Midgeley puzzled many people at one time on account of thinking that Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene (1976) was a stinker.
She took on a variety of overstuffed concepts, for example, what we now call “trust the science”, abbreviated for convenience to “scientism”:
She points out that there’s a difference between “doing science” and Scientism. Science is a method and discipline, but Scientism is something more – it establishes a set of beliefs by which to view things. It sees science as “realistic” or “just the facts”, like some objective totem. What’s more, Midgley argued that Scientism is invariably aligned with some kind of excessive reductionism, where everything is reduced to neurons or evolutionary psychology, for instance. It simplifies the complexities of life to being “nothing but” this or that. Love is, for example, “nothing but…” social cohesion. Consciousness is “nothing but…” neurons firing in a certain sequence. Scientism reduces the world to a single explanatory factor. Yet, this is a philosophical abstraction that has become untethered from how life is lived. It elevates one aspect of life at the expense of other things, such as culture or society.
Midgley also noted Scientism often comes with a condescension towards those who don’t see science as they do. Oppositional views are lambasted as the naïve wish-fulfillment of the weak, probably involving unicorns and leprechauns, angels and devils. Scientism, then, is a faith, or at least a value system, in favour of materialistic asceticism. Which means that it wants to say, “Accept the bleakness of reality!” or “Don’t childishly daydream!” We must all accept The Truth, as defined by science, and to do otherwise is ignorant and superstitious.
Jonny Thomson, “The Three Myths of Scientism” at RealClearScience
It’s going to be interesting to see what the COVID-19 Crazy does for “trust the science!” once the smoke clears.
Coincidentally, in the province of Ontario, Canada, another ridiculous mass “Trust the Science!” lockdown has sparked a police revolt, as the police have been refusing to carry out unconstitutional and otherwise ridiculous orders:
The public is pretty fed up too. It’s not at all clear that the provincial government’s response to the pandemic was any better than what we might have expected from the Three Stooges. It mainly created huge collateral damage like a big spike in isolated suicidal teens and addicted adults. Few of these people would have died of COVID anyway.
If only the government had made such a mess of things on behalf of something other than science…
I’m not sure that reductionism necessarily comes with scientism. Big Science always goes beyond the raw facts and adds its own moral imperatives, which are always the direct opposite of Natural Law. 2020 Big Science, which is an extension of the Gaian form, ignores facts entirely and makes up numbers to serve its moral ends.
The “deniers” who oppose Big Science in both the Gaian and 2020 forms are far more rigorous about getting the facts right and using proper statistics and logic to process the facts.
as to:
Although Atheists may sincerely believe that they are the ones who are being ‘scientific’ and realistic, and everybody else is living in a fantasy land, this is definitely a case where the shoe is squarely on the other foot.
Atheistic materialists, with their reductive materialistic framework, can’t even define what a species truly is, much less can they define what it truly means to be human.
As should be needless to say, the inability of a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!
And as the OP and the preceding article both touched upon, reductive materialistic explanations also destroy everything about what it really means to be human.
First off, if God does not really exist as a real person, but is merely an illusion, then we ourselves do not really exist as real persons, but we are instead merely ‘neuronal illusions’.
The reason why atheists are forced to, embarrassingly, claim that they do not really exist as real people, but that they are merely neuronal illusions, is because the entire concept of personhood is an abstract and immaterial concept that is simply not reducible to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations of Darwinists.
The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our subjective conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is simply insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
By definition, illusions are NOT reality but are a distortions that pervert our perception of reality. So why in blue blazes should anyone care what neuronal illusions have to say about reality, much less what these supposed neuronal illusions have to say about science?
As well, the Darwinian materialist, in his denial of God and therefore in his denial of his own immaterial mind, (and besides being forced to claim that he himself is merely a neuronal illusion), is also forced to claim that he, (as a neuronal illusion), is having an illusion of free will. (The atheistic materialists turns out to be an illusion having an illusion 🙂 )
As neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman stated, “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
Yet, although the Darwinists is forced to deny the reality of free will because of his reductive materialistic presuppositions, the denial of free will is simply insane and is blatantly self-refuting nonsense.
And here is a shining example of just how blatantly self-refuting the denial of free will is.
The following statement by Jerry Coyne should literally be the number one example of a self-refuting argument that is given in philosophy 101 classes, “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
As the preceding statement by Coyne makes abundantly clear, the denial of the reality of free will by Darwinists undermines any ability that we have to make logically coherent arguments in the first place. As Martin Cothran explains, “By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true.”
Besides undermining any ability we have to make logically coherent arguments in the first place, the denial of free will also denies what we know to be absolutely true from first hand experience, and is therefore completely insane.
As Paul Nelson explains in the following article, the denial of free will entails that “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
“That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.”
And as George Ellis explained, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”
In other words, Einstein didn’t discover the theory of Relativity, the laws of physics did and informed (the illusion of) Einstein of the event after the fact.
Again, the denial that we have free will in some real and meaningful sense is simply insane. It denies what we know to be true and real from first hand experience.
As Michael Egnor noted, “Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.”
And as if his denial of his sense of self and free will were not insane enough for the Atheist, the Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that any beliefs he may have about reality are unreliable.
That is to say he is forced to believe that any beliefs that he may have about reality may be illusory and not true. And moreover, he has no way to differentiate between his real beliefs and his imaginary beliefs..
The belief that any beliefs we may have about reality may be illusory, and that we have no way to differentiate between the two beliefs, simply, besides being insane, undercuts the entire scientific enterprise itself.
As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”
And as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian materialists, the Darwinist, because of his materialistic presuppositions, is forced to believe that ALL the perceptions that he is having of reality are illusory.
Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, via extensive analysis of the mathematics of population genetics, has proven that, if Darwinian evolution is assumed as being true, then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, in fact reliable is the first step in, and therefore the cornerstone of, the scientific method,
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, then the Darwinian claim that ALL our perceptions of reality are illusory undermines the scientific method itself.
Fortunately for us, science itself, (real science, and not the ‘scientism’ of Atheistic materialists), could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory.
Specifically, advances in Quantum Mechanics have now experimentally proven that our observations of reality far more integral to reality, and therefore reliable of reality, than Darwinists are forced to claim via the mathematics of population genetics.
As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was conducted with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
And as the following violation of Leggett’s inequality found, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Thus, fortunately for us, science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory.
As far as experimental science itself is concerned, the Darwinist’s materialistic belief that ALL our perceptions of reality must be illusory is experimentally falsified.
And as if all that was not bad enough for the supposed ‘science’ of Darwinists, the Darwinian materialist, (since he has no real time experimental evidence substantiating any of his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution), is also forced to make up illusory ‘just-so stories’ with the impotent and illusory ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection.
Moreover, the Darwinian materialist is forced to make up these illusory “just so stories” so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming appearance of design.
Which is to say, they are forced to make up these illusory ‘just so stories’ with the illusory ‘Designer substitute’ of natural selection, so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming illusion of design,
It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism has turned out to be for the atheist.
In short, completely excluding God from science by falsely claiming that God is merely illusory, as Atheistic Materialists do, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself, in that that denial of the reality of God forces the atheistic materialist into a ocean of illusion and fantasy with no discernible foundation of ‘reality’ for him to base his atheistic worldview on.
Here is a fitting poem for the ‘illusory dilemma’ the atheist finds himself in in his denial of God:
Moreover, besides the Darwinian worldview leading to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself, the atheist’s own personal life also suffers dramatically with his adoption of reductive materialism which undergirds his Darwinian worldview.
For example, the Darwinian materialist, since he believes that his life has no real meaning or purpose, is forced to make up illusory meaning and purposes for his life.
The reason why atheists are forced to make up illusory meaning and purposes for their life is because it is simply ‘unbearable’ for anyone to live as if their life truly had no meaning and purpose.
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God Who is the source for all real and objective moral truths,
In short, if God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist,
Yet, just like no one ever lives their life as if it had no real meaning and purpose, no one ever lives their life as if morality did not really exist.
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if he had no moral agency
To point out the glaringly obvious implication in all of this, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
And the final nail in the coffin for proving that the Darwinian worldview is ‘illusory’ worldview that destroys everything about what it means to be human, is the Darwinian belief that beauty itself is not real but illusory.
Charles Darwin himself denied the objective reality of beauty and even said that, “This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
And although the Darwinian materialist is, apparently and unbelievably, forced to believe that beauty itself is illusory, lest it be “absolutely fatal” to Darwin’s theory, the Darwinist himself, in many of his arguments against God, is forced to believe that beauty is objectively real.
You see, the Darwinist, in many of his arguments against God, will often point to some ‘ugly’ facet of this world, (disease, violence, death, etc.), and then argue that God would never allow such an ugly facet to exist in this world, and, in his simplistic reasoning, the atheist concludes that God therefore must not exist.
Yet, like a lie is necessarily a departure from truth, and like evil is necessarily a departure from good, ugly itself is necessarily a departure from beauty.
That is to say, like lies could not exist unless truth was first objectively real, and like evil could not exist unless good was first objectively real, likewise ugly can not exist unless beauty was also first objectively real.
Thus, in his ‘argument from evil’, and in pointing to things he finds ‘ugly’ in this world, the atheist is unwittingly conceding the objective existence of beauty, i.e. of the very thing his worldview denies the existence of, (lest it be “absolutely fatal” to Darwin’s theory).
And although the atheist may be overly focused on pointing out the ugliness of this world, might I suggest that we live in a world that is overwhelmingly infused with beauty and that the world as not nearly as ugly as the atheist seems predisposed to believe.
And indeed, the objective existence of beauty, (as the atheist is forced to concede in his ‘argument from evil’), is a very powerful argument for the existence of God
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real in his naturalistic worldview.
In what should be needless to say, any worldview that is devoid of any true and real meaning, beauty and purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have hold and to live as if it were actually true.
How anyone can personally stand to be an atheist I have no idea.
It is as if someone had the keys to a luxurious mansion with plenty of gourmet food to eat, and entertainment to enjoy, but instead choose to live their life in the squalors of a garbage dump, eating nothing but whatever rotting food they could scavenge from the garbage.
Such an impoverished worldview, as the atheist is forced to hold onto, where everything that gives our lives any real meaning, beauty, and purpose is illusory, goes a very long way towards explaining why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,
and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians having less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.
Again, I simply can’t understand how anyone would willingly choose to live their life in the squalors of the atheistic worldview. It is a severely impoverished, and depressing, worldview for anyone to willingly hold onto.
The good news is that you, as an atheist, don’t have to live your life in such squalor, but you can choose to accept God into your life, and therefore accept all that is truly beautiful into your life, anytime you wish.
Verse and Music:
You’re all so stupid. Scientism is just about throwing out subjectivity, it is very obvious. Creationism provides the simple solution.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective
You see, both subjectivity and objectivity validated, each in their own right, in one coherent conceptual scheme.
http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy
If you look at it from my point of view, of someone who accepts the creationist conceptual scheme, you could see that you all look stupid.
You all don’t understand how subjectivity works. That is stupid, because the logic of it is directly available to you in the common discourse you use yourself.
And many of you support intelligent design theory, while you don’t understand the basic logic of intelligent design, which is choice.
I guess to see the truth about some things, you first have to accept a judgment that you are not good, stupid. You have to shut yourself up, and accurately reflect the logic used in common discourse with words like choice and subjective words like beautiful.
BA77, and yet, and yet . . . we cannot live without beauty, cannot. We die inside of beauty-thirst, even a sprouting flower in the narrow window of a dingy dungeon teaches hope and joy by simply being beautiful. without beauty we wither from within and die. KF
PS: On principles of beauty, as discussed earlier. Start with Nefertiti, Sira and Mona Lisa. Then, let’s go on from there. Just the other day I noticed a tiny, brilliantly blue flower of a plant locally called French Weed, in a garden. Just the touch of a blue like that was a joy.
kf I’ve always admired Cristóbal Vila’s ability to bring out and highlight some of the deep ‘hidden beauty’ in life and the world
Here is a beautiful time-lapse video
A poem
BA77, a bit idealised but the point is made. KF
A bit idealised? Perhaps, but not too far off the mark.
So do you think this guy is doing a better job than Cristóbal Vila of revealing ‘hidden beauty’?
A few more notes
“It’s not at all clear that the provincial government’s response to the pandemic was any better than what we might have expected from the Three Stooges.”
Yeah but Crying Nurses and Former Football Players
Andrew