Author: Ayoub Rasekh
Modern Atheism in the Balance of Critique (Part 10)
Scientism in New Atheism
In the previous section, scientism was discussed in detail, and its various definitions and interpretations were presented. Now, with an understanding of its meaning and concept, this section examines scientism as understood in New Atheism.
The fundamental question is: how do modern atheists employ scientism in their path toward denying God, and what definition do they adopt for this concept?
Although modern atheists have not explicitly and clearly defined scientism, a close reading of their statements and writings reveals traces of scientism or methodological naturalism in their discourse.
New atheists not only respect science but also accept the scientific method as the only valid means of acquiring knowledge. In their view, no method that stands in opposition to the scientific method is acceptable. For this reason, some have explicitly stated that, from the perspective of New Atheism, science is the best or even the only way to understand truth. In what follows, an attempt is made to explain how modern atheists are committed to scientism by presenting several arguments.
A study of the positions of modern atheists reveals clear signs of their strong adherence to scientism, to the extent that they defend it against any challenge. Below are some of these indications, presented as reasons for their commitment to scientism:
-
The Priority of Sensory Knowledge over Rational Knowledge
At first glance, it may seem that empirical knowledge, due to its reliance on sensory perception, possesses the highest degree of epistemic credibility. William of Ockham, a Franciscan friar from the village of Ockham in England, based on the assumption that sensory perception takes precedence over rational cognition, argued that:
-
The only way to prove the existence of something is through perception via the five senses or by observing its effects. Therefore, acceptance of things is ultimately limited to sense and reason.
-
Sensory methods are superior to rational methods, because what is obtained through the senses cannot be denied, whereas rational conclusions can be disputed. For example, a person who has experienced the cold of winter can never deny its existence, while rational explanations are subject to alternatives and therefore lack the certainty of sensory perception.[1]
-
Explicit Acceptance of Scientism
Although Christopher Hitchens, one of the founders of New Atheism, believes that science and reason are necessary but not sufficient, he nevertheless explicitly states that he does not accept anything that contradicts science or reason.[2]
It is noteworthy that Hitchens refers to both science and reason here; however, it is evident that by “reason” he does not mean philosophical or deductive reason. Rather, at best, he refers to empirical reason, which does not differ significantly from empirical science. This is why he ties the acceptance or rejection of any issue to its compatibility with science. In fact, this supports the view that, in his perspective, the only valid method is the scientific one, and any view that conflicts with it is unacceptable.
-
The Success of Empirical Science
One of the most important reasons modern atheists adhere to scientism is their appeal to the remarkable successes of science. Ernan McMullin, who himself holds a metaphysical perspective, in defense of the methodological aspect of scientism emphasizes the sufficiency of empirical science and states that the assumption of the sufficiency of natural sciences for investigating nature appears to have strong historical justification.[3]
At first glance, this argument suggests that the success of science in various fields demonstrates that all authentic and valid knowledge can only be attained through empirical methods.
-
The Intrinsic Link Between Science and Naturalism
Some modern atheists believe that science has an inherent and inseparable connection with methodological naturalism. Eugenie Scott argues that, by definition, science should not consider supernatural explanations, and in practice, it operates as if the supernatural does not exist. Moreover, even if we do not have a universally agreed definition of science, we can identify some of its essential features such as testability, predictive power, and empirical content features that supernatural explanations lack.[4]
Conclusion
The scientism of New Atheism, by reducing all human experiences to sensory and empirical data, marginalizes not only religion and metaphysics but also significant parts of the humanities and philosophy. This is despite the fact that the very foundations of scientism such as the priority of sensory knowledge over rational knowledge or the exclusivity of the scientific method in discovering truth cannot themselves be proven through empirical means and thus suffer from a kind of internal contradiction.
It appears that the scientism of New Atheism is less a neutral methodological approach and more a stance against any form of non-material reality—one rooted in specific philosophical assumptions that themselves require critical examination and reevaluation.
Continues…
Previous Part
References:
[1]. Shakerin, 1402 SH, p. 13.
[2]. Hitchens, 2007, p. 5.
[3]. McMullin, 2011, p. 86.
[4]. Shakerin, 1402 SH, p. 15.
