This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/scientism-and-the-new-atheists
Discussion of Dr. Snobelen’s columns is encouraged.
I found this typology to be helpful for future discussions with non-Theists of all stripes!
Philosopher of religion Mikael Stenmark identifies four principal theses of scientism (Scientism, p. 18):
T1 = The only kind of knowledge we can have is scientific knowledge.
T2 = The only things that exist are the ones science can discover.
T3 = Science alone can answer our moral questions and explain, as well as replace, traditional ethics.
T4 = Science alone can answer our existential questions and explain, as well as replace, traditional religion.
I just recently had a long duel with an Atheist insisting that only what he thought was Evidence could be allowed to defend a Theist’s belief in a supreme being. By fixating on the “concrete” things of science, he attempts to bully the great majority of the human race who reject his position about the Divine.
I don’t think any of us would want to depend on science to determine what books we would read, what music we would listen to, or who we would fall in love with.
8 posts were split to a new topic: Debating Roger’s ideas
The younger generation might differ with you on this, @Larry_Bunce. The use of applied psychology by certain dating web sites does seem to result in long-term relationships, including marriages. This is the case for at least five people in my extended family.
Shidduch seems to have been a decent system in small communities. I’m not sure how much science is truly involved in ‘dating science’ but I suppose there are relatively simple rules that can facilitate couples’ matching. (Personally, I think the most important first step is filtering for those with realistic expectations ).
On a related note, Google and Amazon are placing big $$$ bets on the development of algorithms to match people’s tastes to various products. When Pandora first started, it seemed almost amazing to me.
Relevant Monty Python reference here: Video