All
scientific
research,
discussion,
and
education
is
affected
by
a
series
of
underlying
beliefs
that
include
what
one
grants
as
sources
of
knowledge.
It
is
quite
common
in
today’s
culture
for
people
to
accept
“scientism,”
which
limits
sources
of
knowledge
entirely
to
the
sciences
to
the
exclusion
of
any
other
claimed
knowledge
source
or
places
all
other
sources
of
knowledge
under
the
authority
of
the
sciences.
Both
of
these
philosophies
stifle
scientific
discovery,
places
knowledge
of
anything
outside
of
the
natural
realm
beyond
reach
and
erects
seemingly
impenetrable
barriers
in
discussions
about
ultimate
reality
(including
morality,
beauty,
and
theology).
This
has
serious
implications
in
the
sciences,
education,
politics,
and
basic
everyday
life.
In
his
book
“Scientism
and
Secularism:
Learning
to
Respond
to
a
Dangerous
Ideology”
Christian
philosopher
J.P.
Moreland
aims
to
demonstrate
the
dangers
of
scientism,
how
it
is
(unwittingly?)
accepted
and
exercised
in
culture
even
by
Christians,
and
provide
an
alternative
philosophy
of
knowledge
that
will
avoid
the
dangers,
expand
humanity’s
knowledge
of
reality
in
general,
and
move
forward
Christians’
internal
discussions
of
theology
and
the
world
and
give
them
another
tool
in
their
evangelical
toolbelts
as
they
provide
“…reasons
for
the
hope
that
[they]
have…”
(1
Peter
3:15).
In
this
review,
I’ll
provide
some
of
the
key
points,
several
important
quotes,
and
my
recommendations.
Key
Points:
-
Strong
scientism
is
the
idea
that
the
sciences
are
the
only
legitimate
sources
of
knowledge
about
reality.
Other
sources
of
knowledge
are
not
even
entertained. -
Weak
scientism
“allows”
for
other
sources
of
knowledge
but
holds
that
science
is
the
ultimate
arbiter
of
truth.
Thus
it
has
forced
all
other
knowledge
disciplines
to
reinterpret
their
findings
according
to
the
science
of
the
day.
Ultimately
it
is
strong
scientism
by
a
“less-threatening”
name. -
Because
there
is
no
other
(ultimate)
source
of
knowledge
outside
the
sciences,
there
is
no
moral
knowledge,
historical
knowledge,
philosophical
knowledge,
or
theological
knowledge.
This
has
resulted
in
the
relativism
we
see
in
the
university
and
culture
today. -
Numerous
examples
of
non-scientifically
verifiable
claims
and
knowledge
do
exist. -
In
fact,
the
very
claim
of
scientism
is
one
such
example,
making
scientism
a
self-refuting
claim.
Thus
it
is
necessarily
false
and
is
actually
an
enemy
of
science
(and
knowledge)
in
the
long
run. -
Science
judges
philosophy,
and
philosophy
judges
science.
Depending
on
which
claim
must
be
established
before
the
other
can
be
judged. -
Proper
order
placement
of
knowledge
disciplines
has
effects
on
claims
about
the
beginning
of
the
universe,
origin
of
life,
existence
of
mental
states,
and
the
existence
of
objective
morality
and
beauty
among
many
others. -
Scientism
has
stunted
the
debates
surrounding
theistic
evolution
and
intelligent
design
by
precluding
non-scientific
knowledge
disciplines
from
the
debates. -
There
are
at
least
five
different
models
for
how
science
and
theology
can
move
forward
together
in
their
discovery
of
what
is
real
and
true.
Some
Important
Quotes:
“In
order
for
science
and
certain
other
intellectual
disciplines
to
be
possible,
we
humans
must
be
able
to
use
our
reason
to
go
beyond
our
sense,
reach
into
the
world’s
deep
structure,
and
grasp,
formulate,
and
verify
the
theories
we
form
about
that
deep
structure.”
“To
the
extent
that
scientism
is
embraced
in
our
culture,
our
moral
and
spiritual
claims
will
be
‘de-cognitivized.’
In
other
words,
our
deepest
beliefs
about
life,
knowledge,
history,
and
reality
will
seem
to
be
utterly
implausible–not
just
untrue,
but
unworthy
of
rational
consideration.”
“These
days,
if
an
accepted
scientific
claim
comes
into
conflict
with
an
accepted
nonscientific
claim
from
another
discipline
(such
as
theology),
which
claim
must
be
set
aside?
In
our
culture,
the
scientific
claim
always
wins.
Why?
Simply
because
it
is
scientific.
Scientism
seems
so
obvious
and
pervasive
to
people
that
it
can
be
stated
without
any
need
to
defend
it.
Appealing
to
science
to
back
one’s
claim
is
a
conversation
stopper
that
settles
the
issue.”
“The
first
problem
with
weak
(and
strong)
scientism
is
that
it
diminishes
the
intellectual
authority
of
other
important
fields,
especially
biblical
studies
and
theology.”
“Advocates
of
weak
scientism
are
confused
about
the
relative
cognitive
strength
of an
assumption and a
claim
that
is
based
on
that
assumption. Weak
scientism
believes
that
a claim based
on
an
assumption
has
greater
warrant
than
the
strength
of
the assumption
itself.
In
reality,
though,
the
claim
is
only
as
good
as
the
assumption
upon
which
it
rests.
And
because
the
assumptions
are
not
scientific
assumptions,
but
rather
philosophical
assumptions,
philosophy
has
a
kind
of
primacy
over
science.
Therefore,
weak
scientism’s
claim
that
science
always
take
precedence
over
other
disciplines
is
false.”
“…a
culture,
which
has
a
set
of
background
assumptions–or,
a plausibility
structure–sets
a
framework
for
what
people
think,
which
affects
how
that
they
are
willing
to
listen,
evaluate,
feel,
and
behave.
The
framework
shapes
what
people
consider
plausible
or
implausible.”
“Often,
in
order
to
get
people
to
hear
the
gospel,
we
have
to
address
solely
a
person’s
private,
felt
needs
and
promise
that
Jesus
will
change
their
lives
and
help
them.
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
this
as
long
as
it
is
rooted
in
the
deeper
claim
that
Christianity
is
true,
is
based
on
solid
evidence,
and
can
be
known
to
be
true.
But
scientism
has
forced
the
church
to
offer
the
gospel
simply
because
it
works
rather
than
because
it
is
true
and
can
be
known
to
be
such.”
“Classically,
freedom
meant the
power
to
do
what
one
ought
to
do…Contemporary
freedom
has
come
to
be
understood
as the
right
to
do
whatever
one
wants
to
do…By
undermining
moral
knowledge,
scientism
has
provided
the
context
for
the
contemporary
view
of
freedom
and,
consequently,
it
has
led
to
moral
chaos.”
“It
is
not
enough
just
to
know
Scripture;
as
Christians,
we
must
also
understand
the
systems
of
thought,
practice,
and
value
in
our
culture
that
are
worldly,
and
be
able
to
make
this
clear
to
fellow
Christians
and
explain
how
to
refute
those
ungodly
systems
using
both
biblical
and
nonbiblical
evidence
(cf.
2
Cor.
10:3-5).”
“Christians
must
be
taught
not
only
what
they
believe
but
why
they
ought
to
believe
it.
This
will
especially
involves
exposing
and
undermining
scientism,
and
dealing
with
issues
relating
to
science
and
the
Bible.”
“The
very
concept
of
‘faith’
has
been
redefined
and
has
now
replaced
reason.
Today,
faith
is
choosing
to
believe
something
in
the
absence
of
evidence
or
reasons
for
the
choice.
Faith
used
to
mean
a
confidence
or
trust
based
on
what
one
knows.
Given
the
current
definition,
ubiquitous
throughout
the
church,
we
Christians
have
unintentionally
played
right
into
the
hands
of
advocates
of
scientism.
By
thinking
of
faith
in
this
way,
we
are
tacitly
implying
that
we
believe
in
the
tenets
of
Christianity
without
any
evidence
or
reasons
at
all.”
Recommendations
-
The
first
recommendation
I
will
give
is
for
any Christian
involved
in
scientific
research,
education,
and/or
discussions(whether
it
is
internal
with
other
Christians
or
external
in
apologetic
and
evangelistic
efforts).
Moreland
shows
not
only
how
we
may
be
allowing
some
version
of
scientism
to
limit
our
own
knowledge,
but
he
also
shows
how
we
can
identify
that
it
may
be
limiting
others
and
ways
in
which
we
may
be
able
to
make
others
aware
so
they
overcome
that
foundational
barrier
and
be
able
to
move
conversations
(and
discovery)
forward. -
My
second
recommendation
is
for
Christians
involved
in
discussions
of
morality
and
politics.
Scientism
has
been
a
primary
driving
force
for
the
moral
relativism,
thus
the
reliance
in
politics
on
who
has
the
most
power.
As
you
learn
more
about
scientism
and
how
it
came
to
be
the
dominant
philosophy
in
culture,
you
will
see
how
to
address
moral
and
political
issues
at
a
more
foundational
and
wider
reaching
level. -
My
third
recommendation
is
for
a
more
focused
audience
of
my
first:
those
who
are
involved
(either
in
research,
education,
or
discussion)
of
origins
from
a
Christian
perspective.
I
often
hear
Christians
claim
that
we
cannot
allow
our
philosophy
or
theology
to
interfere
with
our
science.
Unfortunately,
that
is
a
direct
application
of
weak
scientism
that
needs
to
be
removed
from
our
thinking.
This
book
help
you
understand
how
even
weak
scientism
fails
and
should
be
abandoned
in
our
discussions
of
origins. -
Finally,
a
general
recommendation
for
all
Christians.
As
we
proclaim
(and
often
defend)
the
truth
of
the
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ,
scientism
(even
the
weak
version)
can
get
in
the
way
of
people
accepting
this
historical
fact-
no
matter
the
strength
of
the
case
for
the
resurrection
of
Jesus
as
the
best
possible
explanation,
a
philosophy
of
scientism
will
preclude
the
person
from
accepting
even
the
possibility
of
a
supernatural
miracle.
It
is
important
that
we
understand
where
these
people
are
coming
from
and
how
to
show
the
inadequacies
of
such
a
philosophy.
Recommended
resources
related
to
the
topic:
Is
Morality
Absolute
or
Relative?
by
Dr.
Frank
Turek
DVD,
Mp3
and
Mp4
Counter
Culture
Christian:
Is
the
Bible
True?
by
Frank
Turek
(Mp3),
(Mp4),
and
(DVD)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Luke
Nix
holds
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
Computer
Science
and
works
as
a
Desktop
Support
Manager
for
a
local
precious
metal
exchange
company
in
Oklahoma.
Original
Blog
Source:
https://bit.ly/3xTWJZu