...Continued

<<You refuse to consider criticism of your world view so you contemptuously dismiss it...>>

Eh? No. We haven’t even discussed my worldview yet. Again, no-one I know of fits the scientism profile.

<<Perhaps then you shouldn’t have used the word in the first place as your own “strawman”.>>

My use of the term was not a strawman.

Finally, I don’t think the issue of scientism is about personalities either and I don’t know what the point of your Dawkins quote is. One could express/agree with it and still not be a “scientismist” because Dawkins was talking about our being here - physically - not the human condition.

Yuyutsu,

<<Naturally, humanism wants to believe that its premises are based on science...>>

Okay, and I’d be fine with your usage of the terms too if you could demonstrate otherwise but I don’t think you’ve done that yet. All I’m hearing is conjecture.

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

I mean “use for anything” other than brief musings - goals in life too, if you want. Until you could find a way of even beginning to validate the claim that existence is all an illusion and distinguish between illusion and non-illusion, the belief has no useful purpose.

<<Read the article - the author wishes to eliminate religion.>>

To be honest, I skimmed it because I’m not aware of anyone who would argue against teaching the role religion has played throughout history.

I wish to eliminate religion too - along with all other forms of irrationality. But whether or not this is evil depends on whether one would actually want to proceed with eliminating religion and more importantly, how one would go about it.

Obviously concentration and re-education camps would be a bad thing (not to mention fail). But if your method of going about this is to spread enough reason and rational arguments about so that people eventually (over many generations even) see reason on their own accord, then how could that be anything but a good thing?

Dear AJ Philips,

All proofs must be scientific and science is only good within the realm of existence, so I should be a fool if I were to attempt to prove anything about that realm itself. I am not here to convince anyone in the truth of my views, but rather to point out that the religious perspective stands on the same logical footing as the humanist perspective, that religion is not an "enemy of reason" as the author claims, but rather that both religion and humanism are based on unprovable metaphysical assertions and subjective direct experiences.

Ensuing from those two perspectives are two different life-goals and life-styles. The best tool to pursue the goals of humanism is science, while religion has less use for that particular tool: that doesn't make religion any less logical or reasonable - religion simply does not focus on the realm within which science is effective.

<<I’m not aware of anyone who would argue against teaching the role religion has played throughout history.>>

Neither do I, so long as the teacher is unbiased and doesn't spread derogatory fallacies about religion (such as being an enemy of reason). As it stands, few teachers would even understand (or wish to understand) what religion is really about.

<<I wish to eliminate religion too - along with all other forms of irrationality.>>

Then you will need to eliminate humanism as well...

<<then how could that be anything but a good thing?>>

If done in a pure unbiased spirit, rather than by a rival pseudo-religion, then religion has nothing to fear about reason and rational arguments (however, you could never achieve your goal of eliminating religion this way!).

Dear Josephus,

The full sentence is [Leviticus 19:18]: "Love thine fellow as thyself, I am the Lord". The Christian-humanist trap is to concentrate so hard on the first half-sentence as to forget the second which is the reason for that and for everything else.

Yuyutsu,
Thanks for giving the full text.

There is physical reality in which the natural sciences are based, and there is a spiritual reality of which the divine is based [in other words a religion]. Though we can observe metaphysical behaviour incarnate in reality, science cannot determine creativity, attitude, motive and character only by the physical expression of these. These are the ultimate reality of the person, it is these spiritual realities that have effected the reality of the physical. It is these spiritual realities that express the very character of God, and upon which we are ultimately held accountable to the eternal reality.

You're on shaky ground here, Yuyutsu.

>><<Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start.>>
So what for example are universities for?<<

Universities are not the humanist's place of worship in anyone's lexicon bar your own. The generally accepted definition of "worship" is "an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity". Unless you consider all forms of knowledge to be god-like, your proposition fails utterly. Think of it this way: what are a bunch of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, atheists etc. doing at university, if it is the humanist's place of worship? Do you get the same mix in your church every Sunday?

And I'm sorry, nor can you escape either the simple realities of a society, divided by their religious beliefs, turning to violence in the name of those beliefs.

>>...the above are not religiously-based actions, but ill and hypocritical actions done by some miscreants despite calling themselves 'religious'<<

They were, I'm afraid, not only "religiously-based actions", but deep-down, fundamental, core-value religion-based actions. No "despite" about it. History - a great deal of it, stretching back centuries - is against you on this.

Your defence - that old chestnut "they couldn't have really been Christians" - is completely invalid. The only reason they blew each other up was because they were Christians, not in spite of their being Christians. If they had not been Christians of such deeply-held beliefs, they would not have gone around kneecapping each other in dark alleys.

I know it is hard to accept, but that was the reality then, and in many places still is the reality.

Among the gems you create in your continuing attempt to pervert the course of the English language to your cause, this is an outstanding example.

>>...both religion and humanism are based on unprovable metaphysical assertions and subjective direct experiences<<

And the "unprovable metaphysical assertion" upon which humanism is based is... what, exactly?

AJ Phillips,

By “Cranky indignation” I meant you exhibited the same impatient and authoritarian refusal to consider criticism—of an institutional-perspective you embrace—as members of any flock generally do.
<I didn’t avoid anything. I addressed the substance of your post in my last paragraph to you>
No you didn’t; my post elaborated both the term, scientism, and its dogmatic manifestation in the modern world.
<You’re problem…>
I don’t have a problem; I don’t defend or cleave to any institutional thinking. I only acknowledge there is an idealistic/spiritual/experiential side to human life that shouldn’t be hastily dismissed, indeed that empiricism is only possible via the faculty of mind, that is the conflation of the subjective and the objective, and the subjective is subject to, steeped in, ideological influence. Objectivity is compromised in itself, but also in its affiliations. You’re a,b distinction indicates a childish apprehension of what I’m talking about.
I don’t propose excluding science and it was you who preferred semantics to the incidence of scientism. I dealt with the substance and offered “logical positivism/scientific materialism”, “rational optimism”, “liberal rationalists” “intellectual snobbery”, “arrogance” and a link to an article for further variations on the theme.
For my pains you, “reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it”, hence I went to the OED. Then you accuse “me” of wanting “to focus more on the semantical side of [your] argument”; it’s been about an invalid word for you from the start!

tbc

cont..

Even after I cite the OED, rather than concede you were “wrong” saying, “The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists”, you complain the OED’s etymology—an eclectic list of quotes, some defending science—isn’t up to date and persist in saying, “I can’t think of anyone in our more open-minded and enlightened day and age who thinks like that”, and this is after I quoted Dawkins in what is without doubt an instance of the personalised scientism you’ve been after (I’ve been saying it’s a spectrum of institutional thinking)! You just repeat, “Again, no-one I know of fits the scientism profile”. You then indulge in semantics to get out of it: “I don’t know what the point of your Dawkins quote is. One could express/agree with it and still not be a “scientismist” because Dawkins was talking about our being here - physically - not the human condition”.
Are you saying then that Dawkins believes in a human condition beyond biology?
Scientism is not about personalities or semantics and in my view it’s as relevant as ever. It only seems archaic now because its signified is an attenuated and institutional mentality, which makes it unconscious.
And since we still abide in ignorance—especially apropos consciousness—as well as an ideological realm of normative-political-competitive-haunted-emotional-instinctual, idealistically-sectarian strife, we needn’t flatter ourselves we’ve solved anything.