Lisa Jackson7 said:So now that you've ditched that whole scientism dogma, you're acting all offended like people are "pigeonholing" you by calling you a scientist.
Don't be ashamed of what you believe...
It wasn't just scientism you brought up; you threw in a whole list of other labels.
To be fair, I'm not even sure about scientism myself—it depends on how you define it. Usually, it implies giving science more weight than it actually carries, using it outside its practical scope.
I don't want to overstate science; I just don't see anything else with more weight behind it.
As for the materialist reductionism that both you and Parsifal suggested, that's definitely not the case.
In areas where science simply can't provide answers, I'm an agnostic and a skeptic
(in the strict sense of the words, not the casual way people use them as synonyms for atheism or materialism).
For instance, I've noted before that the idea of an intelligent first cause is a logically viable possibility, which means pure theism can neither be proven nor dismissed. Materialism or something else,
(like Buddhism), are equally possible. We lack the tools to verify these metaphysical questions, so claiming to know the answer for certain is pointless.
On the flip side, I can confidently reject every single religious myth and dogmatic worldview I've looked into so far
(Christianity, Buddhism, a few Hindu sects).
Among them, Buddhism is the most intellectually and epistemically resilient, but even it is full of holes and ultimately fails to hold up without blind faith and myth.
Generally speaking, there's a human tendency to force people into boxes. If you criticize one specific theology, people assume you must be an atheist. If you're an atheist, they assume you're a materialist—which probably also makes you pro-choice, pro-marijuana, a Democrat, and whatever other stereotypes they feel like piling on.
That's why, even here on this forum, people use association and forced categorization to launch projections and counter-projections, even regarding things I never even claimed
(though this is classic Parsifal behavior among those who love to latch onto others).
I prefer to look at individual topics separately and try to avoid the trap of package deals and group identities.
Of course, this constant habit of reducing arguments to personal attacks on the interlocutor is also a sign of the problem. It shows a lack of ability to argue the actual topic, a lack of dialectical discipline, and a preference for propaganda over rational thought.
It's probably my own mistake for not ignoring every ad hominem attempt; occasionally I respond, which is really just a form of going off-topic.
goldenjackal6 said:A cult of what?
Look, it isn't about some "creed of scientism"—it's literally just the only way to actually pin down objective truth. Scientism is basically just worshipping science as a deity, which has nothing to do with what bluemason3 was getting at.
Actually, if you look closely, plenty of Christians have baked scientism right into their religion. You see it all the time where these "Christian scientists" claim they've "proven" something through science just to give their religious arguments a little extra punch.
Common sense. 🧐
That isn't actually the creed of scientism; it’s just the only way to establish objective truth. Scientism is essentially the worship of science as a religion, but that has nothing to do with what bluemason3 wrote.
In fact, many Christians have integrated scientism into their faith. You often see Christian "scientists" claiming they've "proven" something scientifically just to give their arguments more weight.
It's a classic ideological propaganda tactic—first, you attach negative connotations to specific terms
(even if those associations are usually questionable at best), and then you try to link your "opponent" to those terms. It's a way to defame them through false associations without ever actually addressing the subject or the arguments at hand.
Just the usual religious games and emotional manipulation.
