Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Ben Davis]

If scientisim = science, then atheism = atheos (no God). Few here will argue that, because it's linguistically unsound.

[etymological divert]

Actually the definition of 'atheism' can refer to the 'ism of atheos', it's just one not used by many modern atheists (antitheism is a better word for it). Instead it's typically been used by religions to refer to groups which don't share their particular belief system. Curiously, the first use was by the Greek Olympians to refer to the Roman polytheists and early Greek a-theists. In turn, the Romans used it to describe early Christians. Historically, 'athe-ism' as a form has been used to generalise & misrepresent other groups in order to enable 'them & us' politics.

[/etymological divert]

p.s. 'Scientism' (capital 'S') does exist. I find myself falling foul of scientistic utopian ideals occasionally. Fortunately people on this forum are kind enough to reign me in before I do too much damage to my credibility.

p.p.s. SCIENCE RULES!!!1!

[bennyboy]

Actually the definition of 'atheism' can refer to the 'ism of atheos'

Shhhhh. Them's lynching words in these here parts.

I've given the lecture on assembling ternary word forms in atheism at least a dozen times, I think, and explained "hard" and "soft" atheism. I'm glad there's at least one other person here who knows how words work.

[Brakeman]

You don't just go making up words by slapping an "ism" on it and call it a religion or a "pseudo-religion." "Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda. Even though it may be espoused by others, it is a nonsensical term as the definition of science does not lend itself to the creation of an "ism".
. . . .
Anyone that uses the word Scientism other than in jest is a buffoon.

quote=Oxford English Dictionary
scientism, n.
2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner)

<=== Derogatory mannor means as an attack on critical thinkers here. It's what I was referring to here: "Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda.

Drawing from the general empiricism of the Enlightenment, scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798 1857), who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience. Comte criticized ungrounded speculations about phenomena that cannot be directly encountered by proper observation, analysis, and experiment. Such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma (Hayek 1952). It is this ideological dimension that is associated with the term scientism.

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html

"True knowledge comes from perceptual experience" That means what we know comes from what we've seen and experienced, which is how everyone knows most things. Thus the meaning is so diluted as to have no value as a descriptor.

Furthermore, this has got to be the least interesting topic (scientism) that I have ever written about in my entire life.

[Ben Davis]

Actually the definition of 'atheism' can refer to the 'ism of atheos'

Shhhhh. Them's lynching words in these here parts.

I've given the lecture on assembling ternary word forms in atheism at least a dozen times, I think, and explained "hard" and "soft" atheism. I'm glad there's at least one other person here who knows how words work.

I've discussed the etymology a few times on a few different threads. Those with big enough memories will know that I'm a stickler for accurate definitions, especially regarding use of the word 'atheist/m'.

It's also worth saying that since 'atheos' roots from 'theos', 'a-theism' is a superior form to 'athe-ism'. As long as people are clear about their definitions, I'm happy.

[DeistPaladin]

many atheists claim the afterlife is impossible since the mind and the brain are the same.

I haven't read this whole thread yet but this line confuses two subjects that are not necessarily related.

It is possible that a god exists and there is no afterlife. The ancient Hebrews seemed to think so. Many deists reject the idea of the afterlife. Just because there is a mind of some sort behind the universe doesn't mean we're important enough to preserve for eternity.

It is possible that there is an afterlife but no gods. Buddhists don't have any gods that I'm aware of but they do have a system of reincarnation. Just because the universe came to be through natural means doesn't mean that there isn't some natural mechanic behind our consciousness that survives the death of the brain. See my "if souls existed, they'd have properties that could be studied and understood and therefore would be part of the natural universe" part of our last discussion.

Gods and "souls" are two different subjects.

[Angrboda]

Derogatory mannor means as an attack on critical thinkers here. It's what I was referring to here: "Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda.

No, "derogatory mannor [sic]" does not mean "as an attack on critical thinkers."

Are you really this stupid, or just insufferably egotistical?

[Brakeman]

Derogatory mannor means as an attack on critical thinkers here. It's what I was referring to here: "Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda.

No, "derogatory mannor [sic]" does not mean "as an attack on critical thinkers."

Are you really this stupid, or just insufferably egotistical?

OK, I'll bite. Who was being derogatory to whom and how do you interpret the reference?

Come on, show us your great intellectual skills.

[Angrboda]

No, "derogatory mannor [sic]" does not mean "as an attack on critical thinkers."

Are you really this stupid, or just insufferably egotistical?

OK, I'll bite. Who was being derogatory to whom and how do you interpret the reference?

Ignoring for the moment that this is goalpost shifting, as well as shifting the burden of proof, all Lion IRC said was, "Scientism is a religion." That was the Alpha and the Omega. Feel free to demonstrate how this is "an attack on critical thinkers here." In the meantime, I'll be over here laughing my ass off.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Scientism is legit folks.

[Brakeman]

OK, I'll bite. Who was being derogatory to whom and how do you interpret the reference?

Ignoring for the moment that this is goalpost shifting, as well as shifting the burden of proof, all Lion IRC said was, "Scientism is a religion." That was the Alpha and the Omega. Feel free to demonstrate how this is "an attack on critical thinkers here." In the meantime, I'll be over here laughing my ass off.

My post that you replied to did not mention Lion IRC. The "Derogatory Manner" line that I was quoting was from your post of the Oxford dictionary definition.
Oxford English Dictionary
scientism, n.
2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner)

My question was directed at this segment of the definition, I asked you how did you interpret what the Oxford writers meant by that.

I don't get what is so funny about that, but don't let it stop you from laughing. Laughter is good for the health.