Scientism II

Standard.co.uk: London 2017

Last night, I discussed with a friend on the phone, his (paraphrased) online course on early Christianity from a secular University. The teaching includes premises which are skeptical of the claimed supernatural, revealed origins of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

I opined (paraphrased) that much of this was rooted in worldviews of empiricism, scientism and naturalism. I had been educated in regard to aspects of empiricism and naturalism while studying for my bible school and seminary degrees in Canada, well before my interaction with them with the theses research degrees in Wales-England.

Oxford Science

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view this as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Cited

'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'

'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'
---

Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism.

Scientism November 2014

Blackburn

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

From Oxford Dictionary

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
---

A person holding to scientism may abandon the need for a contextual evaluation of Scripture and the revealed word of God in regard to origins and creation; instead embracing scientific explanations alone.

As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.

For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of Biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion.

Scientism should be academically rejected.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Wimp.com