How is it self-refuting? And how do you explain why, if it is self-refuting, it is still so popularly believed and defended by many as if it were a religious doctrine?
Scientism proposes that knowledge can only be gained through the scientific (or more broadly, the empirical) method, or - in a weaker sense - through science and logic. However, the proposition: that knowledge can only be gained through the scientific (empirical) method and logic itself cannot be known through either the scientific method or logic, and consequently scientism is self-refuting.
Precisely. You would have to set up some kind of scientific experiment whereby you get outside of science so-to-speak to see how it matches up against some other empirical method. Obviously this is impossible under scientism. One may make the case that science has uncovered a lot of truths of the material world effectively but this does not justify science empirically. You would be essentially arguing in a vicious circle since you’d be saying that science can reliably determine what’s true and we know that something is true because science proved it. If science is valid (and I believe it is), then it is founded on non-scientific rational arguments and premises, so the claim of scientism that all knowledge is scientific is obviously false.
Agreed. I think that’s because “scientism” isn’t actually espoused by many philosophers these days, but scientists-cum-philosophers (i.e. bad philosophers).
Well for one anyone who believes in “scientism” would belly laugh hearing it described as an “Ism”, simply because it lacks many of the qualities that define a belief as an “ism” (these primarily being but not exclusively a central scriptural text, acknowledgement of the supernatural, a core statement of faith and a divine figure(s) ).
How would this play out with many people who think like Richard Dawkins, who sees in the theory of evolution a reason to draw away from God’s truth, rather than toward it?
Because Dawkins only represents one side of this movement, that is the extremist (dare I even say fundamentalist) side of Atheism.How would this play out with many people who think like Richard Dawkins, who sees in the theory of evolution a reason to draw away from God’s truth, rather than toward it?
In other words, there is no truth that can be truthfully known outside the scientific reality?
That’s because Dawkins, like most modern scientists and philosophers, have thrown Aristotle’s formal and final causes out the window. So he sees evolution as something that can explain how life arose with no purpose involved. But that view is misguided in my opinion because purpose permeates all of life. Just go and look up the discussion surrounding DNA and you’ll find terms like “information” and “programming,” words that obviously point towards some final end. Sure, most of it is not conscious purpose but it has purpose nonetheless. If anything, evolution confirms the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas.How would this play out with many people who think like Richard Dawkins, who sees in the theory of evolution a reason to draw away from God’s truth, rather than toward it?
I disagree. Positivism is generally confined to analytic philosophy, not continental philosophy. Hegel is usually connected with continental philosophy.
These are interesting but rather extreme views on science and God. "Only the righteous can see…Hmmmmm. Then you go into truth. Remember, science does not seek truth, that is for philosophy and religion. Science seeks fact or a workable theory that, while not proved in the strictest sense, answers the question.
Indeed. Even more interesting, the scientism type atheists usually interpret the Bible like a Fundamentalist does (and blames everyone with a sensible interpretation of Scripture of cherry picking), and they in many ways treat science as a Fundamentalist treats the Bible. Their mindsets are very much alike.
I have never heard a scientist say he is not seeking truth. Can you name one, and offer a quote?