The absurdity of atheism

[Peter_Plato]

I’m surprised you never castigate Charles for that tired old tv script he keeps quoting. Now that is out of date, since it’s now known that the universe spent a considerable time in what are called the dark ages before light first shone.

Rather than the pseudo-science of American intelligent design fundamentalism, let’s stick with real science. The real science says the big bang starts from a singularity, so that as Lemaître says “any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero”. That’s not dogma or old-hat, that’s a permanent limit imposed by the theory itself, the complete impossibility of empirical evidence one way or the other.

That seems to be how God wants it, even if you don’t. You want proof, God wants faith. God wins. Tough.

This isn’t the way the Apostle Paul saw it and I will accept Paul over your version any time.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. **So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. (Romans 1:18-22)

In addition, the Church has condemned fideism as heretical in several Councils and Encyclicals.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.” The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, “Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.”, Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806).
newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

Now you may think you know "…[t]hat seems to be how God wants it, even if you don’t. You want proof, God wants faith. God wins. Tough."

However, your “knowledge” the “God wants faith” relies on some kind of proof or other, for which you wrongly cite Lemaitre since what your claim is completely opposed to what the Church teaches despite your attempts at “proving” that it teaches what you suppose it does. It would, for certain, not make sense to have to “prove” that God wants faith when “proving” such a thing undermines your very desire to “prove” that faith discounts reason in the first place. Your position is, therefore, self-refuting and incoherent.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you bring up “evidence” that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant in your basement? Of course you could invite me and say: “look around in my basement. You can see that there is no purple-pink checkered elephant here. The evidence of nonexistence is the nonexistence of evidence”. And that applies not just to that elephant, it also applies to all nonexistent objects… the supernatural ones included. Of course this has been pointed out far too many times… so I just wasted 3 minutes to point it out again.

The fatal flaw in your argument is your restriction of evidence to sense data. Can you prove your mind, truth, freedom or justice exist? If so how? If not do you deny they exist?

 

[Peter_Plato]

These kinds of posts are the reason for me to come back. They provide excellent entertainment. Let’s review some.

1. To refer to Jesus as God himself is not a good argument vis-à-vis someone who is not a Christian.

So what is your point, here? Using sound physics or logic does not work to convince those not versed in physics or logic either. That may call into question the competency of that “someone” vis-à-vis whom the argument is not effective. Ergo, not a counter argument merely a statement that the argument is not convincing for those who don’t have the capacity to follow it. Fair enough.

1. Not even his contemporaries accepted him as a God. Looks like the so-called “miracles” were only of the “ho-hum” category.

Ah, yes, but his contemporaries didn’t even accept him when he raised from the dead. I suppose you regard that as “ho-hum” worthy. Again, you are free to see it that way.

1. You insinuate that God became “gun-shy” because he was (allegedly) ill-treated. Well, come on!

Again with the “insinuations.” I never insisted God became “gun-shy.” “Concern” does not translate to “gun-shy,” as far as I can tell. It means “take as a matter of relevance or importance.”

He did what he needed to do. I would suppose that an omniscient God would not require repeated attempts to accomplish what he set out to do in the first place. Perhaps that at least some of the “reasoning” – in an analogous sense – behind his action was to demonstrate to humanity what we needed to know. Why would that require repetition if we are as bright as you seem to think?

1. So he is a “tad concerned” about his second appearance. God is now bashful?

Look up the meaning of “concerned.” The implications do not entail “bashful.” I could be “concerned” about the rise of street gang violence without being bashful or even concerned primarily about my own safety. That would depend entirely on who I was, my nature and my responsibility for the well-being of all.
Legolas could be “concerned” about the number of Orcs in the Woodland Realm without being “bashful” about facing them. It might affect the strategies he chooses for dealing with them, however.

1. Is he now not “omniscient” so he does not “know” how people will react to his “new, improved” manifestation of himself?

Perhaps it is not his knowledge that God is concerned about, but rather the impact of how a “new, improved manifestation of himself” will be received by those whose reactions will be affected.

1. My “rules” are not different from the “rules” I expect for any other claim.

This is a rather interesting point given that all “evidence” is conceptual to begin with. To even speak of “physical evidence” requires the ideological presumption of a certain metaphysic. A metaphysic that cannot be established by “evidence” to begin with, but merely that empirical consistency is sufficient to establish epistemic certainty. Obviously, you deviate from your “rules” by accepting that claim and presumption to begin with.

1. Why should he suffer the fallout from the human existence? On the very contrary, he could show his divine nature. After all it is said that “all knees will be bent in front of Jesus”. What is wrong to bring this wondrous moment to the present?

To know for certain whether or not he has, indeed, shown “his divine nature” requires that you know what “divine nature” would mean to begin with. Apparently, you deny that a priori, which means nothing God could do would show his divine nature to you. You have already presumed to know what “divine nature” would look like, which is why you suppose God hasn’t shown his divine nature to you.

Your presumption is that you would “know it when you see it.” Perhaps you might, perhaps not. Perhaps God’s foreknowledge already is aware that you would not be open and so he doesn’t reveal his nature to you. Or that he already has but your assumptions about what that entails means you missed it entirely.

Either way, the assumption is that you are in the right and God in the wrong by assuming your presumptions about “divine nature” trump God’s view of what that entails.

1. The creation ex-nihilo is just part of the mythology.

Everything is “part of the mythology” in that it seeks to explain the origin of things in a way that makes sense to human understanding. Science is mythology in the sense that it represents what is beyond our capacity to grasp in terms which make some level of understanding possible.

At its most basic, your statement is mere assertion. So what? You are proposing an alternate mythology. The question, ultimately, is: Which is the correct mythology?

Continued …

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last post.

1. The fine-tuning argument is especially amusing. This is why:

When an atheist asks for physical evidence, the answer is: “You cannot put God into a test tube”. And then the apologist makes a 180 turn, and starts to “prove” God’s existence from the alleged fine-tuning of the universe? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. At lease be somewhat consistent.

This only appears to be a 180 because the atheist asking for “physical evidence” makes a presumption about what is entailed by “physical evidence.” It still boils down to conceptual warrant for thinking “physical evidence” has some kind of prime of place in the greater scheme of things. In the end “physical” is a conceptual category of things which only makes sense within a greater conceptual scheme.

What you take to be a ploy by the “apologist” to have his “cake and eat it to,” is merely a reminder by the apologist for the atheist not to overprice the share price he has in the “physical,” since the “physical” is merely “conceptual” to begin with and that “conceptual” is defined by limitations and even more so by further conceptual categories: time, space, energy and matter.

Why would I believe Jesus to be God incarnate? It is just a 2000 old story, without any corroborating evidence. Not even the contemporaries accepted this claim. Sheer mythology.

Apparently, the Big Bang is an even older story, also without any corroborating evidence since no “contemporaries” were around to corroborate that event, either. As I said, more mythology. As is everything you have or could possibly claim about reality. Which leaves us either denying everything or accepting the most plausible.

If you find that “evidence” unimpeachable, it only tells us about your requirements for sufficient or unimpeachable “evidence”.

Sure, except I am reasonably certain I can impeach your evidence or “requirements for sufficiency” with at least as much rigor and efficiency as you can impeach mine.

Believing is certainly an issue, the central one. Pretty much everyone believed in God’s existence before some apologists tried to “prove” it.

I am not sure what your point is here.

However, proving “God’s existence” is quite a different matter from explicating what “God’s existence” entails as far as the lives of human beings are concerned.

My guess is that all or most of the energy that atheists put into arguing against God’s existence is concerned (there is that word again) with demonstrating that God has no authority over their lives or how they should be lived.

This is why atheists like to depict God on the same level as a mythical and ineffectual FSM rather than the Ipsum Esse Existens of classical theism. An FSM would have no claim over our lives but if God is the Subsistent Act of Being Itself, God would by His very essence have authorship claims upon every human being.

I would guess this is why “everyone believed in God’s existence, before some apologists tried to ‘prove’ it.” We intuitively know at the core of our existence that there is “something more” to it.

 

[zyzz]

The fatal flaw in your argument is your restriction of evidence to sense data. Can you prove your mind, truth, freedom or justice exist? If so how? If not do you deny they exist?

You are playing fast and loose with the word “existence”. The “mind” is an activity, not an ontologically existing object. “Truth”, “freedom” and “justice” are concepts, not ontologically existing objects.

Each part of the physical reality has its own epistemological method to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”. You cannot use a litmus paper to measure magnetism or electricity. But the underlying epistemological method is the same: “observe, hypothesize, experiment, measure, compare the prediction to the result of the experiment”. For claims about the abstract sciences we have a set axioms, and if the proposition is the logical corollary of the axioms, then we accept it as true.

Just slow down for a second. How can you say if a proposition is true or false if you cannot compare it to reality… whatever kind of “reality” you are talking about. After all the propositions are about the reality… what else? I have no problem with your approach which does not wish to restrict the reality to the physical reality. You are most welcome to postulate a non-physical reality. I am not going to discard it out of hand. But you must be able to present your epistemological method which I can use and reach the same conclusion about your suggested true propositions. Use this for example: “every human, and only humans have an immortal soul”. Chew on it, present your epistemological method.

You are unable to use the sensory observation, since you deny that the soul can be observed. You are unable to use the axiomatic approach, since there are no axioms. What else is there?

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you keep saying that?
There’s tons of evidence that God exists.

Egg-zactly.

An ignorance of proofs for God’s existence is limned by those who, curiously, claim to reject these arguments.

 

[zyzz]

An ignorance of proofs for God’s existence is limned by those who, curiously, claim to reject these arguments.

You are mistaken. We are aware of the hundreds of proofs… some of them are collected here: Hundreds of proofs for God’s existence

1.TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2.COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

3.ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4.ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5.MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

… and hundreds more.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are playing fast and loose with the word “existence”. The “mind” is an activity, not an ontologically existing object. “Truth”, “freedom” and “justice” are concepts, not ontologically existing objects.

Does it not seem passing strange to you that when men go to war over truth, freedom, and justice, they are just going to war over things that do not really exist?

You are unable to use the sensory observation, since you deny that the soul can be observed. You are unable to use the axiomatic approach, since there are no axioms. What else is there?

Intuition.

You take it as axiomatic that mind is an activity rather than an ontologically existing thing. I take it as axiomatic that mind is an ontologically existing thing.

Why is your axiom superior to mine?

 

[zyzz]

Does it not seem passing strange to you that when men go to war over truth, freedom, and justice, they are just going to war over things that do not really exist?

That do not exist as ontological OBJECTS. They are important concepts, but do not exist independently from our mind. Don’t follow the trickery of tony. Existence does not equal physical existence.

Intuition.

Intuition is wonderful. But it is only the first step. Without some method to find out if your intuition corresponds to reality it is useless.

You take it as axiomatic that mind is an activity rather than an ontologically existing thing. I take it as axiomatic that mind is an ontologically existing thing.

Why is your axiom superior to mine?

Oh, no. There is nothing “axiomatic” about what I proposed. It is the result of many actual experiments , where it turned out that messing with the brain is messing with the mind, which proves that the mind is not an ontologically existing object. If you believe otherwise, set up a physical experiment which will support your assumption.

As I said to tony, I am not going to discard your proposition out of hand. I am willing to contemplate a non-physical and non-conceptual existence, but you need to bring up evidence for such “existence”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . .the result of many actual experiments , where it turned out that messing with the brain is messing with the mind, which proves that the mind is not an ontologically existing object. If you believe otherwise, set up a physical experiment which will support your assumption. . .

I must say that I rarely come across a more “mindless” argument.

To use words, classifications, or whatever term you might wish to chose to describe the realities, the concepts that move, direct, shape or organize neuronal processes in the cerebral cortex, to use them to argue that the sphere/dimension, the realm of thought that contains them, as the physical universe contains matter, that the structure that is the mind, does not exist - priceless nonsense.

 

[inocente]

You typically presume to speak AS IF Lemaitre was denying the Creation when he was merely denying the physical evidence of Creation, which his theory was implying without demonstrating. As Lemaitre said, it is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. But philosophy can be based upon empirical evidence as well.

Lemaitre was concerned that the Pope was putting him in the embarrassing position of having to conflate religion and science with his scientific colleagues, many of whom he knew to be atheists and agnostics who would have immediately set out to discredit the Big Bang. This is why he hot-footed it to the Vatican, because his theory was in danger of being repudiated by the Pope’s premature connecting of the science with the religion.

We know that decades later Carl Sagan, an atheist, unconsciously drew the same connection between science and religion AFTER the scientific proof came rolling in.

If that was so then the Pope and all other leaders would have proclaimed that science had proved Genesis. They have not. There is no scientific proof. If you still claim otherwise then link the peer reviewed research papers (not ID propaganda, not pulp paperbacks, not dilettante websites, but the actual source research papers please).

Imho it’s scientism to claim that the writer of Genesis is writing a scientific paper, as if he’s speaking of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm (aka light).

Imho it’s scientism to crave scientific approval for your beliefs.

Really Charles, turn away from this superficial fast-food interpretation of scripture. Take a bible study course, find the real meaning. Here, for instance, is Matthew Henry’s commentary:

“God said, Let there be light; he willed it, and at once there was light. Oh, the power of the word of God! And in the new creation, the first thing that is wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit works upon the will and affections by enlightening the understanding. Those who by sin were darkness, by grace become light in the Lord. Darkness would have been always upon fallen man, if the Son of God had not come and given us understanding, 1 John 5:20. The light which God willed, he approved of. God divided the light from the darkness; for what fellowship has light with darkness? In heaven there is perfect light, and no darkness at all; in hell, utter darkness, and no gleam of light. The day and the night are the Lord’s; let us use both to his honour, by working for him every day, and resting in him every night, meditating in his law both day and night.”

By the way, none of this is off topic since the purpose of this thread is to discuss why atheism might be absurd (it certainly does not ever converge with science) whether with respect to the Big Bang or Intelligent Design…

Yes, as I said to Peter, if you want to discuss it further, please start a new thread so that people not subscribing to this thread can contribute.

 

[inocente]

This isn’t the way the Apostle Paul saw it and I will accept Paul over your version any time.

In addition, the Church has condemned fideism as heretical in several Councils and Encyclicals.

Now you may think you know "…[t]hat seems to be how God wants it, even if you don’t. You want proof, God wants faith. God wins. Tough."

However, your “knowledge” the “God wants faith” relies on some kind of proof or other, for which you wrongly cite Lemaitre since what your claim is completely opposed to what the Church teaches despite your attempts at “proving” that it teaches what you suppose it does. It would, for certain, not make sense to have to “prove” that God wants faith when “proving” such a thing undermines your very desire to “prove” that faith discounts reason in the first place. Your position is, therefore, self-refuting and incoherent.

I guess we could read Paul as saying “For since the 1960’s God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by pseudo-science, so that American intelligent design fans are without excuse”, but he doesn’t say anything like that, does he?

Does the Church really rely on pseudo-scientific “proofs”? Don’t think so. Is the Church now a branch of the Discovery Institute? Don’t think so. Is it true that, to use your quote, “the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith” that your faith should depend on the latest fad? Don’t think so. Is scientism absurd? Yes.

But this is off-topic here and as I said before, if you want to discuss it further, please start a new thread so that people not subscribing to this thread can contribute.

 

[Rohzek]

Imho it’s scientism to claim that the writer of Genesis is writing a scientific paper, as if he’s speaking of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm (aka light).

Imho it’s scientism to crave scientific approval for your beliefs.

I guess we could read Paul as saying “For since the 1960’s God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by pseudo-science, so that American intelligent design fans are without excuse”, but he doesn’t say anything like that, does he?

Does the Church really rely on pseudo-scientific “proofs”? Don’t think so. Is the Church now a branch of the Discovery Institute? Don’t think so. Is it true that, to use your quote, “the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith” that your faith should depend on the latest fad? Don’t think so. Is scientism absurd? Yes.

Best posts in this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Best posts in this thread.

:ehh:

I suppose - if you have a special fondness in your heart for rhetorical flourishes that, in reality, say nothing and mean even less.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess we could read Paul as saying “For since the 1960’s God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by pseudo-science, so that American intelligent design fans are without excuse”, but he doesn’t say anything like that, does he?

Does the Church really rely on pseudo-scientific “proofs”? Don’t think so. Is the Church now a branch of the Discovery Institute? Don’t think so. Is it true that, to use your quote, “the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith” that your faith should depend on the latest fad? Don’t think so. Is scientism absurd? Yes.

But this is off-topic here and as I said before, if you want to discuss it further, please start a new thread so that people not subscribing to this thread can contribute.

How did we ever get from the Church’s condemnation of fideism to: THEREFORE, it is a branch of the Discovery Institute and espouses scientism?

Time to trot out your all-purpose rhetorical schtick to soundly beat off any sound reasoning before it threatens your faith, I suppose.

What is interesting is your unabashed willingness to use science to establish your cherished points of view on things but when anyone brings up science which presents a case opposite to your opinions you thrash them with your “faith” thing, as if your faith is sufficient to move mountains of established science - well, except when it doesn’t need to, i.e., when science upholds your position.

'Tis a cheap and tawdry mistress you keep in Science for your convenience, Master Inocente. You love to love her, but love turns to hate for her when you’ve had enough of her and can’t stand her sight. Then, it’s back to your true love, Faith.

Why not try faithfulness to the Truth? Much more stable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That do not exist as ontological OBJECTS. As I said to tony, I am not going to discard your proposition out of hand. I am willing to contemplate a non-physical and non-conceptual existence, but you need to bring up evidence for such “existence”.

Because you are a victim of scientism, there is no evidence that will convince you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Imho it’s scientism to claim that the writer of Genesis is writing a scientific paper, as if he’s speaking of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm (aka light).

Imho it’s scientism to crave scientific approval for your beliefs.

Really Charles, turn away from this superficial fast-food interpretation of scripture. Take a bible study course, find the real meaning. Here, for instance, is Matthew Henry’s commentary:

The notion that the Bible and science cannot converge on truth at any point is truly wicked. Your notion that the Bible is being offered as a scientific paper is also wicked.
Why are you being so wicked today?

“True science discovers God in an ever-increasing degree — as though God were waiting behind every door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 November 1951

 

[Peter_Plato]

Imho it’s scientism to crave scientific approval for your beliefs.

Let’s dismantle this claim, shall we?

So you are basically claiming doing science at all is “scientism” at its core because science is, after all, obtaining the assurance (or approval) of the formal methods of science for any proposed hypothesis (a held belief.)

Science is, therefore, useless because…

…what?

Faith answers all questions?

I would suppose Aristotle, Aquinas and scientists, generally, have a much deeper and more profound solution, ITHO.

God has created an integrally consistent universe that can be understood. Genesis a provides a poetic glimpse into that universe, but science can get into the nuts and bolts. It is, in fact, the complexity, integrity and consistency of the universe that is evidence of the handiwork of God. The more science grasps the real workings of the universe, the more it comes to know that God is necessary.

If God exists and he created the universe, then real and authentic science will not be inconsistent with religious beliefs, but will rather corroborate and augment them. If the findings of science are inconsistent with religious beliefs, then either the science is shoddy and wrong or your beliefs are. Ergo, there is no reason for religious beliefs not to seek corroboration in science. It keeps BOTH one’s science and one’s religious beliefs honest.

Now, depending upon what you mean by “crave scientific approval,” this could be merely a trite and meaningless statement, i.e., if “crave” is the emphasis, or plainly wrong because scientific approval is important if the science is done properly.

If “scientific approval” is of no importance, then why do science at all?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The notion that the Bible and science cannot converge on truth at any point is truly wicked. Your notion that the Bible is being offered as a scientific paper is also wicked.
Why are you being so wicked today?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does the Church really rely on pseudo-scientific “proofs”? Don’t think so. Is the Church now a branch of the Discovery Institute? Don’t think so. Is it true that, to use your quote, “the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith” that your faith should depend on the latest fad? Don’t think so. Is scientism absurd? Yes.

I suppose that your presumption here is that your faith can never be subject to elements of faddishness.

I would think that in the past – given that for a sola scriptura guy, personal interpretations of Scripture have priority and precedence, and given that human beings are subject to outbreaks of “fad” – that faith has often, in fact, been swept away by “the latest fad.” Ergo, science can serve to temper those bouts of chasing fads that even such hard rock “faith,” given to personal interpretation and caprice, might succumb.

Now, Catholics, you see, are not as easily taken in by personal capriciousness, grounded as they are on the Church and the Magisterium, but, even there, the Church has not ruled on every dot and tittle because she admits everything is not clearly understood while we reside in this vale of tears. In fact, she has many times in the past permitted good science to be a catalyst for the reinterpretation of aspects of Scripture and revelation which were not well understood or clear.

Science is a tool, you see. A useful tool for the right purposes, but not a universal tool for every purpose under heaven. On the other hand, faith is not, at all, a tool for knowing reality, it is a virtue – a supernatural virtue, at that. It is, determinably, revelation, not faith, that tells us about the things we cannot discover by science, but revelation still requires logic to unpack what follows from those revealed truths. And revealed truths (and the implications that follow) will never contradict what good science tells us. However, at times, holding them at arms’ length, side by side, does permit us to know if we are on the right track with either.

In other words, your claim that “it’s scientism to crave scientific approval for your beliefs” is pure, empty rhetoric.