Changes

Strict scientism as a worldview is self-refuting since the scientism cannot be proven to be true through science.<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].

Strict scientism as a worldview is self-refuting since the scientism cannot be proven to be true through science.<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].

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 sceptical 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=http://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=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 sceptical 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"/>

== Scientism and atheism ==

== Scientism and atheism ==

|isbn=978-1590-521526

|isbn=978-1590-521526

|pages=52

|pages=52

|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ

|quote=}}</ref> Neither does scientism.  

|quote=}}</ref> Neither does scientism.  

   

   

=== 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=http://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=http://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|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

|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=http://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 [[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>

<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>   

<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:

== External links ==

== External links ==

* [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism Scientism] (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary).

* [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism Scientism] (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary).

* [http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism] (American Public Broadcasting Service).

* [http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism] (American Public Broadcasting Service).

* [http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/08/scientism.html Scientism] (Philosophy, etc.)

* [http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/08/scientism.html Scientism] (Philosophy, etc.)

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818 The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism] Featured Video by Discovery Institute

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818 The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism] Featured Video by Discovery Institute

* [https://www.wnd.com/2018/07/the-dangers-of-worshiping-science/ The Dangers of Worshipping Science], by Patrice Lewis of ''WND''

* [https://www.wnd.com/2018/07/the-dangers-of-worshiping-science/ The Dangers of Worshipping Science], by Patrice Lewis of ''WND''