FYI: A Scientific Criticism of Scientism

The Chieftain

As you will all have noticed, this forum is infested (for want of a better word), with a very unhappy group. They try to relieve the frustrations attendant on their lack of belief by railing at the rest of us. They just love to brandish "science" as a supposed weapon. They adore celebrity atheist scientists, and portray them as representative of scientists as a whole. Well, neither of these premises is correct. As an antidote to the negative, nihilistic preaching of those-who-cannot-be-named, I would like to draw your attention to a refutation of religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism by a prominent MIT physicist, Head of Department at MIT, and Chairman of a Division of the American Physical Society. Enjoy - links are on the left of the page.
http://monopolizingknowledge.net

galljga1

The Chieftain wrote: »

As you will all have noticed, this forum is infested (for want of a better word), with a very unhappy group. They try to relieve the frustrations attendant on their lack of belief by railing at the rest of us. They just love to brandish "science" as a supposed weapon. They adore celebrity atheist scientists, and portray them as representative of scientists as a whole. Well, neither of these premises is correct. As an antidote to the negative, nihilistic preaching of those-who-cannot-be-named, I would like to draw your attention to a refutation of religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism by a prominent MIT physicist, Head of Department at MIT, and Chairman of a Division of the American Physical Society. Enjoy - links are on the left of the page.
http://monopolizingknowledge.net

I have seen you use this phrase a number of times. Are you referring to followers of Voldemort? Is he back?

The Chieftain

galljga1 wrote: »

I have seen you use this phrase a number of times. Are you referring to followers of Voldemort? Is he back?

I don't know, but I suspect you do. As for the circumlocution, it is apparently necessary to avoid the wrath of the Mods.

galljga1

Please provide a synopsis of the book. It is a tad long.

The Chieftain

galljga1 wrote: »

Please provide a synopsis of the book. It is a tad long.

No. Up to you to do your own reading.

galljga1

The Chieftain wrote: »

No. Up to you to do your own reading.

Very good. That was expected.

lazybones32

galljga1 wrote: »

Please provide a synopsis of the book. It is a tad long.

Maybe try the Preface or Introduction to get an overview?

Delirium

The Chieftain wrote: »

As you will all have noticed, this forum is infested (for want of a better word), with a very unhappy group. They try to relieve the frustrations attendant on their lack of belief by railing at the rest of us. They just love to brandish "science" as a supposed weapon. They adore celebrity atheist scientists, and portray them as representative of scientists as a whole. Well, neither of these premises is correct. As an antidote to the negative, nihilistic preaching of those-who-cannot-be-named, I would like to draw your attention to a refutation of religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism by a prominent MIT physicist, Head of Department at MIT, and Chairman of a Division of the American Physical Society. Enjoy - links are on the left of the page.
http://monopolizingknowledge.net

MOD NOTE

This is getting close to soapboxing at this stage.

Kindly drop the generalisations about other posters please.

Thanks for your attention.

looksee

The Chieftain, I am very sorry to hear you are unhappy, maybe Personal Issues might be able to help?

lazygal

The Chieftain wrote: »

As you will all have noticed, this forum is infested (for want of a better word), with a very unhappy group. They try to relieve the frustrations attendant on their lack of belief by railing at the rest of us. They just love to brandish "science" as a supposed weapon. They adore celebrity atheist scientists, and portray them as representative of scientists as a whole. Well, neither of these premises is correct. As an antidote to the negative, nihilistic preaching of those-who-cannot-be-named, I would like to draw your attention to a refutation of religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism by a prominent MIT physicist, Head of Department at MIT, and Chairman of a Division of the American Physical Society. Enjoy - links are on the left of the page.
http://monopolizingknowledge.net

Names please.

CiDeRmAn

lazygal wrote: »

Names please.

David Wolfe?
The Science Babe?
Jenny McCarthy?

And, wow, a scientist wrote a book that agrees with evangelical opinion on science! Lets simply ignore all the other scientists who wrote books that disagree, because that how reason works, isn't it?

Speedwell

Shorter Ian H. Hutchinson (the author of the quoted website): "God is outside the purview of scientific knowledge". Well, yes, indeed, that is exactly the point of atheists. Reality is the realm within scientific knowledge is possible. God is outside reality. Things that are outside reality... well, you do the math.

Cabaal

I still want to know what or who "those-who-cannot-be-named" refers to?

Its not nice to leave things on a cliff hanger,

AtomicHorror

The Chieftain wrote: »

As you will all have noticed, this forum is infested (for want of a better word), with a very unhappy group. They try to relieve the frustrations attendant on their lack of belief by railing at the rest of us. They just love to brandish "science" as a supposed weapon. They adore celebrity atheist scientists, and portray them as representative of scientists as a whole. Well, neither of these premises is correct. As an antidote to the negative, nihilistic preaching of those-who-cannot-be-named, I would like to draw your attention to a refutation of religion-denying, reason-destroying scientism by a prominent MIT physicist, Head of Department at MIT, and Chairman of a Division of the American Physical Society. Enjoy - links are on the left of the page.
http://monopolizingknowledge.net

Isn't this exactly the sort of thread you've been complaining about?

The Chieftain

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't this exactly the sort of thread you've been complaining about?

This is intended as an antidote to the false Scientism contained in many of the repetitious posts I have complained of. The others usually being simply off-topic non-sequiturs, or even in many cases deliberate distortions of what was previously said.

robdonn

You have a serious hangup about atheists. Is it atheists in general or just the ones on Boards.ie?

Speedwell

robdonn wrote: »

You have a serious hangup about atheists. Is it atheists in general or just the ones on Boards.ie?

Chieftain has a cognitive fault just as many others do (both Christian and atheist) who I've seen and spoken to in twelve years of atheist chatrooms and forums. As evidenced by his use of words like "deliberate" and "willful" in a negative way, he is engaging in the psychological fallacy of "mind reading". Even more, he purports to understand the minds of others better than they do themselves. There are a couple of underlying issues and assumptions that often give rise to such errors.

The first is that the person is emotionally-driven and relates to others primarily on that level. They often have trouble understanding and respecting psychological boundaries because their own are so open. Therefore, it is common that they visualize themselves in the other person's place and assume that the other person is thinking and perceiving the way they think they themselves would in that person's place. In short, Chieftain believes atheists are full of rancor and spite because, when he imagines himself in our place, he is filled with fear and disgust. (In my experience, atheists who commit this error perceive Christians as gullible losers or self-interested liars, and relate to them in this offputting way.)

The second is that Christian belief encourages the Christian to be afraid of the power of God to directly harm him, and afraid of the power of Satan to prevail over the power of God to protect him. I remember this fear very well. It forced me to do things that would otherwise never occur to me to do, feel guilty about things that were not and could never have been my fault, and act in ways that were not natural to my temperament. Like someone trying to please and placate an abusive, micromanaging boss, I was always afraid of what God would do to me if I stepped out of line. I was always trying to find ways to make God love me. I blamed myself for everything bad that happened to me, and credited God for everything good. I was always conscious of my responsibility to never let a single moment of weakness be the cause of someone else's "stumbling", or an opening for Satan to take advantage of. Chieftain doubtless believes his eternal soul is at stake, and no wonder that he is so abusive and terrified, when his God is no better.

Admitting that atheists might be well-meaning and truthful is tantamount to admitting that people can be good without God (just as for atheists, looking at happy Christians is a scary reminder of how people can be taken advantage of not only by self-interested cynics, but by their own perceptual limitations, and still be functional and decent people on the whole). He can't write us off, like he might a Muslim or Hindu, as just "understanding God wrong". We do fine without God, and that calls into question every desperate attempt of his to cement ever-deeper the imagined existence of a God he can neither experience directly or prove convincingly. He has to fight. He can do nothing else.

I would be surprised if his worldview extended only to abuse of atheists, but that's conjecture. What I do know, from having been an abuse survivor myself, is that people who suffer abuse usually need to have a defining moment when they realize clearly what has been happening to them, and reject it.

If Chieftain is truly and sincerely searching for truth, that's really all I ask of anyone.

AtomicHorror

The Chieftain wrote: »

This is intended as an antidote to the false Scientism contained in many of the repetitious posts I have complained of. The others usually being simply off-topic non-sequiturs, or even in many cases deliberate distortions of what was previously said.

The goals you've claimed to hold to would be better served by engaging with your fellow Christians in meaningful discussion, and attempting to encourage others to visit and stay.

To judge from this thread, what you really want is to antagonise a group of users you don't like. Your motive isn't clear to me, but it's obvious that your behaviour contradicts your stated intentions.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I've just read through this thread and I agree with AtomicHorror.

This thread isn't about Christianity but about a particular philosophical position in the understanding of science held by some atheists. This thread should be in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum.

Most of the threads on this forum aren't about Christianity but about particular political issues or gripes with atheists. I'm hoping we can get to talking about what we believe. When I say what we believe - the whole gospel of Christ - not just responses to atheism, creation, gay marriage and abortion.

I'm also looking forward to discussing respectfully with the atheists on here. Most just seem to have a disagreement with the gospel, we need to let them be heard. I hope and trust that they will allow me the same.

I've posted lots on forums before but as I've grown with years and maturity I realise the main problem people have on forums is that they forget there is someone else behind the keyboard. A real person.

Also if posts annoy you or make you upset. Log off. Walk somewhere, see some friends, do other things. That's why I'm planning to post little but often. Sometimes hearing is more important than talking.

How much more should Christians see that? Please can we improve the tone of what we're saying and show more compassion.

Much thanks in Christ Jesus,
solodeogloria

The Chieftain

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've just read through this thread and I agree with AtomicHorror.

This thread isn't about Christianity but about a particular philosophical position in the understanding of science held by some atheists. This thread should be in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum.

Most of the threads on this forum aren't about Christianity but about particular political issues or gripes with atheists. I'm hoping we can get to talking about what we believe. When I say what we believe - the whole gospel of Christ - not just responses to atheism, creation, gay marriage and abortion.

I'm also looking forward to discussing respectfully with the atheists on here. Most just seem to have a disagreement with the gospel, we need to let them be heard. I hope and trust that they will allow me the same.

I've posted lots on forums before but as I've grown with years and maturity I realise the main problem people have on forums is that they forget there is someone else behind the keyboard. A real person.

Also if posts annoy you or make you upset. Log off. Walk somewhere, see some friends, do other things. That's why I'm planning to post little but often. Sometimes hearing is more important than talking.

How much more should Christians see that? Please can we improve the tone of what we're saying and show more compassion.

Much thanks in Christ Jesus,
solodeogloria

So, Prof. Hutchinson's work is not for Christians, and not to be posted in a Christian forum. That is astonishing. I wonder what he would make of that.

But I must say this post is sanctimonious twaddle. Earlier today, someone accused me of saying atheists are rodents and insects. That is a slanderous lie. One you "liked". And then you post the above? You have no credibility.

robdonn

The Chieftain wrote: »

So, Prof. Hutchinson's work is not for Christians, and not to be posted in a Christian forum. That is astonishing. I wonder what he would make of that.

But I must say this post is sanctimonious twaddle. Earlier today, someone accused me of saying atheists are rodents and insects. That is a slanderous lie. One you "liked". And then you post the above? You have no credibility.

Point of post...

































... missed.