There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another — Banno
I agree that your "single source" is stipulated in the definition of Scientism. But "Science" is not an actual thing, not a centralized institution, or a book of wisdom. Instead, it's an ideal that scientists are supposed to aspire to. Likewise "settled science" assumes a unified consensus. Yet consensus in science remains an unattainable state of perfect agreement among independent thinkers. There is no central authority to settle all disagreements.Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism. — Tom Storm
You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". Nor should there be. So how could you challenge me to demonstrate the existence of what I just denied? :smile:there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this. — Tom Storm
You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". — Gnomon
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course. — Art48
The triumph of materialism in the sphere of cosmology and metaphysics had the profoundest impact on human self-understanding. The message it conveyed was that the inward dimensions of our existence, with its vast profusion of spiritual and ethical concerns, is mere adventitious superstructure. The inward is reducible to the external, the invisible to the visible, the personal to the impersonal. Mind becomes a higher order function of the brain, the individual a node in a social order governed by statistical laws. All humankind's ideals and values are relegated to the status of illusions: they are projections of biological drives, sublimated wish-fulfillment. Even ethics, the philosophy of moral conduct, comes to be explained away as a flowery way of expressing personal preferences. Its claim to any objective foundation is untenable, and all ethical judgments become equally valid. The ascendancy of relativism is complete. — Bhikkhu Bodhi
Sigmund Freud remarked that ‘the self-love of mankind has been three times wounded by science’ referring to the Copernican revolution, Darwin’s discovery of evolution, and Nietszche’s declaration of the Death of God. In a strange way, the Copenhagen Interpretation gave back to humanity what the Enlightenment had taken away, by placing consciousness in a pivotal role in the observational construction of the most fundamental constituents of reality. While this is fiercely contested by what Werner Heisenberg termed ‘dogmatic realism’, for better or for worse it has become an established idea in modern cultural discourse (see e.g. Richard Conn Henry The Mental Universe.)
...ooo I suspect the ideas therein are sitting quietly in the background, an un-noted stoa for various Green political movements and alternate economic theories.Small is Beautiful, by E F Schumacher... — Wayfarer
Well, you could make it illegal I suppose, or brainwash people against religion from childhood. Might not be totally effective, but would no doubt vastly reduce the ranks of the faithful. — Janus
I honestly don't see the point of that, other than control, and control is the basic point of religion. It would essentially be replacing religion. I say let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis
I support those atheist evangelists who help people to deconstruct from fundamentalist religion. I think this is a worthy thing to do and I have donated money. — Tom Storm
What is emerging is no longer the hard-edged materialistic science of the later modern period, nor the cliches and time-worn tropes of historical religion, but something that absorbs but exceeds both. — Wayfarer
This really does depend on the definition of "science" and "religion". You can have science presented as this systematic method of studying reality and religion as mere appeal to authority. — IP060903
It might be worth mentioning Science and Non-Duality. This started as a conference in San Rafael in California in 2009.
The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. — Wayfarer
Science will need to explain how consciousness can come from non-conscious stuff before it can replace religion. And I'm not holding my breath on an explanation. — RogueAI
It will become a religion. In many ways it already is. — Tzeentch
let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis
Both the Russian and Chinese Communist parties set out to eradicate religion, and to institute 'scientific communism', but both of them failed. — Wayfarer
Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. — Christoffer
Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? — Tom Storm
I’d like to be proven wrong. — invicta
A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' — Tom Storm
The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.
For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition.
No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases. — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.