Science vs."Scientism"
Andrew Sullivan- a doctrinaire Homosexualist- would doubtless disapprove of the notion that his views on how his own sexual orientation should be treated by society constitute an ideology. This does not stop him, of course, from speaking of the attitudes of certain Christians toward the relationship between their beliefs and public policy (attitudes which Sullivan understands far less well than he thinks) as "Christianism." Sullivan claims to be a Christian himself. Doubtless the rejection of his sexual values by the historic Christian tradition constitutes, for Sullivan, an example of "Christianism."
In this interesting article, William McGurn argues in the Wall Street Journal that a kind of doctrinaire ideology of materialism has developed in our culture which he terms "Scientism." McGurn defines Scientism as the belief that "science alone can speak truth about man and his world."
Not all scientists- or materialists, or atheists- are adherents of Scientism, McGurn points out. The wonders of scientific discovery itself inculcates far too much humility for that in many scientists with a thoroughly materialistic world view. But alas, there are also those like Richard Dawkins- or New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris, who recently rather snarkily reported that many scientists see "outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."
The contrast between humble agnostics like Jay Gould or Carl Sagan, on one hand, and doctrinaire ideologues like Dawkins is obvious. The former have open minds; the latter, as McGurn observes, are "every bit as dogmatic as the William Jennings Bryans of yesteryear."
One might, perhaps, usefully think of them as Scientism's fundamentalists.
In this interesting article, William McGurn argues in the Wall Street Journal that a kind of doctrinaire ideology of materialism has developed in our culture which he terms "Scientism." McGurn defines Scientism as the belief that "science alone can speak truth about man and his world."
Not all scientists- or materialists, or atheists- are adherents of Scientism, McGurn points out. The wonders of scientific discovery itself inculcates far too much humility for that in many scientists with a thoroughly materialistic world view. But alas, there are also those like Richard Dawkins- or New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris, who recently rather snarkily reported that many scientists see "outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."
The contrast between humble agnostics like Jay Gould or Carl Sagan, on one hand, and doctrinaire ideologues like Dawkins is obvious. The former have open minds; the latter, as McGurn observes, are "every bit as dogmatic as the William Jennings Bryans of yesteryear."
One might, perhaps, usefully think of them as Scientism's fundamentalists.
Comments