AJ Phillips:
<The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists to stop people in their tracks when a discussion becomes uncomfortable for them. Whenever someone feels that science is sticking its nose in where they don’t want it to, they get to cry “scientism” to halt the conversation and get a gasp from the audience. Half the audience may not even know what scientism is but that doesn’t matter - it’s an “ism” and it sounds scary and dogmatic.>

Well that’s a neat way to avoid the substance of my post, deny the validity of the word, as if its coinage consists in nothing more than an empty pejorative. Coming from you this cranky piece of indignation is a great disappointment. All the same, since you argue this is merely a matter of semantics you won’t mind if I consult a higher authority.
According to the OED the word was first coined in 1877 and denoted “The habit and mode of expression of a man of science”.
It wasn’t until 1921 that it acquired its derogatory connotation:
“A term applied to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences”.
Here's a sampling of original quotes since:
1938 G. Reavey tr. N. A. Berdyaev Solitude & Society i. 12 Science has not only progressively reduced the competence of philosophy, but it has also attempted to suppress it altogether and to replace it by its own claim to universality. This process is generally known as ‘scientism’.
1942 F. A. von Hayek in Economica IX. 269 We shall wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with that slavish imitation of the method and language of science, speak of ‘scientism’ or the ‘scientistic’ prejudice.
1953 A. H. Hobbs Social Probl. & Scientism ii. 17 Scientism, as a belief that science can furnish answers to all human problems, makes science

tbc

a substitute for philosophy, religion, manners, and morals.&#8229; It is a pattern of beliefs&#8229;a creed that shapes thinking and affects behavior.
1956 E. H. Hutten Lang. Mod. Physics vi. 273 This belief in the omnipotence of science is&#8229;making a mockery of science: for this scientism represents the same, superstitious, attitude which, in previous times, ascribed such power to a supernatural agency.
1957 W. H. Whyte Organization Man iii. 23 Scientism,&#8229;the promise that with the same techniques that have worked in the physical sciences we can eventually create an exact science of man.
1972 K. R. Popper Objective Knowl. iv. 185 The term ‘scientism’ meant originally ‘the slavish imitation of the method and language of (natural) science’, especially by social scientists.
1977 A. Sheridan tr. J. Lacan Écrits iii. 76 The early development of psychoanalysis&#8229;expresses&#8229;nothing less than the re-creation of human meaning in an arid period of scientism.
Some big names but not one single “theist” in the OED’s longer list of quotes!
Not that I’m not defending theism.

<I don’t know of anyone who fits the description, though (not even Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett or Harris) and so I therefore reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it - as many others don't.>

Well that’s that. You refuse to consider criticism of your world view so you contemptuously dismiss it—the classic stance.
Perhaps then you shouldn’t have used the word in the first place as your own “strawman”.
For what it’s worth, for me, scientism indicates a hasty and unreflective, dismissive, reductionist, yet derivative attitude that supports the status quo, who’s memes are as popular as they are doctrinaire.
It’s not about personalities, though Dawkins might be nominated patron saint with this gem, “[O]ur own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but … it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it”.

Dear Pericles,

<<But a Zeus-worshipper would be fighting on your side, surely.>>

About 2200 years ago, Zeus worshipers prohibited the practice of Judaism and ordered the Jews to bow down to statues of Zeus, killing those who didn't. So I couldn't trust those pseudo-religion guys any more than I could trust the modern humanist pseudo-religion.

<<Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start.>>

So what for example are universities for?

Of course humanists wouldn't use the same terminology and of course different gods require different forms of worship. I have seen professors getting red in the face at hearing my views, calling it "desecration of science", some of which also call universities the "Hall of Science".

<<Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs.>>

That's a straw-man: the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Some of the words you’re using have specific religious meanings that completely clash with the accepted definitions of humanism>>

Naturally, humanism wants to believe that its premises are based on science, refusing to see their irrationality. There's nothing rational or scientific about the choice of doctrines and values of humanism.

<<Well, I’m only interested in that which is useful and this way of thinking has no practical use.>>

So do I, we're only divided on the question of "use for what?", in other words, on the goal(s) of life.

<<how your paranoia about humanism is in any way grounded in reality…>>

Read the article - the author wishes to eliminate religion.

Dear McReal,

The factual details of existence are natural, but the belief that existence and/or aspects within it are real or of any value, is supernatural.

<<Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs.>>

""That's a straw-man: the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'.""

Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 6:17:04 PM

Hahahahahahahahaha. What you propose is the strawman!!

..........................................................
"Dear McReal, The factual details of existence are natural, but the belief that existence and/or aspects within it are real or of any value, is supernatural."

More realistically - the factual details of existence are real, but the belief that existence and/or aspects of it is influenced by the supernatural is not.

Dear Joe,

Interesting comments, although a bit unrelated to this article.

The idea which equates "existence=reality" is not mine, I only alluded to this common false belief.

Either all, or at least nearly all of us, suffer from this perception as if existence=reality and waking up from this illusion is not so easy as changing channels on a remote. Within this illusion, indeed our bones get broken and our kids shove us in old-people's home.

Nevertheless, religion claims that there is a way for us to be released from this illusion and proposes measures to increase our chances to escape this predicament. Those measures are often austere and unpopular, which is why most people give up before they even try, then criticize religion as something that doesn't work.

Ultimate reality is neither pleasant or unpleasant, and has nothing to do with existence. Ultimate reality is God. So long, however, as we pursue the pleasant, we receive the unpleasant as well.

Humanism worships and reveres human progress and science, even while it describes its behaviour with different verbs.

Some idiots indeed attempted to create gods in their own human image. These I call 'gods' with a small 'g', not God. The existence of God is a fallacy and a logical contradiction. God is not part of the illusion of existence!

Squeers,

I’m not sure how you read my post as “cranky”. I thought it sounded quite cool, calm and collected, personally. That’s how it was meant to sound anyway.

<<Well that’s a neat way to avoid the substance of my post...>>

I didn’t avoid anything. I addressed the substance of your post in my last paragraph to you. You’re problem seems to be that you are unable to distinguish between:

(a) the understanding that scientific method (or more broadly, applied reasoning based on logical absolutes) is the only method we have of validating claims, given what we currently know, and;

(b) the belief that scientific explanations are the only explanations that will be EVER be valid.

There’s a world of difference in my distinction above, just as there is a world of difference between understanding that it would be crazy to exclude science from something just because it may never have the answers, and assuming that it must be excluded in certain areas. But you seem to want to focus more on the semantical side of my argument...

<<...since you argue this is merely a matter of semantics you won’t mind if I consult a higher authority.>>

Okay, so maybe (just maybe) I shouldn’t have included the word “invented”. Especially since I’m talking from a more contemporary viewpoint/experience. Your quotes, however, only confirm to me that no-one I can possibly think of fits the profile.

Speaking of “contemporary”, though, I note that the references were oldish. I could imagine that, in more ignorant times, such bold assertions about what science can and cannot know would have flown about more easily (given it took a whopping 44 years to develop derogatory connotations!) but again, I can’t think of anyone in our more open-minded and enlightened day and age who thinks like that.

But do a search of OLO for “scientism” and browse though the 225 results Google finds to see how the word is used nowadays and, more to your point, by whom... http://tinyurl.com/74bypk6.

You’re the only atheist I spotted in my random browsing of the results.

Continued...