Dawkins and other 'new atheists’ are often accused of having faith that science will lead to a better world. Scientism means a bit more than this, usually something to do with believing that science is the best tool to solve every problem or that science is the only true way to describe reality.
How can atheists protect themselves from faith in science?
Posted: October 28th 2008
bitbutter www
Looking at the wikipedia page for scientism, there seem to be a couple of ways the word is understood. I wasn’t aware that it’s not necessarily a perjorative term; so far I’ve always seen it used that way.
The way Dawkins’ critics use the word often seems like they’re attacking a perceived overconfidence in science’s ability to improve the human condition. But without the benefit of hindsight how can we know whether a person’s confidence in science is misplaced? So far, (setbacks notwithstanding) science has improved our lives and it doesn’t seem far-fetched to assume it will continue to do so. As A.C Grayling notes in Towards The Light, the average westerner lives as a lord, compared to her 15th century ancestors.
Perhaps those who level accusations of scientism are getting at something more fundamental; maybe they worry that Dawkins and his supporters are mistakenly regarding science as the discipline that trumps all others. They think that the new atheists are throwing out philosophy, imagining that science is an adequate tool for any area of enquiry.
I don’t think they need worry though. Dawkins, while freely admitting that philosophy is not his area of expertise, clearly understands the need for it. Here’s a short but telling passage from Unweaving the Rainbow that reveals something of his stance on the relationship between science and philosophy.
there are philosophical difficulties about truth, but we can get a long way before we have to worry about them. Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems is sometimes a smokescreen for mischief.
Science is the tool with which we can 'get a long way’ before philosophical problems block the road.
As for how to avoid scientism ourselves, I think that reading philosophy is a perfect inoculator.
Posted: October 29th 2008
logicel
The image of dogmatic, unfeeling, mad scientists (per films, comics, and books) feed the fear of the anti-science/intellectual crowd.
I recently saw the sequel to the film, The Terminator, and I was disgusted at the over-the-top, emotional rant given by the heroine about how scientists – in this case, a robotic scientist – only care about their science, and not for living flesh, like mothers do, because they can feel their child within. I wondered how this film heroine feels about the fact that her son survived his early childhood because of the cold, unfeeling science behind vaccinations? Maybe she would take the route Jenny McCarthy and her pathetic troop of warrior mothers have taken against vaccination, frightening parents so much that some childhood infectious diseases are on the rise again?
The anti-science sentiment has reached new highs in America. One needs to loudly support the role of science in our everyday lives and not be worried about some manufactured fear of science.
Science is both a tool and a body of information, not a world view — though it can instruct us and therefore guide us in our relating to reality in a way as clearly and accurately as is possible. There is nothing to be frightened of those aspects.
However, politicians and dogmatic people can twist science to meet their needs, such as Social Darwinists who embraced the survival of the fittest without recognizing at the same time that the selfish gene leads to the altruistic society, or Pol Pot/Stalin who used their atrocious and deadly 'agrarian reform’ to dominate and kill millions.
If one wants to guard against such egregious behavior than one needs to learn, practice, and hone the skill of critical thinking and skepticism—the enemies of dogma, whether it is religious or secular. And that is what scientists and supporters of science do.
Posted: October 29th 2008
Eric_PK
I think your question is a strawman.
I’ve met a whole lot of scientists and atheists, and I’ve never met anyone who has blind faith in science.
I’ve have met a lot of people who believe that the scientific method is the best way to create models that describe reality, but such a belief is amply supported by data.
Posted: October 28th 2008
SmartLX www
We can justify a large amount of confidence in science, as it constantly proves itself to be useful. Unfortunately, this confidence falls under many apologists’ definitions of faith.
To elaborate: they reject the idea that faith is only belief without evidence, because they are in the business of championing evidence to support their faith. Therefore “faith” may or may not be based on evidence. Anything we predict or expect without knowing for certain, even if it has a sound basis, may be termed “faith”. It’s a semantic expansion (invasion) which makes it much easier to accuse atheists of faith, and therefore hypocrisy.
The way to keep our confidence in science from becoming the true equivalent of religious faith is to maintain a healthy skepticism for everything it tells us. It may be that another field, for example philosophy, humanism or pure logic, is able to give us a better, more reliable understanding of the world around us in a given situation. We always need to consider alternatives which might be useful, and give them a chance to prove themselves. This is especially true in issues like morality, where while science isn’t inapplicable it’s certainly more difficult to apply.
What does not help is ignoring science for the sake of it. It’s always available as an approach and always has something to say. Considering it isn’t faith, it’s making use of what’s on offer. Just don’t assume that a purely scientific approach will always serve you and others best.
Posted: October 28th 2008