Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

Logical Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific (empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. At least three main problems:

1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths, no aesthetic truths, no philosophical truths (like human rights).

Why do you presuppose that there are any absolute aesthetic truths or moral truths? What does that even mean? You are equivocating. Nor do I know what you mean by philosophical truths and the only example you gave is a moral one. There are things that people generally agree on because of history, the way our society is currently structured and human instinct that has evolved, but not everyone.

Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?

If you read what I said then you will see that I do not presuppose Mathematics and logic as true before science even begins. To me that's like saying that language is true before science even begins. It's a nonsensical statement. You are making a strawman argument here. First accusing me of scientism and in explaining what it is, accusing me of saying something that I am not. So by your definition I am not espousing Scientism.

So let's forget this Scientism nonsense and say which if any of those examples I explained away as being amenable to the scientific method do you disagree with?

2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

Well it's worked so far and it's worked better than any other approach. So the evidence is that yes, the world is an objective world external to the minds of scientists governed by causal regularities and that they can be accurately described. That is up to a point. The jury is still out on quantum mechanics but even so, the fact that there is even a field of quantum mechanics shows that it can be adequately described even if not (yet) properly understood. So your argument about presuppositions invalidating the scientific method either does not apply or does not hold.

The scientific method is a method. It's not a Truth. It's a self correcting evidence based method of investigation. It works. However much you care to argue about the underlying assumptions (using technology developed as a result of the scientific method) does not change the fact that it has proven itself to be useful.

Which is more than can be said of any faith based method.

3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy.

No one has said that we can use the scientific method for everything, but the discussion is about determining truth. The only truth is reality. Arguing otherwise is to claim something that is not real is a truth. The scientific method is the best method that we have for investigating and understanding reality. It's not a method for figuring out what we should do, although it can and does help in that regard.