Journal: Global Journal of Classical Theology
Volume: GJCT 20:1 (Aug 2023)
Article: Scientism: A Brief Apologetic Response
Author: J. A. Pagán

Scientism: A Brief Apologetic Response

J.A. Pagán

Adjunct Professor of Graduate Studies, Concordia Theological Seminary

Introductory Remarks

While western civilization traditionally considered science and theology to be distinct yet complementary domains of inquiry, during the era of late modernity, an epistemological1 doctrine known as scientism gained ascendancy within its leading institutions of academic training, arenas of political authority, and centers of cultural influence. As a result, the enterprise of science is now commonly perceived to controvert religious/theological knowledge, rather than complement it. But is science really the exclusive paradigm of rational thought? In what follows, I will offer a brief apologetic response to the central theses of scientism, as well as scientistic criticisms of religion/theology.

Claim I:
“The scientific method is the best way of obtaining knowledge about the world.”/ “The scientific method is the only way of obtaining knowledge about the world.”

The term scientism labels two forms of ideologized scientific realism.2 Soft/weak-scientism (WS) regards the scientific method as the best way of advancing our understanding of the natural world. Proponents of this view grant that knowledge may be derived from other academic fields, though they conceive of science as the most authoritative sector of human learning. Moreover, (WS) is generally associated with an attitude of optimism toward the potential of science to improve the human condition.

On the more radical position of hard/strong-scientism (SS), the universe is composed exclusively of matter and energy (the ontological doctrine of physicalism3); and thus, the scientific method is the only way of achieving an accurate awareness of reality. SS defines the nature and limits of knowledge by our faculties of sensory perception and experimental processes. If an alleged item of knowledge was not produced by the recognized research strategies of physics, chemistry, and biology, then it amounts to an intellectually inferior state of personal belief, private feeling, or existential conviction.

How should apologetically-minded believers respond to the foregoing theses? Firstly, one can hardly deny that modern science far surpasses alternative modes of probing the underlying structures and causal relations of cosmos. Yet the scope of science is confined to this project alone; its investigative reach cannot exceed the study of phenomena that may be (in principle) empirically detected and measured. Further, Christians should ackn...