Scientism is an ideology that suggests that all knowledge can and should be absolutely dependent on scientific methods without considering the limitations of science with respect to many topics. Scientism with regards to atheism thinks that scientific method can determine the existence of all gods, without putting into consideration that there's a specific kind of God that is deistic that is beyond the scope of science. They also fail to realize that science is actually not interested in disproving gods, even if it tries, it can never disprove all gods, hence science is Agnostic with respect to religion.

Scientism is bad because it's

1. An inherently self-refuting philosophy.
2. Unscientific.
3. Dogmatic.

Dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other, so viewing science in a dogmatic way (which scientism does) completely defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method which was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly.

Science is aware of the limitations of the scientific method (as taught in science class). Scientism, on the other hand is not… and doesn't take those limits into account in the reasoning process when determining what is true in reality.

This leads to a plethora of logical errors, such as the unwarranted dismissal of untested / untestable claims, the dogmatic blind belief in the current consensus, it leads to Naturalistic extrapolations for whatever the scientific method can't answer, and many many more logical errors from the mis-application of the scientific method.

Honestly, I'd say scientism may be the most damaging philosophy of our time when fully & properly understood and it is what informs the philosophical choice of many atheists.

The problem is so few atheists fully & properly understand it that they conflate science with Scientism, which is precisely what results in the the numerous intellectual errors, some of which I described.

Scientism is, unfortunately, a very widespread philosophy and atheists who adhere to it are almost always unaware they are. The worst part is Scientism is a common philosophy within the scientific community itself, significantly detracting from their credibility overall.

Those who adhere to Scientism typically assume a HIGHER sense of scientific literacy for blindly believing the current consensus, when in reality that means their scientific literacy is LOWER. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. It's a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith… including no faith in academia's current consensus.

Science is not absolute, there are many aspect of life that science cannot explain, it is why we have special fields like sociology, art and commerce that will take care of them. This doesn't mean that I believe many religious gods, I am just saying that atheists are as myopic in their views as even many religious people. Atheists are overdependent on the efficacy of science and practically worship it.


Jaephoenix LordReed Maynman unknownknown sonmvayina

Workch:
Scientism is an ideology that suggests that all knowledge can and should be absolutely dependent on scientific methods without considering the limitations of science with respect to many topics. Scientism with regards to atheism thinks that scientific method can determine the existence of all gods, without putting into consideration that there's a specific kind of God that is deistic that is beyond the scope of science. They also fail to realize that science is actually not interested in disproving gods, even if it tries, it can never disprove all gods, hence science is Agnostic with respect to religion.

Scientism is bad because it's

1. An inherently self-refuting philosophy.
2. Unscientific.
3. Dogmatic.

Dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other, so viewing science in a dogmatic way (which scientism does) completely defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method which was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly.

Science is aware of the limitations of the scientific method (as taught in science class). Scientism, on the other hand is not… and doesn't take those limits into account in the reasoning process when determining what is true in reality.

This leads to a plethora of logical errors, such as the unwarranted dismissal of untested / untestable claims, the dogmatic blind belief in the current consensus, it leads to Naturalistic extrapolations for whatever the scientific method can't answer, and many many more logical errors from the mis-application of the scientific method.

Honestly, I'd say scientism may be the most damaging philosophy of our time when fully & properly understood and it is what informs the philosophical choice of many atheists.

The problem is so few atheists fully & properly understand it that they conflate science with Scientism, which is precisely what results in the the numerous intellectual errors, some of which I described.

Scientism is, unfortunately, a very widespread philosophy and atheists who adhere to it are almost always unaware they are. The worst part is Scientism is a common philosophy within the scientific community itself, significantly detracting from their credibility overall.

Those who adhere to Scientism typically assume a HIGHER sense of scientific literacy for blindly believing the current consensus, when in reality that means their scientific literacy is LOWER. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. It's a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith… including no faith in academia's current consensus.

Science is not absolute, there are many aspect of life that science cannot explain, it is why we have special fields like sociology, art and commerce that will take care of them. This doesn't mean that I believe many religious gods, I am just saying that atheists are as myopic in their views as even many religious people. Atheists are overdependent on the efficacy of science and practically worship it.


Jaephoenix LordReed Maynman unknownknown sonmvayina

I agree. Science cannot scry out everything especially gods that leave no measurable traces or gods that cannot be distinguished from nonexistent phenomenon.

LordReed:


I agree. Science cannot scry out everything especially gods that leave no measurable traces or gods that cannot be distinguished from nonexistent phenomenon.

Is still doesn't mean that such God doesn't exist.

Workch:
Is still doesn't mean that such God doesn't exist.

Of course but then how do you know?

Workch:
Scientism is an ideology that suggests that all knowledge can and should be absolutely dependent on scientific methods without considering the limitations of science with respect to many topics. Scientism with regards to atheism thinks that scientific method can determine the existence of all gods, without putting into consideration that there's a specific kind of God that is deistic that is beyond the scope of science. They also fail to realize that science is actually not interested in disproving gods, even if it tries, it can never disprove all gods, hence science is Agnostic with respect to religion.

Scientism is bad because it's

1. An inherently self-refuting philosophy.
2. Unscientific.
3. Dogmatic.

Dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other, so viewing science in a dogmatic way (which scientism does) completely defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method which was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly.

Science is aware of the limitations of the scientific method (as taught in science class). Scientism, on the other hand is not… and doesn't take those limits into account in the reasoning process when determining what is true in reality.

This leads to a plethora of logical errors, such as the unwarranted dismissal of untested / untestable claims, the dogmatic blind belief in the current consensus, it leads to Naturalistic extrapolations for whatever the scientific method can't answer, and many many more logical errors from the mis-application of the scientific method.

Honestly, I'd say scientism may be the most damaging philosophy of our time when fully & properly understood and it is what informs the philosophical choice of many atheists.

The problem is so few atheists fully & properly understand it that they conflate science with Scientism, which is precisely what results in the the numerous intellectual errors, some of which I described.

Scientism is, unfortunately, a very widespread philosophy and atheists who adhere to it are almost always unaware they are. The worst part is Scientism is a common philosophy within the scientific community itself, significantly detracting from their credibility overall.

Those who adhere to Scientism typically assume a HIGHER sense of scientific literacy for blindly believing the current consensus, when in reality that means their scientific literacy is LOWER. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. It's a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith… including no faith in academia's current consensus.

Science is not absolute, there are many aspect of life that science cannot explain, it is why we have special fields like sociology, art and commerce that will take care of them. This doesn't mean that I believe many religious gods, I am just saying that atheists are as myopic in their views as even many religious people. Atheists are overdependent on the efficacy of science and practically worship it.


Jaephoenix LordReed Maynman unknownknown sonmvayina

What are the other methods of observing our environment

LordReed:


Of course but then how do you know?

And that is the summum bonum of all questions. How do you know?

LordReed:


Of course but then how do you know?

we may never know. I don't know how we will know.

jaephoenix:

What are the other methods of observing our environment

sociology helps study humans society, it's not science.
For example, you cannot use just science you resolve the societal issues that resulted from the Biafran war. You can use knowledge from sociology to resolve it.

Even psychology is arguablt not science but it has its sphere and it answers many questions that science cannot answer.

You cannot know if a deistic god exist, we will never know because the goalpost will be shifted forever, so science will never find out and is not interested in finding out. The earlier you realize this, the better
I realized this, and it's why I am an agnostic now.


Science many times can answer the question of "how", it fails when you start asking questions of "why" with respect reality.

Workch:
sociology helps study humans society, it's not science.
For example, you cannot use just science you resolve the societal issues that resulted from the Biafran war. You can use knowledge from sociology to resolve it.

You cannot know if a deistic god exist, we will never know because the goalpost will be shifted forever, so science will never find out and is not interested in finding out. The earlier you realize this, the better
I realized this, and it's why I am an agnostic now.

If that's the case what is the point of pursing the subject?

LordReed:


If that's the case what is the point of pursing the subject?

This is why I agree many times with ignoticism.

There's no point at all pursuing it, everyone should just live their lives like the question of God is irrelevant. It still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist

Workch:
This is why I agree many times with ignoticism.

There's no point at all pursuing it, everyone should just leave their lives like the question of God is irrelevant. It still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist

True, I think it's the most practicable solution.

Every argument I can formulate against the existence of any deistic entity would apply equally to any hypothetical theistic entity.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence.

Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Typically, these had been raised as Christians and believed in one God, but they had become disenchanted with organized religion and orthodox teachings such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy, and the supernatural interpretation of events, such as miracles.”

— Deism - Wikipedia

Deists are even more myopic than theist, they only have beliefs while pretending they don’t.

Workch:
Scientism is an ideology that suggests that all knowledge can and should be absolutely dependent on scientific methods without considering the limitations of science with respect to many topics. Scientism with regards to atheism thinks that scientific method can determine the existence of all gods, without putting into consideration that there's a specific kind of God that is deistic that is beyond the scope of science. They also fail to realize that science is actually not interested in disproving gods, even if it tries, it can never disprove all gods, hence science is Agnostic with respect to religion.

Scientism is bad because it's

1. An inherently self-refuting philosophy.
2. Unscientific.
3. Dogmatic.

Dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other, so viewing science in a dogmatic way (which scientism does) completely defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method which was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly.

Science is aware of the limitations of the scientific method (as taught in science class). Scientism, on the other hand is not… and doesn't take those limits into account in the reasoning process when determining what is true in reality.

This leads to a plethora of logical errors, such as the unwarranted dismissal of untested / untestable claims, the dogmatic blind belief in the current consensus, it leads to Naturalistic extrapolations for whatever the scientific method can't answer, and many many more logical errors from the mis-application of the scientific method.

Honestly, I'd say scientism may be the most damaging philosophy of our time when fully & properly understood and it is what informs the philosophical choice of many atheists.

The problem is so few atheists fully & properly understand it that they conflate science with Scientism, which is precisely what results in the the numerous intellectual errors, some of which I described.

Scientism is, unfortunately, a very widespread philosophy and atheists who adhere to it are almost always unaware they are. The worst part is Scientism is a common philosophy within the scientific community itself, significantly detracting from their credibility overall.

Those who adhere to Scientism typically assume a HIGHER sense of scientific literacy for blindly believing the current consensus, when in reality that means their scientific literacy is LOWER. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. It's a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith… including no faith in academia's current consensus.

Science is not absolute, there are many aspect of life that science cannot explain, it is why we have special fields like sociology, art and commerce that will take care of them. This doesn't mean that I believe many religious gods, I am just saying that atheists are as myopic in their views as even many religious people. Atheists are overdependent on the efficacy of science and practically worship it.


Jaephoenix LordReed Maynman unknownknown sonmvayina

Is sociology, art and commerce base on belief and faith?

Can sociology, art and commerce prove their assertions with facts and evidences?
And to me science means knowledge.
To be agnostic simply means to be “without knowledge”
Knowledge is facts we acquire through study. We can’t “study” god/s because none of us - not even theists - can show where god/s are. We can’t measure the existence or non-existence of god/s because nobody can even agree on who/what “god” is and what the properties of such a god might be.
It’s impossible to study that you can’t even define

According to August Comte(father of sociology)
~Sociology is a science of social phenomenon “subject to natural and invariable laws the discovery which is the subject of investigation”.

Kinda busy but the topic is just Workch trying to feel superior to atheists and aligning is agnosticism to science. I hadn’t heard about Scientism before this but a quick search indicate that it’s mostly a straw man by Christians used to disparage anyone that shows that claims to be nonsense using science. God and other supernatural beings are not in realm of science and science is not “agnostic”. Also, atheism does not depend on science despite some atheists saying science disproves god just like theism doesn’t not depend on science despite some theists trying to misuse science to prove god.

This person says it better and saves me time:
Moving on, scientism can occur when you try to use science to argue about a topic that is outside of the realm of science. Science, by its very definition, is limited to the physical universe. If we can’t observe and quantify it (or at least observe and quantify its results), then we can’t study it using science. Thus, philosophy and theology are outside of the scope of science, and science cannot answer questions like, “is there a god?” or “does life have meaning?” or “is this morally right?” To put that another way, science can show us how to clone a human being, but it can’t show us whether or not it is morally right to clone a human being.

Usually, religion is where people get into trouble with this more than in philosophy (again, in my observations at least). Anytime you hear someone make a statement like, “science has disproved the existence of god,” you are hearing scientism. The concept of god is inherently one of a metaphysical being who exists outside of the laws of science. Therefore, science cannot address his or her existence.

The flip-side of that is that religious people will often use accusations of scientism to attack scientific results that conflict with claims that their religion makes about the physical universe. Creationism is the most obvious example of this. Science can’t tell us if god exists, but it can tell us (with an extremely high degree of certainty) that life on earth has evolved for billions of years, Noah’s flood didn’t happen, etc., and none of that is scientism. You see, anytime that religion makes a claim about the physical universe, it has entered into the realm of science, and we can use physical evidence to evaluate the claim.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2018/08/01/scientism-is-it-a-straw-man-or-a-legitimate-critique/

God is a complex idea based on Man’s ability to create for a purpose by manipulating matter. The idea is then extrapolated to the universe as a creation of a Man like entity.

Once you understand that, you don’t need to call yourself an atheist or agnostic. The caveat is that we are inherently limited about knowledge of natural noumena and anything we can’t perceive because of our nature. For the things we can’t possible know I leave you this quote.

What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Workch:
Scientism is an ideology that suggests that all knowledge can and should be absolutely dependent on scientific methods without considering the limitations of science with respect to many topics. Scientism with regards to atheism thinks that scientific method can determine the existence of all gods, without putting into consideration that there's a specific kind of God that is deistic that is beyond the scope of science. They also fail to realize that science is actually not interested in disproving gods, even if it tries, it can never disprove all gods, hence science is Agnostic with respect to religion.

Scientism is bad because it's

1. An inherently self-refuting philosophy.
2. Unscientific.
3. Dogmatic.

Dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other, so viewing science in a dogmatic way (which scientism does) completely defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method which was specifically designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly.

Science is aware of the limitations of the scientific method (as taught in science class). Scientism, on the other hand is not… and doesn't take those limits into account in the reasoning process when determining what is true in reality.

This leads to a plethora of logical errors, such as the unwarranted dismissal of untested / untestable claims, the dogmatic blind belief in the current consensus, it leads to Naturalistic extrapolations for whatever the scientific method can't answer, and many many more logical errors from the mis-application of the scientific method.

Honestly, I'd say scientism may be the most damaging philosophy of our time when fully & properly understood and it is what informs the philosophical choice of many atheists.

The problem is so few atheists fully & properly understand it that they conflate science with Scientism, which is precisely what results in the the numerous intellectual errors, some of which I described.

Scientism is, unfortunately, a very widespread philosophy and atheists who adhere to it are almost always unaware they are. The worst part is Scientism is a common philosophy within the scientific community itself, significantly detracting from their credibility overall.

Those who adhere to Scientism typically assume a HIGHER sense of scientific literacy for blindly believing the current consensus, when in reality that means their scientific literacy is LOWER. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. It's a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith… including no faith in academia's current consensus.

Science is not absolute, there are many aspect of life that science cannot explain, it is why we have special fields like sociology, art and commerce that will take care of them. This doesn't mean that I believe many religious gods, I am just saying that atheists are as myopic in their views as even many religious people. Atheists are overdependent on the efficacy of science and practically worship it.


Jaephoenix LordReed Maynman unknownknown sonmvayina

Why can't spirituality and science exist side by side ?