Elimitavism, the dead end of scientism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
"
Suppose you hold that a good scientific explanation should make no reference to teleology, final causality, purpose, directedness-toward-an-end, or the like as an inherent and irreducible feature of the natural order. And suppose you hold that what is real is only what science tells us is real. Then you are at least implicitly committed to denying that even human purposes or ends are real, and also to denying that the intentionality of thought and the semantic content of speech and writing are real. Scientism, in short, entails a radical eliminativism. " By Edward Feser, from the Edward Feser blogsite. A good read. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
"
Suppose you hold that a good scientific explanation should make no reference to teleology, final causality, purpose, directedness-toward-an-end, or the like as an inherent and irreducible feature of the natural order. And suppose you hold that what is real is only what science tells us is real. Then you are at least implicitly committed to denying that even human purposes or ends are real, and also to denying that the intentionality of thought and the semantic content of speech and writing are real. Scientism, in short, entails a radical eliminativism. " By Edward Feser, from the Edward Feser blogsite. A good read. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
What Feser has stated here reminds me of how radical evolutionary theory also ends up in the elimination of human importance…in both dignity and meaning.

Perhaps science should always aim toward a thesis…and good science toward a created world order.
 
It all comes down to this.

Science cannot explain the universe since the universe could not have existed through an infinite past and could not have started itself.

Therefore,
there are a lot of other things to think about. 😃
 
empther said:
It all comes down to this.

Science cannot explain the universe since the universe could not have existed through an infinite past and could not have started itself.

Therefore,
there are a lot of other things to think about. 😃
Click to expand...
Actually, that is incorrect. It could have but didn’t. We know this only from Faith. That is what Thomas Aquinas taught and the Church has Defined Doctrine on this point.

Linus2nd
 
ilikepizza1 said:
No, it couldn’t have. An actually infinite past gives rise to several paradoxes.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Ques. 46, articles 1&2

Really? I didn’t know that.

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187 ( council of Trent ). Paragraph 327 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top