Posts by John

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

@unsure:
Just going to leave this here (from the very article in the link)
"Even if they have been investigated and approved by the Church, the Church does not give any absolute guarantee to their authenticity."

Yes.

These physical evidences are not dogma. No Catholic is obligated to accept them.

They are defined as private revelation instead of public revelation.

Primarily they are only relevant for the people directly involved.

Actually there aren't a lot of dogmas in CC, basically all dogmas (which are public revelations) are defined in the Apostles' Creed.

The most recent defined dogma dates from 1950: the Assumption of Mary.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

We share God's justice in a direct way in our very nature. No external learning is needed.

God's justice comes from God's nature and it's independent from God's will. God's nature is the source of all necessary truths.

I'm guilty because I'm not being myself. Because I live against my human nature which is an image of God's nature. Human nature are temporarily broken (but not totally broken).

But justice can only be neutralized by mercy. It's a zero-sum equation.

Mercy is a free act and is dependent on God's will.

So God Himself provided infinite mercy by being crucified.

But mercy being a free act (coming from God's will and not from God's nature) it demands a free act of acceptance too.

God's nature "punishes" (actually is an automatic/necessary thing) me but the God's will forgives me. My will only need to accept that mercy.

Please read more about molinism and you will understand much more about the Christian concept of God.

Sometimes I think people here only know the (awful) JW concept of God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

What are you afraid of?

God's justice.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

If somewhere somebody exists who thinks that science can tell us whether we ought to prefer chocolate ice cream or pistachio then that theoretical dullard is guilty of "scientism".

Why do you think that when you think this:

On the other hand, science can inform us about objective morality and consciousness is probably nothing more than a function of the brain.

Morality is way more complex than someone choosing ice cream flavors. Don't you agree?

Don't you see this very point of view indeed implies that science can determine how and why someone chooses its ice cream?

Why do you think science is able to determine morality choices by scanning molecules from the brain but at the same time being unable to do the same about ice cream choices?

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

Scientific paper, Cofty.

Not a magazine, blog, whatever...

I'm asking for scientific evidence about morality being a subject of scientific method as you claim.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

That is only your subjective opinion.

Please show me some scientific paper about morality being a subject of scientific method.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

On the other hand, science can inform us about objective morality and consciousness is probably nothing more than a function of the brain.

This is scientism.

Morality is a philosophical subject not a scientific subject.

If morality was scientific we could use computers as law judges.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

John_Mann

Empirically speaking, theism could never be totally refuted since, as you pointed out, no one is omniscient.
However, putting that aside for a moment, there are certain logical reasons that the theist God could not exist. Some of the attributes of this alleged being are impossible. Take omnipotence as an example. Is God able to create something indestructible, that not even he could destroy or uncreate? Whether you answer yes or no, his omnipotence is refuted.
Or what about his omniscience? Can the theist God ask a question that even he can't answer? If he can, he is not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.
Is God omnibenevolent; a being of pure love? But who could he have loved before he created the Son and with him everyone else? More importantly, if this God was all alone in the beginning, how could he have developed a language that would have allowed him to conceptualize, reason and so be capable of creating a universe? Language is a social phenomena. A single, eternal God could not develop a language and without language, conceptual thought, reasoning, mathematics - everything this God would need to create anything - would be impossible for him.
Did God create the Universe - the universe being defined mathematically as the set of all things existing in space-time? But space-time itself defines existence. A being that that created space-time would have to exist outside of it and therefore, would ipso facto not exist.
You see, even though I may never be able to disprove theism using the scientific/empirical method, I can easily refute it using logic alone. The theistic version of God is no more possible than two and three adding up to six. That said, there could be a deist version of God or an entire pantheon of polytheist gods. I guess it all depends on how strongly someone defines their atheism.

I think molinism explain all your (good) points.

Are you familiar with molinism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

But I for one don't use scientism as an insult. Just for clarification of debate.

Something to be used as an insult is very subjective. I gave the example of punkofnice and nihilism. Punk admitted to be a nihilist but at the same time he said doesn't like the label.

My position is Catholicism which is an "ism" too. I don't understand why some people are so sensitive about being properly defined.

There's no such thing as a neutral/unbiased/objective position.

Objects can't be accessed without a subject.

So a proper discussion requires clear definitions by the subjects.

147

Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty in

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.

John_Mann

Yes
Perhaps
Absolutely not

Well I will not debate about the third point anymore. I decided to be impossible to conclude about your position because your position is contradictory. Reason can't cope with contradictions. Reason demands clear definitions and positions.

But why perhaps about the second point? I noticed you always write "scientism". Why do you not accept scientism is a well defined term? My first post is about a link from AAAS about scientism. So why a very respected scientific institution would even talk about something that doesn't even exist?

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann