M
- Status
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
I’m convinced, but I’m the choir. I also didn’t vote because while I think the statements are exceptional they are hardly a deadly blow to “scientism” since “scientism” isn’t actually something extolled by many educated scientists. It tends to stem from the people who read popular science books and listen to people like Dawkins all the time. People who actually spend their days doing empirical research may or may not be Christians, but they rarely get involved in such discussions.
A
Anselm33
Guest
It was good, and he’s a great speaker, but the problem is, as I’ve encountered atheists on the Magis Center of Reason and Faith facebook site, the vast majority (not all–Touchstone, is an exception) are undereducated and don’t know anything about the science they’re putting faith in. Nor do they know anything about the philosophy which is the foundation for understanding science. So I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s a losing battle and we’re about to enter a new Dark Ages. Here, by the way, are the web sites for the Magis Center:
magisreasonfaith.org/
facebook.com/#!/MagisReasonFaith
We’ve also started up a social group on CAF for the Magis Center. If we get 3 more members we can have our own forum, which will be more sheltered than the Facebook site.
KTF (Keep the Faith)
anselm
PS–a very fine apologetics book against scientism is “Pascal’s Fire” by Keith Ward, who has also written “There certainly is a God, debunking Dawkins” (a paraphrase of the title).
E
edwest2
Guest
Why do you imitate the atheists who claim that America is about to enter the Dark Ages because Christians might “win”? This isn’t about Dark Ages. To the atheist/secularists, it’s all about power and they want to impose their godless science on people. Since they are automatically right and Christians automatically wrong, they feel pulled in one direction: Get all those Christians to believe in scientism.
The goal: To create a one size fits all version of reality that puts man, not God, at the top of the list.
The problem is that all humans carry the deadly defect called sin, and they wish to ignore that as well.
God bless,
Ed
The goal: To create a one size fits all version of reality that puts man, not God, at the top of the list.
The problem is that all humans carry the deadly defect called sin, and they wish to ignore that as well.
God bless,
Ed
L
_Locke
Guest
“Godless science”? Are you kidding me? As opposed to what; Christian science? Muslim science? American science?
The goal of science is to better understand our universe. Something I’ve seen you repeatedly (and vehemently) speak out against.
Well nobody has yet developed the sin-odometer, so it’s hard to measure.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Locke
“Godless science”? Are you kidding me? As opposed to what; Christian science? Muslim science? American science?
As opposed to science that knows better than to cut God out of the picture with Occam’s Razor.
“Godless science”? Are you kidding me? As opposed to what; Christian science? Muslim science? American science?
As opposed to science that knows better than to cut God out of the picture with Occam’s Razor.
W
Windfish
Guest
Much has been written on this topic, and Fr. Barron’s contribution is only the tip of the iceberg, but, yes, it is rather devastating. Scientism is unsupported, self-refuting, and falls on the weight of it’s own claims. Fr. Barron is speaking to a popular audience, and so, with that in mind, I think he is quite successful.
L
_Locke
Guest
I don’t really understand but okay. One must do science assuming that there won’t be divine intervention; you can’t rely on the results of an experiment if you think God might be fiddling with it. Father Barron wasn’t arguing against scientific naturalism, just scientism.As opposed to science that knows better than to cut God out of the picture with Occam’s Razor.
Btw I’d currently change my vote off of “No, it was very weak” as I’ve read a little more about scientism and now think Father Barron’s refutation was actually pretty decent.
- Status