Author: Ayoub Rasekh
Modern Atheism in the Balance of Critique (Part 9)
In examining and analyzing modern atheism, in previous discussions (the foundations of modern atheism), naturalism, rationalism, evolution, and natural selection were discussed as key topics and fundamental pillars of modern atheism, and the necessary points regarding them were explained. Now, in this section, scientism is addressed as another key topic and a primary foundation of modern atheism.
Scientism, which initially emerged with an emphasis on experience, became widely prominent after the decline of the Church and the West’s transition into the modern era. Gradually, it came to be regarded, in the Western perspective, as the only reliable path to acquiring knowledge. In this context, efforts were made to apply this scientific and empirical method to evaluate even non-empirical issues.[1]
-
What is Scientism?
It is evident that the most important question in discussing scientism is the question of its nature. What exactly is scientism? How have Western thinkers defined it? And what definition of scientism is accepted by the new atheists? What does scientism mean in their view?
Like many scientific terms, scientism has been defined in various ways:
-
Some, such as Thomas Sorell, believe that scientism means assigning excessive value to the natural sciences in comparison to other fields of knowledge.[2]
According to this definition, there are various disciplines such as philosophy, theology, religious studies, and natural sciences; however, among these, the natural sciences—based on empirical methods—are considered more valuable.
Some have also used expressions such as “excessive respect for science” or “overconfidence in science” to define scientism.
Although this definition is valuable, from the perspective of those who propose it, scientism is viewed as a negative phenomenon that should be abandoned. In other words, this definition, rather than merely explaining the reality of scientism and clarifying the orientation of scientistic atheists, actually critiques scientism and highlights its weaknesses. Based on this understanding, some have even regarded scientism as a form of ideological extremism, similar to fundamentalism.
-
Others, noting that the previous definition reflects more the attitude of the definer than the reality of the concept itself, have proposed another definition: scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the only reliable means of acquiring knowledge.[3]
Some have expressed this idea in different terms:
-
“Only empirical sciences are real sciences.”[4]
-
“The method of empirical science is the only method that should be applied to all fields of knowledge.”[5]
-
“The world must be as described by empirical science.”[6]
From these definitions and expressions, it is understood that the only trustworthy method is the scientific method, while other methods, such as deductive reasoning, are not considered reliable. This aligns precisely with the history of Western thought.
In addition to the two views mentioned above, there is a third perspective on the nature of scientism.
Peterson, after studying sources related to scientism, concludes that the term is generally used in two senses:
-
Presenting the scientific method as the only path to truth. According to this view, only the methods of natural sciences are valid. In this sense, scientism means restricting the path to truth exclusively to the natural sciences.
-
Applying scientific theories or empirical methods to non-empirical domains.[7]
Based on this interpretation, those who consider the scientific method as the sole means of discovering truth, or who apply it to areas such as ethics and philosophy, can be described as scientistic.
Between these two meanings presented by Peterson, it is not logically possible to make a clear distinction, because the first meaning necessarily entails the second. There is no case where the second meaning is true while the first is not. From a scientistic perspective, the priority lies with the scientific method itself; if this method is used, the results obtained are considered valuable even in philosophical matters. Otherwise, even in empirical matters, discussion would be futile.[8]
In summary, what emerges from examining the concept of scientism is a form of epistemological reductionism in the modern era. By monopolizing the empirical method, scientism effectively marginalizes other sources of knowledge such as philosophical reason, mystical intuition, and divine revelation.
However, the claim that “only the scientific method is valid” itself cannot be proven through empirical methods, and thus it suffers from an internal contradiction.
More importantly, scientism, as one of the pillars of modern atheism, presents an incomplete picture of reality by ignoring metaphysical and non-material dimensions. Fundamental human questions about meaning, purpose, morality, and God lie beyond the scope of empirical sciences. Limiting knowledge to sensory experience is not only insufficient but also leads to a new form of intellectual rigidity. For this reason, many contemporary philosophers of science believe that extreme scientism has itself become a kind of pseudo-religion that conflicts with rational and sound thinking.
Continues…
Previous Part
References:
[1]. Afzali & Rezaei, 1403 (Solar Hijri), p. 31.
[2]. Sorell, 2013, p. x.
[3]. Rosenberg, 2011, p. 6.
[4]. Williams and Robinson (eds.), 2015, pp. 1–22.
[5]. Ibid, p. 6.
[6]. Ibid, p. 7.
[7]. Peterson, 2003, p. 61.
[8]. Afzali & Rezaei, 1403 (Solar Hijri), p. 35.
