"Scientism" is pretty much a neologism. I wasn't speaking about etymology really, just the obvious relationship between the words 'scientist' and 'scientism', as I explained.

:up:

↪god must be atheist How wrong you are: I am not religious at all! — Janus

Would you say you don't believe in god, or do you believe in god? Many interpret religiosity as an adherence to one dogmatic faith or to another. Many call themselves not religious, becasue they don't associate with an organized religion, yet they believe in a god.

So I put you the question, Janus: Are you not religous and believe in god or are you not relgious and do not believe in god. Please feel free to answer or not answer this. In case you decide not to anser, I shall take it that you are not religious but have a faith in god.

What does it matter? Just your curiosity? Science deals with the physical world, and unless you’re a physicalist, then you have to maintain that science cannot explain everything. There are a whole host of problems with physicalism, as I’m sure you’re aware.

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in God, since there is no empirical evidence either way, and I have had no personal experience of God, as some say they have had.

Scientism doesn’t provide any cogent arguments that science can explain everything. That’s the point. Scientism is the religion. Science includes fields of study and the scientific method. I don’t think Janus is religious by the way. — Noah Te Stroete

Scienticism does not claim that it can explain everything. So what's your point with saying that it can provide no arguments that it can explain everything? You made a statement that is neither here nor there in this debate.

Then you say Scienticism is a religion. Religions all involve a god figure, who has supernatural powers. Show me a the god in scienticism. There is no god in scienticism. Your claim that scienticism is a religion is false.

Janus denied being religious. But he did not deny a belief in god. Not to date, yet, anyway.

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in God, since there is no empirical evidence either way, and I have had no personal experience of God, as some say they have had. — Janus

You can deny knowledge of the existence of god. But you can't both beleive and disbelieve at the same time and in the same respect. Your answer is nonsensical, because it denies the validity of the excluded middle.

Since you gave a nonsensical answer, I take it as a denial of answering my question. I take it you believe in god, just as I said earlier.

But you can't both beleive and disbelieve at the same time and in the same respect. — god must be atheist

I didn't say I "both" believe and disbelieve; I said I neither believe nor disbelieve. Are you reading selectively or merely poorly?

Religions all involve a god figure, who has supernatural powers. — god must be atheist

I understand Buddhism as taught by Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) to not have a god, nor to have anything to do with the supernatural. Karma and Dharma can be seen as metaphors for natural processes. Nirvana can be interpreted as oblivion, something atheists believe in. One need not believe in reincarnation to be a Buddhist.

Furthermore, one could believe that their god is wholly natural, not supernatural, but it depends how you define “supernatural.”

Scienticism does not claim that it can explain everything. — god must be atheist

Science does not claim that it can explain everything. People who have faith that it can are followers of scientism.

You’re being childish. You’re trying to be a bully, but you haven’t the strength to be effective.

I didn't say I "both" believe and disbelieve; I said I neither believe nor disbelieve. Are you reading selectively or merely poorly? — Janus

Your language skills are rather poor, Janus. "I neither believe nor disbelieve" excludes both. Both can't be excluded. If you exlcue "I believe" then you necessarily don't believe. If you exlcude "I don't believe" then you necessarily believe. You exclude both. You are really just mincing words now, because you are cornered, and you can't fight your way out of your stated self-contradiction.

And please stop accusing me of not understanding your writing. I have a superb sense of the language.

You’re being childish. You’re trying to be a bully, but you haven’t the strength to be effective. — Noah Te Stroete

No, I am not childish. I am presenting valid arguments, and your only possible defence is an insult, by calling me childish. This is despicable and deplorable that you do it on a philosophy website, that you try to win arguments on the strength of your unfounded and vile insults.

Can’t one withhold judgment?

To

Can’t one withhold judgment? — Noah Te Stroete

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

What do you mean? Please elaborate. — god must be atheist

A belief or disbelief is an active thing. Without empirical evidence or a personal experience, one can withhold judgment, neither believing nor disbelieving.

You’re trying to be a bully, but you haven’t the strength to be effective. — Noah Te Stroete

The only medium in which logic and reason can not be ineffective is a medium of not understanding, or in a medium of pretense non-understanding.

I am not a bully. You mistake those who don't hold your opinion to be bullies. I am simply a person who strongly disagrees with you, and I stated my reasons for my disagreement. You in turn can't defend against my reasonable disagreement, and therefore you call me childish, a bully. But this is not kindergarten, this is a philosophy website. If you don't present valid counter-arguments, then you do not belong here.

Your language and logic skills are indeed poor if you claim that one cannot be neutral on the question of God, or on many other questions.

Not disbelieving is not necessarily equivalent to believing. This should be obvious. I'll provide a simple example that may help you understand: Do I believe Trump colluded with the Russians? No, because I have no evidence that he did. Do I disbelieve that Trump colluded with the Russains? No, because I have no evidence that he did not.

But this is not kindergarten — god must be atheist

What are you doing here then? :joke:

The only medium in which logic and reason can not be ineffective is a medium of not understanding, or in a medium of pretense non-understanding.

I am not a bully. You mistake those who don't hold your opinion to be bullies. I am simply a person who strongly disagrees with you, and I stated my reasons for my disagreement. You in turn can't defend against my reasonable disagreement, and therefore you call me childish, a bully. But this is not kindergarten, this is a philosophy website. If you don't present valid counter-arguments, then you do not belong here. — god must be atheist

A belief or disbelief is an active thing. Without empirical evidence or a personal experience, one can withhold judgment, neither believing nor disbelieving. — Noah Te Stroete

You’re being a bully because you are presenting a false dichotomy. I’ve explained this. You’re either an ineffective bully, or you don’t understand the fallacy you are committing.

A belief or disbelief is an active thing. Without empirical evidence or a personal experience, one can withhold judgment, neither believing nor disbelieving. — Noah Te Stroete

Belief is not a judgement. You can withhold judgement but belief isnot an active thing. It bases itself on things thjat have no or very little empirical evidence. If empirical evidence were extant, you would not need belief, you'd have knowledge.

Your counter-argument is invalid.

Belief is not a judgement. You can withhold judgement but belief isnot an active thing. It bases itself on things thjat have no or very little empirical evidence. If empirical evidence were extant, you would not need belief, you'd have knowledge. — god must be atheist

This is incoherent, unjustified and may be false. I reject your premises, and your conclusion doesn’t follow.

You’re being a bully because you are presenting a false dichotomy. I’ve explained this. You’re either an ineffective bully, or you don’t understand the fallacy you are committing. — Noah Te Stroete

You never explained any fallacy I am committing. You simply base your judgment on my being a bully because you obsere me as a person who voraciously sticks to arguing his reasonable thoughts, and expects the same in return. You are incapable of returning the challenge in kind, and therefore you go outside the debate and call me a bully.

I could call you names, too. In fact, I have collected quite a few for you since this began. But I withhold uttering them, because, unlike you, I have respect for the site, and I follow its unwritten rules: when on a philosophy site, argue on bases of philosophical considerations, and name calling is not one of those.

I seriously have to explain to you what science is a standard for?! Hard pass. — DingoJones

Not a surprise, then, that you the find the topic "simple".

Again, this subjective experience you reference multiple times — DingoJones

But they are not all subjective in the same way. Trying to find the contours of your standard.

I have this inkling that some astronomers believed in the existence of extra-solar planets in 1980. I don't really have an issue considering that a scientific belief, even though evidence for it was not yet accepted.

I cannot believe I exhibit subjective self awareness? This is the most basic, singular certainty anyone can have, it has zero need of the scientific method. Terrible example for you to use here. — DingoJones

But can you demonstrate it? What objective evidence can you present that you are self-aware?

I can’t argue with people who are under the delusion that they make sense, understand logic, and are intelligent when they are none of the aforementioned.

This is incoherent, unjustified and may be false. I reject your premises, and your conclusion doesn’t follow. — Noah Te Stroete

Now you are talking. You have the right to reject anything, as you are an autonomous human being.

But your rejection of my argument by no meanst renders my arguemnt invalid. Just declaring "it's wrong" does not do anything, but you have the perfect right to utter it,and thus admit to your ignorance of detecting and understanding valid statements.

I am comfortable with this. In fact, this rejection goes in line with my original objection and your rejection supports my thesis I described earlier.

I can’t argue with people who are under the delusion that they make sense, understand logic, and are intelligent when they are none of the aforementioned. — Noah Te Stroete

It's more like you can't argue.

Belief is not a judgement. You can withhold judgement but belief isnot an active thing. It bases itself on things thjat have no or very little empirical evidence. If empirical evidence were extant, you would not need belief, you'd have knowledge. — god must be atheist

Belief is a judgment, a decision to affirm or deny something.

To say you have to believe or disbelieve is a false dichotomy because one can neither affirm nor deny something to be true in some cases. This is called “withholding judgment.”

Belief need not be based on empirical evidence. I believe in extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there is no empirical evidence for that belief.

Not disbelieving is not necessarily equivalent to believing. This should be obvious. — Janus

Your lack of comprehension of the language is brilliantly displayed here.

"Not not believeing is not believing." This is your statement.

I rest my case.

As to:

Do I believe Trump colluded with the Russians? No, because I have no evidence that he did. Do I disbelieve that Trump colluded with the Russains? No, because I have no evidence that he did not. — Janus

Your example is faulty. For belief you don't need evidence, and yet you hold evidence as a crucial prerequisite for faith. A lot of people believe in god with no evidence. A lot of people believe in no god with no evidence. But knowledge can't be claimed without evidence. Yet you use faith as if it acted on evidence like knowledge does.

You are talking about knowledge. "Do I know that Trump, (etc.etc)".

Belief and knowledge are different things. You are trying to dress up the act of belief with the qualities of knowledge. That is your fallacy right there.

"Not not believeing is not believing." This is your statement. — god must be atheist

Noah, this is not my statement. I quoted Janus's statement, paraphrased. You are getting angry and it is influencing your judgement. Please take a deep breath and maybe you should retire for a while from this thread. Just a suggestion, please don't misconstrue that I'm bullying you. You do what you want, I only suggest that you are getting overly emotional here.

Belief need not be based on empirical evidence. I believe in extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there is no empirical evidence for that belief. — Noah Te Stroete

We're getting to say the same thing. I've been saying all along that belief does not need evidence; Janus bases his arguments that need beleif to have evidence.

Well, okay. I like you. I think you’re funny, and I don’t think you’re dumb. I’m sorry we can’t see eye to eye on this.