(March 26, 2012 at 11:39 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: You're right about #4, it makes a faulty case that "this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, " and then creates a strawman by "History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons."
Your understanding of the battle of Hastings, is based upon the accounts of the battle written by men, science cannot objectively examine it, however, it is a mistake to say that our understanding of the battle of hastings IS a "true knowledge of the world". History is well known to be written by the victors after all.
What I would say is that you can never really achieve "true knowledge" of a subject like history, and there is no reason why you would invoke fermions and bosons. A healthy understanding of the scientific method allows you to apply constructive criticism to a written account of history, and refuse to accept it as definitely "true". It can only aspire to be the "truest" account we are capable of.
Science may not explain subjective states, only objective, this is true, but I don't know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.. which makes his point a little .. pointless.
I guess my real problem with #4 is that some people mold this idea into some sort of shape that can hold a bit of god(s). Others use it to downplay scientific achievement and the potential for scientific progress.
I have studied the Bible and the theology behind Christianity for many years. I have been to many churches. I have walked the depth and the breadth of the religion and, as a result of this, I have a lot of bullshit to scrape off the bottom of my shoes. ~Ziploc Surprise
