« "Who is gonna make it? We'll find out in the long run / I know we can take it if our love is a strong one " | Main | We have the responsiveness of a corpse »

February 28, 2015

Is scientism defensible?

The Folly of Scientism @ The New Atlantis
Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand — of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.

Posted by gerardvanderleun at February 28, 2015 9:32 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Logical positivism was demolished early in the 20th century, but the ignorant keep clinging to it even as they know deep down its nonsense.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2015 10:54 PM

Works without Faith is dead.

Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2015 7:11 AM

A good article that gets to the essence of the matter. Scientism is all contingency; to it's proponents there is nothing necessary.

In other words nihilism.

So all that remains is pure will to power.

Posted by: ThomasD [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2015 7:24 AM

Indeed, the gaping hole in peoples' understanding of fascism is that it took the most modern, progressive ideas of science and applied it to culture, economics, ethics, and government. They concluded that God was false, so therefore there was no basis for anything except what we choose to impose on the world around us. Its a pretty obvious choice if you think the world has no innate meaning, direction, or purpose. They just showed the whole world where that leads and the world recoiled in horror, then pretended it wasn't really all about that after all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2015 8:55 PM

Well, nine out of ten international experts agree. The tenth one disagreed because it wasn't his idea in the first place. Kinda like chickens. Bantam chickens.
My uncle Louie Lozko, we all called him "Letsgo Lozko", he said that all he ever got from his flock was majority rule.
The science of chicken-ology.

Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 2, 2015 6:21 AM

I would suggest to all my Christian brothers who are interested in fighting for the the church---whatever its denomination--that they look up 'Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault' by Stephen Hicks. It was an Instapundit recommendation, and it does a great job of explaining the roots and nature of the mindset we are up against. It is not a difficult read for a book touching on philosophy, and it puts current events, and their conflict with Christianity, into sharp perspective.

Chas: You wanna cite any spiritual leader from the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church claiming that 'works alone' is the way to salvation? You can't. No one has ever asserted that. Read the book of James; if you have faith, then your actions will necessarily always conform to your faith. It just makes sense.

Posted by: ahem [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 2, 2015 9:40 AM

ahem: yes, James. In his epistle, James makes the statement “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26).

I was using a turn of phrase, not asserting anything. Faith without works is dead faith because the lack of works reveals an unchanged life or a spiritually dead heart.

Works without Faith is worldly and can never serve as a passport to Heaven. The dispensations issued by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages did nothing but increase the wealth of the church.

Thanks for the reference to James; I haven't read much of that book lately.


Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2015 6:27 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)