Science is the One True Faith!

Post Reply New Topic

I think I am an adherent of Scientism. I would even go so far as to say that Science is the One True Faith. Indeed, the Scientific Method, as applied to the study of the Book of Nature, yields a surprising amount of information.

Having said that, nothing irritates me more than Postmodernism, and the Collective Solipsist mentality, that goes along with it. Sometimes, one gets Post Modernists, posing as Feminists sneering that Science is a Man's Way of Knowing, and Post Modernists, posing as Multiculturalists, sneering that Science is a White Man's Way of Knowing at that. Such an anti-Scientific mentality, mind you, really makes my stomach turn. And, of course, once one deconstructs deconstructionism itself, one comes to the firm realization that it is merely a method of misinterpreting anything, any way one wants: the opposite of Communication!

One topic, I really love, is the whole Process of Evolution. It is the only thing that really makes much sense to me at all. I probably should study it more, and maybe, just maybe, I could get into Sociobiology. That would be a lot of fun, too.

Are science and faith congruent?

Some, like Eric Zuesse, claim that both Science and Religion are forms of Epistemology. That there are only those two forms of Epistemology, but that Science is the True Epistemology and Faith the False Epistemology. Adding to the confusion, there are many who say that there are all sorts of different Epistemologies, in addition, to those two.

Science operates with evidence.

Faith operates without evidence.

Science =/= Faith.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, because pretentious latin phrases are fun.

What is really interesting, though, is that Multiculturalism and Feminism alike, could only have grown out of the principles, the egalitarian principles, of Western Civilization. The very Western Civilization that Conservatives claim to revere to dearly. I always thought that was rather interesting in its sheer absurdity. They could have come from nowhere else.

The Muslim immigrants, and their culture, are very fascinating to me, in this regard. Because, after all, they come to reintroduce such forgotten, and disavowed ideas, like misogyny, homophobia, and even anti-Semitism. None seem to notice that at all, except me.

I do have to bring up one objection to making Scientism one's central tenet - at least taken to the religious extreme.

You will, at least a few times in your life possibly, find yourself in a position where explanations of the makeup of the universe, how things move, or why, won't be relevant to your predicament nor will they necessarily help you find a path through it. There are perhaps helpful answers on the edges of psychology but, like with many things, you'll be using unsubstantiated tools and at least entertained possibilities about the future, yourself, implied meaning, etc..

Don't get me wrong, I think a person could have a scientific reductionist worldview and apply various things like depth psychology and Jung to their subconscious life out of the realization that emergent patterns, particularly in biological life, are highly complex and not intuitively derived straight from their pieces and parts but rather qualities of interaction. From that standpoint they'd consider that its impossible to hammer one's subjective life into an exact facsimile of objective life and that the subjective arena has its own laws that need to be followed for good health. IMHO Jordan Peterson does an excellent job of making a case for Jung in evolutionary psychology.

I'd say that having faith in science when it comes to material matters of discovery is well founded - ie. the progress we've enjoyed over the last 300-400 years is no joke, and it seems like discoveries should continue for a long time. What I wouldn't do necessarily is take Scientism's metaphysical claims all that seriously. Such claims extend beyond the scope of science and there are a lot of big questions that we simply don't have answers to. Any attempt to assert an answer at this point tends to be a leap of faith, exchanging accuracy for certainty, and its fair to live by certain metaphysical assumptions insofar as they match your experience but taking them too seriously just means you'll get thrown around by emotional reactions to facts that run contrary and whether it's theism, deism, materialist atheism, nonmaterialist atheism, panpsychism, almost any system you can think of will run into contradictions and items that would undermine your faith in the steadiness of your answer.

At least some devout Christians believe in evolution.

But they believe that life started with God.

Not really, science can be religion very easily and a lot of religious doctrine is probably scientific on some level like dietary and hygiene. If you are not an expert yourself in any given science then all you are doing if putting faith in someone else's interpretation of the supposed evidence which is no different than what religious people do. When science is married to politics and morality then it most definitely is a religion in my opinion, appealing to the authority Neil Degrasse Tyson or Al Gore isn't any different than appealing to the authority of the Pope. Unless you can do the work yourself and understand it, you don't know ****. I guess you could say science stops being science when it starts pushing it's own morality, it's own politics, or whatever else but it's very very easily abused. The Nazis were 'scientists' too, where they actually got a lot of their 'science' was actually the good ole USA.

science isn't an ism, that is one of the great things about it.

I frankly don't like ism's. I dislike how English took away the e from the French isme.

Can science be qualitative?

No values are found in science, except for the ones we assign to it.

How is it even possible to measure how much worthy a value is, using science?

It is impossible to live without values.