DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 532
1 members and 531 guests
Sal_the_man
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Scientism's Paradox
Unread
  (#1)
Derpentine Dealer
 
OrangeShirtDude's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,464
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Location: "Going Bonkers"
Scientism's Paradox - November 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, Scientism is defined as follows:
Scientism, in the strong sense,is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter. This view is summed up nicely by Michael Shermer:
Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).
On the other hand, the dictionary definition of 'scientism' is the attitude and method of the typical natural scientist, whoever that might be.
In his 1935 publication Religion and Science, Bertrand Russell declared that "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."

The paradox of even the weak Scientism position is that it cannot affirm an exclusive reliance on the scientific method for knowledge and still pass its own test for validity. There is no way to apply the scientific method to determining whether the statement that the scientific method is the only legitimate means of discovering truth. Even Shermer's "softer" definition falls victim to that fact that it is not verifiable by empiricism.

I submit that any belief system that contains an inherent logical contradiction is false. Scientism, therefore, is a false belief system.


How's my posting? Please direct all concerns and inquiries to DCSBN's chief content manager, Hollywood, via PM.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Suddenly Superstitious!!!
 
MudDawg's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,391
Join Date: August 25, 2004
Location: Dulles
November 1, 2012, 12:34 PM

And I submit that any belief system rooted in population control, lacking any form of proof, requiring unconditional belief, and generally the members are indoctrinated at a very early age....might also be considered false as well.

Let's think about the approximately 2800 different religions throughout the world over the span of the collective memory of mankind. Which one is right? Which ones are wrong? What about Scientology? Just because it was created as a religion within the past 100 years....is it wrong? Why is it considered a cult? Because members are introduced by their parents in many cases? Because it is used to control members lives?

Oh yeah. Why are almost all of the accepted religions ethnocentric? Why are they many times used to justify heinous acts like war? Terrorism?

And now for something to ponder. Why in a period of significantly higher levels of education...are the rosters of many of the largest religions becoming smaller? Are more people thinking for themselves? Or are they just evil? Because if you talk to a churchgoer, many times you are looked down on for not attending. (I grew up next to a church. Trust me, this is endemic.)

OK. Carry on OSD. How's the knee?


I want my baby back, baby back, baby back....Chileeeeee's bay back...
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to MudDawg  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
Derpentine Dealer
 
OrangeShirtDude's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,464
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Location: "Going Bonkers"
November 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

The knee is recovering nicely--thanks for asking. Saw my surgeon yesterday, am about six weeks out. I was sitting on the table when he walked in and asked me how things were going. I just raised my knee up to my chest and set my foot down on the table right in front of me and said, "Fairly good." In other words, I'm well ahead of schedule on the return of range of motion. Still though, it'll be several months before I do any hard riding. I'll be out there next summer but definitely hanging in the back, taking it very easy. At my age, with a donor ligament, I should not fully challenge the knee for at least another 10 months or so.


Haha so I hope you didn't think I wasn't going to respond to your questions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudDawg View Post
And I submit that any belief system rooted in population control, lacking any form of proof, requiring unconditional belief, and generally the members are indoctrinated at a very early age....might also be considered false as well.
So, this I generally agree with. With regard to your other questions,...

Which one is right? All teach some truth to varying degrees. However, only Christianity accurately describes the nature of man and his predicament. Only Christianity accurately reveals God to us and bridges the gap between Him and us.

Which ones are wrong? Again, all teach some amount of truth. However, it is logically impossible that all religions are completely and entirely right because of the in-congruent truth claims they make. Truth, by definition, is exclusive.

What about Scientology? Just because it was created as a religion within the past 100 years....is it wrong? No. Age is irrelevant. We should set aside age and look at its truth claims and what evidence there is for us to believe it. Those truth claims and evidence thereof are severely wanting.

Why is it considered a cult? Because members are introduced by their parents in many cases? Because it is used to control members lives? No, by definition, a cult is a religion that denies the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--One essence, three persons. The concept of the Trinity is often purported to be a contradiction. It is a paradox and difficult to comprehend, but it is not a contradiction.

Oh yeah. Why are almost all of the accepted religions ethnocentric? Why are they many times used to justify heinous acts like war? Terrorism? Because the nature of man is at its core wrong. Man is wicked at heart. Therefore, his endeavors to wash himself with his own efforts are like washing your face with your mirror: ineffective. Christianity is not ethnocentric, by the way. Nor are the other major religions.

Why in a period of significantly higher levels of education...are the rosters of many of the largest religions becoming smaller? So this question is built upon a false premise: that many of the largest religions are shrinking. Worldwise, Islam is probably the fastest growing religion. Christianity is spreading still in many parts of the world and in Africa in particular. If you mean just here in the US, then again, Islam is on the rise. If you are talking purely about Christian church attendance, that is a matter of controversy, and some argue that there is a shift toward very small and very large churches rather than a net decline in church attendance. I tend to believe that church attendance is truly on the decline, however, and I believe it relates primarily to the secularization of American society.

Are more people thinking for themselves? I'll accept, for the sake of argument for a moment, your premise that the number of Christians in the US is on the decline. If true, I would contend that is because they think of themselves more, not so much for themselves more. Since the Protestant Reformation, Christians have arguably led the way in thinking for oneself.

Or are they just evil? "[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) regardless of belief, church attendance, or anything else. Who is good?

Because if you talk to a churchgoer, many times you are looked down on for not attending. This is very unfortunate. If someone has good news to share, then it is a travesty for him to disparage another for not already knowing and responding. We are to share good news, not condemn people for not believing as we do. I'm sorry if someone gave you a hard time for not attending church.


How's my posting? Please direct all concerns and inquiries to DCSBN's chief content manager, Hollywood, via PM.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
Я - Ребенок Люциферов
 
vonstallin's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,828
Join Date: November 2, 2006
Location: Wash DC: (2 min from Adams Morgan)
November 6, 2012, 03:47 PM

Sweden have it right....


The Nightmare of Summit Point
WERA Nov# 325 / CCS # 326
2016 ZX10R ABS (Street) | 2011 ZX10RR(Race)
2011 R6 (Street & Track) | 2009 WR250F
GunnRunnaz.com|GR on FaceBook | www.2666ad.com|
  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via MSN to vonstallin  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
Suddenly Superstitious!!!
 
MudDawg's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,391
Join Date: August 25, 2004
Location: Dulles
November 6, 2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by vonstallin View Post
Sweden have it right....

I'm not a swede. I'm Danish. No. Not a cheese Danish either.

Feel free to share. I know nothing of Sweden.


I want my baby back, baby back, baby back....Chileeeeee's bay back...
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to MudDawg  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
TNT
GP Champ
 
Posts: 1,670
Join Date: August 21, 2011
Location: Annapolis, MD
November 6, 2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudDawg View Post
And I submit that any belief system rooted in population control, lacking any form of proof, requiring unconditional belief, and generally the members are indoctrinated at a very early age....might also be considered false as well.

Let's think about the approximately 2800 different religions throughout the world over the span of the collective memory of mankind. Which one is right? Which ones are wrong? What about Scientology? Just because it was created as a religion within the past 100 years....is it wrong? Why is it considered a cult? Because members are introduced by their parents in many cases? Because it is used to control members lives?

Oh yeah. Why are almost all of the accepted religions ethnocentric? Why are they many times used to justify heinous acts like war? Terrorism?

And now for something to ponder. Why in a period of significantly higher levels of education...are the rosters of many of the largest religions becoming smaller? Are more people thinking for themselves? Or are they just evil? Because if you talk to a churchgoer, many times you are looked down on for not attending. (I grew up next to a church. Trust me, this is endemic.)

OK. Carry on OSD. How's the knee?
Could you cite examples, with some actual facts or at least sound reasoning to back up those examples, claimed by your thesis statement? Not sure what religions of which you speak, but then again, I'm not a theologian.

Also, "because there are many, none can be right" has nothing to back it up either. Just because someone thinks 2+2=5 and someone else thinks it equals 6 does not make the guy saying 2+2=4 wrong. Your question, "Just because it was created as a religion within the past 100 years....is it wrong?" seems to indicate that you also don't support your initial claim in that paragraph.

Why are religions with rules, dictates, and codes of conduct so spurned by people who keep voting the government to get bigger and more laws to be made about walking across the street with earphones on? Kind of ironic to me.

As for indoctrinating children, what would you call school? Is it okay to send my child to a public institution of learning? Even if that institution is teaching something like, oh say, gravity? It's a theory (i.e. belief based on observation) - not proven.

I understand your points, but they are not well established as logical arguments against organized faiths. The "reasons" you cite could be applied easily to things you probably support on a daily basis. What you have written is similar to saying something like, "I hate all green food, therefore I hate broccoli," and then going and eating green jello with a smile on your face. It doesn't make sense. Your argument should be more along the lines of, "I don't like foods that taste bad to me."
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
TNT
GP Champ
 
Posts: 1,670
Join Date: August 21, 2011
Location: Annapolis, MD
November 6, 2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeShirtDude View Post

Because if you talk to a churchgoer, many times you are looked down on for not attending. This is very unfortunate. If someone has good news to share, then it is a travesty for him to disparage another for not already knowing and responding. We are to share good news, not condemn people for not believing as we do. I'm sorry if someone gave you a hard time for not attending church.
In my experience in dealing with Christians, this idea is critical and so often either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or missed completely. It's a faith that at it's core is about a relationship with someone who spent a great deal of his time with society's rejects (note: learn some of the history here on who these people were and why, and you might capture some interesting knowledge). His message was for all to embrace him. So if a Christian looks down on someone for not believing, not following, or not being faithful, then they are missing the point. If someone believes they know the truth and truly care about you, would you expect them not to tell you? Would you expect someone who actually cares about you to let you wallow in ignorance? I really hope I have people in the world that care enough about me to tell me when my fly is down, let alone something of the magnitude that this faith preaches.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
Suddenly Superstitious!!!
 
MudDawg's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,391
Join Date: August 25, 2004
Location: Dulles
November 6, 2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNT View Post
Could you cite examples, with some actual facts or at least sound reasoning to back up those examples, claimed by your thesis statement? Not sure what religions of which you speak, but then again, I'm not a theologian.

Also, "because there are many, none can be right" has nothing to back it up either. Just because someone thinks 2+2=5 and someone else thinks it equals 6 does not make the guy saying 2+2=4 wrong. Your question, "Just because it was created as a religion within the past 100 years....is it wrong?" seems to indicate that you also don't support your initial claim in that paragraph.

Why are religions with rules, dictates, and codes of conduct so spurned by people who keep voting the government to get bigger and more laws to be made about walking across the street with earphones on? Kind of ironic to me.

As for indoctrinating children, what would you call school? Is it okay to send my child to a public institution of learning? Even if that institution is teaching something like, oh say, gravity? It's a theory (i.e. belief based on observation) - not proven.

I understand your points, but they are not well established as logical arguments against organized faiths. The "reasons" you cite could be applied easily to things you probably support on a daily basis. What you have written is similar to saying something like, "I hate all green food, therefore I hate broccoli," and then going and eating green jello with a smile on your face. It doesn't make sense. Your argument should be more along the lines of, "I don't like foods that taste bad to me."
Soooo not a thesis!

I was responding to a friend who put forth an interesting post. It's a critique of Scientism. I don't purport to know everything. I know very little and ask questions. Then I use my own life experiences and critical thinking to judge it for myself.

I understand that I am very critical of religion. That is directly related to my personal experiences growing up. I was asking a lot of questions. It seems that religions (in my own personal experience) are more than willing to brand other religions as wrong/incorrect/etc.

My question about which religion is right among the many....was only to illustrate that the belief structures have evolved due to social influence over the span of recorded history. So it seems more (to me at least) that much of that is personal interpretation of something....? (Bible, divine intervention, ???)

But you are correct that I interpret religion as a means of population control through the ages. Whether through benevolent means or fear. It was still control in my opinion.

The issue with indoctrination is that ALL of the systems do it. Look at most kids, they have the same political and religious beliefs. (Not 100%, but usually they evolve to them at some point because that's how they were raised. It's just human nature.)

Oh, I like green things. Green jello, broccoli, asparagus, M&Ms, salad.

And I tend to agree that many of the current faiths seem to have moderated to a degree. Looking down on others is really only to make a person feel better about themselves. Having experienced this firsthand for 25 years by living next door to a southern baptist church has the potential to make anybody critical of organized religion.

@TNT - I understand your point about talking to friends about religion. One of the requirements for the priest who married my wife and I was that we both attend a series of religion "classes". I had no problem with that. Short sermon on a topic. Dinner and discussion centered around the topic afterwards. I don't have a problem with a person's beliefs. I don't say that I know better either way. But to look down on somebody for not sharing your beliefs really does miss the point in my opinion. It was interesting....uh...up until the point they went to do a laying on of hands. (I had wrecked at speed at Daytona and was limping around still.) I declined politely, and basically said it was supposed to reinforce the concept of not wrecking...so I should hurt.

Oh yeah, my wife is very religious. Obviously I'm not. She prays at her church. I pray as I pass the #1 marker on the front straight at Summit Point.

@OSD - Let me know when you are ready to ride. We can always do an easy day at Wicomico. The trails, no MX for you. My mid/upper back is still sore. Gah!! It sucks getting old.


I want my baby back, baby back, baby back....Chileeeeee's bay back...
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to MudDawg  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
You meet the nicest
 
WKDBLD's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,601
Join Date: June 3, 2003
Location: Alexandria
November 6, 2012, 09:06 PM

I've never even heard of Scientism (neither has spell check)

Ism's in my opinion are not good.



BECAUSE I GET OFF ON IT!
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
Eddie would go ...
 
Dutch's Avatar
 
Posts: 10,507
Join Date: April 16, 2006
November 6, 2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeShirtDude View Post
According to The Skeptic's Dictionary
ahh the Skeptic's Dictionary, also a renowned source for Zombie lore

Great source to make your point.......not


cue zombie Jesus joke by Stille


Quote:
Originally Posted by spud View Post
No one gives a fuck about your puff out your chest bravado.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
Derpentine Dealer
 
OrangeShirtDude's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,464
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Location: "Going Bonkers"
November 6, 2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by WKDBLD View Post
Ism's in my opinion are not good.
Ismist!

Dutch, here ya go: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html


How's my posting? Please direct all concerns and inquiries to DCSBN's chief content manager, Hollywood, via PM.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
Eddie would go ...
 
Dutch's Avatar
 
Posts: 10,507
Join Date: April 16, 2006
November 6, 2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeShirtDude View Post
see, i knew you could do better than 'self-annihilating'


Quote:
Originally Posted by spud View Post
No one gives a fuck about your puff out your chest bravado.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
Suddenly Superstitious!!!
 
MudDawg's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,391
Join Date: August 25, 2004
Location: Dulles
November 6, 2012, 09:30 PM

Save Ferris!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by WKDBLD View Post
Ism's in my opinion are not good.



I want my baby back, baby back, baby back....Chileeeeee's bay back...
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to MudDawg  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
GP Champ
 
Posts: 3,459
Join Date: December 29, 2002
Location: NYC UES
November 8, 2012, 04:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeShirtDude View Post
I submit that any belief system that contains an inherent logical contradiction is false. Scientism, therefore, is a false belief system.
You have a problem with Scientism - as do I and many people - but you believe in a belief system that not only contains inherent logical contradictions, but perpetuates verifiable lies?

Which version of Christianity do you believe in? The one from today, the different version from 50 years ago, the completely different version from 1000 years ago, etc? Christianity doesn't reveal anything - it is what it is based on what the leaders du jour tell you it is. It's a belief system that changes over time as new things are discovered through science - which means that the prior systems where verifiably wrong.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#15)
TNT
GP Champ
 
Posts: 1,670
Join Date: August 21, 2011
Location: Annapolis, MD
November 8, 2012, 05:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Witold View Post
You have a problem with Scientism - as do I and many people - but you believe in a belief system that not only contains inherent logical contradictions, but perpetuates verifiable lies?

Which version of Christianity do you believe in? The one from today, the different version from 50 years ago, the completely different version from 1000 years ago, etc? Christianity doesn't reveal anything - it is what it is based on what the leaders du jour tell you it is. It's a belief system that changes over time as new things are discovered through science - which means that the prior systems where verifiably wrong.
Please backup your claims if you are going to make such broad, sweeping statements. Cite examples. There are some people who will take what you say at face value despite having no evidence to support what you say. You're sounding like CNN or Fox News right now.

Interestingly enough, that religion in particular seems to be one of the more stable and unchanging institutions in the world - many people argue that because it won't "get with the times" and "allow" abortion, pre-marital sex, etc., then it is not welcoming to many people who don't agree with its teachings. So...it doesn't change enough, but it changes too much?
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.