Lecture 5.6 - Scientism, religious belief, and fundamentalism

Loading...

En provenance du cours de The University of Edinburgh

Philosophy, Science and Religion: Philosophy and Religion

159 notes

The University of Edinburgh

Philosophy, Science and Religion: Philosophy and Religion

159 notes

Philosophy, Science and Religion mark three of the most fundamental modes of thinking about the world and our place in it. Are these modes incompatible? Put another way: is the intellectually responsible thing to do to ‘pick sides’ and identify with one of these approaches at the exclusion of others? Or, are they complementary or mutually supportive? As is typical of questions of such magnitude, the devil is in the details. For example, it is important to work out what is really distinctive about each of these ways of inquiring about the world. In order to gain some clarity here, we’ll be investigating what some of the current leading thinkers in philosophy, science and religion are actually doing. This course, entitled ‘Philosophy and Religion’, is the second of three related courses in our Philosophy, Science and Religion Online series, and in this course we will ask important questions about the age-old debate between science and religion, such as: • What kind of conflicts are there between religion and science? • Does current cognitive science of religion effectively explain away God? • If there is a God who has made us so that we can know him, why do some people not believe? • Is belief in science also a kind of fundamentalism? • What makes us good at getting, giving, or sharing, knowledge? Is this different when it is religious knowledge? The first course in the Philosophy, Science and Religion series, 'Science and Philosophy' was launched early in 2017 and you can sign up to it at any time. The third course —‘Religion and Science’—will be launched early in 2018. Completing all three courses will give you a broader understanding of this fascinating topic. Look for: • Philosophy, Science and Religion I: Science and Philosophy https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/ • Philosophy, Science and Religion III: Religion and Science Upon successful completion of all three courses, students will: (1) Understand the main parameters at stake in the current debate between science and religion. (2) Have some familiarity with the relevant areas of science that feature in the debate—including cosmology, evolution, and the neurosciences—and will have begun to engage with them conceptually. (3) Have encountered key philosophical approaches to the interface between science and religion, and will have had the opportunity to engage them in practice. (4) Have embarked constructively in cross-disciplinary conversations. (5) Have demonstrated an openness to personal growth through a commitment to dialogue across intellectual and spiritual boundaries. You can also follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/EdiPhilOnline and you can follow the hashtag #psrmooc

À partir de la leçon

Religious and Scientific Fundamentalism

In this series of lectures Dr. Rik Peels considers religious and scientific fundamentalism. Scientism is the currently popular thesis that only natural science gives rational belief or, alternatively, that there are no principled limits to science. In this lecture, I give several examples of scientism, such as scientism about free will. After that, I present seven reasons that have been given for scientism. Subsequently, I outline three arguments against it. Finally, I explain some crucial similarities and differences between scientism on the one hand and fundamentalism on the other. I argue that, even though some varieties of scientism resemble fundamentalism, most of them are more similar to religions or worldviews.

Lecture 5.1 - What is scientism?10:36

Lecture 5.2 - Varieties of scientism9:26

Lecture 5.3 - Arguments for scientism10:57

Lecture 5.4 - Arguments for scientism (continued)10:22

Lecture 5.5 - Arguments against scientism15:29

Lecture 5.6 - Scientism, religious belief, and fundamentalism13:03

Rencontrer les enseignants

Dr Orestis Palermos
Research Explorer
School of Philosophy
Dr Mark Harris
Senior Lecturer in Science and Religion
School of Divinity
Professor Duncan Pritchard
Professor of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Dr J Adam Carter
Researcher
Epistemology - Philosphy
Dr Mog Stapleton

Finally, let me get back to the topic with which we started,

namely the question is scientism the new scientific fundamentalism?

So is it a kind of a fundamentalism?

And if not, is it maybe a word view,

is it a kind of religion or maybe even something different?

How should we think of scientism?

Well I think we should note that the word fundamentalism is used quite often

nowadays for different sorts of things.

So there's secular fundamentalism.

There's market fundamentalism.

There's atheistic fundamentalism.

So one can be if that's true, one can be a fundamentalist

without embracing anything religious or supernatural.

Still it's often used as a pejorative term.

So if you're a fundamentalist that's usually not meant as something positive.

So yeah why don't you be careful to describe

a particular view as fundamentalist.

Now, is scientism a kind of fundamentalism?

I would like to start by pointing to a few similarities between fundamentalism,

say standard religious fundamentalism, on one hand, and scientism of the other hand.

And I'm going to focus on the unrestricted kinds of scientism.

So the varieties of scientism that say only science provides

knowledge about anything what so ever.

And we'll see that things are slightly different for

the restricted versions of scientism.

All right, here's one important similarity between fundamentalism and scientism.

So in fundamentalism there is usually only one source

of knowledge about ultimate reality.

And usually, for instance in the case of religious fundamentalism,

that source is some kind of revelation, such as a holy scripture.

And the same thing is true for the unrestricted kinds of scientism.

They say only natural science provides us with knowledge,

all the other sources of belief should be discarded.

That's an important similarity between the two.

The second one is scientism can be interpreted as a stance.

So then it's not a claim or a statement, but a whole, a much larger thing,

a much broader and deeper thing that includes statements,

but also beliefs, attitudes, certain approaches.

So if scientism is a stance, then a rational debate

about it is going to be much more difficult.

And that's another similarity with fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is usually not merely one or two beliefs or claims,

it's a whole set of beliefs and attitudes an approach towards reality.

And the unrestricted versions of scientism do the same.

Finally, one important similarity that one might want to point out is

the one could call the dogmatic dismissal of conflicting evidence.

So you will find this with certain adherence of scientism.

So they will just discard any evidence that conflicts with their scientism.

But I would be careful to say on that basis that scientism is kind of

fundamentalism because that's going to be true anywhere for

any belief that you can find or for any statement, you will find adherents

that dogmatically dismiss any kind of evidence to the contrary.

That will also be true for any religious belief system or moral belief system.

And when you look at scientism, you will find many adherents of scientism

that actually critically reflect on the arguments for an against scientism.

So I wouldn't be willing to describe scientism as fundamentalism on that

particular basis.

Even if there are people out there who embrace scientism and

just discard any evidence to the contrary.

Okay, so those are some important similarities.

And you will find this if you look at particular examples.

So here's one example, a quote from Richard Dawkins.

Well, I don't think he needs much by way of introduction,

a British biologist and well known author.

Here's what he says, “We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with

deep problems, is there a meaning to life?

What are we for?

What is man?

After posing the last of these questions,

the eminent zoologist GG Simpson put it thus:

The point I want to make is that all attempts to answer that question before

1859”,

so that's the year in which the Origin of Species was published,

“are worthless and that we will better off if we ignore them completely”.

So here the idea is that Darwin's evolutionary theory was and

is so important, that it should color our entire worldview.

So all questions about the meaning of life, about the nature of humankind,

the nature of humans, should be discarded

if they are not based on what we have found in biology.

So here biology becomes a lens, so-to-say, for interpreting reality.

And that's an important trait, I would say, of fundamentalism.

That you treat reality as if there's only one source of knowledge.

There are also some important differences with fundamentalism.

Let me point out some of them.

As I said earlier, many versions of scientism are not unrestricted, but

fairly restricted.

So one can be a scientismist, so to say, an adherent of scientism about free will.

Or about metaphysics, or about acting for reasons, or about morality,

or about belief in God, or one could combine one or two of those.

But it doesn't mean that one needs to be an adherent of scientism across the board.

So one can be fairly restricted and

say there are lots of sources of knowledge and science is only one of them, but when it

comes to this particular issue, we cannot rely on common sense we do need science.

Here's a second important difference, scientism can and

often is based on arguments even the unrestricted ones.

So if you look at the work of Alex Rosenberg, for instance,

he actually tries to give arguments for embracing scientism.

And he actually struggles with the problems that scientism faces,

so how can there be content, for instance, if there is only matter?

That's a problem he actually addresses.

And so it might be used as an argument against scientism and

he tries to meet that argument.

So that's an important difference with fundamentalism.

Those arguments are up for debate, and they're actually debated nowadays.

One final important difference between fundamentalism on the one hand and

scientism on the other is that scientism is adjustable, it changes over time.

So if you look at the scientism of the logical positivists, for

instance, at the outset of the 20th century, and in the 1930s,

40s, 50s, then you see something different from what you find nowadays.

And even nowadays, it's changing.

So Alex Rosenberg, for

instance, adjusts his scientism based on the arguments that he meets.

If that were not the case, if it were static, then it would become meaningless.

So if, for instance, one were to say, look science is base on introspection,

hence introspection also counts as science.

And it's based on memory, and it's based on metaphysical intuitions,

so yes that's also science then it become, scientism becomes,

well it becomes meaningless.

It becomes, either meaningless or uncontroversial because then anybody

will say, well if that's what scientism means that I embrace scientism too so

there is no longer a debate about scientism.

So what I've suggested so far means that there are some important

similarities and there are some important differences, and

many versions of scientism will not count as versions of fundamentalism.

I would like to close by drawing attention to the similarities between

scientism on the one hand and religion or world views on the other hand.

That's something slightly different of course.

Okay, I think an important similarity is that like many religions and

like many worldviews, scientism gives you a certain picture of reality.

So it tell you for instance,

such as Alex Rosenberg, for instance, claims,

it tells you that only the physical exists, all right?

So the whole world, reality as a whole is physical.

And it tells you also our place in it.

So, Rosenberg, for example, says there is no value,

we can make a value, but it doesn't really exist.

There is no free will.

That's an illusion.

We are just material beings.

So it tells us something about the place we have in reality as a whole.

It is also a certain approach to reality.

It tells you how to get knowledge about ultimate things, like many worldviews and

like many religions do.

So they will tell you, this is a source of knowledge.

Science is a source of knowledge.

But if you want to get knowledge about ultimate things you will need to consult,

say, this holy book or this particular revelation.

Well scientism does the same, it tells you how to acquire knowledge about ultimate

things, namely we need to consult the natural sciences,

only if we consult the natural sciences then we get knowledge about

the ultimate effects about reality.

It is also a worldview in that its characteristic of

most versions of scientism that it tells you that there is no supernatural realm.

So there is only the physical, or

maybe something that supervenes on the physical, minds.

But surely, there's no supernatural realm.

There are no gods or demons or angels.

So it is like many religions, and like many world views,

in that it tells you what exists, what ultimate things exist.

And one might reply look, but that's merely negative, right?

So many religions claim that this god exists or that that god exists and

scientism doesn't claim that this god exists,

in fact, it denies that this god or that god exists, or any god.

But we should note that any negative claim entails a positive claim.

So if you deny that the supernatural exists,

then you claim that only the natural exists, only the physical exists.

And that is a certain claim in itself,

it's a certain commitment.

So that gives you a picture of the world.

A certain ideal of what reality is like.

Finally the final thing I would like to say is that

many kinds of scientism will count as a world view.

Maybe not as a religion because the word religion suggests that there is

belief to be something supernatural.

But many restricted kinds of scientism will not count as a worldview.

And that is because they're way too restricted for that.

So if one believes that metaphysics, for

instance, cannot be carried out as it is done by philosophers, but

that we need to rely on science when it comes to metaphysics.

But one also believes that, say, we know the reasons for which we act,

one has certain moral beliefs, and we have knowledge about the moral realm and so on,

then that as such is not a world view.

It's just way too restricted for that.

So my final answer to the question whether scientism is a case of fundamentalism and

whether it's a case of religion and worldview is, it all depends.

The unrestricted versions sometimes count as fundamentalism,

they at least have certain traits of fundamentalism.

But there are also some important differences between the two.

When it comes to the restricted versions, they are often way too

restricted to count as world views, or to count as religions.

So in the end, the answer to that question is, it all depends.

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.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play