J.P. Moreland, “Scientism and Secularism”

Sources

• J.P. Moreland, “Why Strong Scientism Is Self-Refuting,” (opens in a new tab)

  J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Crossway, 2018) - J.P. Moreland, “Why Strong Scientism Is Self-Refuting,”

Objections & responses

Moreland is an evangelical apologist. Isn’t citing him for the definition of the opposing view letting the prosecution write the defense’s brief?

The concern is fair, which is why Moreland is paired here with the Stanford Encyclopedia and with a secular survey of the debate. His formulation, that only what is testable by science can be true, is not a caricature; it is close to statements by Alex Rosenberg in The Atheist’s Guide to Reality and to popular claims by Dawkins and Krauss. If you want the view in its own defenders’ words, Rosenberg is the place to go, and he says it more bluntly than Moreland does.

Nobody actually holds strong scientism. Isn’t refuting it a straw man that lets you avoid the real challenge, that religious claims lack the kind of evidence we require for other beliefs?

Weak scientism is the serious version, and it has to be answered differently, which the last exhibit under this claim does. Strong scientism is worth refuting because it is common in popular form (if you can’t prove it scientifically, it’s just opinion) even if no philosopher defends it. The real challenge, the demand for evidence, is met elsewhere: the historical and philosophical arguments across this site are exactly the attempt to supply evidence of the kind weak scientism allows.

Appears under 1 claim in this case

• The rule “only what science or logic can prove is worth believing” cannot pass its own test.