Objection · Case 07 · Philosophy
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?
One objection from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Response
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.
About this exhibit
This objection is to J.P. Moreland, “Scientism and Secularism”.
Moreland states strong scientism plainly as the claim “Only what is testable by science can be true,” then runs a simple test on it. The statement sets a requirement for belief, it places itself…
Under Claim 01: The rule “only what science or logic can prove is worth believing” cannot pass its own test.