What are you arguing for here? — Noble Dust

I'll mention again that I need to study the theory of rationalization more, but offhand I'm skeptical of the idea that scientism (or an irrational dependence on science) is responsible for it. Generally the finger points to the enlightenment, as you seem to have done yourself when stating: "Enlightenment freedom seems inherently materialistic,..." McDonaldization is the expression of a materialistic value system or culture.

Is it the claim that science somehow shifted values towards the material rather than the spiritual?

Clearly scientism is not the cure for our Cartesian Anxiety.

I'll mention again that I need to study the theory of rationalization more, but offhand I'm skeptical of the idea that scientism (or an irrational dependence on science) is responsible for it. — praxis

Who is saying scientism is responsible for rationalization? I don't think anyone, including Wayfarer, was saying that. It's the other way around, or rather, the birth of scientism comes from rationalization, among other things.

That's what seemed to be the case to me, and I said as much earlier.

I'm referring to this:

You (and billions of others) are suffering from a cultural malaise, from the pernicious effects of taking a religious view of science, as others here are saying.

I understand Wayfarer to mean that a religious view of science is a cultural malaise. I think the three of us are in agreement here, ironically. Seems we've wasted some breath here!

Take the underlying principles of religious belief and apply them to prevailing materialistic views. — Nobel Dust

I'm not sure what these principles are in your view. Everyone talks about this stuff as if the details are obvious. Maybe this is evidence of epistemic hubris (something religious beliefs and behaviors can be criticized of).

Is epistemic hubris a principle of religious belief? It is a charge leveled against religion (or theory) on the basis of trying to conserve tradition (or sell a theory), from an outside view. Faith conserves itself, whereas any scientific doxa that supports and guides prevailing theory changes in the pursuit of testing hypotheses.

Is not this assertion that "we cannot know" itself a dogma with affirmations and denials? Is not this itself a statement of knowledge? Is "we cannot know with certainty" not itself an assertion of KNOWLEDGE (a dogmatic assertion) as THE WAY to interpret Scripture? Whether conscious of it or not, this is what is called "double-talk" and those who believe this are doing the very thing they claim to despise, even in the very speaking of it. Its like Oprah stating on national television that it is arrogant to think Jesus is the only way, and then turning around and telling us the ONLY WAY is to believe that all religions lead to the same God. Is this not itself an arrogant claim ... a claim which must have a bird's eye view of knowledge to state it with such certainty. — John Hendryx: Reformation Theology (blog)

I guess that I didn't recognize taking science as a "source of moral authority or a basis for normative judgement" as an expression of rationalization.

It would be great if Wayfarer could expand on this. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of science as a source of moral authority.

I'm one of the practitioners of a personal spiritual practice that you felt the need to alert me to here. I'm not a member of a religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have assumed so simply because I'm not critiquing religion here, and I'm using it in a neutral way as an analogy. — Noble Dust

By the way, and not that it's important, I was perusing the Get Creative! topic in the lounge and noticed some of your artistic expressions.

It's a case of fundamental belief. Science is and should remain an inquiry into how the physical world works. It shouldn't be the basis for fundamental belief. It obtains a "religious" character when it becomes the foundation for someone's philosophy instead of a tool for apprehending the material world. Materialism is essentially scientific religion; materialism by definition precludes any possibility of truth that exists outside of itself; There's no argument against materialism unless the materialist is willing to think outside of the confines of materiality. Similarly, there's no argument against religious dogma if the adherent isn't willing to think outside of dogma.

I guess that I didn't recognize taking science as a "source of moral authority or a basis for normative judgement" as an expression of rationalization — praxis

It's not... I'm not still not sure where the misunderstanding here is...

By the way, and not that it's important, I was perusing the Get Creative! topic in the lounge and noticed some of your artistic expressions. — praxis

Fair enough, there are religious references in my music, which is on purpose, just like how I'm referring to it in this discussion.

There are two basic senses of Materialism. One is generally to value material possessions and physical comfort over spiritual values. We've touched on this in this topic. The other is basically a philosophical position. Neither of these is necessarily religious in nature, or to my mind contain the "underlying principles of religious belief."

Maybe it would help if you explained what you believe the underlying principles of religious belief are. They must be more than just dogmatically holding to a particular philosophical view.

Maybe underlying principles is the wrong term. I come from a more or less fundamentalist Christian upbringing, and so I've seen first hand the mindset and way of seeing the world that this view entails. These days I have materialist friends and co workers, and I see the same mindset and way of viewing the world as those fundamentalist Christians, just with a different set of beliefs. They get mad or stand-offish, for instance, if I try to question these beliefs, and they generally revert to moving the goalposts when their views are threatened. A typical response of fundamentalist Christians. These materialist friends of mine tend to be influenced by the new atheist crowd, so whether those actual philosophers are scientistic in their beliefs or not, I've seen their influence lead to scientism generally in the mainstream. You also see it in pop journalism headlines like "science just explained why we all do this!"

You also see it in pop journalism headlines like "science just explained why we all do this!" — Noble Dust

You mean things like this?

More like this.

The language of the headline suggests this study is the reason for American obesity. The underlying zeitgeist is that studies like these give us the definitive reasons, the absolute truths, for things.

I take it to be the initial recognition of the divorce of facts and values that is one of the basic problems of modern philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm skeptical of this divorce or Hume's Guillotine. Don't we evaluate everything? These evaluations may be based on personal values, or values which are selfish and shortsighted (materialistic) in nature, but they are values nevertheless. In the absence of an overarching telos or collective purpose perhaps we default to baser interests and goals.

I listened to a CliffsNotes version of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber while at the gym today. It seems to strongly suggest that ideas can significantly influence cultural and economic change. From what I understand he believed that, though difficult, it's possible to escape our iron cage. How though?

Don't we evaluate everything? — praxis

Indeed we do - but what I'm talking about is looking to science to provide a normative basis for values, which is often beyond it's legitimate scope. So, what do we 'default' to? Political and economic power? Self-interest? They're big questions, and not trivial.

Weber is worth reading in long form, to appreciate the rigour and erudition of his writing. I found him very challenging reading. But he was a sociologist first and foremost, indeed regarded as one of its founders. He was 'anti-positivist', i.e. he resisted reductionism; but his analysis of religions was still mainly concerned with the way that religious ideas influence political and economic systems. I picked his phrase, 'the disenchantment', because it sums up many of the issues around this topic.

Everybody should read Max Weber: A Critical Introduction, by Kieran Allen.

Allen shows how Weber's work was motivated by his personal political agenda. He contrasts that reality with the popular image of a value-free founding father of sociology.

If that is the roots of sociology, maybe it is no wonder that a lot of sociology today seems like people, feminists for example, advancing a political agenda rather than being objective investigators trying to find the truth.

Indeed we do - but what I'm talking about is looking to science to provide a normative basis for values, which is often beyond it's legitimate scope. — Wayfarer

There seems to be a subtlety, or fundamental understanding, that I'm missing. Maybe if you could give a practical example.

Weber is worth reading in long form, to appreciate the rigour and erudition of his writing. — Wayfarer

I'm sure. Because my profession demands that I be in front of a computer screen all day I try to avoid additional eye strain and consume books in audio format when possible. Unfortunately Audible only has two Weber offerings, both short form.

While learning about The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism it crossed my mind, and WISDOMfromPO-MO's post reminds me of it now, the possibility that the polarity between liberal and conservative may parallel the Roman Catholic/Protestant split? Is there a conservative/liberal polarity in the East?

Rationalization destroyed the authority of magical powers, but it also brought into being the machine-like regulation of bureaucracy, which ultimately challenges all systems of belief. — Max Weber

Clearly we don't want to give power back to magicians, and we don't want to remain in the iron cage. So what can we do?