Some Questions from David Berlinksi about Scientism
Justin Taylor 12:00 pm CTFebruary 12, 2014
David Berlinski—a secular Jew who is a philosopher and mathematician and is agnostic about God—asks and answers some questions in The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (2011):
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?Here is an interview with him:
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.
3 comments:
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Do you understand quantum cosmology and can you explain why the universe needs a reason to exist?
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Who says the "universe is fine tuned (...) for life? Try living anywhere in the universe except this planet and report back. Even the Earth is not "fine tuned" for life, more of it wants to kill us than for us to thrive.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Physics and biology are not matters of belief. They are based on trial, error, hypothesis, theory and testing.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Yes, we determine what is moral, good and right based on harm to the least, benefit for the most and the need to co-operate.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Yes. But of course, you do not understand the meaning of secularism.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
No, that is reserved for theology
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Yes
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
No such beast
The underlying point of the discussion comes with the last point above.
"No such beast".
That is exactly the response that hints at the issue. I too can put my fingers in my ears and go "I'm not listening."
The issue is that some try to compare the process of science with the process of philosophy and religious thought, and they compare apples to oranges. The bigger mistake is though they argue apples SHOULD be oranges. Think about it.
Q. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
A. Yes. But of course, you do not understand the meaning of secularism.
That's the same answer some atheists refuse to accept in discussions of religion: "Yes. But of course you do not understand the meaning of religion."
The intersection being man's pride and ability to sin in the application of both.
Rationalism/Secularism (call it what you will, either way, it was a response to a religious philosophy) has had its epic failures in the 20th century, and this is recognised by scholars and academics and philosophers alike. Again, a little bit of humility might help remove motes from eyes.
David, appreciate your comments.
Either you have made these comments as a parody upon scientism, thereby reinforcing the points made by Berlinski, or you are a card carrying member of the guild and your comments serve to exemplify most aptly the allegations made. Either way, well done.
JT
Post a Comment