Feser - Problems with his view of science and religion

[shunyadragon]

Ok, I have time for a longer reply...

Firstly, you need to be very clear about the difference between 'science' and 'scientism' (which Feser defines in your citation) - they are not the same thing, and he is not arguing against science in some general manner, but against scientism. I think you may have conflated the two.

No I have not I fully understand the difference. I seriously question Feser's use of scientism, not his definition.

Feser doesn't say what you argue against here (in the bolded above). In what you've quoted, and in his chapter on science in Scholastic Metaphysics, AFAICT he makes no claim about how many scientists hold to scientism. So you're attacking a straw man here.

"Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book."

Yes, Feser does not give a body count of 'scientism' he does consider it to have a 'following because . . .' and that is not the reason why scientists believe in 'Metaphysical Naturalism. I agree with him, and most scientists will also agree, 'It is not the success and technology of science that is the reason they do not believe in God.' For example, Einstein rejected religion and the traditional God at an early age, not because of a scholastic background in philosophy, nor his science.

No he doesn't. Here is the relevant portion.

I already acknowledged this in response of Robrecht's post.

Note that he is comparing two hypothetical definitions of science that a proponent of scientism might use, and pointing out that they are both problematic for that position. Feser is not stating his own position, but giving possible positions of someone who holds to scientism.

Too foggy to be real.

Again, the bolded above is not something Feser is arguing for in what you cited. (Nor anywhere else, AFAIK). He is arguing that scientists should be aware of the need for an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of their own worldview before making pronouncements on what science can tell us about all of reality.

Yes, that is something like Feser proposes, but here is where I disagree. Feser trashes the philosophy of atheist scientists, because they reject God, and I disagree. The philosophy and theology of the ancients are of no value to science. What I discribed that modern philosophy of science is important to science. and gave examples.

[quote] Also, he is not attacking 'atheist scientists' as a group, but people who use science credentials or background as a platform for making poorly informed public attacks on things that they don't know enough about or for making broad philosophical claims that science doesn't by itself show to be true - people like Coyne, Krauss, Rosenberg, Dawkins and so on. [quote]

I disagree with this, and most definitely he is making a broad attack on most scientists and 'doubly' on atheists, which he lists some well known. I believe it is the strong disagreement on philosophical and theological beliefs and not the problem of the lack of knowledge of philosophy. It is odd that he cited Einstein and Schrödinger, since they would not remotely agree with Feser on philosophy and theology.

[shunyadragon]

So it seems you agree that Feser is not criticizing the quality of scientific work of atheist scientists, correct?

I believe Feser does criticize the nature and quality of scientific work below. Unfortunately it is not a meaningful criticism.

A third problem is science cannot in principle provide a complete explanation of the phenomena it describes. Science explains things by tracing them down to ever deeper laws of nature. But what it cannot tell you is what a “law of nature” is in the first place and why it operates. It really is amazing how unreflectively atheists and advocates of scientism appeal to the notion of “laws,” given how deeply philosophically problematic the very notion is. Earlier generations of scientists were aware of the philosophical puzzles raised by the nature of scientific explanation, and some contemporary scientists (such as Paul Davies) are also sensitive to the puzzles raised by the very idea of a “law of nature” (which is actually a holdover from an idiosyncratic theology to which Descartes and Newton were committed, but which Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophers reject just as much as atheists do)."

What I question is the meaningfulness of his argument. His efforts should directed toward a dialogue concerning atheism, philosophical naturalism, and not the false paradigm of scientism associating atheism with science. Unfortunately many do equate the word 'scientism' broadly with science with unfortunate consequences. He is picking at how the concept of 'Law of Nature' plays a role in science when in reality with in science the concept is not significantly different regardless of the diversity of religious beliefs in science. Paul Davies may philosophically disagree, but where the rubber meets the road in science there is no difference

The word 'scientism' is a significant part of the problem, because of how it is used throughout Traditional Christianity in different definitions, and unfortunately associated broadly with science. I prefer to consider the issue in terms of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which is a separate philosophical issue not based on the scientific evidence. The argument in terms of scientism is indeed a smelly 'red herring.'

Essentially no one can likely ever provide a 'complete explanation of the phenomena of Natural Laws,' and as far as science is concerned it is likely futile and no constructive need to do this.

[robrecht]

... I disagree with this [ie, he is attacking atheists scientists as a group], and most definitely he is making a broad attack on most scientists and 'doubly' on atheists, which he lists some well known. I believe it is the strong disagreement on philosophical and theological beliefs and not the problem of the lack of knowledge of philosophy. It is odd that he cited Einstein and Schrödinger, since they would not remotely agree with Feser on philosophy and theology.

Do you think Feser is ignorant of the philosophical or theological views of Einstein and Schrödinger? If not, perhaps his perceived attack is not really based upon strong disagreement on philosophical and theological beliefs, but is rather merely something like a defense of the legitimate pursuit of knowledge through legitimate philosophical and theological inquiry alongside scientific inquiry against any that might ignore or belittle the former. I've never read Coyne, Krauss, Rosenberg, and Dawkins so I do not know of their attitudes toward philosophy and theology, but I do recall reading Hawking saying something like 'philosophy is dead' or something along those lines in his popular book on M-theory.

[robrecht]

I believe Feser does criticize the nature and quality of scientific work below. Unfortunately it is not a meaningful criticism.

A third problem is science cannot in principle provide a complete explanation of the phenomena it describes. Science explains things by tracing them down to ever deeper laws of nature. But what it cannot tell you is what a “law of nature” is in the first place and why it operates. It really is amazing how unreflectively atheists and advocates of scientism appeal to the notion of “laws,” given how deeply philosophically problematic the very notion is. Earlier generations of scientists were aware of the philosophical puzzles raised by the nature of scientific explanation, and some contemporary scientists (such as Paul Davies) are also sensitive to the puzzles raised by the very idea of a “law of nature” (which is actually a holdover from an idiosyncratic theology to which Descartes and Newton were committed, but which Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophers reject just as much as atheists do)."

What I question is the meaningfulness of his argument. His efforts should directed toward a dialogue concerning atheism, philosophical naturalism, and not the false paradigm of scientism associating atheism with science. Unfortunately many do equate the word 'scientism' broadly with science with unfortunate consequences. He is picking at how the concept of 'Law of Nature' plays a role in science when in reality with in science the concept is not significantly different regardless of the diversity of religious beliefs in science. Paul Davies may philosophically disagree, but where the rubber meets the road in science there is no difference

The word 'scientism' is a significant part of the problem, because of how it is used throughout Traditional Christianity in different definitions, and unfortunately associated broadly with science. I prefer to consider the issue in terms of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which is a separate philosophical issue not based on the scientific evidence. The argument in terms of scientism is indeed a smelly 'red herring.'

Essentially no one can likely ever provide a 'complete explanation of the phenomena of Natural Laws,' and as far as science is concerned it is likely futile and no constructive need to do this.

Again, this does not seem to me to be a criticism of the scientific merits or quality of the work of these scientists, but rather his desire for a deeper philosophical consideration of some problems and issues.

[Adrift]

Feser's complaint isn't radical among philosophers, and it isn't a complaint born on theological grounds either. There are plenty of non-Christian philosophers and scientists who've recently come to the same conclusions that Fesser does about scientistic dogmatism including Raymond Tallis, Jerry Fodor, Thomas Nagel and the like.

[shunyadragon]

Feser's complaint isn't radical among philosophers, and it isn't a complaint born on theological grounds either. There are plenty of non-Christian philosophers and scientists who've recently come to the same conclusions that Fesser does about scientistic dogmatism including Raymond Tallis, Jerry Fodor, Thomas Nagel and the like.

Need more than just a list of names. I believe the accusation of 'scientism' is more from the perspective of theologians and apologists, and often used to describe in derogatory terms the science of evolution and abiogenesis. I will check out the referenced names, but I am skeptical that their motivations for criticizing science were the same as Christian apologists and theologians. Criticism and debate among scientists and philosophers like Fodor and Nagel are healthy, but aggressive accusations of 'scientism' are not productive.

I definitely believe the objections of science by the Humanist Raymond Tallis do not remotely resemble the objections by many theists and apologists using the 'red herring' scientism.

[shunyadragon]

I find this article interesting concerning the question, 'What is scientism?'

Source: http://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism

Scientism is a rather strange word, but for reasons that we shall see, a useful one. Though this term has been coined rather recently, it is associated with many other “isms” with long and turbulent histories: materialism, naturalism, reductionism, empiricism, and positivism. Rather than tangle with each of these concepts separately, we’ll begin with a working definition of scientism and proceed from there.

Historian Richard G. Olson defines scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.” (1) But this formulation is so broad as to render it virtually useless. Philosopher Tom Sorell offers a more precise definition: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” (2) MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a closely related version, but more extreme: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.” (3) The latter two definitions are far more precise and will better help us evaluate scientism’s merit.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/lectures/evolution-and-scientism

Evolutionary naturalism or scientism is a faith based perspective which relies on several unprovable assumptions. Furthermore, this worldview cannot provide satisfactory explanations for human experience, such as the laws of logic and rationality. Christian faith, far from being blind, is the only sure foundation for knowledge.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.icr.org/article/542/

But divine revelation will not convince them either! There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is the written Word of God, and they have already rejected that.

Instead of science, their commitment to evolutionism properly should be called scientism. One of their leading spokesmen, Michael Shermer, has in effect not only admitted this fact but also actually gloried in it.

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an age of Science. . . . cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology.7

© Copyright Original Source

The problem being that the accusation or the belief in 'scientism.' which I doubt, is more an individual definition and use. It may be claimed to a certain extent by individuals today like Carl Sagan in light of his belief in Metaphysical Naturalism. I doubt that Carl Sagan himself would ever say 'I believe in scientism.' The accusation nonetheless fly loose and goosy by apologists, theologians, and skeptics of science in general with different meanings. Since science is more specifically limited to Methodological Naturalism and hypothesis and theories involving physical existence it is not a broadly useful term to refer to scientist nor the theories and hypothesis of science.

[David Hayward]

It may be claimed to a certain extent by individuals today like Carl Sagan ... I doubt that Carl Sagan himself would ever say ...

"Died: December 20, 1996".

[shunyadragon]

"Died: December 20, 1996".

He still would not consider his belief to be 'scientism.'

[seer]

He still would not consider his belief to be 'scientism.'

But he did say that the universe is all that is or was or ever will be.

[shunyadragon]

But he did say that the universe is all that is or was or ever will be.

This is a statement of Philosophical Naturalism, which as far as the physical nature of our existence science is the only source. Scientism is to vaguely defined by different sources.

HE believed in the knowledge of history, and human imagination, which is not science. He believes we can use science in history, and our imagination (source of knowledge) to understand and explore science. He just does not believe in God(s) as a source of knowledge. I do not believe he ever said science is the only source of knowledge.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.… Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out. - Carl Sagan

[MaxVel]

You made three objections to what you thought Feser was saying; all three have been shown to be objections to things that Feser didn't say.

No I have not I fully understand the difference. I seriously question Feser's use of scientism, not his definition.

Yet you go on in this thread to give several different definitions of scientism, as if that was somehow relevant to any criticism of Feser's position when he defines what he means by scientism in the very citation you gave.

"Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book."

Yes, Feser does not give a body count of 'scientism' he does consider it to have a 'following because . . .' and that is not the reason why scientists believe in 'Metaphysical Naturalism. I agree with him, and most scientists will also agree, 'It is not the success and technology of science that is the reason they do not believe in God.' For example, Einstein rejected religion and the traditional God at an early age, not because of a scholastic background in philosophy, nor his science.




I already acknowledged this in response of Robrecht's post.



Too foggy to be real.

No intelligent response made.

Yes, that is something like Feser proposes, but here is where I disagree. Feser trashes the philosophy of atheist scientists, because they reject God,

The bolded is false, and attributes to Feser a logical fallacy he doesn't make. He criticizes their philosophy because he finds it to be full of errors, based on an ignorance of philosophy in general, and just plain wrong about some things.

and I disagree. The philosophy and theology of the ancients are of no value to science. What I discribed that modern philosophy of science is important to science. and gave examples.

Also, he is not attacking 'atheist scientists' as a group, but people who use science credentials or background as a platform for making poorly informed public attacks on things that they don't know enough about or for making broad philosophical claims that science doesn't by itself show to be true - people like Coyne, Krauss, Rosenberg, Dawkins and so on.

I disagree with this, and most definitely he is making a broad attack on most scientists and 'doubly' on atheists, which he lists some well known. I believe it is the strong disagreement on philosophical and theological beliefs and not the problem of the lack of knowledge of philosophy. It is odd that he cited Einstein and Schrödinger, since they would not remotely agree with Feser on philosophy and theology.

That should clue you in that your understanding of his position is sorely lacking. Reread the two underlined portions that you wrote, and remember your accusation above.

if (as you have claimed) Feser rejects atheist scientist's philosophy 'because they reject God', then how is it that he doesn't do that to people like Einstein and Schrödinger ???

You're holding two contradictory ideas about Feser's approach.

[shunyadragon]

Yet you go on in this thread to give several different definitions of scientism, as if that was somehow relevant to any criticism of Feser's position when he defines what he means by scientism in the very citation you gave.

Yes, he defines it, but the word 'scientism,' but that does not help his argument. It is a word that not consistently used, and is more a layman's club to attack atheists. sometimes evolution and the Big Bang, and sometimes science and scientists in general. I disagree that it is a meaningful term, and causes confusion.

It is best to describe their beliefs as Metaphysical Naturalism, which has a clear concise well understood definition.

if (as you have claimed) Feser rejects atheist scientist's philosophy 'because they reject God', then how is it that he doesn't do that to people like Einstein and Schrödinger ???

That is the problem. Einstein and Schrödinger share the same Metaphysical Naturalist worldview as the others he listed, and give relatively the same philosophical arguments. It is Feser's arguments that are inconsistent.

[MaxVel]

Yes, he defines it, but the word 'scientism,' but that does not help his argument. It is a word that not consistently used, and is more a layman's club to attack atheists. sometimes evolution and the Big Bang, and sometimes science and scientists in general. I disagree that it is a meaningful term, and causes confusion.

It is best to describe their beliefs as Metaphysical Naturalism, which has a clear concise well understood definition.

Go ahead, but realise that you're no arguing against anything that Feser is saying. He defined his terms clearly enough in your citation.

That is the problem. Einstein and Schrödinger share the same Metaphysical Naturalist worldview as the others he listed, and give relatively the same philosophical arguments. It is Feser's arguments that are inconsistent.

Empty assertion, doubly so since you have clearly shown that you understand neither Feser nor Aquinas.

Which of Feser's published works have you actually read?

[shunyadragon]

Go ahead, but realise that you're no arguing against anything that Feser is saying. He defined his terms clearly enough in your citation.

Defining 'scientism' does not help when it is inconsistent 'layman's' club word.

Empty assertion, doubly so since you have clearly shown that you understand neither Feser nor Aquinas. [/quote]

I understand them very well.

Which of Feser's published works have you actually read?

The Last Superstition and Aquinas.