Scientism is often misunderstood.
Some people criticize the idea that science and religion can conflict by calling it “scientism,” using the term in a derogatory sense. Scientism is often presented as a version of science that is dogmatic or ideological. It is portrayed as intolerant and closed-minded.
Religious critics sometimes label any scientific claim they find inconvenient as “scientism.” Science, however, is simply the systematic pursuit of knowledge based on well-tested evidence. That is its essence. When science contradicts a religious claim, some claim it is “scientism” rather than legitimate science.
Scientism is largely a misrepresentation.
The idea of scientism often suggests that science rejects the supernatural simply because it cannot examine it. But this is a misunderstanding. Science does not deny the supernatural—it simply cannot study it using its methods. Science works with observable, testable phenomena. Treating science as inherently hostile to religion is misleading; science merely works within its scope.
Science and the nature of laws
Science relies on the assumption that natural laws are regular and stable. Religious perspectives may see laws as decreed by God, while science treats them as consistent patterns in nature. The overlap between religion and science exists only in method, not in theory: we can measure temperature, for example, regardless of whether one believes laws are divine or impersonal. Science cannot attribute the laws themselves to a divine agent because doing so would undermine the reliability of experiments—if God could arbitrarily change them, we could not trust today’s findings to apply tomorrow.
It is crucial to stress: science trusts laws because they are consistent, not because someone put them there.
Science tests claims through observation and experiment, not through argument alone—though arguments still play a role in framing hypotheses and interpreting results.
Logic, mathematics, and science
All disciplines—science, philosophy, theology, psychology—presuppose the validity of logic and mathematics. Science is perhaps the most systematic way of applying logic and mathematics to discover truths, forming a mutually reinforcing trio: logic, mathematics, and scientific method.
Objections to privileging scientific truth
Critics often point out that some truths are not accessible to science:
Logical and mathematical truths: Science can rely on observation to verify basic truths (e.g., that 1 ≠ 2). Experimentation is used for empirical claims, but logical reasoning underpins them all.
Metaphysical truths: Knowing that the physical world exists does not require metaphysics but direct observation and testing. Metaphysics deals with non-natural or supernatural claims.
Ethical truths: Science cannot tell us morality directly, but it can establish facts that moral reasoning depends on (e.g., that babies can die if neglected). Ethical conclusions rely on understanding facts first.
Aesthetic truths: Science cannot determine beauty, which is subjective.
Science is, however, the most reliable tool for discovering empirical truths. While it cannot prove the absence of supernatural manipulation, the method of testing and replicating experiments has consistently produced reliable knowledge.
Is it circular to claim science is the best method?
Some argue that calling science the most reliable path to truth is itself a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But practical testing does not require a meta-experiment to verify the method: if we use a test to determine whether water is drinkable, the success of the test validates it. The philosophical justification is secondary; the method’s effectiveness is clear.
Two forms of “scientism”
Hard scientism: Claims nothing exists except what science demonstrates. This extreme position is rarely, if ever, held by actual scientists. Scientists recognize there is more to learn, which drives ongoing inquiry.
Soft scientism: Recognizes science as the most reliable method for discovering truth but does not claim it is the only source.
Religion does not need “scientism” to conflict with science. Religion, in its methodology, lacks tests to verify spiritual claims. Science can challenge these claims by its nature.
In reality, soft scientism—the genuine, evidence-based approach of science—cannot be equated with hard scientism. It does not deny God’s existence; it simply prioritizes evidence. A religion that undermines science undercuts its own credibility.
Conclusion:
Scientism is largely a rhetorical invention used to dismiss real science. The real issue for religion is not “scientism” but the challenge posed by evidence-based inquiry. Science remains neutral: it tests claims, observes results, and draws conclusions based on evidence, not ideology.
QUOTE:
"As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the greatest things about science - that it has made it possible for people not to be religious" Stephen Weinberg.
COMMENT:
Science is not done by building the strongest case you can for a claim
using evidence and reason and mathematics. It is done by continually building
the strongest case against all claims and observing what is left standing. The
process of elimination paves the way. THEN you look at building the case for
one particular claim. Thus evolution rejects the notion of any intelligence
having any part in it. If religion says this still leaves room for God, it
leaves room then for one that just sets things up to run themselves so why is
he hiding? And who wants a God who does not get involved? It is not a God but
a creator. It is not even a friend. It is just there.
So, state what
you are testing. Think of different explanations. You are working out theories
to find ways to explain. Now you must come up with systematic tests. Test all
the theories now. You are testing to disprove them. The worst ones go to the
bottom of the pile. What is left now? There must be some that stand out as the
relatively resistant to disproof. Now look at the evidence. The one with the
best is the one that you must treat as the right one. It has the best chance
of being correct.