From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Scientism is the belief that the scientific method has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship science its rituals, and its results.[1]

According to Discovery Institute scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.[2] C.S. Lewis was sceptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to reduce everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.[3] He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself.[2]

Scientism and atheism

Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and Scientism support each other. Followers of Scientism do not believe in God and therefore use atheism as the base of their religion, and atheists use pseudoscience to support their claims, as well as as evidence against God and the Bible.[4]

Scientism and pseudoscience

Since Scientists have an agenda to use "science" to support their denial of God, their techniques usually rely on pseudoscience. For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof.[5]

Science as a religion

Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.[6]

Believers of Scientism deny the existence of God, and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be as "science" to replace God as the source for infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful.

Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional morality, so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".[7]

faith, reason, and science itself.[2]

Debunking Scientism

Scientism is in essence a gnostic culture applied onto realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits. As such it also exhibits many characteristics of moral relativism. For example, moral relativism doesn't follow its own rules, the rules it judges everyone else by.[8]. Neither does scientism.

Vagueness and word-spinning

Gnostic works are marked by manipulative vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. For example, the textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell, partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.[9] Another proponent of scientism, Darwin, wrote books in a way that they were compared to a Victorian curiosity shop where the main message was somewhat lost in the clutter.[10] A blatant example of word spinning can be found in the text describing the research interests of Alan Guth, the 1981 author of so called inflation theory[11]:

"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible. The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."

Analysis of contradictions in the text:

  • Ad. "the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe." In hypothetical laboratory, anything is possible, because it rests solely on the imagination of the author of the idea and his bare assertion. Unlike science, scientism is based on just-so stories and bare assertion fallacy (also known as proof by assertion) and tries to shake off the burden of proof for its claims.
  • If somebody something shows ("They showed that"), then the terms like "it might be theoretically possible" and conditional sentence "if it can be" become surplus. On the other hand, if it is not sure "if it can be" or not, then the expression "They showed" is clearly a lie.
  • Ad. "The answer is a definite maybe." In fact, "a definite maybe" is not answer at all, it leaves question undecided, in the same status as before asking.


  1. Ashgate Science and Religion Series
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 N/A. The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description. Discovery Institute Press. Retrieved on November 30, 2014. “Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."”
  3. The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism 02min:20sec. DiscoveryInstitute (18 Nov 2012). Retrieved on 27-April-2013.
  8. Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott (2007). Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid. Sisters, OR, USA: Tyndale House Publishers, 52. ISBN 978-1590-521526. 
  9. D. R. Wallace (June 14, 1987). IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD. NYT. Retrieved on 7 June 2015. “Hutton's theory of the earth ... was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo.”
  10. E.J. Larson (2006). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library, 96. ISBN 0-8129-6849-2. 
  11. Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics. Retrieved on 03.03.2013.

See Also

External links