The Instigator
BennyW
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
humanright2debate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Scientism is a reliigon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BennyW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 48022
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

BennyW

Pro

I will be arguing that scientism is a religion. Now let me explain what I mean by that, not Scientology, not Christian Science but what is often passed as science now a days even though it doesn't rely on the scientific method but rather assertions based on faith. The first round will be for acceptance only. Good luck.
humanright2debate

Con

The Instigator please convey your statement of "Scientism is a reliigon" with your definition and directly expressed to the point.
Debate Round No. 1
BennyW

Pro

Alright I will spend most of this round defining what I mean since it"s a new concept to most people.
Scientism (alternately the term scienceism could be used) is the religious belief that preaches that the universe came into existence on its own and that life arose from non-life. This cannot be tested by the scientific method and so is not science but rather religion.
Primordial soup is one example of scientism. This is not something that has been empirically tested but rather is a religious belief but is taught as fact by the adherents of the religions.
Here is some of their key doctrine:
It uses science of the gaps to explain things the scientific method cannot.
It is probably the only religion that is allowed and in fact mandated to proselytize in schools.
Some examples of adherents of the religion are Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye. While it is closely related to the religion of atheism, not all atheists are scientismists.
They try to convert others to their religious worldview.

In terms of how they are a religion Dictionary.com defines religion thusly
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Scientism meets all of these.
1.They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith.
2.They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support.
3.They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science.
4.Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist.
5.They proselytize in schools and debate other religions.

See the video of Bill Nye proselytizing this religion and condemning other religions. He wants parents to only teach their kids his religion. That shows how oppressive they can be. (It"s a shame too since there was a time where Bill Nye did seem interesting in the scientific method)

Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science.

I thank my opponent for accepting and await his rebuttal.
humanright2debate

Con

This is not a new concept, we just need you to define your meaning of it before we can start kicking the ball.

---------------------------------------------------------
Scientism meets all of these.
1.They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith.
2.They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support.
3.They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science.
4.Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist.
5.They proselytize in schools and debate other religions.

See the video of Bill Nye proselytizing this religion and condemning other religions. He wants parents to only teach their kids his religion. That shows how oppressive they can be. (It"s a shame too since there was a time where Bill Nye did seem interesting in the scientific method)

Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science.

-------------------------------------------------------

you claim that , Scientism fool people of something which is not real, and taking credit
you also claim that that Scientism or religion is a scam, because wanted to control over people belief to make them believed in something.
you are a freethinker too .

************overall, you claim that Scientism is a religion because they trying to fool others into convert them to believe of their belief to something which is not true as its not science proofed.

could i say this is a stupid argument by based your belief?
are you trying to be a "Scientism" or "religion" now by converting us of your belief ?
Debate Round No. 2
BennyW

Pro


I will try to respond to my opponent but he didn’t give much of a rebuttal. What he did say I am having a hard time making out due to poor grammar but I will try based on what I think he is saying.

His first paragraph doesn’t seem to be saying anything that I can make out except restating what I said. Then calling me a free thinker, but don’t see how that will help him with the debate.

overall, you claim that Scientism is a religion because they trying to fool others into convert them to believe of their belief to something which is not true as its not science proofed.
I said that they use just enough of the scientific method to make it look scientific, however rely on faith for the rest. What I call science of the gaps.
He says my argument is stupid but doesn’t go on to give explanation as to why.

are you trying to be a "Scientism" or "religion" now by converting us of your belief ?
I am really trying to understand what this means but I don’t. Is he saying I am trying to convert people to my belief? Well only within the scope of this debate. I am not giving an affirmative argument for any other religion but rather pointing out the religious nature of scientism.
Now I realized that I might have to explain what I mean by “Science of the Gaps”. It is essentially a response to “God of the Gaps” and works the same way. [1]
As my opponent did make a comprehensible counter argument my contentions still stand for this round. I look forward to next round and hopefully there will be more communication.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
humanright2debate

Con

The Instigator critical main point conclusion from round 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientism meets all of these.
1.They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith.
2.They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support.
3.They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science.
4.Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist.
5.They proselytize in schools and debate other religions.

Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science.
-----------------------------------------------------
i will make it simple for you.
your conclusion define

your define of Scientism
Scientism is cheating, they fool people.
Scientism is a reliigon
your self-concept on scientism is strongly disagreeable.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Instigator critical main point conclusion of reliigon

and your define of reliigon
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

---------------------------------------------
God of the gaps argument will be another difference topic to carry on
this topic is about is Scientism is a reliigon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientism is not a reliigon

Main point A)
Faith is belief of absence evidence. so explain what is the evidence that this whole world is not a dream in your mind? There is neither evidence nor proof that the external world exists independent of our experience of it, but most of us believe in it anyways, because that seems more reasonable to us.Scientism can only be proven within science. It cannot be proven to a person who believes primarily in faith.
I have faith the sun will rise every morning for the rest of my life. Does that make it become untrue? It is only FALSE faiths that are untrue.
Debate Round No. 3
BennyW

Pro

I will now respond to my opponent’s objections from the last round.

your self-concept on scientism is strongly disagreeable.
Alright but you has of yet not given a solid refutation of it so really that is just your subjective feeling at this point. My concept of scientism (the term I have come up with for this religion) is based on my observation of its adherents.

I only bring up God of the Gaps as a point of comparison to explain what I mean by Science of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps is an important aspect of the Scientism religion.

My opponent’s main point does not prove anything rather he acknowledges that we rely on faith all the time. This is true but he hasn’t proven how you can tell false faith from true faith or what that even means. As for how we know the world around use exists, it can be empirically proven. Now if he is trying to argue we live in the Matrix or a dream or Descartes’ claim “I think therefore I am” which by the way was the first half of his proof for God) then we really can’t know anything and the scientific process would be completely meaningless therefore it would be faith anyway and scientism would still be a religion. Something like the Big Bang or primordial soup however cannot and that differs from faith that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will still work the same is that the latter cases are based on past experience. Scientific claims must be consistent with the scientific process. Observing how the Earth rotates around the sun gives us a pretty good idea of how it will continue to work for a while.
I thank my opponent for coming up with a rebuttal and look forward to the next and final round where we should wrap things up. He cannot introduce a new argument that I will be unable to respond to.
humanright2debate

Con

Alright but you has of yet not given a solid refutation of it so really that is just your subjective feeling at this point. My concept of scientism (the term I have come up with for this religion) is based on my observation of its adherents.

This arguments is stupid
The Instigator totally fail to set a define on his view of "Scientism" , Instigator avoid to explain a definition of this concept. when Scientism is a critical define in this topic.

The Instigator trying to create more confusing topic by linked "God of the Gaps" with Science of the Gaps, WITHOUT define of the Wide-ranging possible meaning of "God of the Gaps" .

he posted a link that
- http://en.wikipedia.org...
God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.

this above create a undefined of his define on reliigon. is he is trying to link "God_of_the_gaps" as Christian theologians.
which is stated in first round of his define on reliigon .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

------------------------------------------------------

arguments will never be started. The Instigator totally FAIL to set define on his statement for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Yes. You should have used a different word AND punctuation
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
dawn well whet do I don when there isn't something to define the concept? As Sagey said maybe I could have used a different word.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Bennyw, you can't make stuff up and say that "this is a definition".

PS. Have either of you ever heard of commas?
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
Ah OK I think I misunderstood what you meant.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Maybe we could invent a word that describes those who you cite as being a bit naive and believe everything is already explained by science without actually knowing how the scientific method works.
So it is a form of Pseudo-Scientism.

So maybe we can join the words and make it simply Pseudosceintism.

They venerate science without actually understanding science, nor the scientific method.
I know a lot of people like that, as when I try to explain to them that their concepts are wrong, they really don't want to know about it. "It works this way, because some scientist said it does and that's that, what do you know, you're and engineer, not a scientist".
Yet they don't know that the equipment and the science behind it were designed and made functional by Engineers, where the scientist just determined the probability of it functioning.
Scientists think science, we engineers do all the ground work and actual application of that science so often we understand the science more than the scientist, because we have to make it apply to reality.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The term Scientism does exist and the actual definition for it is: "is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach".
From wikipedia and it is the same in my dictionary.
So you invented a term that already existed and is the belief that everything in existence can be explainable by the Scientific Method.
It pays to research terms that you invent yourself so you don't end up having this issue that will cause people to attack you for being wrong, when you are not wrong, all because a word already existed elsewhere.
It's difficult to be original in these times.
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
Sagey how have i destroyed the definition? The term scientism is merely what I am using for lack of a different term to describe the religion I am describing. It's scientific method only to as point from then on it is science of the gaps, which is faith.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro has already destroyed the definition of Scientism and tried to impose his own fraudulent definition by stating it "doesn't rely on the scientific method", which is false.
Scientism is the belief that everything in the universe can be 'explained by the scientific method'. So Scientism relies entirely on the scientific method.

There is no Faith in Scientism, it must be explainable using the scientific method or scientism followers will not accept it.
If I mad an Assumption about reality from either science or religion, a scientism devotee would ask me to prove it using the scientific method.
Pro has shot himself in the face on his opening statement.
You should not pee into the wind, as you will surely get wet!
Posted by dvande28 2 years ago
dvande28
You are going to want to define both religion and scientism before somebody should accept the debate. Otherwise the debate will end up being a debate on their definitions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BennyWhumanright2debateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I totally disagree with Pro, I now understand his point and in a way Pro is right, it would appear to many not interested in science or of a religious persuasion that some people push science as if it were a religion. Though Bill Nye is not a good example for Pro since Bill is an Engineer and in his field, engineers often understand the science better than many of the scientists as it is the Engineers that make the science work in reality. Some scientists are incapable of putting science into a working framework like engineers have to do on a daily basis. Though Con was confused and did not provide any sound refutations of Pro's argument, since Pro managed to get the definition of Scientism wrong in the first place, which made it confusing for everybody. I could give no points for convincing arguments as I was not convinced by anybody in this debate: Con was a little abusive, which gave away the conduct vote.