the origions of life come from (ameno acids and lightening, neither of witch are living matter). Now to follow your previous statement where science in not controdictory… well it is untill one theory is disproven.

Don’t get me wrong science is a great tool, the problem is that is is a tool that tends to create more questions than answers. We see at first grains of sand, then minerals, molecules, then atoms. Now we find out there are sub-atomic particles called Quarks… every answer just leads to more questions.

The problem is that not everything can be broken down scientificaly. As a Psych major I dealt with that on a daily basis. I mean how do you quantify somthing as basic as love? Biologiccaly “making out” and being run over by a tank are about the same in so far as neurotransmitters and body stress levels are concerned. You and I know the difference though, one is rather enjoyable and the other is quite frightening. Now science can measure what I THINK about each event but at the time of occourance it can’t tell the difference.

Finally let’s conciet Occams razor, the simplest explanation is the best. Is it simpler to believe that;
A) A bolt of lightening and ameno acids combined to form life (a statistical probability akin to 40 blind men solving a rubic cube at the same time AND being hit by lightening) and that somehow that life survived in an inhospitable enviorment (no food but what it produced and little to no water for thousands of years) then slowly changed into the form we see today

or

There is a living force that created life.

To me it’s not that big of a stretch to see that there has to be something bigger out there.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maranatha:
That was well put.

What addtional poll option could have been asked to cover this?

A choice mentioning gods ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Re: Do you believe in Scientism?

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=862017

AnAtheist:

History. Mankind has found a rational explanation for almost anything. I see no reason, why this should end before all that can be known is known.

Furthermore, postulating gods to explain things either raises more questions than answers or explains nothing. Most specific god images of existing religions are even illogical and contradictory. Those, which are not, are mainly void of attributes, so there is no point in believing or worshipping them either.

The God of Christians is not an explanation.

Christian theism is not an explanation: though it has some explanatory power

God is not a postulate - but the starting-point

Explanations by appeal to empirically verifiable or other this-worldly entities do not replace explanations from within a theistic POV - because the Christian God is incommensurable with the subject-matter of science.

Science cannot come to the knowledge of God, because that is to use what is created to transcend nature - it’s as if a doughnut tried to find out about the world outside the bag the doughnut was in, by searching inside the bag that contains the doughnut; if it wants to see world outside the bag, it must come out of the bag, not roll around within the bag - still less examine the chocolate and sugar and dough that have rubbed off the doughnut into the bag during its life in the bag. And a tin, however dry or clean, is just a fancier, stronger sort of bag; biscuit crumbs aren’t the world outside either. A doughnut has fewer means of finding out about God than a man has, but neither a man nor a doughnut can “find out God by searching” if they look in the wrong way.

The knowledge of God has its own requirements no less than science does, or cooking, or sewing, or gardening: to quote the Soviet-era joke about Gagarin: he was quoted as saying, “I went into space and did not find God there” - of course he did not; for God is not a body; and, “Blessed are the pure in heart - for they shall see God”. ##