On the subject of American Christians, I find ironic that one of the reasons of the splintering of western Christianity, namely the sales of indulgence, is one of the main driving forces of modern Christianity.
I also lament the poverty of philosophical debate when American refute preposterous positions held by these post modern Christians and think they have refuted the whole of human religion as bunk. All the while calling themselves Atheist with capital A. I mean, if you don't believe in something, why define your self as the opposite of that? Non existing things don't have opposites.
Scientism is the fastest growing religion in America these days - people just want to believe in higher powers of any sort. For almost everyone who says it, "I believe in science" is usually no different than saying they believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Science's greatest doubters tend to work in the field.
I believe in peer-reviewed, evidence based reasoning. I also love to read on the multitude philosophical traditions seeking to make sense of reality. And most importantly (to my mental health and well being) I don't make either part of my identity. I identify as a colony of human cells and microbes.
Whenever people complain about scientism, I assume they're gullible marks complaining that their favorite woo is rightly getting called out as nonsense. It hasn't steered me wrong yet.
If you're not able to call out woo in science, I assume you're also a gullible mark that simply trusts authorities in a lab coat instead of authorities in a priest smock.
Yeah, the social sciences are in quite a quandary with the replication crisis. Still, anyone that uses the word scientism is probably complaining about their favorite woo being called out.
Unfortunately you have your first case. I have several accepted journal articles in peer-reviewed publications and work in a field of science. Sorry to ruin your streak.
And I'm not sure what "favorite woo" is, but I'm agnostic/atheist. Though I suppose those have their zealots of woo as well.
EDIT: Not social sciences, as I saw you carve that out in another comment.
> I also lament the poverty of philosophical debate when American refute preposterous positions held by these post modern Christians and think they have refuted the whole of human religion as bunk. All the while calling themselves Atheist with capital A.
Can you give a name or an example? I read a lot of athiest stuff and I've never encountered that (from a respected source at least, not from random people on facebook). Sure a lot of the writing focuses on modern Christianity, but that's a population thing and nobody I know of pretends like there isn't religion outside of that (in fact many of them specifically mention that they're going to focus mostly on Christianity but that there are plenty of other things out there). It would be largely a waste of time debunking Zeus and Jupiter in the 21st century
It comes down to the strawman fallacy. If a specific claim is made that can be refuted, that's science. If you just hand wave away huge chunks of philosophy and literature based on a specific claim that someone made, or that you stand up for the purpose of discussion, then you are impoverishing human culture.
Maybe you should read ancient Greek mythology before saying 'Zeus is bunk'. Is there a specific claim about reality you are referring to? Or are you saying all of ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value?
Who said ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value? I didn't, and I doubt anyone except you did, so it's quite ironic that you say:
> It comes down to the strawman fallacy
Most atheists are scientists. People talk about what they know. If you're mad because they don't talk about Greek mythology (which is a pretty different subject), are you mad that they don't discuss the correct way to make a ham and cheese omelette as well?
Also, would still like a name/example that we can evaluate your claims against.
> Maybe you should read ancient Greek mythology before saying 'Zeus is bunk'. Is there a specific claim about reality you are referring to? Or are you saying all of ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value?
As directed to me or the aforementioned atheists, but as a general question it has value (IMHO)
I also lament the poverty of philosophical debate when American refute preposterous positions held by these post modern Christians and think they have refuted the whole of human religion as bunk. All the while calling themselves Atheist with capital A. I mean, if you don't believe in something, why define your self as the opposite of that? Non existing things don't have opposites.