Changes

[[Image:Cartoon Fauci speaking to Bill Clinton.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Fauci smitten with Bill Clinton at NIH in 1995]]

[[Image:Cartoon Fauci speaking to Bill Clinton.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Fauci smitten with Bill Clinton at NIH in 1995]]

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]

'''Scientism''' is the false pretension that the [[scientific method]] has no limits and should be applied with [[atheist]]ic  or [[liberal]] bias to virtually all aspects of life.  A recent example is [[COVID-19]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]-supporter Dr. [[Anthony Fauci]]'s failed approach to it.  Scientism funded "gain-of-function" research to develop the deadly virus that reportedly killed more than 5 million people, and then officials lie about it.

'''Scientism''' is the false pretension that the [[scientific method]] has no limits and sho]]'s failed approach to it.  Scientism funded "gain-of-function" research to develop the deadly virus that reportedly killed more than 5 million people, and then officials lie about it.

'''[[Conservative]]s oppose scientism, as it misleads people, facilitates lying in the name of science for a political agenda, creates deadly dangers (like man-made viruses), and devalues an individual belief in [[God]] and religious principles'''.  "In the modern world, people will believe almost anything if it is dressed up in the name of science," observed C.S. Lewis in criticism of it.<ref>https://www.alecsatin.com/what-is-scientism/</ref>

'''[[Conservative]]s oppose scientism, as it misleads people, facilitates lying in the name of science for a political agenda, creates deadly dangers (like man-made viruses), and devalues an individual belief in [[God]] and religious principles'''.  "In the modern world, people will believe almost anything if it is dressed up in the name of science," observed C.S. Lewis in criticism of it.<ref>https://www.alecsatin.com/what-is-scientism/</ref>

Often circular in its fallacious reasoning, scientism is essentially a [[religion]] dating back to the early 1800s, whereby its followers (pseudo-scientists) worship rituals of [[science]] and preordained results.<ref>Ashgate Science and Religion Series</ref> Scientism is hostile to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and pretends that moral philosophy, the [[Bible]], and all sources other than narrow atheistic science are not credible sources of knowledge.  True science is logic-based and explores the world with unbiased experimentation, while scientism relies on preconceived [[atheism|atheistic]] or [[socialist]] notions.  [[Liberal]] public health bureaucrats tend to believe in scientism, such as circular reasoning to push mandatory [[vaccine|vaccination]], at the expense of [[freedom]] and the truth.

Often circular in its fallacious reasoning, scientism is essentially a [[religion]] dating back to the early 1800s, whereby its followers (pseudo-scientists) worship rituals of [[science]] and preordained results.<ref>Ashgate Science and Religion Series</ref> Scientism is hostile to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and pretends that moral phi

 

Approaches superior to scientism include logic and reason, [[Romanticism]], [[faith]], and real science that does not assume what it pretends to prove.

Approaches superior to scientism include logic and reason, [[Romanticism]], [[faith]], and real science that does not assume what it pretends to prove.

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.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=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."}}</ref> [[C.S. Lewis]] was skeptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to [[Reductionism|reduce]] everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism|publisher=DiscoveryInstitute|date= 18 Nov 2012|pages=02min:20sec|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818|accessdate=27-April-2013}}</ref> He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on [[ethics]], [[politics]], [[faith]], [[reason]], and science itself.<ref name="Magician"/>

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.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=Belontemporary 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."}}</ref> [[C.S. Lewis]] was skeptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to [[Reductionism|reduce]] everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism|publisher=DiscoveryInstgician"/>

Scientism cannot be proven to be true through science itself, rendering it incomplete at best.<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting Is scientism self-refuting] by William Lane Craig</ref>  For other significant problems with scientism as far as its unworkability, please see [[William Lane Craig]]'s commentary on scientism entitled [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting "Is scientism self-refuting?"]

Scientism cannot be proven to be true through science itself, rendering it incomplete at best.<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting Is scientism self-refuting] by William Lane Craig</ref>  For other significant problems with scientism as far as its unworkability, please see [[William Lane Craig]]'s commentary on scientism entitled [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting "Is scientism self-refuting?"]

Scientism had its roots in the [[Age of Enlightenment]], in particular with people like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon]], who tried to claim that science and pure reason was necessary to cast aside Christianity as well as any and all forms of religion despite themselves having absolutely no personal and direct involvement in the concept of science.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html<br />{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].  

Scientism had its roots in the [[Age of Enlightenment]], in particular with people like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon]], who tried to claim that science and pure reason was necessary to cast aside Christianity as well as any and all forms of religion despite themselves having absolutely no personal and direct involvement in the concept of science.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html<br />{{cquote|Recent historical research has debegun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].  

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......}}</ref>

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......}}</ref>

''See also:'' [[Atheism and scientism]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and scientism]]

Many atheists, particularly [[New Atheism|new atheists]]/[[Militant atheism|militant atheists]], adhere to scientism.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/dawkins-and-the-public-understanding-of-scientism  Dawkins and the Public Understanding of Scientism] by Peter S. Williams</ref><ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H1 New Atheism - Faith and Reason], Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>[https://carm.org/an-examination-of-atheisms-truth-claims An Examination of Atheism’s Truth Claims] by Robin Schumacher at [[CARM]]</ref>

Many atheists, particularly [[New Atheism|new atheists]]/[[Militant atheism|militant atheists]], adhere to scientism.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/daw-truth-claims An Examination of Atheism’s Truth Claims] by Robin Schumacher at [[CARM]]</ref>

Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and scientism ideologically 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 evidence against God and the [[Bible]].<ref>http://sntjohnny.com/front/scientism-the-atheists-religion-of-faith/477.html</ref>

Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and scientism ideologically 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 evidence against God and the [[Bible]].<ref>http://sntjohnny.com/front/scientism-the-atheists-religion-of-faith/477.html</ref>

== Science as a religion ==

== Science as a religion ==

[[File:Faucism.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The cult of [[Faucism]].]]

[[File:Faucism.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The cult of [[Faucism]].]]

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.<ref>http://www.enformy.com/Religion_of_Scientism.htm</ref>

Scientism is the religion of worshipijective" point of view.<ref>http://www.enformy.com/Religion_of_Scientism.htm</ref>

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.

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.

== Debunking Scientism ==

== 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.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book

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.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book

   

   

=== Vagueness and word-spinning ===

=== Vagueness and word-spinning ===

Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. On top of that, it usurps the right to be labeled as "modern," yet it is in many respects expressing merely modernized pagan beliefs under the fig leaf of "science," it is often meticulous in detail and yet bristling with [[contradiction]]s and tendentious arguments, boldly [[Logic of possibility|imaginative]] and yet often already outdated.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=232 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref>  For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], partisans of scientism, has been declared to be dim and confused compared with that of [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=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.}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book

Gnostic works are marked by [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]] vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. On top of that, it usurps the right to be labeled as "modern," yet it is in many respects expressing merely modernized pagan beliefs under the fig leaf of "science," it is often meticulous in detail and yet bristling with [[contradiction]]s and tendentious arguments, boldly [[Logic of possibility|imaginative]] and yet often already outdated.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=232 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref>  For example, the textbook legend of [[James Hutton|H 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.}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book

|author=E.J. Larson

|author=E.J. Larson

|title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory

|title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory

|pages=96  

|pages=96  

|isbn=0-8129-6849-2

|isbn=0-8129-6849-2

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC}}</ref> 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 [[Cosmic inflation|inflation theory]]:<ref name="Guth">{{cite web|title=Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html|quote=}}</ref>

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC}}</ref> 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 [uth 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."</blockquote>   

<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>   

Analysis of contradictions in the text:

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.   

*  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.