Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Shermer’s Case for Scientific Naturalism

Categories
Culture
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
Philosophy
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

And the Enlightenment. The celebrity skeptic calls it scientific humanism:

Human progress, which has been breathtaking over the past two centuries in nearly every realm of life, has principally been the result of the application of scientific naturalism to solving problems, from engineering bridges and eradicating diseases to extending life spans and establishing rights. This blending of scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism should have a name. Call it “scientific humanism.”

It wasn’t obvious that the earth goes around the sun, that blood circulates throughout the body, that vaccines inoculate against disease. But because these things are true and because Nicolaus Copernicus, William Harvey and Edward Jenner made careful measurements and observations, they could hardly have found something else. So it was inevitable that social scientists would discover that people universally seek freedom. Michael Shermer, “The Case for Scientific Humanism” at Scientific American

Shermer’s piece, in which he is looking back on his years as a Scientific American columnist, feels like an elegy.

The reality today is that, however people may universally seek freedom, China is dedicated to using the high tech born of science to stamp it out and enlisting many other natures to do the same.

And science, as opposed to technology, is coming under serious assault from those who demand that nature itself do their social justice bidding. More, the social justice warrior culture that is demanding that science incorporate their propaganda (social justice math and all) is descending into serious rot like anti-Semitism.

Maybe at some level Shermer senses the onslaught to come and knows that these are fond reminiscences of a way of thinking about science, true or not, that is utterly alien to those who feel left out by things like facts, evidence, and correct answers.

See also: Will AI liberate or enslave developing countries?

Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

and

Maybe the “March for” fad will die out before the anti-Semitism hits science. The reason this subject interests us is that the social justice warriors (SJWs) have set their sights on science (remember the March for Science?). Which means that the science media and groups that are trying to accommodate them would be forced to accommodate the anti-Semitism as well. With any luck, the marching Woke (SJWs) will all break up quarreling before it gets that bad.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
What would he say to the fact the theories of "scientific naturalism" were invented by Christians trying to understand God's handiwork? Naturalism is just a bunch of atheists trying to take credit for what religious people did.EricMH
January 4, 2019
January
01
Jan
4
04
2019
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
News- To me Shermer is just a clueless loser who spends most of his time whining about things he cannot explain. Put us in the same room and those kids would listen to me. ;)ET
January 4, 2019
January
01
Jan
4
04
2019
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Hi Ed, There wasn't any error in my first comment. 1- Shermer did not reference any specific era so your "2000 years ago" is a straw man. 2- Even given what you said my comment in 1 is correct 3- Scientific naturalism could not be responsible for an event that never happened The errors are all yours, EdET
January 4, 2019
January
01
Jan
4
04
2019
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Both above, are we missing the main point here? Michael Shermer does not understand what has changed. He is accustomed to sneering at and dismissing the views of non-naturalists who are out of social favour anyway. So even if he didn't grasp the problems and was wrong in what he said it didn't matter. The way kids will side with the social bully over the nerd, even if the nerd is correct. Shermer and others are now looking down the maw of the Woke war on science, where 2+2 had better NOT make 4 if anyone who matters is offended thereby. So far, most of them simply capitulate and/or pretend they don't see. Thoughts?News
January 4, 2019
January
01
Jan
4
04
2019
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
ET
Grow up, Ed. Yes, I just repeated what he said. And you never posted anything that refutes what he said.
What’s to refute? The maximum life span 2000 years ago was just north of 100 years. The maximum lifespan now is the same. All I did was point out a small error in your statement. Nothing to get worked up about. We all make mistakes.Ed George
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Ed George:
Yet you repeated it …
Grow up, Ed. Yes, I just repeated what he said. And you never posted anything that refutes what he said.ET
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
ET
OK Ed, be sure to let Shermer know. He is the one who said it.
Yet you repeated it as fact without checking it’s veracity.Ed George
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
OK Ed, be sure to let Shermer know. He is the one who said it. You did read the OP, right?ET
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
ET
Funny that scientific naturalism had nothing to do with engineering bridges and eradicating diseases to extending life spans and establishing rights.
Just a small point, but human life span is no different than it was 2000 years ago.Ed George
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Funny that scientific naturalism had nothing to do with engineering bridges and eradicating diseases to extending life spans and establishing rights. Talk about "just say anything"ET
January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply