@terrellclemmons, who has recently joined our community, commented that she thinks many of us hold to some form of scientism:
What is scientism? Terrell refers to this article summarizing Moreland’s definition: Peripheral Visions by Terrell Clemmons - Salvo Magazine
Basically, scientism is a belief system which privileges scientific knowledge above all other forms:
In Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Crossway, 2018), J. P. Moreland defines scientism as “the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.” Whether expressed in the strong form, which says that science and its methods provide the only valid route to knowledge, or in some weaker form that allows other ways of knowing to have some lesser validity (as long as they bow to science), scientism has become a part of the pseudo-intellectual air we breathe. I say “pseudo” because scientism isn’t intellectual, but is rather, at its very core, intellectually unsound.
Now, based on my interactions with many of you, I am not surprised that several of our non-theistic members have tendencies towards scientism: @Patrick, @John_Harshman, @Rumraket and maybe @John_Dalton and @Timothy_Horton come into mind. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your beliefs!) What I’m more interested is whether Terrell thinks many of the Christians here also hold to scientism, even if many of us deny it.
To start with myself, I certainly do not hold to strong scientism, as I believe that there are many forms of knowledge not based on empirical science, as @AllenWitmerMiller neatly summarizes:
And of course, being a Christian, I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and many other theological truths, none of which are strictly deducible using the scientific method.
That being said, as a scientist, I admit that I do have a tendency to believe in the strong claims of natural scientists (specifically, particle physicists with a 5 sigma result ) more readily than most other fields of knowledge, especially humanities or social sciences. The fact that science has a clear notion of “progress” and wide consensus on many topics seem to me to count for something. The only fields which compare to science are math, logic, and basic historical or geographical facts (e.g. The capital of the US is Washington DC). Does this count as weak scientism?