Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



7/28/2017 11:56 pm  #1


Apologetically how do you refute scientistism?

I know plenty of self-proclaimed adherents of scientism. What's the best way to refute their doctinaire assumptions? I'm looking for a concise way, something I could easily use in conversation.

Last edited by RomanJoe (7/29/2017 12:52 am)

 

7/29/2017 10:28 am  #2


Re: Apologetically how do you refute scientistism?

A common response is "What scientific evidence is there that scientism is itself true?". It is obvious that scientism is not the kind of belief that can be supported by the scientific method. The whole idea that "you can't believe anything without scientific evidence" soaks into people's minds as an unquestioned zinger to use against religious people, not as a reasoned point of view, and no one consistently lives by it. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear that there are any "self-proclaimed adherents of scientism". Atheism may be simply incorrect, but scientism is incoherent.

Feser has a far more detailed refutation at the opening of Scholastic Metaphysics, specifically arguing for the necessity of metaphysics to analyse the realities presupposed by the scientific method, but for the purpose of denying scientism you only need to point out that it destroys itself.

 

7/29/2017 11:40 am  #3


Re: Apologetically how do you refute scientistism?

Alexander wrote:

A common response is "What scientific evidence is there that scientism is itself true?". It is obvious that scientism is not the kind of belief that can be supported by the scientific method. The whole idea that "you can't believe anything without scientific evidence" soaks into people's minds as an unquestioned zinger to use against religious people, not as a reasoned point of view, and no one consistently lives by it. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear that there are any "self-proclaimed adherents of scientism". Atheism may be simply incorrect, but scientism is incoherent.

Feser has a far more detailed refutation at the opening of Scholastic Metaphysics, specifically arguing for the necessity of metaphysics to analyse the realities presupposed by the scientific method, but for the purpose of denying scientism you only need to point out that it destroys itself.

Good point. Scientism is a philosophical assumption--there is no litmus test, no distillation of a chemical agent, that objectively proclaims the primacy of the scientific method.

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum