I'm not "defending" anything here -- I'm merely pointing out that many people who attack faith are operating on faith. It has nothing to do with being able to disprove anything, only to do with the fact that people who say science is the only way to know anything are making a statement of faith.
Science is the only method that has been conclusively shown to provide accurate explanations about "things". Criticizing those who would choose an unproven method of explanation is not an act of faith, it's basic common sense.
I'm merely pointing out that by the definition of faith tossed around here frequently by atheists, they're operating on the basis of faith. They thus undermine their own position, especially when they can't give any evidence or even rational argument for their position.
Now the truth comes to light...it's not this notion of scientism (which I highly doubt exists outside of the minds that created the word - similar to a "darwinist") that you are attacking, it's atheism. You have made the claim before that rejecting the existence of god is as much as an act of faith as is believing in him. Skeptical positions to extraordinary claims is NOT an act of faith, no matter how much you want it to be.
Religious people can at least cite the testimony of others as to what they have experienced, but by the very nature of the beast one cannot possibly testify to the absence of something.
Do you honestly believe that to be a logical argument? The fact that a something can be testified to in no way provides any evidence that it is actually true. Gather as many testimonies you like, if no actual evidence can be produced, no testifying to the absence of something is even necessary. You made courtroom analogies before in this thread, but conveniently neglected to establish the party responsible for the burden of proof, and that is always upon the party making the claim. The skeptical party need not provide evidence that something does not exist when evidence for it's existence can not be produced.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
--Christopher Hichens
If the scientismist is maintaining that there can be no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster because only science is a way to know things, absolutely -- because if he's attacking faith while relying on it, his system suffers from internal self-contradiction and thus isn't a system at all.
There is definitely an idea of scientism, but I don't think you will find anyone who actually follows the definition you are asserting and are arguing against. A person who relies only on science to investigate and discover the nature of things would never concede to as rigid an absolute as you are defining scientismts to be. Nor would they concede to as rigid an absolute as the many many claims made by the religious.
You're missing the point: claims against a non-falsifiable belief by someone who is standing on a non-falsifiable belief are invalid, because the one arguing is attacking his own position, thus negating it. It's no different than using electricity in a demonstration meant to prove there's no such thing as electricity: the argument destroys itself.
Again...skeptical positions to fantastic claims are not acts of faith. Honestly, when have you ever heard anyone taking a skeptical position to a fantastic claim with the reasoning of the position of a scientismt. "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster because science is the only true way to know things." No, it usually goes more like this - "There is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness monster. And what evidence there is has been determined to be either fake, unverifiable, or unfalsifiable." No faith-based assertions, just a single statement of fact.
Nothing "becomes" a faith-based scientism argument; it either is or isn't. The assertion "That can't possibly be true because it can't be know by science" is a statement of faith, and thus worthless against a statement of faith -- indeed worthless altogether, because it invalidates itself.
And its an argument that I have never heard anyone ever actually make. Seriously, this is the first time in my life I have ever heard of anyone ever make that argument, and it was made as an example by the person arguing against that argument. By establishing an argument that is inherently false, you can then stand up and argue against it. I have yet to see one single post from the people who are skeptical of religion on this, or any message board, form their arguments using that logic. I don't think it actually exists. Oh, sure, the concept of scientism exists, much like the concept of the Necker cube or the M.C. Escher staircase exists, but I have yet to come across an actual example of a person practicing "scientism".
Now, there s a statement that avoids scientism: "the only known way to establish a valid understanding of the nature of the universe". One may argue that it is not true, but it plainly acknowledges that there might be at least one other way.
It certainly does allow for the possibility that there might be another way. But it also acknowledges that no other way has been found, and until such time that accurate definitions upon the nature of things, and accurate predictions can be made by using an alternative method to science, these methods should not be considered as truthful, valid, or on equal footing with science.
The interesting thing about things being "against current objective evidence" is that the writers in a number of religions knew quite well that they were testifying of things that went contrary to what everyone knew the world to be. That's why they were called "miracles": they didn't happen every day, indeed not very often. They were uncommon enough that when people observed one, they were astounded.
So astonished that they were unable to collect any evidence that they even occurred, I'm guessing. Even if an event that broke the natural laws of this universe occurred, those events would not be immune to the collection of evidence. And eye-witness testimony is not evidence and, despite your previous analogies about eye-witnesses, the determination of the nature of the universe is not held inside a courtroom (Except in Dover). Courtrooms are for the person who can provide the best argument, not the best evidence, which is why eye witness testimony is so useful in a courtroom, and so useless in ascertaining an accurate account of an event.
The method to argue " that those who side with the evidence are just as guilty of faith-based claims as those who side with the fantastical beliefs" has nothing to do with whether someone has even made a 'fantastical' claim; it has to do with simple logic: someone whose position depends on a position that can't be proven cuts off his own argument the moment he attacks someone for holding a position that can't be proven. The position that science is the only way to know things can't be proven, so it is a position of faith, thus when that position is claimed as firm ground to assail those who operate on faith, the position destroys itself.
Lucky for all here then that no one has actually made the claim that science is the only way to know things. It is currently the only known way, and until something better can be shown to provide accurate understanding of the nature of things, siding with science will never be a faith-based position.
WOW! My post on Faith and Reason was all completely ignored.
