it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Does history count as knowledge? For example.
Marxism is based on the idea that history is reduced to matter. Crazy idea called historical materialism. It's a kind of scientism.
Everything must be material even beauty must be explained. Music is only matter and motion for instance.
That's why modern art is so ugly.
One characteristic of truth is beauty.
so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
Yes I can see the flaw in JW logic about blood. The symbol (blood meaning life) itself is more important than the real thing (life).
But I don't see the JW doctrine of blood being an analogy of how Law consider the human superiority.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I asked you for a specific example of something we could learn "about the universe" from a source other than the application of science. You refused to give one so we are no further forward.
Music is one example.
Do you mean like expecting science to tell us whether we ought to prefer pistachio or chocolate ice cream?
Exactly.
On the other hand when theists claim that god acts in the physical world - as you have - it is entirely reasonable to turn to science to investigate those claims. That would be a proper application of science.
Even if we have a physical evidence like a medical cure for instance it's not possible to consider this physical evidence as scientific evidence because repeatability.
If someone claims to have been cured then we can scientifically investigate if such cure indeed had occurred. But we can't put a scientific evidence about the cause of such cure.
The Catholic Church for instance demands a scientific evidence about cures. The scientific evidence will only states that some improbable cure had occurred and that's it. The scientific evidence can't say if was a paranormal cure. Usually the scientific conclusion is just "no natural explanation found".
There's a very defined line when science ends and metaphysical claims can be made upon it.
Particularly I think clinical cures are rare and only occurs in a Catholic context.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Again:
Scientism = a metaphysical claim about the scientific method being the only valid way to get knowledge about the universe. And also the universal applicability of the scientific method.
One example of scientism is demanding scientific evidence to things beyond the scope of the scientific method.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I don't understand you cofty.
Your position is scientism does not exist? Yes or not?
Even if great philosophers of science like Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam recognized the dangers of scientism?
Can't you see you personally is a follower of scientism in denial?
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Which is convenient.
Not if you consider the concept of God and the concept of scientific method.
I consider the St. Anselm's concept of God which is much older than the concept of the scientific method.
Catholicism never needed to adapt official concepts of God because the scientific method.
A witness saying "I saw that man in the dock rob the bank" is not the same as "I prayed for something nice to happen to me today and then someone put a £50 through my letterbox therefore God answered my prayer."
Exactly.
That's why I said Christians make a lot of nonsense claims.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
You mean evidence which is baseless interpretation, highly subjective, carries a high risk of confirmation bias, difficult to independently verify, not subject to peer review and so on. In other words, everything that scientific method has been developed to avoid.
Taking out the "baseless" is exactly what you said.
Scientism bias makes people forget there are several types of evidence beyond scientific evidence.
Testimonial evidence is accepted as valid in Law for instance.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
The problem is about the type of evidence.
I don't think is possible to have scientific evidence about God. I can't put God in a vial so I can't make any scientific experiment about God.
But there are physical evidence, testimonial evidence, logical evidence and metaphysical evidence (like visions, prayers, intuition, etc).
Miracles produce physical evidence but they can't be replicate in any scientific method. So the cause of miracle or the cause of physical evidences can't be scientific.
We have Eucharist turned to flesh and blood but the event of transformation itself can't be approached scientifically.
Basically I'm saying there are several types of evidence and not just scientific evidence.
so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
Your arguments about the law are a red herring.
The Law does not hold a five year old responsible for their actions. Five year olds have consciousness.
You are using a red herring.
My argument is about legal superiority based on consciousness and not in legal responsibility.
My points still stands because a five years old child is considered superior to animals based in its human nature.
so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
@unsure
Sorry if I misread your position and for being harsh.
I never said anything was a logical flaw. I said it seems contradictory, (to me).
Contradiction is a logical flaw.
