Friday, November 5, 2010

Science and Scientism

  • "While I’m not a believer myself, I often wonder at such professional atheists who cover themselves in the mantle of 'science,'" writes Scott Locklin of Taki's Magazine about "that sanctimonious gasbag Dawkins" and his ilk — When Man Invented Science. "Don’t they know any history?" he asks. "Modern atheists with no sense of history like to think of the Church and religious people as the forces of darkness, but in reality, the Catholic Church was the birth of the light of reason."

  • Front Porch Republic's Peter Haworth on a story whose "theses about the decay of morals and the arts resulting from the decline of supernaturalism can be elaborated upon by reflecting on the insights of Flannery O’Connor and the Southern Agrarians" — Rising Scientism, Declining Supernaturalism, and the Loss of Taste and Morals in W.G. Simms’ “Grayling”. "Through such examination of these works, we see a profound case for respecting the mysteries of the supernatural and not being diverted from this by modernity’s concern with scientific naturalism."
  • Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Bookmark and Share

    4 Comments:

    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    "Failure to distinguish between context of discovery and of justification."

    Not all. It does not take a Catholic to argue that belief in a rational Creator spurned the great minds of the Middle Ages yo look for order in the universe.

    "That should only shock someone who has continued to believe in Santa Claus well into adulthood."

    I appreciate your variation of the atheist "tooth fairy" argument, but a functionally literare reader would have noticed the article was written by an avowed "unbeliever."

    12:01 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    "How many divisions does the Pope have?" asked Joseph Stalin.

    1:01 PM  
    OpenID danightman said...

    Re: Odenskrigare,

    Failure to distinguish between context of discovery and of justification.

    Christianity's relevance to context of justification in science: nil.


    First off, are you the fellow from the National Defense Intelligence College that posted here a couple of months back? The tone sounds familiar.

    Second, what context does "justification" have in science? Science is about discovery of material causes through hypothesis and experimental verification, exactly as the first article stated. Justification has to do with salvation, which science does not deal with and scientism denies (unless you'd like to correct us on the later, but if so define the soteriology of Scientism in your own words, please).

    11:18 AM  
    OpenID danightman said...

    Re: Odenskrigare,

    Good article, but aren't you the one throwing the $10.00 words with a context only you knew about when you walked in the door?

    Additionally, you threw the term to those who understood the word in a different context. It's as if you want us to talk past each other to stoke your own ego.

    If you want to have a meaningful discussion, frame your objections in terms of the audience reading the blog, and refrain from the insults. If, on the other hand, you're just being a troll, you can do that elsewhere.

    1:28 PM  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home

    Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.