Scientism, perhaps more accurately described as philosophical naturalism, is the idea that the only means by which we may know things with certainty is through scientific inquiry. By scientific inquiry they mean that which can be observed and tested by means of the five senses, sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste. It’s the idea that only that which has a physical existence actually has existence.
It is by this notion that many who consider themselves “enlightened”, who hold to the hard sciences as the only means for knowing truth, declare that there is no God. I cannot see God with my eyes, or smell him with my nose, or hear him with my ears, etc., therefore the concept of God is meaningless and has God has no real existence. “Where is the evidence?” they say. “You can provide no evidence that God exists and therefore it is not reasonable to believe!” they proclaim.
But what they have done is set the parameters of evidence so as not to include anything which might serve to prove the existence of God or the supernatural. It’s like trying to measure the volume of the ocean with a yard stick and insisting that if you can’t do it by means of this particular tool then the ocean must not exist. To set the boundaries of inquiry into the possibility of the existence of an immaterial being so as to only use instruments that can examine material existence is begging the question.
By “begging the question” I mean that in the formal logical sense. It is to assume your conclusion in your argument.
Only the material world exists
God is immaterial.
Therefore God does not exist.
There is nothing invalid about this syllogism in form, but the problem is that the first premise is what in question to begin with. Does only the material world exist? Isn’t that the heart of the debate itself? Is it merely enough to simply assert that the immaterial world doesn’t exist?
The problem with philosophical naturalism (scientism) is that it is indeed a philosophy. It’s a point of view that has to be come to apart from scientific method itself. The statement “You can only know truth through science” is not itself something that can be examined under a microscope or tested and repeated in a lab. That claim is philosophical and one has to interact with it on the level of reason.
The truth is that as soon as someone asserts that “you can only know truth by the means of scientific inquiry” they have refuted themselves. All we need ask is “How do you know that to be true?” and we have them. The fact is there are immaterial realities such as numbers, logic, and even the thoughts you are thinking right now. Science is not able to measure the value of an idea, the beauty of a painting or the existence of objective moral values but these are real things.
