22 February, 2011

Scientism is not Science – Toward a Christian Admiration for True Science | Archdiocese of Washington

Scientism is not Science – Toward a Christian Admiration for True Science | Archdiocese of Washington

6 comments:

  1. Scientism "insists that if something cannot physically measured or observed it is not real; it does not exist at all."

    I don't know of any scientist that ever said that. Many things in science are postulated are possible without being able to measure them. Extrasolar planets have been postulated for centuries, but only in the last 15 years did anyone come up with a way of detecting their existence.

    This is a strawman argument.

    What science is skeptical about is religious claims that by define themselves to defy measurement. Obvious ones are the definition of God, the change of the Eucharist based upon Aristotelian metaphysics and even the efficacy of prayer.

    All this hiding of the divine leaves two conclusions, either God abhors reason and inquiry (maybe that's the lesson of the Garden of Eden) or God doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael:

    You missed an obvious conclusion that your comment leaves open, and that is that God's ways are so far above our ways that we cannot grasp them in their fullness, and that God is not in fact just like us.

    However, your conclusions are logical and compare to the conclusions that we all make from the available data we encounter in our daily lives.

    The bigger question is do we have all the required data to draw to our counclusions? And, following that do we have the brain power, if we have all the data, to conclude as we do, or is there a superior intelligence to our own?

    God Bless You

    The other Michael

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you have a solution by definition. You define God (or any other tennet of faith) in such a way that you can believe what ever you want and smile and say that it is beyond all testing.

    ANd if we do not have all the required data to draw a conclusion, why not reserve judgement. One does that (or should) do that in all otyher aspects of one's life, why does religion get an exemption?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...God's ways are so far above our ways that we cannot grasp them in their fullness, and that God is not in fact just like us."

    If you are content to believe that and wish to explore no further, that is your affair. It is not, however, the position that everyone else will take.

    "The bigger question is do we have all the required data to draw to our counclusions? And, following that do we have the brain power, if we have all the data, to conclude as we do, or is there a superior intelligence to our own?"

    Again, those are your questions. They are not mine, nor are they the questions most people would ask. You never get anywhere by undermining your own power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A little touchy aren't we?

    Michael came up with two possible valid conclusions. I suggest that there is a third conclusion that is equally valid. That is all.

    We, as human beings draw conclusions based on available data, and how we interpret that data. Our conclusions might be correct. They might be flawed.

    No big deal!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure what you mean, MBrandon (if you're talking to me, that is...). There are more options available than either of you can name. How is that being "touchy?"

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics