Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[SteveII]

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.

Why do you insert "absolute" into your sentence. That is not required. Science cannot tell us that it is wrong to randomly kill, that people should not be enslaved, or that a majestic mountainscape is more beautiful than a dump. These are truths that have been arrived at some other way.

Examples of philosophical truths? Language conveys meaning, questions of epistemology, what is freedom, what does it mean to be a person, are experiences real.

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?

Now you are pivoting away from "But there is nothing that the scientific method cannot ultimately explain given sufficient resources, except perhaps what happened before the Big Bang." and your statement that all the other categories of knowledge are "All explainable by science." --neither of which is true.

Language is necessary as a precondition for science (it certainly not discoverable through science). Otherwise you would not be able to store any truths as you move through the process. Math and logic are likewise presupposed by science (they are not discovered by any science): “If p implies q, and p, then q” or “1 + 1 = 2” are to all appearances necessary truths (could not have been otherwise). 

It would be good to forget scientism. It is an untenable position. As far the list of things I mentioned and your responses:

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.
No, they are not. They would exist regardless of if humans came around. They were discovered, not invented.

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Science did not aid in their discovery. Reasoning did. Something else discovered, not invented.

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

Did we discover what the meaning of "I" is through science? Nope.

We don't know that scientific laws cannot be explained using the scientific method. 

The laws require a foundation all addressed in some philosophy of science--not itself a scientific truth (next section)

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.

I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with the scientific method--only that it has it limits to questions that science can answer. To apply it outside the realm of science or to say that only science can give us truths is a mistake. 

You seem to think that faith and science are somehow incompatible. That is not necessarily the case. Both can provide truths in their respective spheres. Misapplying either leads to mistakes and confusion. 

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.

You are almost there. The scientific method is not the only way to investigate reality. It works in matters pertaining to the natural world. Reality consists of more than the natural world. 

Listen, most of this is probably a combination of imprecise language and a little bit of misunderstanding of what science is and is not. I enjoyed the discussion and if you want to zero in on something and keep going, that's fine with me.