[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 166 KB, 500x770, 1428974934460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6686481 No.6686481 [Reply] [Original]

Which is more anti-intellectual? Theology, or scientism? Keep in mind that religion persecuted Socrates, Galileo, and continues to whine about evolution. Also keep in mind that it was largely science which pulled us out of the dark ages.

>> No.6686493
File: 16 KB, 256x256, 1416287295532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6686493

What is "scientism" anyway? I just see that being used as a christaboo's version of beta/autist/cuck. I don't think either is anti intellectual. Theologians are too tiny of a minority to burn many books anyway and isn't "scientism" some sort of reddit fad?

>> No.6686495

>>6686493
It's basically a strawman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

>> No.6686496

The one that didn't solve small pox and didn't get us on the moon

>> No.6686499

>>6686495
What? Do you know what a strawman is?

>>6686493
>and isn't "scientism" some sort of reddit fad?

I wish.

>> No.6686501

>>6686481
Why does God need cooking utensils? Does he get hungry? Is God mortal?

>> No.6686502

>>6686481
'Scientism' - based on empiricism, observable phenomena
Theology - based on interpretation, no set answer

uuuum well...

>> No.6686503

>>6686496
Can't really say either of them did

>> No.6686514

>>6686481
The biggest problem I see here is that no one appreciates what theology and religion also provide for mankind. Not to argue against the value of the sciences but I see no difficulty in reasoning that the sciences fit perfectly well into religion.

The obsession with rationalism resulted in a horrendous reaction during the early Roman empire with the rise of all those mystic cults. Rationalism assumes that theology does not respect human reason.

Despite the absolute bait nature of this thread, reason doesn't answer every question nor does it satisfy individuals entirely. It is merely a means to an end.

Religion does far more good for man than selfish reason.

>> No.6686516
File: 81 KB, 1594x329, 1433154249364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6686516

>>6686481

>> No.6686527

>>6686514
>reason doesn't answer every question
and all those questions are raised by the reason itself.

i think that it is good to leave the reason by the reason itself, just like deleuze wanted to leave the philosophy through the philosophy itself.

the Reason as advocated by the intellectuals (in the common sense) and the people in a genre of humanist enlightment à la free mason refuse to develop fully the reason.

I also think that you could distinguish reason and intellect. reason is about calculus and computation with mechanism (causal likely) while intellect is broader with sapience (sagesse), science, prudence, arts, reason.

>> No.6686541

Neither is anti-intellectual. Science, philosophy, and theology are the West's greatest achievements.

>> No.6686556

>Theology, or scientism?

Any kind of dogma when people refuse to question their assumptions is anti-intellectual. Both of these fit that criterion.

>Keep in mind that religion persecuted Socrates, Galileo.

What?

> and continues to whine about evolution

St. Augustine theorized about evolution. Methodological naturalism was a theological doctrine that was a consequence of Christian theism.

>Also keep in mind that it was largely science which pulled us out of the dark ages.

Yeah definitely, not that a stable secure Europe
defended from foreign invaders had anything to do with it.

>> No.6686562

>>6686481
Wait a second OP. Just because one is worse than the other does not mean the other should be practiced

>> No.6686566

>>6686481
You're categories are so confused that the question is meaningless. Theology is a broad discipline, and scientism is a pejorative term applied to an ideology.

>> No.6686570

>>6686481
Almost everything you said is highly contentious from a historical point of view, so much so that I'm convinced this is bait and isn't worth discussing

>> No.6686650

If you're asking theology vs. scientism then I would say the latter is more anti-intellectual.

You then go on to talk about religion vs. science, which I feel is a significantly different question. Most religious people, especially the most anti-intellectual, are not involved in theology in any significant way. And a lot of people who believe in scientism aren't scientists.

>> No.6687942

>>6686516
Fuck, I thought he was an agnostic or something. At least he's not a young earth creationist, is he?

>> No.6687950

Theology, clearly. Scientism is purely intellectual.

>> No.6687967

>>6686556

>Yeah definitely, not that a stable secure Europe defended from foreign invaders had anything to do with it.

I don't think the Mongols had theology

>> No.6687973

>>6686481
>Theology, or scientism?
Both

>> No.6687976

>>6687942
Everything after mathematics was edited in, I believe. He's a pretty smug STEMfag.

>> No.6687984

>>6686481
1. The first 'scientists' were religious and either believes in many dieties or only one.
2. It wasn't religion that persecuted Socrates. It was a State led by politicians.