One of the silly characteristics of our age is the credulous and naive veneration of science. It has led to the emergence of what we call scientism–faith in science as the ultimate source of truth and wisdom. This faith is pervasive. How many social issues or ethical questions are falsely claimed to be resolved by the magisterium of “scientists say . . . “, or “science tells us . . . “? Consider the insinuation of “science” into the humanities: social “science”; political “science”; anthropological “science”; and “scientific” pedagogy, to name but a few. Recall how global warming propagandists have tried to pull a swift one by asserting, “the science is settled” by which is meant that infallible truth has been discovered, and that all must now stop debating, stop questioning. Reflect on how politicians crave “scientific” warrant for crazy schemes. Consider how the adjective “unscientific” is used to bludgeon the views of opponents. It is the ultimate evisceration of an opponent’s argument.
How did it come to this? Whilst not alone, probably the most influential protagonist in the English speaking realm for “science” and the “scientification” of all of life has been John Dewey. He moved things along a bit from the first phase of the Enlightenment which had held to the idea that Nature was governed by a collage of immutable laws. Darwin had taught Dewey and his contemporaries otherwise. Darwin and his popularizers had “convinced” the West that Nature was not fixed, but was changing; mankind, therefore, could not be said to have an immutable nature. Mankind was now seen as also changing and developing.
But, reasoned Dewey, this opened up the opportunity for mankind to seize the day. Mankind had become so advanced and developed that he could now take charge of and manage his own evolutionary development. “Following Bacon’s prescription, the power to manipulate nature with a view to human purposes had been exercised to remarkable effect. But the [old] belief in a fixed human nature meant that the power unleashed by science had not yet been applied in a thorough fashion to our essentially plastic human nature and political society.” (J. Judd Owen, Religion and the Demise of Liberal Rationalism: The Foundational Crisis of the Separation of Church and State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p.19) If the scientific method were applied to humanity, we would be able to take effective charge of our evolutionary development. Humanity would therefore progress more effectively and more quickly.
Here is Dewey, writing in 1931:
The entrenched and stubborn institutions of the past stand in the way of our thinking scientifically about human relations and social issues. Our mental habits in these respects are dominated by institutions of family, state, church, and business that were formed long before men had an effective technique of inquiry and validation. It is this condition from which we suffer today. Disaster follows in its wake. (Cited by Owen, ibid, p.21)
Note the radical nature of the claims here. We must, says Dewey learn to think scientifically about human relations and social issues. Science alone has an effective technique of “inquiry and validation”; the verities of the past (family, church, state) are relics. If we continue to resist the “sciencing” of society, we will face disaster. He means by this that we will not be able to take control of our development–which opens up the possibility, if not probability, that mankind will self-extinguish, proving unfit to survive. Because Nature is evolving, old verities are worthless.
Dewey went on to assert that the Great Scientific Revolution was still awaiting. We ain’t seen nothing, yet.
In spite, then, of all the record of the past, the great scientific revolution is still to come. It will ensue when men collectively organize their knowledge for application to achieve and make secure social values; when they systematically use scientific procedures for the control of human relationships and the direction of the social effects of our vast technological machinery. (Ibid, p.22)
The hard, natural sciences had allowed man to understand and then to control and exploit nature to his own advantage. Dewey says the same rigorous methodology, when applied to humanity and society will allow us to “secure” social values (picking out the best from the emergent changing value grid); then controlling human relationships and setting the direction of society. “Science” will enable humanity to take control of its own destiny; control its own evolutionary development.
Two postulates immediately follow: “science” must be elevated into a quasi-infallible status, which explains why scientism is an intrinsic part of the new idolatry. The ultimate answer to all public and human problems becomes, What does “science” tell us? or, What is the scientific approach? Secondly, science must control humanity–which is to say that a power nexus of science-government must be formed to order everything, which helps explain the relentless expansion of state powers in the twentieth century to “make things right”.
The natural law theorists of the early Enlightenment elevated natural law to the place of God. This meant that mankind was subject to the natural order and could only succeed as he worked in accordance with natural law or “the way the world worked”. As Rushdoony has astutely pointed out, the climate of the early Enlightenment, therefore, meant that
man’s attitude is one of laissez-faire; there must be no interference with nature’s laws and controls. Planning was thus transferred from God to nature. R. J. Rushdoony, The Biblical Philosophy of History (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1974), p.7.
This is why the early phases of the Enlightenment produced classical liberalism, mercantilism, modern libertarianism, and conservatism. All of these political philosophies have in common a view of limited government, and “hands off” the natural order. You can be comfortable with such a view if you believe (as virtually everyone did back then) that Nature runs itself; to interfere is to mess things up.
But Darwinism destroyed this idolatrous faith in Nature–only to replace it with a more destructive idolatry. Nature was changing and evolving–and none too efficiently, since many faux adaptations did not survive. Dewey’s morphing of “science” into systematic and rigorous analysis enabling man to secure the right path through the wasteful evolutionary mess of discarded failures provided a welcome introduction to Phase Two of the Enlightenment. Mankind was no longer to be controlled by the laws of Nature, but would take control of his own evolutionary destiny through rigorous application of the scientific method to human nature and society itself. And if you, dear reader, are responding to this with a reflexive, “of course” you betray the depths of your seduction to Dewey’s idolatry.
Note how the shape of the idol has changed. In the first phase of the Enlightenment, the idol was Mother Nature. In the second phase–the beliefs of which still remain regnant in the hearts and lives of many–the shape of the idol is Father State. Rushdoony again:
Nature as the agency of predestination was gone. It became increasingly evident to naturalistic thinkers that man must control his own evolution and also control the evolution of plant and animal life. Moreover, man must create and control his own social order, so that total statism, total socialism is “scientific socialism” . . . . Socialism, statist education, mental health programmes, social security, and a variety of other statist programs provide the framework for man’s growing attempt to claim the power of predestination for himself. Man seeks in short to become his own savior and god. (Ibid, p.7-8)
“Nature as god” gave Unbelieving man room to flex his muscles and preen. “Government as god” reduced Unbelieving man to the indignity of progressive enslavement. The Autonomous Man of one generation is followed by Enslaved Man in the next.
One of the signatures indicating we live in an era of progressive enslavement is the ubiquitous invocation of “science” in the public square; our inundation by surveys, polling, and statistical “research”; and the craven credulity of the majority when it comes to science.
There is an irony in all this “fetishicizing” of pseudo-science, which at root is driven by a false religion. Precisely at the time when scientism has come to ascendency, hard science finds itself stumped and having to learn to live within its own creaturely limitations. The material realm is proving so irreducibly complex and mysterious that science is reduced to description and story telling, rather than comprehension or understanding.
There was a time when competent Unbelieving rationalistic scientists used to ridicule Christians because there was so much that Christians could not explain about God and the teachings of Scripture. Antinomy and paradox at the foundations of Belief were mocked as sure evidence of irrationality and fideism. Now, serious scientists are laughing no longer. The history of hard science in the twentieth century is one of discovering antinomy and paradox at every turn–in matter itself. Sub-atomic physicists are now “content” to describe the properties and functions of atomic particles in contradictory ways and accept that all “work” but cannot explain them or reconcile them or understand them.
Stephen Prickett writes:
It was, however, quantum theory that was to change the nature of description so radically as to prevent any return to the relative certainties of the nineteenth century. The problem presented by the new physics was not so much the bizarre behaviour of matter at the level of sub-atomic particles, but that it made description–whether verbal or mathematical–a crucial part of that behaviour. The effectiveness of the theory in terms of its powers of prediction has never been in question. Indeed, it has permitted a level of experimental precision unprecedented in science, and no known experiment has ever contradicted the predictions of quantum mechanics in the last fifty years. Stephen Prickett, Narrative, Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.243. Emphasis, author’s.
So, what’s the problem. The problem is that the theory describes matter operating in a way which is physically impossible–“that Newtonian physics and commonsense would hold to be absolutely incapable of mixing with each other. For example, an electron can be in a state that is a mixture of ‘here’ and ‘there’. . . . This counterintuitive principle just had to be accepted as an article of quantum faith.” (John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics and Theology, [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007], p.18.) Physicist Richard Feynman says, “We cannot make the mystery go away by ‘explaining’ how it works. We will just tell you how it works.” (Ibid., p.19) And again,
Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. (Prickett, op cit., p. 245)
For Dewey, science was a metaphor for man taking control of his own destiny, for asserting his sovereignty and control over himself. His legacy is deep and long lasting because he has a pitch-perfect appeal to Unbelief which is driven to assert the autonomy and sovereignty of Man. But it is an illusion. Its enticements and blandishments have led the West to the kind of house once discovered by Hansel and Gretel. Subjugation and progressive enslavement is our fate.
The Christian response to this nonsense is to proclaim the mysteries of God. We do not presume to explain God to the world. We just tell Unbelief Who He is and how He works. His truth sets us free.
Cross posted at ContraCelsum
Tags: J Judd Owen · John Dewey · R J Rushdoony · Science and Religion · Scientism · Stephen Prickett138 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
“The Christian response to this nonsense is to proclaim the mysteries of God.” You’ve gotta like playing the handy dandy mystery card.
“Some day I would love to see a list of questions that science can’t answer but other methods of inquiry can — especially religion. So far, despite loud and frequent denunciations of “scientism,” I’ve never seen anything resembling that list”. Jerry Coyne.
1. Who am I
2. Why am I here
3. Where am I going
etc.
Questions of identity, meaning, and destiny are by definition beyond the aegis of naturalistic science. They may be a motivation for doing science, but they are not a part of the methodology or philosophy of the natural sciences.
Coyne’s confidence that science can answer all questions is a typical symptom of scientism.
Typical dishonest trick ropata. Religion cannot answer the questions on your list – or any others, really.
But you think that by claiming science can’t you can win that argument by default. How silly! Your assertion “Coyne’s confidence that science can answer all questions is a typical symptom of scientism” is just wrong. Coyne asserted nothing of the sort.
If you think religion can answer such questions – go ahead and justify that and do the answering. Leave science out of it.
Come on then.
Ropata,
1. Who are you?
2. Why are you here?
3. Where are you going?
And, 4. How did you get this information?
Divine revelation? Really? And why is this particular divine revelation better than anyone else’s divine revelation? Can you test it against the real world for accuracy? Oh really? So let’s come up with some useful tools for testing hypotheses against the real world. Let’s give it a name. How about something like ‘science’?
You guys miss the point, which is the appeal to mystery and so forth has its own analogue in the sciences. For example the “we haven’t found a solution but we have faith science will” or that “yes science has repeatedly been wrong in the past thats its great strength” or physical theories which appear contradictory but are accepted because it works, or theories which contain anomalies but which are accepted because of their overall predictive power and so on. All things which would be dismissed as sophistry if done by theologians.
Can I accept the trinity as an anamoly and apparent contradiction because its part of a good theory. Can I look back at the false theories theologians have held to (like Polemiac views) and claim “thats its real strength”? I doubt it.
.
“One of the silly characteristics of our age is the credulous and naive veneration of science.”
Ah yes, this reminds me of something Slavoj Žižek said about the idea of “culture” being “the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them” today, in late modernity that is. So, for example, you have nonbelieving Jews obeying kosher rules “out of respect for tradition”. The typical thing that is said is, “I don’t really believe in it, it’s just part of my culture”. And, as Žižek puts it, “Is this not also why science is not part of this notion of culture – they dare to take their beliefs seriously.”
The conclusion of your article descends, however, far too rapidly into mysticism. Hume pointed out more than two centuries ago that uncertainty is inevitable in empirical matters. Any scientist who appreciates this inherent limitation of scientific methodology won’t be deluded into thinking he or she can “master” the world any more than he or she will resort to some obscurantist (non-)explanation. Science considered as also a part of culture should be well aware of both its advantages and its limitations.
Woland, yeah the argument that theology does not give us information science can’t because the information it gives is not determined by science is a really compelling argument.
Try not reasoning in circles
No Matt – you misrepresent us;
1: “we haven’t found a solution but we have faith science will”. We are very conscious that there may well be limits to the ability of humanity to discover and understand reality. These may be technological, they may be limitations of the human mental ability. But only an idiot would ring fence part of reality and say this is beyond our comprehension. That is out of bounds. (Yes there are idiots who do say that).
We may not be able to understand parts of reality. We may never be able to understand them. We are quite prepared to say “I don’t know!” But we usually follow that with “Let’s find out!” And we do the best we can.
2: “yes science has repeatedly been wrong in the past thats its great strength” – this demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of scientific epistemology. Scientific knowledge is always relative, incomplete. It develops, changes, improves with new information.
Well established science is not “wrong” – it is incomplete. We build on it. (Of course untested scientific ideas and hypotheses, speculations may well be wrong – they often are. But that is true of all human ideas – at least we have the humility to realise that and to set about checking against reality.)
3: “theories which contain anomalies but which are accepted because of their overall predictive power and so on” – of course, we know that. That is why we don’t claim absolute knowledge. That is why we are always working to replace our theories with more complete theories.
But the important thing in all this is that science works to improve its knowledge using logical reasoning and empirical evidence. And checking against reality.
The method of “absolute faith” has no place.
That is why the scientific method is very successful and why the theological method is very unsuccessful.
And I guess the childish motive for this blog post is jealousy about that fact.
But no amount of name calling will change that fact.
Scientism Takes a Well Deserved Beating…
…a genuinely engaging and well deserved hacking into pieces of the Agag of scientism in our post-postmodern period. You’ll enjoy the whole thing – which I enthusiastically commend to your attention….
Yo Ken, havent seen you around for a while.
“And I guess the childish motive for this blog post is jealousy about that fact.
But no amount of name calling will change that fact.”
I’m just wondering , do you not see anything ever so slightly hypocritical about following the first statement in the quote above with the second?
This article is little more than verbal masturbation.
What is the scientific method? What does it seek to understand using what methods?
I am stupider after reading “We just tell Unbelief Who He is and how He works. His truth sets us free.” This loaded stupidity should be illegal as it might reduce people’s IQs to a point that makes them non-functional ““Nature as god” gave Unbelieving man room to flex his muscles and preen.”
You can dress anti-intellectualism up in big words (or capitalize pronouns!), and those big words can sometimes be dressed in arguments that appear in the area code (barely) of rationality; however, this tripe fails badly.
I’m willing to bet my reputation that the author of this post has never been trained scientifically and does not know what much modern science proposes outside of his strawmen, and if you asked him what methodological naturalism was you would get a blank bovine stare–apologists continue to show their ignorance by trying to confuse methodological naturalism as a ‘philosophy’ and it’s simply an easy way to identify someone that does not know what they are speaking of. If you pressed further, “Yes, but what are the means of making hypotheses, testing them empirically, and trying to formulate theories that account for the natural phenomena and observable data…” Well, I’m not sure how he would respond, but I despair that it would be a philosophical misrepresentation and another straw man.
*head–>desk*
Ken,
1. begs the question, you respond by saying “. But only an idiot would ring fence part of reality and say this is beyond our comprehension.” But that was not the question, the question was wether there are some thing science can’t find out. Of course if you assume that science is the only way of comprehending reality, then your comment addresses the question. But that’s precisely whats being disputed. Circular arguments are invalid.
2. Is essentially spin you decide to refer to past failures of science not as being “wrong” but incomplete. Sorry when you make a claim that reality is X and it turns out that reality is not X you are wrong. Calling it nice soothing names does not change things. Moreover, as you well know the idea that the history of science progresses in the way you suggest is a controversial historical thesis. Trying to make science immune from criticism by declaring those who don’t share your opinion as ignorant or not really understanding scientific epistemology is more spin. To disprove a claim you need to offer evidence against it and argue against it. Simply using nice terms to describe yours and attacking the intellectual integrity of those who disagree is politics, and rhetoric
3. Essentially repeats back the point I made using nice language, scientists accept contradictory theories because they have faith their method will solve it. ( essentially what you say)
In the end you resort to name calling and impungning motives, text book logical fallacies. Which again shows the high rhetoric and little substance involved.
Scott are you a comedian, I see a comment which complains a post is “verbal masturbation” and not rigorously scientific. Yet the entire comment is a string of insults, character assanation and ad homein arguments.
Are you trying to be ironic or are you just confused?
Well established science is not “wrong”
What, like general relativity and quantum mechanics? They contradict each other but both are established science, and as we know, “established science is not wrong” so both contradictory theories must be true.
Jeremy“And I guess the childish motive for this blog post is jealousy about that fact.
But no amount of name calling will change that fact.”
Jeremy that’s not a contradiction, its just an anomaly, Ken’s ideas are incomplete, that’s their great strength, so shut up and stop being childish and don’t insult people either.
Matt,
When somebody writes something that misrepresents their subject, fundamentally, it is not ad hominem to point that out. Perhaps an overreaction on my part; just really, really tired of Christian pleas for anti-intellectualism, and anti-science attitudes dressed up as ‘faith’.
And I still guess I wouldn’t be wrong about the training. An analogy: I live in Canada, and when I see someone skating poorly it is not an ad hominem attack to point out their poor skating skills. Neither do I feel it is an ad hominem attack when I see someone misrepresent methodological naturalism.
Scott, sorry but yes it is, ad hominen occurs when instead of responding to the argument, that is addressing the premises, or the logical form of the inference, one attacks the persons character credibility, motives etc. Wether the attack is asserts truth or falsity makes not difference, it still does not address the argument.
I have studied the debate around methodological naturalism and your comments are not true. I know of distinguished epistemologists who have questioned methodological naturalism. I also know many of the epistemological arguments proposed for it and they are often quite bad, so resorting to name calling, and calling others anti intellectual really does not cut it.
Interesting double standard. Saying an argument is anti-intellectual “doesn’t cut it,” but you can say, “so shut up and stop being childish”. I’d say something about being hypocritical but then you’d probably tell me to shut my ad hominem pie-hole! (Really, I’m just kind of taking the mick here with some hyperbolic language, but you are guilty of your own accusation)
If you read my statement with any sympathy, other than what you have displayed for myself and those who have disagreed with the author of this post, it was more, “I can tell you misunderstand the issue” (you mentioned epistemology: yes people can misunderstand issues, especially ones they are unfamiliar with) than “You’re an idiot so your argument is invalid.”
“I have studied the debate around methodological naturalism and your comments are not true.” Yes, clearly science has failed, and we should go back to a geocentric universe and praying to Dr. Jesus instead of taking medicine.
Good argument.
but you are guilty of your own accusation err No I was being sarcastic, I think others got that.
(you mentioned epistemology: yes people can misunderstand issues, especially ones they are unfamiliar with)
This assumes that methodological naturalism is not an epistemological issue. I clearly is, it’s a question of what epistemological method science should use. In fact its far more plausible to suggest that scientists are not qualified to address the epistemological questions of what counts as a correct or rational method. Scientists use a method, a meta discipline like epistemology argue about the method.
Yes, clearly science has failed, and we should go back to a geocentric universe and praying to Dr. Jesus instead of taking medicine. This kind of insulting caricature instead of actually addressing the arguments tends to reinforce my point. Perhaps when scientists want to engage in philosophical discussions on the science religion issue they should actually offer arguments.
Arguments such as ‘germ theory’ the cornerstone of modern medicine? Arguments such as a heliocentric universe? Arguments such as the size and shape of our galaxy? The age of our universe? Physics? Geology? Biology?
You mean the sort of arguments that begin with a hypothesis, move onto testing and empirical data, and then finish with a theory that explains the natural phenomena that are observable, repeatable, and sustainable by peer-review?
Those sort of arguments?
Yep, it’s a good thing they haven’t been making those sort of arguments!
(And for someone claiming sarcasm, you certainly have a hard time recognizing it!)
Jeremy – there is a difference. Childish describes the level of writing in the post. It is naive and extremely biased.
Name calling describes use of the term “scientism.”it is generally used as a derogatory term and incorrectly. In this case it reveals an emotional level quite inappropriate for the topic. Jealousy could be one explanation.
Scott there is a difference between sarcasm and misrepresenting other peoples arguments.
Ken, both Glenn and I have refuted your claim about scientism before and both of us has shown definitions of it. So stop repeating things you know are false.
Science really is the greatest threat to Christianity (well, that and actually exposing yourself to other religions). It’s totally understandable that the very thought of it provokes an allergic reaction in so many Christians. It’s no coincidence that Christians are woefully over-represented in their opposition to well-established facts such as our common ancestry with other animals.
Some Christians deal with their massive cognitive dissonance by accusing these troublesome practitioners of the search for truth we call ‘science’ as being guilty of a ‘false religion’ of ‘scientism’. Hey, do whatever it takes to block those nagging doubts. Push down that cognitive dissonance. Cling to your ‘mysteries’. After all, you’re going to *heaven*! Isn’t that exciting now? Won’t it be just *brilliant* when those scientists burn in hell because they’re just so mean and wrong? (Cognitive dissonance neatly quelled)
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
– Carl Sagan
Yes Murph like relativity and QM. But you should check with your god about your sin of misrepresentation by omission.
Both relativity and QM work extremely well in the spheres they are meant to operate. It’s where they overlap we have problems and we are extremely aware of that. This is the reason why we have so much interest in developing a theory of quantum gravity which will cover both spheres.
There are a couple of candidates in well formulated inferences like “string theory” and “loop gravity.” These await empirical validation (yes I know – a strange term for you theological types. You don’t worry about such matters – preferring just to declare things “as true”).
Maybe we will never produce a proper scientific theory encompassing QM and relativity. We may well have reached the limit of our possibilities (and scientists in this area do discuss such problems). Personally I think it’s too early to give up.
Now let me know how religion is going to solve that problem. Another declaration or papal statement perhaps? Completely useless.
Come on Christians, you can’t keep carrying on with this silly assumption that there is only two belief systems to argue over here. This debate is bigger that only being about science V Christainty. Please remember that there are many other cultures who have their own creations myths; Australian Aboriginals, NZ Maoris, Scientologists, Hindus and even my personal heros the postmodern relativists have an opinion on this topic! Expand your minds!
“Mankind was no longer to be controlled by the laws of Nature, but would take control of his own evolutionary destiny through rigorous application of the scientific method to human nature and society itself”
Yeah, bring on transhumanism!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny Richard P I don’t recall saying that no other cultures had creation myths or there were only two views, perhaps you can point to where this claim was made.
Yo Richard P
Postmodern relativists? an opinion? just one? I would have thought at least one opinion for each postmodern relativist.
Ken, I don’t recall anyone claiming Theology could solve the problem of how to relate GR to QM. I do however note someone pointing out that well esthablished theories appear incompatible.
Your comment is again a response “well we are working on it”.
So next time someone claims that say evil is incompatible with Gods existence, I’ll tell you we are working on it, and have some ideas none of which is satisfactory. I take it the secular community will accept this as a satisfactory answer?
True Jeremy, very true.
@ Rich P
transhumanism, time for another back-up and reboot, wouldnt want a storage failure.
When the papacy condemned heliocentricism that showed there theology was incomplete, with testing and so forth they changed there mind, this evidence that theology is really rigorous. I am sure that line of argument will be accepted by the secular community.
Woland, like most people who assert that science and Christianity are incompatible. You simply assert it, you offer no argument, you just state it and then accuse others who deny it of cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but that really does not establish anything.
This is becoming a common thread in here.
Scott for example take the argument you gave above about testing and so forth. That argument was subject to critique here: http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf.
This was published some time ago, so hearing scientists repeat the same argument, without actually responding to the critique and then using insults and ridicule instead of reason really only calls into question there own academic competence.
JT, I enjoyed this when I read it over at your blog. I have been thinking recently about the effect of philosophy on science. Unfortunately my knowledge of the history of science in the 19th and 20th contury needs bringing up to speed, but I am interested in exploring if anti-Christian thinking had influence on the harder sciences like physics, and even maths.
I have heard it said that Einstein preferred the Theory of Invariance (speed of light constant) but Relativity was chosen? I do note metaphysical equivocation on Relativity has been subsequently useful to the moral relativists.
Quantum mechanics has its own philosophical problems which I blogged on recently. If scientific methodology is predicated on causality and quantum physics refutes causality (possibly?) then we have a logical contradiction.
Matt, what exactly is wrong with us “working in it.”? The theological alternative of simply declaring a prejudice as “true” and popes as infallible is arrogant rubbish. To honestly say we don’t know, our knowledge is incomplete and where there are problems let’s work on it is the approachiif humilit, of honesty. And it works.
You are attacking the very thing in science which has enabled you to live a comfortable life based on humanity’s provisional and ever improving scientific knowledge. The arrogance if theology has never produced anything similar.
Ken, the argument cannot be valid when used by a scientist and invalid when used by a theologian.
And caricaturing theology ( as well as the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility) by engaging in name calling does not change the logic of the situation.
if scientists are allowed to claim that repeated mistakes in the past validate there method, then those same scientists cannot criticise theology as unreliable because of mistakes it made in the past. If scientists are allowed to hold to apparently contradictory thesis’s because they are “working on it” they can’t criticise theological doctrines which they contend appear incoherent if theologians are “working on it”.
You are attacking the very thing in science which has enabled you to live a comfortable life based on humanity’s provisional and ever improving scientific knowledge.
This is perfectly compatible with anti-realist notions of science or even the idea that science is mistaken frequently, lots of technology was developed in previous ages when they had mistaken scientific views. In fact the “its true because it works argument”
The arrogance if theology has never produced anything similar. When you have evidence other than assertion and caricature let me know, I suggest to you that theology has in fact given millions of people “comfort” which QM never could.
Matt writes: But that was not the question, the question was wether there are some thing science can’t find out.
He also writes: I don’t recall anyone claiming Theology could solve the problem of how to relate GR to QM
Notice how he deftly avoids answering the call by Coyne in the first post on this thread. Matt offers no suggestion as to how his chosen flavor of religion answers any question better than the scientific method. This parallels the fact that he also won’t be able to answer this one (another favorite of Coyne’s): If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today?
Matt writes: I suggest to you that theology has in fact given millions of people “comfort” which QM never could.
Good point. Astrology, homeopathy and Mormonism provide comfort to millions as well.
TAM, I already responded to Coyne with a list of questions that science does not address. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is prime example of questions particular to religious faith.
It is worth noting that the OP is an attack on the philosophy of scientISM (aka. atheism in another guise) not science itself. Quite an important distinction which many objectors have failed to recognise.
For myself at least science is not the foe, but (as philosophers such as Zizek or John Ralston Saul recognise) it is the rhetoric of mutually hostile extremes that cause wide misunderstanding of the historically fruitful relationship between religion and science.
ropata, you’r ignoring the second part of Coyne’s challenge. He didn’t just ask for questions that science can’t answer, he asked for questions that science can’t answer but other methods of inquiry can.
When we shine the light on this issue, about all theists are saying is that there are questions that science can’t answer (I would say hasn’t yet answered but may in the future) and which they choose to answer by relying on answers contained in ancient scriptures and personal “revelation”. That is all fine but, once again, show me why your flavor of religion is any more reliable than the countless other religions that have existed throughout history.
I don’t often reproduce comments from threads which I find on other cites but I can resist this one left by articulett on Debunking Christianity:
I can’t prove your theology is incoherent to you anymore than you could prove to a Scientologist that his theology is incoherent to him. But the fact that you guys don’t agree pretty much makes my case for me. I just see no reason to think you (or anyone) knows anything about things that cannot be substantiated to exist like gods, souls, demons, hell, heaven, angels, “sin” , and whatever else you go on and on trying to justify believing in. To me, you may as well be having a serious conversation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or what color are the immaterial buttons on the emperor’s new clothes.
I was raised Catholic; I thought it was creepy…. I did my best to make sense of it, and I came to the conclusion that believers in the bible were fooling themselves just as believers in the Book of Mormon were… and that if there was ever any actual evidence for gods or souls, scientists would be refining that information for everyone’s benefit and we wouldn’t need t listen to a bunch of blowhards trying to use the same manipulations on us that their indoctrinators used on them to get them to believe a bunch of crappy old myths that make no sense.
I am more moral than the invisible immaterial god you worship. Putting me down cannot make up for the fact that your god is imaginary– just like everybody else’s. If you need to believe to be more moral, then please do so. The rest of us (including my dog) manage to behave morally without the threat of sky daddy or the promise that we will live happily ever after if we believe the right unbelievable story.
….. But I can’t take any of this theology seriously– to me, it would be like going back and trying to believe in Santa again. Your defense on the problem of evil just reminds me of a bunch of guys defending Darth Vader or something. You sound like the Scientologist I linked in another thread posting on the ex-Scientologist site. You speak like this god is real and I know he is in your head, but as far as I can tell, he’s completely indistinguishable from the imaginary. He raises more questions than he is invoked to explain. I want to jar you from your brainwashing, but what brainwashed persson thinks they are brainwashed?
Look, your god know where to reach me if he wants to give me a message. I heard he’s omnipotent so he doesn’t need you to deliver messages or defend him.
TAM, yes I did answer all of Coyne’s challenge. Many questions are answered by theology which are certainly not in the domain of science. We’re getting far off topic but theology does have structured methods of inquiry, e.g. hermeneutics & semiotics are broad disciplines; the 5 solas & wesleyan quadrilateral are well known principles.
I find it ironic that those who mock theology with ignorant caricatures also like to call their opponents anti-intellectual.
Why not ask the gods to take the Carmelite Challenge to prove which religious deity is real?
Take each representative of a religion and make them pray to their deity beside Mt. Carmel and the deity that answers is a god whose existence is real.
I was going to post a reponse but I read through the piece again and all of the comments, but none of this is new stuff.
I come to this blog expecting to read new stuff that will challenge my scepticism, not stuff that I can read at CARM or AIG.
Matt,
A) Let’s do this biblically: What is the Bible’s suggestion to cosmology? Cosmogony? Sickness? The formation of the earth? A tummy ache?
What is the scientific suggestion for these?
Now, how do we reasonably decide which one is right?
Scientific method?
Or the Bible, or to whomever God revealed it to them, or whomever has the most conservative theology yelled in the loudest voice?
B) To look around the world and see planes in the sky, to see what is happening in the medical industry, to investigate current ways that astronomers are mapping the known universe, and then to try to make philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism the same thing is indeed a most serious misrepresentation of the matter.
C) You keep demanding ‘answers’ while giving none, and responding in a curt dismissive manner.
D) Science v. religion is a false dichotomy. What religion? islam? Is it Allah we are talking about? What about Hinduism? Is it Ganesh we are talking about? What if an Islam person made the exact same claims above claiming that Islam was the true religion? Even within Christianity the ‘religion’ tag is useless as there would be an almost infinite variety of suggestions to most any metaphysical concern.
How do you decide which religion is the best? Then if you decide on Christianity which form of it has the most veracity?
E) Religion has the answer? Westboro Baptist or jihad?
Excellent analysis of the “science of science” – how often do we shift our paradigms only because the majority are going in one direction or another. Science cannot answer all questions. God does not need explaining, when we understand this, we can move on.
Flotsam and jetsam (1/18)…
John Tertullian discusses the problem of scientism. “One of the silly characteristics of our age is the credulous and naive veneration of science. It has led to the emergence of what we call scientism–faith in science as the ultimate source of truth a…
@TAM
“If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today?”
False dichotomy TAM and a false understanding of the Christian perspective and historically inaccurate.
The Christian position is that God being rational and intelligent made a rational and intelligible creation/universe. ie creation is orderly and understandable and too some extent at least we should be able to think God’s thoughts after Him. Therefore human explanations of observation such as the laws of physics, chemistry etc.
Matt writes: I suggest to you that theology has in fact given millions of people “comfort” which QM never could.
Good point. Astrology, homeopathy and Mormonism provide comfort to millions as well. I agree I was not arguing that something was true because it gave millions comfort, Ken was doing that, I was simply responding to his bad argument,
I note though TAM that when Ken gave the “science has given thousands comfortable lives argument” you did not bring out the astrology card then. Funny that.
Scott, again simply misrepresenting other peoples positions and ignoring the critiques and arguments others have made does not really cut it.
If your going to address the debate on methodological naturalism the first step is to actually be informed about what people have and have not argued.
Scott, when you ignore the caricatures about theology in here, you objection comes down to the fact that there are numerous different religions and so, apparently, it’s arbitrary to take any into account in scientific theorising. Science should not use any controversial premises,
The problem with this is that it undercuts your position, after there are lots of different philosophical positions and lots of different epistemological positions as well, one such position is methodological naturalism, so by parity of reasoning you should not use methodological naturalism as well. MN is after all a controversial premise.
Moreover if the lack of consensus on theisms metaphysical truth precludes utilising a “methodological theism” the lack of consensus on naturalisms truth should also preclude utilising a “methodological naturalism”
I would also point out that the idea that a rigorous method only employs premises all rational people agree upon, reflect a type of epistemology known as “classical foundationalism” its almost entirely discredited today. Holding to classical foundationalism in epistemology is a bit like holding to flood geology in the sciences.
Again this argument is not new, the point has been made by critics of MN in the literature. Like I have said, caricature ridicule and so on are not a substitute for actually offering a response to arguments. That fact that certain scientists seem unable to do this and respond only with hostility does not bode well for the rigor of there position.
Some day I would love to see a list of questions that science can’t answer but other methods of inquiry can — especially religion. So far, despite loud and frequent denunciations of “scientism,” I’ve never seen anything resembling that list”. Jerry Coyne. TAM the problem is that because Coyne is an athiest and believes the answers religion gives are false, he has already ruled out anyone making a list he will accept. Thats hardly really an objection.
In fact Richard Swinburne in the existence of God for example gives a sustianed argument for the claim that their are certain phemonena God explains and which science can’t, most of the arguments for Gods existence make similar claims. Coyne must be aware of these arguments, so what he says is really disengenious.
Matt,
Your avoidance answers are becoming repetitively nonsensical and silly.
You really, really need to read some of them and first take your own advice before demanding it from others:
I have no answers for many of these questions so I’ll try to obfuscate and blame = argumentation fail.
Sorry, Scott responding to your argument is not an avoidance.
Perhaps you can respond to them, instead of avoiding them.
I think at this point we have (and regarding your reading skills thus far: that is a plural pronoun, you and I) degraded into a form of “I know you are but what am I”!
You’ve ‘answered’ arguments? Whatever you need to tell yourself…
“The figures for godless individuals in the New Zealand Census this year are expected to reach or pass the 50 percent mark…”
Now I’m thinking about my ‘theory’ that those demons which cause religiousity have to go somewhere!
Must be the ‘scientist’ in me.
[…] the debate raging on JT’s Progressive Enslavement: The Seductions of Scientism I thought it timely to share this comment left on The Prosblogion by Baylor University Associate […]
Breaking my silence for a moment here…
Isn’t Carl Trueman’s criticism of Rousas Rushdoony’s use of discredited Holocaust deniers relevant here? In his Institutes of Biblical Law (1973: 586, 588), Rushdoony argues for mitigation of the Holocaust’s significance. Trueman has justifiably slammed the noir eminence in question for that piece of scientific illiteracy in Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History (Crossway, 2009: 30, n4).
I think you may need to find a better philosophical source for your premise, Mr Tertullian. Your current choice has an unfortunate skeleton rattling in his discursive closet. Moreover, it is one that is quite germane to the debate at hand.
Julian, it would not matter if Rushdooney were Hitler himself. Just pointing out that he has an undesirable claim in his book is not an argument against what he is cited as saying in this blog post.
You do know what the ad hominem fallacy is, right?
Pboyfloyd – I saw this too “The figures for godless individuals in the New Zealand Census this year are expected to reach or pass the 50 percent mark” – unfortunately it is a journalistic slip or lazy reporting.
In reality it is reasonable to expect that the figures for Christian will be below 50%. After all, in 2006 when corrected for double dipping they were 49.5% (see Is New Zealand a Christian nation?). And the trend is to decreasing numbers of Christians.
The “no religion” was about 34% in 2006 and I suspect that will also increase (but probably not to over 50%). This is suggested by the fact that the number of non-religious is much higher in the younger age groups probably ensures that (approximately 50% of the 20-29 age group were not religious in 2006 – see Religious belief and age).
No, sorry, Glenn. It is not ‘ad hominem’ to point out that Rousas Rushdoony cited Paul Rassinier, one of the precursors of contemporary Holocaust revisionist pseudo-science, and himself stated that:
“the false witness born during World War II with respect to Germany is especially notable and revealing.”
He then goes on to use Rassinier as a source, reaching figures of “896, 292 or 1.2 million.”
As for Holocaust denialism itself, it tries to rewrite history through minimising, denying or ignoring historical fact. This occurs mitigation of scale, denial of a policy of active genocide or the existence of gas chambers.
Therein lies an ethical dilemma for scientophobes. If scientific observation, procedures and analysis and verification are so ethically reprehensible, then how does one account for their reinforcement of the indisputable fact of the murderous immensity and hideous scale of genocide at the camps? Science bore witness to this monstrous abrogation of humanity.
Rousas Rushdoony has been condemned by *other conservative evangelicals* in this context, Glenn. Crossway Books is a conservative evangelical imprint.
Again, Mr Tertullian’s case is based on a problematic source, given its provenance. He may need to find an alternative to base the framework of his argument upon.
Well Ken while you are rejoicing in the decline of Christianity, shouldnt you be even more concerned about the rise of Postmodern relativism. I wouldhave thought that was a far bigger threat to science than Christianity has ever been. An d all those young people, they are the future.
Scott: Comprehension Fail! I enjoy the silliness at your blog but it isn’t working here.
Nah Jeremy, bring on postmodernism!
@ropata: I have an undergraduate in religion and theology and a MA in biblical studies with much training and interaction in the humanities. It’s not like I don’t understand what’s going on here, it’s just hard to actually formulate a response to such silliness without being sort of dismissive. I am not suggesting a one-to-one correlation, but you might as well ask me to be serious and articulate a comprehensive response to fairy theory.
There is nothing fair in my books like the hypocrisy of, “There are things in theology that science can’t say *anything* about…” BUT at the same time, theologians will tell scientists what their scientific presuppositions and method really are, and how they really function. It’s ridiculously hypocritical and almost always ill-informed. We can have our cake and eat it too!
I am especially not going to give anything coherent when my ‘dialog’ partner is an apologist that does not understand the task at hand, is overly dismissive, and is more committed to apologetics than understanding anything about science.
While, of course, there is much silliness at my site (after hours of reading academic tomes I need some sort of an outlet!), go back to my site and read articles on Genesis and then consider the comprehension suggestion…
@ropata: and I guess I can add that in addition to my extensive training and facility in the humanities that I have also had several classes in biology, earth sciences, astronomy, and sociology.
Scott you are welcome to your pissing contest in qualifications if you like. I suspect I’ll beat you, but who really cares.
The fact is it is not “arrogant” for philosophers of religion who specialise in epistemology to critique the epistemology scientists use. Like I said if you disagree with there criticisms you are welcome to offer an argument, but simply citing slogans that have long been addressed, and then getting enraged does neither.
Julian it is an ad hominen argument to bring up holocaust denial, simply expanding on an ad hominen does not make it any less fallicous.
Ken what justification do people justify equating the no religious figures with athiesm.
People can believe in God and not be a member of a religion.
Matt,
You are becoming a caricature of yourself in this post. It is really getting quite pathetic.
I never said, “My qualifications make my argument superior.” Once again, as in most of your ‘arguments’, you display poor reading and comprehension skills. I merely suggested I was not ignorant of the issues. Of course your penchant for misdirection requires the attempt to put words in my mouth.
Ad hominem arguments (that are not so) are dismissed by you; but do you suggest the opposite? Do you suggest an arguments validity based on your ‘knowledge’? I certainly don’t! Yes, I am aware of the issues, but…
Pissing contest? Wow, you are a sad, sad man.
If you, just for once (dear God, please let the man answer a challenge he offers. I beg you to follow the advice you so freely offer to others) answered a challenge that you offered, you would be worth while debating…
But sadly…
Reformed apologists continue to offer the same circular argumentation…
And that is why the only people that see any validity in it is other Reformed thinkers. It has a sociological terminology: group-think. You might want to look it up and consider why no one is ever converted.
Bye
You will obfuscate, and intimate that I have answered no challenges while you have muddied the waters as to the exact same argument and science. It is called hypocrisy.
*headshake*
“Scott you are welcome to your pissing contest in qualifications if you like. I suspect I’ll beat you, but who really cares.”
When the qualifications being argued over are in theology and religion who does care? It is like year 6 kids in the bottom maths class arguing over who had the best exam result., one may be higher than the other but in the end they still are never going to be in the league of their peers in the average classes.
Get your hand off it Scotty.
Richard P you got evidence for that because GRE results suggest your mistaken. Certainly with philosophy and even so with “religion”
Sorry, Scott, but here you make the claim that the arguments of reformed epistemology are circular. I take it then you can show me the main line sof argument provided by Plantinga, Alston etc and demonstrate where its circular?
Perhaps you can also point me where Plantinga’s arguments against Methodological Naturalism are circular.
Matt,
I’m not sure how you mean this, being a blog comment and all, but are you suggesting the GRE means Richard’s comments are mistaken?
And for the short form: I think Alvin is anti-intellectual. I have written on it.
And not to be pedantic and all, but the contraction of *you, are* is “you’re”…
Yes actually it is. You said that somebody’s source for a philosophical artgument was poor, and then as evidence you cited Rushdoony’s alleged position on an unrelated issue.
It’s unfortunate that you didn’t realise that this is the ad hominem argument – a form of a fallacy of irrelevance – but it is.
Whatever Rushdoony might or might not have though about World War II is simply irrelevant here.
“Richard P you got evidence for that because GRE results suggest your mistaken. ”
Hilarous, now that someone’s claim is not going your way you require them to have evidence. Yet when it is your own claim, eg your god’s existence, no evidence is required. Oh how the irony hurts.
No Richard you fail to understand my position and the epistemic situation. I believe that some beliefs require evidence to be justified others do not, the former are called non basic beliefs, the latter basic beliefs, this is a fairly basic point. If all beliefs require evidence to be justified one falls into an infinite regress.
I think belief in God is a basic belief, but that does not commit me to believing that claims that people who major in Theology, Religion ( or Philosophy) are less skilled analytically, less rigorous thinkers, and so forth than those in other subjects, that sounds oddly like the kind of generalisation that would need empirical support.
But, if you are looking for inconsistency, I can turn the argument around on you. If your going to claim religious beliefs are irrational merely because they lack evidence, then the belief you just proposed must, by your lights also be irrational because you provided no evidence for it. Moreover, like I said when people major in a subject at post graduate level, its common for them to have to undergo standardised tests which examine there analytical reasoning abilities, verbal reasoning abilities, and quantitiative abilities relative to grads in other disciplines. So the claim you make is testable.
(I’ll give you a hint biologists are not as high as you think nor are philosophers and those who study religion as low as you think)
You sound a little annoyed there but I’ll get back to your main arguments tomorrow.
Scott,
I am not anti-intellectual. I was just pointing out that a religion can distinguish itself to be true if its said claims about god where to be verified through testing to see if its sentient enough to respond. This doesn’t sound like any fideistic principle I know of.
Also, why insult me, when my comments wasn’t even directed against your conversation with Matt? or are you making a point or something.. Please clarify..
From where you’re from its considered rude to insult someone for no reason at all.
Just commenting on what Julian said about science bearing witness..
He forgot to mention that it was reich scientists and doctors like Mengele that initiated and recommended to the planners of the final solution an efficient way to exterminate jews by testing chemicals like Zyklon B and assessing their kill rates in gas chambers or by live experimentation and surgery of jewish subjects so as to glean more about the nature of defective races as compiled by Mengele’s research on aryan race theory.
in fact, Mengele’s results gave lots of insight to the medical community regarding facts about human anatomy from still living human subjects. Which, to this day causes controversy on how best to treat data coming from unethical experimentation something that was covered in a newspaper in toronto a few years back.
So no it wasn’t science or scientists that bore witness to the crimes of the holocaust, rather it was laypersons e.g. confessing christians, businessmen, priests that were the ones who actively participated in hiding jews and documenting the crimes perpetuated against them.
Paraphrasing what Viktor Frankl said that the gas chambers in treblinka etc. were not engineered by the nazi defense ministry but rather at the desks of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
Scott, I didn’t ask you if you thought Alvin was anti-intellectual. I asked you to show me how the arguments put forward by reformed epistemologists are circular. Like I have said there is a difference between attacking a persons character and credentials and actually rebutting there arguments.
I have written on this subject to and read fairly widely on it, and even the staunchest critics don’t maintain RE can be dismissed as circular as easily as you say, so I am asking you to actually provide an argument for your claims.
Alvin:
If you are indeed whom I think you are, then it is an honour to meet you, sir.
However, let me deal with the Holocaust and scientific complicity in this context. You are absolutely correct that the gas chambers were the product of engineering, chemistry and physics.
By the same token however, when the full monstrosity of those crimes against humanity were revealed, there was also comprehensive resort to forensic investigations that uncovered human body tissue, human skeletal remains that showed signs of malnutrition, violence and physical abuse, and remnants of human skin and bodily organs that demonstrated mass asphyxiation and so on.
Indeed, you are also correct that harrowing and haunting testimonials arose from the survivors of that historical obscenity. However, it is due to the diligence of forensic investigation thereafter that these horrific personal stories were provided with additional corroboration and verification of the mass murder that was done in those concentration camps.
As a result, our repugnance and repudiation of that obscenity is only augmented by the contributions of useful scientific analysis in this context. Ours. Not those of the benighted Messrs Rushdoony and Resinier, however.
Thanks Julian,
But I agree with Glenn that you maybe right that Rushdoony is a holocaust denier, but it does not discount him from being sourced by Tertullian as a reference. Rushdoony’s moral character may be foul, but that counts against the moral integrity of Rushdoony and not his competence on his cultural observations.
In the same vein, Science, theology, engineering are all malleable in how they can be applied to a particular circumstance or a problem that is dependent upon the moral framework of the persons utilizing the knowledge. Christianity as most fundy atheists still to this day misunderstand, does not disregard scientific and liberal disciplines just because they are of the world meaning neutral secular values, but they seek to envelop them in a theology of fixing the world tikkun olam as they say in Judaism.
As long as such disciplines would be used to benefit humanity and enhance civilization not for the sake of goodness, but for the sake of proclaiming the good work of the gospel in the lives of the christian scientist, engineer and professional. This demarcates them from their humanistic colleagues who do science for the sake of human good.
One of the mistakes the godless fundamentalist make is that they foist upon Christians, bad theologies and mistaken interpretations of the bible as proof to the ambigious and morally vaccous nature of theology, when Science in and of itself can be hijacked for statist purposes either as a compliment to improve military-industrial efficiency or as a tool to justify unethical social engineering like ethnic cleansing and sterlizations.
And comparing the evils generated by each initiative, bad science can lead to general bodily harm of life and limb, whilst bad theology inflicts cultural wounds. suffice to say that both are evil and must be either be corrected or done away with.
I hesitate to add anything to the fabled Dr Plantinga, but it seems to me that a cult of scientism in banking, property, and derivatives (deregulating the ‘experts’, uncritically accepting computer models, and an illiterate media) has also been a contributing factor to economic chaos.
Yes ropata, why not adopt a meaningless pejorative word like “scientism” and use it to describe “deregulating the ‘experts’, uncritically accepting computer models, and an illiterate media”.? After all we just want to denigrate the concept of reason and evidence. That word will do – it’s already being used quite inappropriately, a little more silliness won’t be noticed!
Ken, I was complaining about certain philosophies that allowed a technocratic elite to squander billions. Reason and Evidence.
Ken, perhaps because the word scientism is not meaningless or pejorative, and perhaps because its meaning has been pointed out to you on several occasions and yet you continue to pretend it has not.
So, Matt, you accept the rubbish written by Tutillian and ropata under your definition of “scientism.”?
I am quite aware of your pejorative use of the term as an all inclusive anti-science attack.
After all you and your mates gave ysef it often agdinst me as a diversionary tactic.
Have you rested your case on the thread for Madeiline’s attack on scientific rigor?
An anti-science attack….
Good lord Ken, do you even think before commenting? As soon as a person says that the word is well defined and that it has a non-pejorate meaning, you assume that of course they must therefore agree with every word of every other person who uses the word.
I mean really… this mindless reactionism from you is just nutty.
People have generously invested their time trying to help you by showing you that scientism refers to an easily idenitfiable position, it is not a pejorative word, and that you and others (including Richard Dawkins) have clearly expressed support of scientism according to its non-perjorative simple definition.
The facts are really just hurdles to you, aren’t they Ken?
Glenn, I notice that, as is the case with Matt, you have not dared criticise either ropata or Turtiklan for their rubbishy and emotive use of the term. Something to do with them vs us? Isn’t that childish. It would be more honest to get stuck into them rather than allow yourselves be tarred with the same brush.
We know the term means inappropriate use of science. Which basically describes them. And also those theological militants who claim “Galileo was wrong” and that it is not possible to differentiate heliocentricism from geocenticism! The more militant even drag in Einstein to “prove” there argument! Embarrassing for you guys – but that is the intellect of some of your mates.
How’s that for inappropriate use of science. Worse than Pope Benny’s recent intrusion into cosmology?
Not that any scientist listens to you guys. We get on and do our job and humanity benefits from that.
Ken, you lost the Galileo argument several times and were caught being dishonest, and yet now every time you are likewise caught using sneaky tactics (like the “I bet you have some sinister motive here!” you are now trying) you keep referring back to that discussion,
Having a flashback? The fact is, you have now accepted (and backtrcked in doing so) that scientism is a perfectly legitimate non-derisive term. So you need to argue that ropata or others are making a factual error in using that term. Very telling that you won’t actually make that argument, you just have some vague complaint about mean words.
It’s also hilarious to see you say “we” when referring to all scientists. Of course they agree with you, right? 😉
Keep the spin coming Ken, both Glenn and I have pointed out to you scientism is not a pejorative term, we gave you citations where it has a reasonably specific non pejorative definition.
Ignoring the facts and continually making the same refuted claims over and over does not count for much. Nor does responding with constant impingment of peoples motives.
Matt and Glenn – you both use it as a pejorative term no matter how it is defined. And in fact it is usually used as such by anti-science people. It’s a common irrational argument on this blog as this post shows.
Ken, it has been kindly explained to you in the past – more than once – that this is false. You are ignoring anything and everything that gets in the way of your mindless cliched responses.
Suit yourself, but don’t be surprised that nobody thinks you’re being more “scientific” in all this.
In Ken’s world, ‘science’ has disproved God. Therefore anyone who denies this is clearly anti-science. It’s a tedious atheist tactic, conflating science with hyper-rationalism, and agitating for a ‘conflict’ with religion.
I’m just glad that most sensible academics ignore the loony fringe like Perrott or Dawkins.
Ropata – please explain, provide some evidence: “In Ken’s world, ‘science’ has disproved God. “
In my world I have never seen any scientific study of the existence or otherwise of gods. I haven’t seen a scientific paper disproving gods. (Victor Stenger has published a book on a god hypothesis which shows it not to be supported by science. But he restricts this to a specific hypotheses which many religious people would say is not their god. Several scientists over several hundred years have pointed out that a god hypothesis is not required to explain reality. But that is not the same as claiming proof or disproof, even though it upsets militant Christians who would prefer them not to be so honest). One of the problems for such a scientific investigation is that there has never been an accepted detailed god hypothesis presented anyway. So what is there to investigate.
There is a lot of fruitful scientific investigation of god beliefs, the evolutionary origins of religion, the intuitional and cognitive structures involved in such beliefs. None of these purport to prove or disprove existence of gods (except in peoples minds where they obviously do exist). They usually clarify that this is not part of their brief.
Ken, that would mean that “scientists” have refuted the arguments which purport to show that God is necessary to explain certain bits of reality, which I course they haven’t.
It also involves claiming no one has ever offered God as a hypothesis for explaining features of reality, which of course involves simply ignoring the vast literature to the contrary.
Matt, of course in the past gods were used to explain parts of reality – very convenient when one is largely ignorant. But give me an example where this is done scientifically today. I am not aware of any.
As for refuting ” arguments which purport to show that God is necessary to explain certain bits of reality, which I course they haven’t.” probably true if you are talking about the pseudo logical theological arguments. But in the scientific study of reality no serious scientist I am aware of has included gods in their scientific theories. Yes I am aware of Tipler – but I said serious.
I think Hawking said what is bleeding obvious. Gods are not required to explain reality. This is not a statement for or against actual existence. Just pointing out no such hypothesis is required.
But ropata claimed that science had disproved god in my world. I pointed out that just wasn’t true and I certainly was not claiming it. It’s more a case of not really being interested in doing so.
The fact is I am oit at all interested in disproving kids scientifically. It’s a mugs game as there is no proper hypothesis to start with.
But I am however interested in defending science against the outlandish claims of people like ropata.
Perhaps you should leave him to continue this particular discussion. He should take responsibility for his silly claims.
Interesting Ken, so God isn’t required as part of a scientific theory, therefore God isn’t needed to explain any parts of reality.
But you don’t make use of scientism, right?
No Glenn, scientist use science to investigate reality. Some of them have gods but that’s their hobby not part of their job.b)if you know of any that are exceptions let us know).
But where is ropata? He us the one who made the accusation and then ran away. Let’s leave him to resolve this issue.
So Ken , in the 1300’s Aquinas noted the argument that everything in reality could be explained by “natural causes” scientifically and this provided grounds for thinking God did not exist. Aquinas in response spelt out several features of reality that he said could not be explained this way. Can you tell me which of these contemporary science has since explained scientifically, or even can explain in this way?
Seeing after all people “used” to appeal to the Gods to explain reality and science has since advanced replacements this should be easy.
Matt, Aquinas may have pointed out parts of reality he couldn’t explain 800 yrs ago but you certainly haven’t, have you? Despite my request for examples. Why so coy?
And what is it with this medieval suthority business. It’s somethin I am not used to. Old scientists may be treated as heroes but they are not dogmatically and unquestioningly beyond criticisms or considered as modern authorities. Being wring is part of being human. And 800 years after the event one cannot be blindly considered an authority.
Actually Ken, Glenn and I have put to you examples of things one can’t determine by science on more than one occasion.
But avoiding the question does not answer it, the reason i cited Aquinas is because you suggested in the past people had used God to explain a whole lot of things but contemporary science has shown those explanations unecessary. I am just testing your historical claim against reality.
What things did Aquinas use God to explain 800 years ago, and how has science replaced these explanations with esthablished theories?
Matt, you continue to avoid giving even one example. Over the centuries humanity has invoked gods, demons, and spirits to explain almost everything. Eben as late as Kepler’s time the movement of planets was attributed to angels.
With the release of science from the bonds of religion and religious philosophy science has increasingly come to understand the universe and our environment . Very successfully. It has not been necessary to postulate gods and angels to achieve that understanding. You claim otherwise but don’t give one example.
Of course there are many areas where science has yet to achieve a good understanding and other areas which are not really the province of scientific investigation. More human judgement.
However it is an extremely weak ideology which uses that argument to claim an expertise on those areas. If religion has any expertise in these areas it could justify itself on it’s own ground. Interesting that you avoid doing do.
Over the centuries humanity has invoked gods, demons, and spirits to explain almost everything. ..With the release of science from the bonds of religion and religious philosophy science has increasingly come to understand the universe and our environment . Very successfully. It has not been necessary to postulate gods and angels to achieve that understanding.
Sure Ken, that’s what you assert I am asking you to test that claim against an example, a prominent 13th century theologian, who addressed the very question ( is God necessary to explain reality) that you refer to. Surely if what you say is true there will be hundreds of examples where God was invoked to explain something we know can example with science. Please show me the examples, your the one making historical claims not me.
Interestingly you ask me to provide the examples, well you made the claims not me. but your request is interesting, are you unfamilar with the things God was thought to explain, that natural philosophy couldn’t, explain in the middle ages ? If so then why did you claim something about such explanations.
Science apparently makes testable claims, why are you unwilling to test yours.
Really significant you refuse to support your claim.
As for examples – they are legion. Keppler’s angels who moved the planets (I already mentioned this). Newton’s explanation for the alignment of planets in a plane. Maui fishing up the North Island. These are all things we now understand scientifically and don’t need to invoke the gods and spirits of the ancients to explain them.
Oh, and Hawking’s example of the formation of the universe. Many people still invoke mythical gods while science can postulate hypotheses which don’t require any such assumptions.
Ken, do you really think that people believed in God because he explained the planetery orbits? . presumbly there was a whole school of theologians who argued, God exists because that hypothesis best explains the planetery orbits. Perhaps you can show me the theologians who did this?
I did give you an example , I pointed out that the claim that you could explain everything by natural causes was known to Aquinas he explictly mentions the claim 800 years ago. I also noted he gave a response to this claim 800 years ago pointing out what God could explain that science did not , the planetery orbits, fishing up the north island, and so forth were not on the list. So again Ken, seeing the medieval theologians addressed your claim, please document how in the last 800 years science has answered these issues Aquinas raised.
Or perhaps its better to admit you shot your mouth off without knowing what you were talking about?
“Oh, and Hawking’s example of the formation of the universe.”
Except M-theory isnt accepted as a theory just rather incomplete speculation. It is untested and at this stage untestable.
Furthermore all this stuff you mention is just “mechanical” for want of a better word. Its all about how, not why and humans are always asking why questions. You might not care but that makes you unusual not right.
Matt – you posed the question:
“Aquinas in response spelt out several features of reality that he said could not be explained this way. Can you tell me which of these contemporary science has since explained scientifically, or even can explain in this way?”
I pointed out that while Aquinas may have spelled out these specific features of reality you certainly hadn’t. You continue to refuse to do so.
I am quite prepared to answer a question as long as it is sensibly put.
What, specifically, are these “several features of reality” you presumably claim as requiring god hypothesis in their scientific explanations.
I am certainly not aware of any – so that is why I ask. I want some evidence from you otherwise I am happy to stick with my current knowledge in this area.
(Only a simpleton would take a vague 800 year old claim which remains secret as evidence).
Jeremy, you are essentially correct when you say: “Except M-theory isnt accepted as a theory just rather incomplete speculation. It is untested and at this stage untestable.”
But that is not the issue. Clearly.
For a long time scientists have gone about their work explaining reality and proposing hypotheses. without including gods. elves, angels and so on. This has been extremely successful.
Yes, at the borders of our knowledge we have hypotheses which don’t qualify as “scientific knowledge” , or speculation. That is OK and is part of the normal development of our knowledge.
But even here only the most unorthodox scientist (like Tippler) includes any god concept in their hypotheses.
For good reason,. Whatever their personal religious beliefs there is not a proper god hypothesis. It’s really just a word for “I don’t know.” Better to be honest and admit that. A bit like “dark energy” – but in this case the word is a place holder – not an “explanation which prevents further inquiry.
So its not a matter of whether a scientific hypotheses has not yet been tested yet. The point is even at this stage there is absolutely no need to include gods, angels, spirits. So we don’t.
We have come a long way since the days when Kepler seriously included angels in his understanding of planetary motion or Newton invoked his god to explain aspects of gravity which he found intractable (but could have solved if he hadn’t left in the hands of his god).
Ken, there is never going to be a need to propose God to explain how things work. God made a working system. You dont need Henry Ford to explain how Ford cars or the internall combustion engine work. You do need Henry Ford to explain why there are Ford cars at all. You may need him to ask why he chose black, four wheels or petrol rather than diesel.
There are also alot of questions that mix how and why and by your own admission science is strong on the hows, can it ever answer a why? I’ve read scientists effectively saying that why questions are just silly or non questions which is either incredibly arrogant or bluster to hide from the ineffectiveness of science in addressing those questions. Its like they have only a hammer so they are not interested unless its a nail.
Jeremy, I sympathise with your comment “:Ken, there is never going to be a need to propose God to explain how things work.” – although I never say never. One cannot predict what may be necessary in scientific theories of the future.
But Hawking did not go as far as you. He just said that now we don’t need to use a god hypothesis. I think the vast majority of scientists and sensible people agreed with him. Most people just yawned at the comment.
So why should he have been attacked so bitterly from the theological direction and you are, so far at least, are getting away with your comment. A comment even i would not make as it would be too extreme.
Ken, here is the issue, you made a historical claim it goes like this. Historically theologians believed in God because he explained certain features of reality. Gradually over time science showed each of those features of reality could be explained plausibly without reference to God.
This is a historical claim and testable. If it were true one would expect, that medieval theologians in their writings proposed that people believe in God because his existence explained a whole lot of phenomena, storms, forest fires, and so forth, these Theologians would not believe in naturalistic explanations for these phenomena.
Then over the next few hundred years as science rose to prominence, one would see each of the reasons given for believing in God by these medieval theologians replaced, by scientific understandings , which turn into esthablished theories until everyone of the Thiestic arguments provided by the medievals was replaced with scientific explanations.
This thesis is easily refuted by looking at what medieval theologians actually wrote.
So we have a testable hypothesis and tests show its false.
But of course scientists continue to make it anyway showing that on this issue they are unscientific.
Matt, Aquinas may have pointed out parts of reality he couldn’t explain 800 yrs ago but you certainly haven’t, have you? Despite my request for examples. Why so coy? Sorry, Ken when you started making claims about the history of theology I mistakenly assumed you were actually familar with the history, and so wouldn’t need to know for example the reasons people like Aquinas gave for thinking God existed.
I suggest if you don’t know the answers to these questions you have made comments about a subject without any basis.
Yes I know who you don’t like scientists (“But of course scientists continue to make it anyway showing that on this issue they are unscientific.”)
But you misrepresent the position.
All I am saying is that scientists today do not find it necessary to include any gods in their hypotheses and theories to explain reality. This was also the point of Hawking.
You countered that by mentioning a dude from 800 years ago and I asked for examples (which you continue to refuse to provide) of where we do have to include a god hypothesis. I am not aware of any. You have not provided any.
I am happy to continue to believe my original assertion.
I suspect this to be tactical theological confusion on your part.
You’re mistaken in equating science as a way of knowing, and the implications the findings of science have in faith and society.
Science is quite simple in its function… it aims to eliminate ideas that do not properly account for all the known facts. A scientist shows his ideas to be correct by trying as hard as possible to DISPROVE them.
How you choose to interpret the results of science is not bound by the scientific process itself. It involves a set of value judgments. But these value judgments and a person’s personal feelings about a natural idea have absolutely no effect on that idea’s truth value.
Take evolution… it’s a common creationist argument that evolution cannot be true because then we’ll all lose all sense of morality and become amoral ferals. I’m sure you could find an example where this does happen… that someone discovers the theory of evolution and concludes life has no meaning. But this is not a NECESSARY interpretation of evolution, and more importantly, the effect evolution had on said person’s has no effect on the evidence and reasoning scientists give for theory of evolution.
Separate the scientific explanation from any social/personal/theological/economic implications may have. They are not bound.
Science as we know it today is based on Christian thought!
In other words, if it weren’t for Christianity, THERE WOULD BE NO MODERN SCIENCE.
Prove me wrong.
Ken writes: You are attacking the very thing in science which has enabled you to live a comfortable life based on humanity’s provisional and ever improving scientific knowledge.
Matt writes: I suggest to you that theology has in fact given millions of people “comfort” which QM never could.
TAM butts in: Good point. Astrology, homeopathy and Mormonism provide comfort to millions as well.
The irony of this reply seems to be lost on TheAtheistMissionary, in his ignorant condescension. Apparently TAM does not recognize that Ken effectively argued for the truth of ‘the thing in science’ due to the comfort it has provided to human lives. In effect, TAM seems to be confused about the fact that he is either (1) disproving Ken’s point, or (2) suggesting that astrology, homeopathy, and Mormonism is true. Perhaps you should read the conversation more carefully, TAM? Is this too hard for you? I should have known.
Ken writes: “You countered that by mentioning a dude from 800 years ago”
Another ad hominem. How typical of you to attack the person rather than the argument. Cheers!
@ Charles
This may help you understand TAM’s response… or not!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CtZX9gmZ8
@ Derrick (10 Apr 2011)
Clearly you have not read either of the Climategate leaks. They provide a fascinating insight into how science is done in the real world.
“A scientist shows his ideas to be correct by trying as hard as possible to DISPROVE them.”
I would challenge you to read the leaked Hadley/CRU e-mails and then try to repeat that statement with a straight face. I have witnessed three major scientific controversies in my lifetime ~ continental drift, intelligent design and climate change. None of them have been characterized by scientists trying to disprove their theses; just the opposite. I have spent most of my adult life working with the Meteorological Service of Canada and am very familiar with the climate change controversy. While I agree that what you have described is a good approximation of how science should work, I can assure you that at least in the areas of scientific endeavour to which I have been exposed, it is never done in that way. Ad hominem attacks, attempts to prevent opponents from publishing, refusal to engage in debate, attribution of false motive and many other ugly practices have become standard fare in scientific controversies. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence of an unhealthy reliance on modelling to replace experimentation and an extraordinarily inept use of statistical inference to replace real evidence. Human depravity is as evident in the world of science as it is in every other area of life.
In your article you claim that in the Enlightenment the idol was Mother Nature. Errrjm not so. MOTHER nature has long been suppressed both by patriarchal religions including Christianity, and the presumed MECHANICAL laws of the Enlightenment, and onto now in this growing dystopia which for many has long ago arrived already!
You can see this insidious scheme with the ‘heroic-thinkers’ chosen to create the matrix. Descartes ‘Father of Philosophy’ claims animals are machines and then he and his very sick followers torture them. Then Wilhelm Wundt ‘Father of Psychology’ claims the same about humans, and not so long after there come the Nazi concentration camps where people are tortured!!!
Julian, actually I think you’ll find that Hitler was a strong animal rights advocate and a vegetarian. That proves nothing at all btw, but it does question your attempted associations.
Matt… the commentator postulated a trend in history and you dismiss.it.by saying Hitler was a vegetairan. He mentioned Hitler… can I dismiss a claim about sexism in the wast be saying no… but Reagan was actually kind to his wife… address the real issue.
Clue: Hitler = an individual human who lived in the 20th century, and had a personal as well as political life, which, like most people was inconsistent and complex.
Nazism = the political philosophy of a political party which arose.in the 20th century.
Hitler ≠ Nazism….
Is this whay passes for “reason” these days?
Moron Eater, actually the commentator did not really postulate a trend in history. He said that Descartes held a view someone else hundreds of years latter held the same view and a few years latter a different group implemented concentration camps.
But second, note I never dismissed any “trend” I questioned the attempt to associate opposition to animal welfare with the policies of the Nazis. By showing how one prominent Nazi actually supported animal welfare reforms. But for the record, it was not just Hitler, the Nazi party supported and advocated several animal welfare proposals in Germany. As I said this proves very little, by itself, the fact the Nazis did something is not evidence that thing is dubious or evil. The Nazis also built motorways and suppressed theft. But it does question attempts by some to link certain attitudes with Nazism.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm
“… one prominent Nazi actually supported animal welfare reforms…”
THEREFORE:
Come on Matt! You made a booboo. Just admit it and stop digging yourself into a bigger hole.
But again you miss the point.
The claim made by the commentor was:
The sort of mechanistic thinking of Des Cartes led politicians to see people as mere machines… which allowed the Nazis to commit atrocities like mass murder. Now this may be bunk… but saying “but Hitler liked his dog” is not a real response… and you should know this.
Lets look at it:
“You can see this insidious scheme with the ‘heroic-thinkers’ chosen to create the matrix. Descartes ‘Father of Philosophy’ claims animals are machines and then he and his very sick followers torture them. Then Wilhelm Wundt ‘Father of Psychology’ claims the same about humans, and not so long after there come the Nazi concentration camps where people are tortured!!!”
Now what is he claiming?
(1) Descartes’ views claimed that animals were machines
(2) Wundt expanded upon this and concluded that humans were macines
(3) The view that humans were machines allowed the Nazis to commit atrocities.
Now… in what was does “Hitler liked animals” or even “all Nazis loved animals” contradict this? It looks almost as though you have seen “Nazi” and “animal” in the same paragraph, and then without reading or analyzing what was actually said, you have reached for the trusim “Hitler was an animal lover” and spewed it out… even though it is out of context and of no relevance whatsoever. I was going to let this go, but since you wanted to continue… there is your chance:
Moron Eater, actually I disagree with both your summary of the argument and your suggestion no response was made to it.
First, the comment did not affirm
What was actually claimed was
[1) Descartes’ views claimed that animals were machines
(2) Wundt held the same philosophy and applied I to humans
(3) A short time latter the Nazis to commit atrocities
Of course we are supposed to draw from this that Descartes thinking was behind the acts of the Nazis. But that’s not actually claimed, its also an invalid inference, because the fact an event follows another in time does not actually mean one caused the other.
Second, you right
Actually, this is relevant because it shows that those who committed these atrocities actually did not hold the cartestian “animals are machines” view. But second and more significantly, it shows the spurious use of association. The commenter tries to argue that because the nazi atrocities occurred shortly after Wundt one can link the ideologies. If this were valid then the fact Hitler supported animal welfare can be used by the same kind of reasoning to show the rejection of the “animals as machines” view responsible for the nazi atrocities seeing they were promoted by some of the same people at around the same time.
Now I think this inference is invalid, but that’s kinda the whole point. My point is that guilt by association arguments like this are invalid.
Poor Matt! I will reply when back at PC and try to explain it to you.
Matt:
OK. I am back at the computer. Let’s see what we can do with this mess. The first problem is that your spelling and grammar are so atrocious, that at times I can not work out what you are trying to say. I know it is only a blog, but a spell and grammar check would go a long way to making me take you seriously. However I will try my best to decipher what you were trying to articulate.
You say:
“What was actually claimed was
[1) Descartes’ views claimed that animals were machines
(2) Wundt held the same philosophy and applied I to humans
(3) A short time latter the Nazis to commit atrocities
Of course we are supposed to draw from this that Descartes thinking was behind the acts of the Nazis. But that’s not actually claimed, its also an invalid inference, because the fact an event follows another in time does not actually mean one caused the other.”
Well, here you are actually starting to think and address the actual issue. As such, this does not address your original assertion that the fact that Hitler liked his dog had a bearing on the argument. I could therefore ignore this portion. You may well be right that there is no relationship between the three points made above. Perhaps Wundt knew nothing about Descartes. Perhaps Descartes did not really see animals as mechanistic. Perhaps Nazi philosophy was not influences by Wundt or Descartes, but was influences by philosophers X,Y, and Z instead. All of these are good responses, and you are starting to move in this direction. You have left behind the silliness of “Hitler liked animals” and have begun to think for which I commend you. It is a shame that this was not your initial response and you chose instead a cheap and sneering tactic rather than really addressing a comment on your blog. But you have moved on.
“Second, you right”
I am not sure what this means. I am right about what? I assume you are saying I am right about what follows? But then you seem to state otherwise below. This is very unclear.
However after this YOU write:
“Actually, this is relevant because it shows that those who committed these atrocities actually did not hold the cartestian “animals are machines” view.”
Does it? How so? Is it impossible to hold a view that animals are machines and still feel compassion for or love of animals? I am suspicious of this. I have known people who believe that humans are just machines and yet display and feel sincere love not only for their own families, but also for humanity as a whole. You are failing to appreciate how complex humans are, and that it is possible to hold beliefs which contradict one another, and to act in ways which seem to go against our philosophical convictions.
“But second and more significantly, it shows the spurious use of association. The commenter tries to argue that because the nazi atrocities occurred shortly after Wundt one can link the ideologies.”
You may have a point here. You should follow this up by demonstrating that there is not a link. However, again, this is a step far beyond your initial sneering response and I suppose you deserve some credit for moving on.
“If this were valid then the fact Hitler supported animal welfare can be used by the same kind of reasoning to show the rejection of the “animals as machines” view responsible for the nazi atrocities seeing they were promoted by some of the same people at around the same time.”
Sadly you now return to beating the same drum as before. It is of course possible to believe animals are machines and at the same time support animal welfare (if indeed Hitler did). The fact that again you are looking at one individual rather than the political movement as a whole reduces the strength of this point even more.
As a short P.S.
Your argument actually depends on a hidden premise, namely:
“Hitler was rational and consistent in his beliefs.”
I think that you might have a hard time getting me to accept this one. Maybe WLC could make a case for it, it seems up his alley.
Moron Eater
Sorry about the grammar and spelling I have developmental dyspraxia and it affects my ability to type, spell checkers don’t rectify this, and contrary to your suggestion it actually has no bearing on ones ability to reason or research. Its not an intellectual disability, though of course it provides a great opportunity for people who want to be smug and arrogant and insulting to ply their trade. I prefer to focus on substantive points if I can.
You say:
Well, here you are actually starting to think and address the actual issue. As such, this does not address your original assertion that the fact that Hitler liked his dog had a bearing on the argument.
That would be a telling response if I had responded simply by asserting that Hitler liked his dog. But I didn’t. So its irrelevant. Dressing it up with insults about learning to think doesn’t change this.
Well again my response was not “Hitler liked animals” as I pointed out in my previous response that was not my argument. You seem to think that calling people names and straw manning is a telling response, its not I am afraid.
It shows it because Descartes on most interpretations held that animals are not conscious and don’t feel pain, where as the reasons the Nazis supported animal welfare were based on the denial of this. In fact in some cases they explicitly rejected the view that animals were inanimate property.
Perhaps, but in general if a person says they oppose cruelty to animals because it causes animals pain. I assume they believe animals can feel pain. Similarly when someone says they reject the view that animals are inanimate property, I assume they reject the view that animals are inanimate property. That’s normally how communication proceeds. We can proceed on the prima facie assumption that when you say X you mean not X if you like. I which case I’ll simply take everything you say as affirming agreement with me. Thanks for agreeing.
Accept as I pointed out this actually was my main point and the example I used illustrated it. So I am not moving on just repeating the same point you choose to misrepresent. Thanks for granting it may be was valid.
But also your quite mistaken to say that I need to follow this up to show there is no link. All I need to do to rebut the argument is show it does not establish the link. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises its invalid.
Unfortunately all your doing is repeating the straw men I have already addressed. First, as I pointed out I was not referring to the beliefs of “one individual” I was looking at policies the Nazis supported and laws they in fact passed while in power. Second, as I noted above the statements made by the Nazis showed they didn’t believe animals are machines and this denial motivated there policies.
But thirdly, and most importantly your again misrepresenting the argument. Notice what I actually wrote:
So pointing out that attempts to link Nazism with the animal rights movment are spurious given my argument actually confirms what I am saying it does not contradict it. Yo Although I do believe the Nazis supported animal rights and did so on grounds incompatible with the Cartesian view. That actually was not my argument. What I was doing was showing that the commentators argument was invalid by showing how the same “guilt by association” tactics can be used to draw equally spurious conclusions on the other side of the issue. Yes I agree the fact Hitler believed in animal rights does not entail that animal rights are facist. Thats the point.
The fact you keep choosing to pretend I was arguing something else is really not my problem.
I am sure telling your readers you are a really smart person and everyone else is really thick is great for the ego. However, it really does not work as a substitute for avoiding obvious fallacies like the ad hominen, or strawman fallacies.
Actually it doesn’t, your welcome to assert that’s a premise of my argument, just as I can assert a hidden premise of your argument is that pink unicorns exist.
To show this was a premise of my argument you’d need to accurately represent the argument and show the conclusion I draw only follows if you assume that premise. Unfortunately you have not done this.
I don’t need to consult WLC, I am entirely convinced by what you have written so far that people can publically propose irrational positions. Your comments make a pretty compelling case for this.
“Sorry about the grammar and spelling I have developmental dyspraxia and it affects my ability to type…..”
Yes. But not to spell or understand grammar!
“Spell checkers don’t rectify this”
No. Proof reading does. And dyspraxia is not an excuse here sorry.
“…and contrary to your suggestion it actually has no bearing on ones ability to reason or research.”
I did not say that. I said it makes you hard to understand.
“Its not an intellectual disability, though of course it provides a great opportunity for people who want to be smug and arrogant and insulting to ply their trade.”
Pot. Kettle.
“I prefer to focus on substantive points if I can.”
Then why did you spend the last paragraph whining about your “disability”?
“That would be a telling response if I had responded simply by asserting that Hitler liked his dog. But I didn’t. So its irrelevant. Dressing it up with insults about learning to think doesn’t change this.”
“it’s”
“You seem to think that calling people names and straw manning is a telling response, its not I am afraid. “
I am not sure I called you any names. Where is all this agro coming from? Please try to just look at the issue and get over your personal stuff.
“It shows it because Descartes on most interpretations held that animals are not conscious and don’t feel pain, where as the reasons the Nazis supported animal welfare were based on the denial of this. In fact in some cases they explicitly rejected the view that animals were inanimate property. “
Again you miss the point entirely. I will not repeat my point from last time, but it still stands.
“Perhaps, but in general if a person says they oppose cruelty to animals because it causes animals pain.”
This sentence is not complete. I am not sure what it was supposed to mean, or how it was supposed to finish. You have an “if” But no “then”.
“I assume they believe animals can feel pain.”
You assume who believes this? I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
“Similarly when someone says they reject the view that animals are inanimate property, I assume they reject the view that animals are inanimate property. That’s normally how communication proceeds. We can proceed on the prima facie assumption that when you say X you mean not X if you like. I which case I’ll simply take everything you say as affirming agreement with me. Thanks for agreeing.”
This whole paragraph is incoherent. Thanks for agreeing with what? You need to slow down and think before you type dude.
“But second and more significantly, it shows the spurious use of association. The commenter tries to argue that because the nazi atrocities occurred shortly after Wundt one can link the ideologies.”
Yes fine. You can argue that if you like. I suppose one could similarly say that anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the holocoast… because you can’t assume that the two are linked. But I would need a stronger argument than “it shows the spurious use of association”. Another pseudo-argument and selective scepticism.
“Accept as I pointed out this actually was my main point and the example I used illustrated it.”
Sorry. What is it you want me to accept? This seems to be another incomplete sentence. It is hard to follow your train of thought.
“But also your quite mistaken to say that I need to follow this up to show there is no link. All I need to do to rebut the argument is show it does not establish the link. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises its invalid.”
Right. In the same way all I need to do to show that anti-Semitism and the massacre of jews are unrelated is to state there is no link… is this really the best you can do?
“I was looking at policies the Nazis supported and laws they in fact passed while in power….”
Which ones?
“… the statements made by the Nazis showed they didn’t believe animals are machines and this denial motivated there policies.”
“I am sure telling your readers you are a really smart person and everyone else is really thick is great for the ego.”
Is this from personal experience? From this post it seems so. Get a grip dude.
“Actually it doesn’t, your welcome to assert that’s a premise of my argument, just as I can assert a hidden premise of your argument is that pink unicorns exist.”
Sigh. That is such a sad, sad response. It is not even worth responding to.
I have just read through all the comments (on this post and others) and have seen that Matt is as abusive and illogical to others as he is to me. I will not take it so personally now.
I notice some patterns:
(1) a consistent refusal to answer questions which are difficult or clearly go against his case.
(2) The use of selective skepticism which is used to instantly dismiss any argument which he finds difficult. Of course this skepticism is never aimed at his own arguments.
(3) a persecution tactic where he claims that others are making personal attacks to avoid dealing with an issue (this is often used to avoid answering questions. See (1))
(3) at times outright abuse
(4) hypocrisy. Matt is well aware of the illegitimacy of using any of the above dirt tactics and will call others on them instantly (often unjustifiably) while continuing to use them himself.
Now Matt may claim that this is a personal attack on him (although of course he would use Latin to try to make it sound more intellectual 😉 ) but it is worth pointing out that this “academic” constantly uses dirty tactics. I am sure HODs will take note.
What astounds me is that he is not some teenager trolling online but is actually trying to present himself as an academic.