Episode 58: The Peak of Scientism

Loading...

En provenance du cours de University of Alberta

Science & Religion 101

25 notes

University of Alberta

Science & Religion 101

25 notes

This course examines the nature of both science and religion and attempts to explore the possible relationships between them. The primary purpose is to dispel the popular myth that science and religion are entrenched in a never-ending conflict. As a result, this course argues that if the limits of both science and religion are respected, then their relationship can be complementary. Topics include: Science and Religion Categories and Foundational Principles, Definitions of Science and Religion, Science-Religion Models and Relationships, Intelligent Design and Natural Revelation, the Galileo Affair, Geology and Noah’s Flood, Evolution and Darwin’s Religious Beliefs, the Modern “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate, the Problem of Evil, and Interpretations of the Biblical Accounts of Origins in Genesis 1-11. The course employs a Constructive Teaching Style in order that students can develop their personal views on the relationship between science and religion and on each of the topics listed above. St. Joseph's College is a Catholic, undergraduate, liberal arts college on the University of Alberta campus. It is an independent institution that is affiliated with the University of Alberta.

À partir de la leçon

What Is Science?

In continuing with our exploration of the terms Science and Religion, this week we introduce five different definitions of science using historical examples—prehistoric science, Egyptian and Mesopotamian science, Greek science, modern science, and post-modern science. Notably, we will note that science has powerfully impacted religion throughout history. Like that of religion, the academic definition of science is wide. In particular, it has been intimately/inevitably connected to metaphysical beliefs. This section also outlines Critical Realism. This is philosophy of science embraced by a majority of Science and Religion scholars.

Episode 45: Key Thoughts5:05

Episode 46: Conceptions of Science: Ancient Space4:22

Episode 47: Prehistoric Science & Oral Tradition4:49

Episode 48: The Account of Origins in Oral Traditions: Is It Science?4:54

Episode 49: The Account of Origins in Oral Traditions: Is It Science? (Continued)4:25

Episode 50: The Account of Origins in Oral Traditions: Is It Science? (Conclusion)4:08

Episode 51: Oral Tradition & Genesis 1-114:24

Episode 52: Oral Tradition & Genesis I-II (Continued)5:11

Episode 53: Oral Tradition & Message-Incident Principle4:20

Episode 54: Egyptian & Mesopotamian Science5:48

Episode 55: Egyptian & Mesopotamian Science (Continued)8:04

Episode 56: Greek Science5:07

Episode 57: Conclusion: Ancient Science. Modern Science4:32

Episode 58: The Peak of Scientism5:20

Episode 59: The Peak of Scientism (Continued)4:48

Episode 60: The Peak of Scientism (Conclusion). Post-Modernity & Anti-Realism4:13

Episode 61: Early 20th Century Scientific Discoveries. Categories of Anti-Realism4:03

Episode 62: Critical Realism: Between Scientism & Anti-Realism4:40

Episode 63: Theory Laden Character of Science: Social & Personal Factors5:03

Episode 64: Excursus: Critical Realism - A New Philosophy of Science5:13

Episode 65: Conclusion: John Polkinghorne & Critical Realism5:06

Episode 66: Conclusion: What is Science? Toward a Working Definition of Science (Lamoureux)6:07

Hermeneutics 5: Dynamic Equivalent Translation4:52

Hermeneutics 6: Sufficiency & Proficiency2:47

Hermeneutics 7: Implicit Scientific Concepts6:08

Rencontrer les enseignants

Denis Lamoureux
Associate Professor
St. Joseph's College

Episode 58.

The peak of Scientism appears in the middle of the 20th century,

and there's no better example of someone who embraces scientism than Herbert Feigl.

His paper entitled, 'The Scientific Outlook: Naturalism & Humanism' in 1949,

is the first paper in a famous 800 page volume on the Philosophy of Science.

And in this volume,

it also included three papers by Albert Einstein.

Note the term naturalism in the title of Feigl's paper.

To be more accurate,

he should've qualified it as 'Metaphysical Naturalism',

which defined simply means,

a dysteological world view conflated to science and of course, this is scientism.

Metaphysical naturalism must be distinguished from methodological naturalism,

which is the study of the physical world limited to nature and natural processes.

For example, when I enter the laboratory to practice science,

I am a methodological naturalist.

Feigl begins his paper by outlining the purpose.

He writes, "It is to dispel certain confusions and

misunderstandings between sciences and humanities."

Indeed, this is a fine goal.

Feigl then identifies the cause of the problem,

he contends that the humanities are largely ignorant of the nature of modern science and,

that the humanities hold a distorted view of the philosophical basis of the humanities.

Indeed, according to Feigl,

the people in the arts don't even understand their own academic discipline.

Feigl argues that there are two critical errors committed by the humanities.

The first is the seductive fallacy or the "something more" myth,

the humanities believed the existence of an irreducible spiritual element.

The second error is the reductive fallacy or the "nothing but" problem,

people in the humanities believe that science reduces the world into nothing but

molecules and they believe that science leads to no human values.

But, Feigl has values as you'll see.

In quote 14, Feigl further explains the problem.

Neither a philosophy of the "something more" nor

a philosophy of the "nothing but" will do for our time.

Only an approach that is resolutely guarded by the question: "What is what?"

will avoid reading mysteries into facts,

as well as refrain from impoverishing them by

reduction to something less than experience attests to them.

Or to put this another way,

Feigl is arguing that we must not introduce mysteries like religion into science.

Herbert Feigl then proposes a three part solution.

First, we need to reject pre-scientific thought patterns.

These include magic, miracles, theology, and metaphysics.

Do you see the problem?

Doesn't Feigl have a metaphysics?

Second, Feigl suggests that we must disengage human values from theology and metaphysics.

Again, do you see the problem?

Feigl is blind to the fact that he has his own metaphysics.

Quote 15 reveals to us exactly what he thinks of theology and metaphysics.

He says, "It is immature,

if not infantile trait of thinking.

It is for the tender minded and maladjusted individuals and it is largely emotive."

Etc., etc., etc.

I'm not sure academic trash talk like this is all that helpful.

The third part of Feigl solution,

is for us to synthesize the scientific attitude and human values.

In quote 16, he states,

"Mature mankind should be able to determine

its own values standards on the basis of needs,

wants and facts of the social condition of man."

In other words, humanity not God is the ultimate determiner of values.

Of course, this is humanistic ethics as we've seen previously.

And if we follow Feigl's solution for the humanities,

it will offer the achievement of intellectual adulthood and mature thinking.

In the last sentence of the paper,

he writes in quote 17,

"A scientific humanism emerges as a philosophy holding considerable promise for mankind.

If mankind will at all succeed in growing up."

It's worth pointing out that this demeaning remark for people,

especially religious people to grow up,

was common by scientism in the 1950s.

End of episode.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play