Accompanying this extraordinary accumulation of knowledge has been the emergence of a new form of science, one which mistakenly views itself as maintaining a monopoly on truth. This school of thought is commonly known as “scientism.”
There is so many things wrong with this already.
1) There is no such thing as a
new form of science. Science is still done the samw way it always have been done, unless you were to look at new fields of scientific inquiry or new and exciting gadgets that scientists can use now.
2) Science cannot view itself as anything.
3) This
school of thought might view "science" as one thing or another - I will agree to call it "scientism" for the time being.
Scientism is essentially a system of beliefs which posits that science alone can give a comprehensive and exclusive view of the world free from faith and philosophy. Those who adhere to this science-only philosophy dogmatically assert not only that science provides answers to all of life’s questions, but also that it has rendered philosophy and religion superfluous.
Informally, 'philosophy' may refer to a general world view or to an ethic or belief. (
Wikipedia)
Maybe the author should visit the philosophy department one of these days and educate himself about the formal defintion of philosophy as a discipline. He might find that it has very little to do with religion and a lot to do with science.
Anyway - if one was to belive that "science alone can give a comprehensive and exclusive view of the world free from faith", then, yes, this would render religion superfluous. A very trivial discovery.
The quesation here is if such people really exists, and to what degree they adhere to this summary of their position.
It is entirely possible to fully describe Beethoven's 9th using math. (what else is the musical notation, after all?) Still, it's hardly the same as saying that concerts have been rendered superfluous. It does not mean that the music is degraded to a few numbers; it means that a few numbers, when expressed as sounds, can be a wonderful experiance. (A common CD goes as far to reduce the same piece to a series of ones and zeros. This, too, does not degrade the music, since it doesn't change the music. The music has never been anything else but a series of ones and zeroes expressed as sounds.)
Allow me to add that religion is superfluous only on its own merits.
Indeed, science is said to be the sole source of authentic knowledge, transcending - even trumping - all other disciplines and forms of reason or rational inquiry and, in the process, seeking to de-legitimize all that may imply a metaphysical character. In this respect, scientism reveals itself as inherently more ideological than scientific.
It is sad that he does not mention at least one other form of reason and rational inquiry. I can't think of any (still viewing philosophy as intrinsicially scientific).
It is equalyl sad that he does not specify how those alleged other forms of reason would have a "metaphysical character". It is my suspicion that it would be very easy to show that they are not "legitimite".
Then again, I am unsure what he means by that, too. What frame of reference would let me view tarot cards at legitimite or illegitimite respectively? How about smoking, or soccer? It is just another empty word he uses. I suspect that he complains that religions is not regarded as a legitimite source of truth.
Here, it would be up to him to clarify what kind of truth he is seeking, and to demonstrate that it can be found in religion. (Of course, how he would do that without accepting the scientific methos is beyond me. Then again, it is also beyond me what he does at a university to begin with, if he does not value the scientific method ...)
This ideological slant has led some in the scientific community even to transgress well-established boundaries of scientific inquiry in order to make assertions regarding questions which are purely philosophical.
Not only should he pay a visit to the philosophy department, he should also be chained to the benches of a lecture theatre and be forced to sit through a first semester introduction. (All they while being hit over the head with a dictionary for my personal gratification and as compensation for pains endured here!)
At the very least he should relate to his readers what it means if a question is "purely philosophoical". I suspect he might not view his religion as "purely philosophical"...
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear even some of George Mason University’s own professors allude to the so-called tenets of scientism in their lectures.
The same professors, no doubt, that have failed to teach this particular student. Seriously, names and specific examples might have helped to make more of this than a mere ad hominem.
I further notice that this thing called "scientism" is no longer just a view held by many, with a name easily recognized, now it also has it's own "tenets". It is too bad that we only have his word on the truth on any of this.
However, scientism lacks the tools necessary to answer some questions. The scientific method is restricted to the quantifiable and as such is incapable of providing answers to the most penetrating questions regarding human existence and the purpose of life. For the answers to these questions, we appropriately turn to metaphysical inquiry, that is, philosophy and religion.
[insert further remark on what philosophy is *here*]
Isn't it funny then, how religion has failed us in providing any useful answers, in revealing any reliable truths so far in all its history?
I could deconstruct his claims here further, but I prefer the simplicity of it: Religion does not reveal any truths. (And nobody denies that individuals can sometimes gain comfort from religion, so he'd better not even go there. We're running out of straw ...)
The application of scientism in modern thought is most exemplified by the attempt to present evolution as a universal theory of reality, one which is not limited to a theory of the origins of various species but which dubiously asserts that the totality of human existence can be explained through the lens of evolution.
I am not aware of any such attempt. Now I would demand evidence for his assertions, since he is clearly beyond what could be considered a mere "opinion".
The inescapable effect is a reduction of the world in which we live to a meaningless “cosmic accident.” Human beings are reduced to “clever apes,” and the human experience as such is reduced to a series of “sensory experiences.”
"meanigless" is a value judgement, and "reduced" does at least imply a value judgement.
Being a "clever ape" to me is something mindboggingly phantastic, wonderful and awe inspiring. (The same holds true for mere apes, too, even though they might not be able to view this the same way.)
I have nothing but my sensory experiances and what my brain makes from them. And that is nothing less than amazing!
Be that as it may, the question should not be "do we likes this", or "does izt sound nice", but "is it true". the author here seems to object to the theory because he dislikes what he belives to be its consequences.
Extrapolating from biological data alone, disciples of scientism wrongly conclude that human beings differ only by degrees from other animals.
Why would that be a bad thing?
However, human experience suggests otherwise. Human consciousness, language (specifically the ability to express thought and abstract concepts which, ironically, is a central premise for important scientific breakthroughs), the arts, law, politics and--dare we say--faith are all unique to the human experience
Wrong. Plain and simple.
It bugs me that I will never have an opportunity to speak with some of te apes that have been trained speaking sign - but there is enough literature available that plain shows the arrogance that led to the above paragraph. (And if that isn't enough there is much, much more material about animals displaying behavior that some would view as exclusively human.)
and are hardly supportive of the hypothesis that human beings do not differ in any fundamental way from all other animals.
We see the same mistake again: The value judgement made here says that we have to be different, in order to be something.
It is ismply not true that I am "just another animal". I am an animal, and as such I am special. Mayn aspects of my life are unique compared to other animals, and that, too, makes me special. But I do not require to be somehow better or different from the common wombat on a metaphysical level for that.
It is important to differentiate between what is proven science and what is purely theoretical conjecture. The problem with practitioners of scientism is that they blur the line between the two in order to present ideological suppositions as scientific or factual and thereby seek to shut down any other form of rational inquiry or debate.
Again, no mention of what these other forms of rational inquiry should be. Pitty.
In this way, scientism is the ally of materialism and the antithesis of metaphysics. Like all forms of ideology, however, scientism detracts from the traditions and purposes of the university setting.
Science is the antithesis of metaphysics, and for a reason!
I cannot hlep but wonder what exactly these traditions should be, that would allow metaphysics to take a place within a university. My bet is: Traditions that had better be ended sooner than later.
Rasmus.
