Skip to content

Scientism & Reductionism

This page is about scientism & methodological reductionism. The comments are links to those areas. I just launched this page in July ’13.

Currently, much of this is in the “Christian Resources” comments section.

This is part of my research effort. If you want to add something relevant you are welcome to.

For instance, currently some of the best places to think about this issue include:
• Test of Faith (link)
• Alvin Platinga’s work (link)
• Michael Polyani (not sure what his faith is) (link)
• Templeton Prize Winners (not all of them–but there are a number I believe on this question) (link)
• Veritas Forum has a couple (link)
• Open Biola (philosophy subsection–if you search under neuroscience you might also find these) (link) here are a number of interviews on the intersection of faith and science

120 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Jul 8 2013 2:20 am

    ORDER: GOD’S, MAN’S AND NATURE’S
    Avoiding Neurobiological Reductionism:
    The Role of Downward Causation in Complex Systems
    by Nancey Murphy
    (This chapter will appear in Moral Behavior and Free Will. A Neurological and
    Philosophical Approach (eds Juan José Sanguineti, Ariberto Acerbi, José Angel Lombo)

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/MurphyHolyCross.pdf

    Need to ask specific profs & authors/speakers for help.

    Should look at Philosophy.org (or whatever the source area is)

    Should look at Academia.edu

    See also Quora sub-section

  2. compassioninpolitics / Jul 8 2013 2:24 am

    I think this guy may lean new age perhaps (if I was to guess), but honestly not sure. He does seem to make a limited argument

    Reductionism, however, has its limitations. Many mainstream psychologists rue the day when the reductionist behaviorism of J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner hijacked the discipline of psychology, setting the field back, some estimate, by 50 years.

    Reductionist models can be valuable, but at best they crudely approximate reality.

    Holography is a fitting metaphor for what mystics have always taught: separation is illusion. The universe is a seamless whole. Reductionism has revealed much, but its utility may have run its course. I anticipate that holism has as great a role to play in the future of science as reductionism has played in its past.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/reductionism_b_2891392.html

  3. compassioninpolitics / Jul 8 2013 4:30 am

    Rationality/Spock
    (this isn’t a perfect article…but an interesting jumping off point):
    http://www.livingchurch.org/ethics-dr-spock

    Veritas again–this is their vimeo channel:
    http://vimeo.com/veritasforum/videos/sort:plays/format:thumbnail

  4. compassioninpolitics / Jul 8 2013 4:33 am

    Here are 3 key subjects on Compassion in politics in this regard
    https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=scientism

    https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=reductionism

    https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=atheism

    Also searching Christian apolegetics (spelled two different ways) and/or Christian philosophy

  5. compassioninpolitics / Jul 8 2013 5:55 am

    Not sure what I think about this lecture entirely.

  6. Nathan Kets / Jul 9 2013 8:34 pm

    Michael Polyani
    http://academia.edu/1572387/Michael_Polanyis_theory_of_knowledge_Habermas_and_interdisciplinary_research

    He apparently was so prolific that he has a special collection at the University of Chicago.

    Also this quote is I think kind of devastating:
    The ramifications, in many areas of life and thought, of the philosophy of tacit integration are
    explored, developed, and applied to further spheres of life and reality in the subsequent chapters of Personal Knowledge and in most of his later books and articles, beginning with its extended application to the human sphere in The Study of Man (1959). Those ramifications include:

    refutations of the reductions of persons, their actions and history to ‘behaviour’ (behaviourism),
    economics, psychology, physiology and biology; and of organism, life and biology to chemistry and physics;

    an alternative hierarchical ontology of levels of increasing complexity, each governed by its own principles of operation which determine the boundary conditions left open by the previous and lower level;

    the abolition of the dichotomies between fact and value and between description and evaluation on the levels of life, sentience, intelligence and personhood, where achievements, which succeed or fail, replace mere processes and events, and which can be known only in and through evaluating them as successes or failures;

    an account of ‘dwelling’ in our bodies, perceptual organs, intellectual frameworks and languages, which we use and primarily and tacitly attend from in order to attend to, know, understand and cope with the world, by assimilating and incorporating things to and within them; plus an account of ‘breaking out’ of them, when intellectual and moral conflicts lead us tacitly to reach out to realities that cannot be assimilated to them, and thus to adapt our frameworks, etc., to those new
    realities;

    the abolition of the dichotomy between reason and emotion, for even in scientific research emotion has an essential ‘selective’ function to appraise the value of science itself and those facts of significance for science from those of no significance, a similar ‘heuristic’ one to sustain the scientist in his labours and to help him to cross the logical gap which opens up between the new realities which he vaguely discerns when attending from his existing knowledge which he uses as a clue to what lies beyond it, and a ‘persuasive’ one which he needs to help him to persuade his fellow scientists to follow him in crossing that gap.

    Source: http://www.spcps.org.uk/polanyi.pdf

  7. Nathan Kets / Jul 9 2013 8:54 pm
  8. Nathan Kets / Jul 9 2013 9:04 pm

    Not quite in this vein, more apologetics, but certainly in the realm of philosophy/theology:
    http://theologicalstudies.org/

    And:
    Theological Epistemology

  9. Nathan Kets / Jul 9 2013 9:24 pm

    Apologetics/Scientism
    http://open.biola.edu/resources/scientism?collection=bbst-450-apologetics

    I think the end of this Darwin lecture might have some anti- scientism arguments:
    http://open.biola.edu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=scientism

  10. compassioninpolitics / Jul 11 2013 6:03 pm

    Christian Apolegetics–just updated–I think this has about 50 articles/posts:
    https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/christian-apolegetics/

  11. compassioninpolitics / Jul 11 2013 6:04 pm

    Are we asking the right questions?
    Are we looking with the right lense?
    Are we looking in the right places?
    —-
    What are our values, our standards? Are our priorities properly aligned?
    What are our biases? What are our misperceptions?
    —-
    what is our purpose?
    what is meaningful–truly meaningful?

  12. compassioninpolitics / Jul 11 2013 6:50 pm

    Borrowing the airplane metaphor for individuality versus community (I’m curious how the democrats have done this or another group might have:

    Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally. Every time I take a flight I am always mindful of the many people who make a successful journey possible, the known pilots and the unknown ground crew. You honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle, who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief Lutuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people are still met with the most brutal expression of man’s inhumanity to man. You honor the ground crew, without whose labor and sacrifice the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth. Most of these people will never make the headlines, and their names will never appear in Who’s Who. Yet, when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live, men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake.

    I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners: all those to whom truth is beauty, and beauty, truth, and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.

    I’m going to begin….where Martin Luther King left off.

    Love the parallelism of this speech in the middle:
    http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_acceptance_speech_at_nobel_peace_prize_ceremony/

    This quote is also stark:
    I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history.

    I refuse to accept the idea that the “is-ness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “ought-ness” that forever confronts him.

    I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.

  13. Nathan K / Jul 13 2013 5:32 pm

    . He says, “…if there is something more excellent than truth, it is God. If there is not, then truth itself is God (Augustine 92).”

    http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000349/article.pdf

  14. compassion in politics / Jul 15 2013 6:47 pm

    Looks like a repository of Christian philosophy at Calvin College (this is quite an amazing resource potentially–wonder if they have this for preaching too):
    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/article_names.htm

    Should check back on these:
    http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Augustinian_Christian_Philosophy.pdf

    Specifically check out articles in the resource section.
    http://www.andrewmbailey.com/

  15. compassion in politics / Jul 15 2013 7:18 pm

    Do a google search for “critiques of physicalism” and “critiques of naturalism” (also fundamentally related topics)

    Also this:
    http://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bealer-george-and-koons-robert-the-waning-of-materialism.pdf

    The Waning of Materialism ($30 on Amazon and $22 on Kindle)
    http://appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/

    This also seems to be relevant:
    http://www.newdualism.org/websites.htm

  16. compassion in politics / Jul 15 2013 7:42 pm

    A pretty extensive outline, with citation from a person in a academic philosophy program (I believe its a grad program):
    http://appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/theistic-arguments/

  17. compassion in politics / Jul 15 2013 7:46 pm

    Christian philosopher articles by Author name:
    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/author_names.htm

    There are 63 include (although I think Platinga may have been used multiple times perhaps)–none the less about 50 philosophers. Assembled at Calvin College–so pretty legit.

    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/article_names.htm

    For instance Platinga’s Augustinian philosophy is interesting, along with his critique of Scientism (Naturalism, Physicalism, Reductionism). Krefts 12 ways to know God isn’t a philosophical treatise, but arguably helpful. A number of other Kreft articles are quite helpful too.

  18. Nathan Kets / Jul 19 2013 5:26 pm

    Not sure this explicitly addresses this issue, it deals perhaps more with the science versus faith divide:
    http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/

  19. Nathan Kets / Jul 22 2013 2:29 am

    Swinbourne takes on determinism

  20. Nathan K / Jul 22 2013 2:35 am

    Swinbourne’s essays are available here–specifically his criticism of Dawkins
    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml

  21. Nathan Kets / Jul 22 2013 2:42 am

    Neuroscience and the Soul (this is their theme for the year–they even have a number of conference videos on this topic):

  22. Nathan Kets / Jul 22 2013 2:47 am

    Swinbourne is also here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne

    You can also find some of his work/thought on the website for Closer to Truth–the PBS series.
    http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Richard-Swinburne/103

  23. Nathan Ketsdever / Jul 29 2013 6:28 pm

    Might be worth checking out–people in the philosophy of science (5000 people or so–so not small)
    http://www.academia.edu/People/Philosophy_Of_Science

    The Philosophy bibliography resources, including Google scholar may also prove helpful.

  24. Nathan Ketsdever / Jul 31 2013 5:13 pm

    File under critical thinking, philosophy, & apologetics from perhaps an emotional perspective:

    http://beliefsoftheheart.com/

  25. Nathan K / Jul 31 2013 10:30 pm

    Should look at philosophers here:

    http://now.biola.edu/experts/terms/

  26. Nathan Kets / Aug 8 2013 7:13 pm

    Not sure where to file this:

  27. compassioninpolitics / Aug 15 2013 5:16 am

    Apolegetics & neuroscience & philosophy:
    http://cneuroscience.org/articles

  28. Nathan K / Aug 17 2013 12:02 am

    Could add a list of URLs to speakers at Biola

    Also:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/articles.html

  29. compassioninpolitics / Aug 26 2013 5:47 pm

    This isn’t revolutionary–but Hasker has written about this issue:

    My guess is his book “Emergent Self” discusses this on some level. Unfortunately, it pre-dates some of the recent “scholarship” on this question.

    Hasker has also written “Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God.” It is quite expensive at $89. It releases in Sept of 2013

  30. compassioninpolitics / Sep 24 2013 8:52 pm

    Humans are amphibians—half spirit and half animal…As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation,” writes C.S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters, 40).

  31. compassion in politics / Oct 25 2013 3:17 am

    Conference–both sides–mostly ethics & worldview–not the reductionism discussion as much:
    http://knowinginreligionandmorality.wordpress.com/

  32. compassion in politics / Oct 25 2013 3:31 am
  33. compassion in politics / Oct 27 2013 6:45 pm

    I don’t know what conclusions these come to, but I thought they might be helpful (mostly RE: determinism):
    http://consc.net/mindpapers/5.4
    http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/incompatibilism-theories/
    http://consc.net/chalmers/

  34. compassion in politics / Oct 30 2013 2:04 am

    Einstein quotes on God:
    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/16/Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx

    He isn’t without his criticism of religion, but he did seem to believe in a creator-God.

  35. compassioninpolitics / Nov 12 2013 11:46 pm

    Possible source here (as well as the overall center on Science & Religion):
    http://scienceandreligion.hampshire.edu/gs/index.php?id=past-lectures

    Also curious about the work of Patrick Hale at Louisville as well as any work at Baylor.

  36. compassioninpolitics / Nov 21 2013 5:27 am

    Determinism/Indeterminism/Free Will, etc…:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

    Specifically Robert Kanes theory.

  37. compassioninpolitics / Nov 21 2013 5:43 am

    Might be helpful in the determinism debate:
    http://www.stanford.edu/~paulsko/papers/Gazzaniga_response_WTN.pdf

    William T. Newsome also has some short videos on this question as long as a presentation for Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind presents Neuroscience, Explanation, and the Problem of Free Will.

    William T. Newsome–Department of Neurobiology, Stanford and Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  38. compassioninpolitics / Dec 2 2013 6:04 am

    Not usually under this heading–should just go under Christian:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/29/us/to-heaven-and-back/

    I’m not a fan of “near death testimony”–but I think its something we should pay attention to.

  39. compassioninpolitics / Dec 2 2013 6:29 am

    “People have values and feelings, perceptions, opinions, motivations, and biographies, whereas cogs and sprockets do not.”
    Sir Ken Robinson

  40. compassioninpolitics / Dec 24 2013 4:53 pm
  41. compassioninpolitics / Jan 1 2014 3:17 am

    I’ll include this link as well:
    http://biologos.org/resources

  42. compassioninpolitics / Jan 7 2014 7:24 am
  43. compassioninpolitics / Jan 8 2014 5:45 pm
  44. compassioninpolitics / Jan 8 2014 6:26 pm

    More links:

    Polanyi and Tacit Knowledge:
    http://infed.org/mobi/michael-polanyi-and-tacit-knowledge/

    Wikipedia links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge

    Polanyi & Philosophy of Science:

  45. compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com / Jan 9 2014 5:56 pm

    Mostly faith versus science question (multiple languages):
    http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Papers.php

    some multi-media resources from the same organization:
    http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Multimedia.php

  46. compassioninpolitics / Jan 16 2014 6:54 pm

    Goeth and the two part science

    Polanyi Essays:
    http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/essays.htm

    I’m curious if Charles Sanders Pierce might fit as well.

  47. compassioninpolitics / Jan 24 2014 2:50 am

    An interesting case for faith & ethics in the Yale Law Journal:
    http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3810&context=fss_papers

    The other one thats interesting is the relativism discussion. Michael Novak’s indictment of relativism at an awards dinner, before he passed away. I’ll have to chase it down.

  48. compassioninpolitics / Jan 25 2014 8:07 pm

    Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi, edited Marjorie Greene. London: Routledge, Keegan and Paul, 1969.
    _____. Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1951. _____. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and
    Kegan Paul, 1958.
    _____. Science, Faith and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
    _____. Society, Economics, and Philosophy: Selected Papers, edited by Richard T. Allen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, 1997.

    http://theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Cunningham_DarwinsPiousIdea_Bibliography.pdf

  49. compassioninpolitics / Jan 28 2014 1:46 am

    Not sure if this willl have the quotes I need, but for one or more of the authors I’m going to look at it should have something:
    http://www.todayinsci.com/K/Kuhn_Thomas/KuhnThomas-Quotations.htm

    http://todayinsci.com/Quotations/QuotationsIndex.htm

  50. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 12:33 am

    Moreover, for some reason the accomplishments of science need to be highlighted while at the same time those not attributable to science go acknowledged only parenthetically: “If one were to list the proudest accomplishments of our species (setting aside the removal of obstacles we set in our own path, such as the abolition of slavery and the defeat of fascism), many would be gifts bestowed by science.” Yes, let’s not count little things like the abolition of slavery and the defeat of fascism, or perhaps the general improvement in human rights, women rights, gay rights, general education, access to health care (as distinct from the science-based quality of that care), and countless other improvements the human race has managed to make without science. Again, this isn’t an attack on science, it’s simply a matter of pointing out that science has done great goods as well as the more than an occasional evil, and moreover, that much has been accomplished without a lot of help from science. Nuance, people, nuance.

    http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/steven_pinker_embraces_scientism_bad_move_i_think-118240

    Also this:
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ian%20hutchison%20and%20scientism&sm=3

    And this:
    http://veritas.org/talks/scientism-delusion/

  51. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 12:38 am

    Potentially interesting from Dallas Theological Seminary:
    http://www.dts.edu/thetable/play/engaging-new-atheism/

    Hmmm….
    http://media.rzim.eu/ZTT_Feb09_Session1notes.pdf

    Answering the New Atheism (book)
    ?

    I’ve included this for the link to Ian Hutchison’s essay/paper:
    http://biologos.org/blog/engaging-todays-militant-atheist-arguments-part-1

  52. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 2:21 am

    Criticism of Scientism:
    http://biologos.org/blog/series/monopolizing-knowledge

    Multi-disciplinary

  53. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 2:24 am

    Accountability
    Technocentism. Brave New World

  54. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 2:34 am

    Humanities checking
    a) societal and community
    b) science itself

    Framework for understanding

    Value of humanities. Hmmm.

  55. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 2:35 am

    Systems theory
    Phenomenology/Perspectivalism
    Dynamic Interplay

    DNA Diagram or something like it.

    1) How the humanities contribute to society, culture, and inquiry
    2) How the humanities adds to science
    3) How the two works together

    Hegelian dialectic

  56. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 2:37 am

    Logical circularity of scientism & naturalism

    The need for idealism & romanticism & other isms.

  57. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 3:01 am

    Nice post. As a historian of science and medicine, I heartily agree that the sciences need healthy, constructive critique using analytical methods that are different from those of science. The tools of the historian–context, complexity, and contingency–are well adapted for cutting through hype and for following the money.

    I’d also point out that Pinker conflates scientism with acceptance of the principles of science. Scientism is in fact the belief that all problems can be explained or solved by the scientific method.

    Not a robust argument….but an interesting way to think about things:
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/08/14/should-the-humanities-embrace-scientism-my-postmodern-response-to-pinkers-patronizing-plea/

    I’m curious if scientific complexity undermines either reductionism or the notion of Accams razor or related stuff. I do think that specifying the tools of the other disciplines would be interesting.

  58. compassioninpolitics / Jan 29 2014 3:11 am

    It is true that the common simplistic descriptions of the scientific method are largely mythological. But, nevertheless, there are identifiable characteristics in science as it has been practiced since the scientific revolution, and these constitute substantial limitations of the scope of science’s ability to describe the world. I identify the two key characteristics as reproducibility and Clarity. Science describes the world in so far as it is describable in terms that are reproducible. An experiment done here, and now, by me, if it is part of science will give the same result when done somewhere else, sometime else, by someone else. Or if we are discussing something inaccessible to manipulation, for example the stars in astronomy, then multiple consistent observations at different places and times, by different observers must be possible, providing reproducibility in practice even if not necessarily at will. Moreover science requires that its descriptions have a specialized Clarity (capitalized to indicate my use as a technical term), so that they are
    unambiguously understood by the trained scientist. This often (but not always) involves quantitative measurement and mathematical theory. Such mathematical forms of expression most abundantly possess Clarity but other forms such as systematic description or classification also provide it in ways that would not normally be described as mathematical. In any case Clarity is required even to know whether reproducibility has been attained, and these requirements place limitations on science.

    >>>>>Many of life’s most important matters simply do not possess reproducibility. History, for example, cannot be understood by appeal to reproducibility. Its most significant events are often unique, never to be repeated. There is no way to experiment on history, and no way to repeat the observations. Some parts of historical study benefit from scientific techniques, but the main mission of history cannot be addressed through reproducibility; its methods are not those of science. Yet history possesses real knowledge. Or in respect of Clarity, consider the beauty of a sunset, the justice of a verdict, the compassion of a nurse, the drama of a play, the depth of a poem, the terror of a war, the excitement of a symphony, the love of a woman. Which of these can be reduced to the Clarity of a scientific description? Yes, a sunset can be described in terms of the spectral analysis of the light, the causes of the coloration arising from light scattering by particles and molecules, and their arrangement and gradient in the sky. But when all the scientific details of such a description are done, has that explained, or even conveyed, its beauty? Hardly. In fact it has missed the point. Many-layered connections and implications are intrinsically part of the significance of these subjects. We appreciate and understand them, we know them, through sharing conceptually in the interwoven fabric of their often only evocative allusions.

    Source: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/hutchinson_white_paper.pdf

  59. compassioninpolitics / Jan 30 2014 4:42 pm

    Consciousness Studies:
    http://consc.net/responses.html#jcs

    Not sure how much of this is secular/agnostic, etc..

  60. compassioninpolitics / Jan 30 2014 5:30 pm

    If I were to guess….I don’t think this will be particularly helpful:
    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sackler/

  61. compassioninpolitics / Jan 30 2014 10:49 pm

    I need to find more about the mechanistic worldview along with the problems with Behaviorism:
    http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31678

  62. compassioninpolitics / Jan 30 2014 10:57 pm

    Interesting–not entirely helpful for my idea, however:
    http://www.salon.com/2012/02/25/the_scientific_argument_for_being_emotional/

  63. compassioninpolitics / Feb 1 2014 3:35 pm

    I should include this here:
    http://johnlennox.org/jresourcess/video-resources/

    The whole resources section should be helpful.

  64. compassioninpolitics / Feb 6 2014 8:39 pm

    Nagel’s thesis has, I think, similarly radical consequences for philosophy itself. His argument implies that consciousness—indeed, mental life, whether conscious or not—is not atomic but holistic: there is no such thing as a piece or an atom of experience, but, rather, a mind at a given moment is flooded with an incalculable number of perceptions, memories, ideas, judgments, and desires. Even enumerating them in the plural is a little silly, because it implies the ability to isolate them as singular events or things. Therefore, philosophy, in order to account for mental life, will need to turn aside from isolated experiments in logic and argumentation in favor of rough-edged, life-sized chunks—historical events and figures, works of art, artists themselves, cities, countries, languages, human dramas of all sorts, lived or imagined.

    Nagel is an atheist

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/07/thomas-nagel-thoughts-are-real.html

    There’s a bit more Christian oriented slant here:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/our_top_10_evol067901.html

  65. compassioninpolitics / Feb 10 2014 7:52 pm

    Not sure where this falls on the spectrum, but its about free will v. determinism:

  66. Nathan Ketsdever / Feb 21 2014 8:15 pm

    Perhaps interesting thoughts:
    http://telicthoughts.com/

  67. Nathan Ketsdever / Feb 21 2014 8:24 pm

    This looks pretty cool–its kind of an encyclopedic repository:
    http://www.inters.org/anthology-and-documents

  68. Nathan Ketsdever / Feb 21 2014 8:57 pm

    I believe this is a secular writer (actually I’m quite sure)–
    http://www.dukeupress.edu/The-Robert-Bellah-Reader/

  69. compassioninpolitics / Mar 13 2014 8:27 pm

    Critique of Carl Sagan:

  70. compassioninpolitics / Jul 21 2014 7:02 pm

    Science vs. Faith–from a faith-based perspective:
    http://www.iscast.org/science_faith_intro/Chapter_5.pdf

  71. compassion in politics / Jul 25 2014 8:28 pm

    Eliminative materialism:

    http://www.academia.edu/348585/A_Critical_Refutation_of_Eliminative_Materialism

    2.1 starts with critique. The earlier part provides an explanation of Churchlands theory a bit

  72. compassion in politics / Jul 25 2014 8:40 pm

    Perhaps interesting:
    http://anamnesisjournal.com/2013/10/science-and-scientism-in-eric-voegelins-thought/

    The journal itself may be helpful as well.

  73. compassion in politics / Jul 25 2014 8:40 pm

    This wikipedia entry on eliminative materialism also looks helpful:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Limits

  74. compassioninpolitics / Jul 26 2014 6:41 pm

    Fodor wrote a critique of the Churchlands (actually perhaps two)
    http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/cv.html

    I don’t think the text of either is available at this link, however.

  75. compassioninpolitics / Jul 30 2014 7:34 pm

    Here is some neuroscience stuff (its probably mostly very mechanistic, etc..)
    http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/resources/teaching-resources/

    Limits of Neuro-talk is quite good:
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-limits-of-neuro-talk

  76. compassioninpolitics / Jul 30 2014 9:50 pm

    I don’t think this speaks exactly to the issues, but is something I want to review:
    http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality

    Quantum mechanics/Copenhagen interpretation

  77. compassioninpolitics / Jul 30 2014 9:54 pm

    Not sure of what his ideology is, but Philosophy of the Mind:
    http://www.philostv.com/category/philmind/

    Also this on physicalism:
    http://www.philostv.com/philip-goff-and-david-papineau/

  78. compassioninpolitics / Aug 8 2014 10:17 pm

    Potentially interesting (not sure what this is reference to in terms of materialism, however):
    archive.org/details/historyofmateria00lang

  79. compassioninpolitics / Aug 10 2014 9:49 pm

    Raymond Tallis is very critical of neuro-law & materialist interpretations of neuroscience:
    “For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.”

  80. compassioninpolitics / Aug 14 2014 4:08 am

    Here is an interesting site…..I haven’t been through many of the articles yet:
    http://allaboutscience.org/

    Also all about philosophy….too.

  81. compassioninpolitics / Nov 29 2014 6:00 am

    http://philpapers.org/browse/philosophy-of-science-misc

    Epistemology

    Critiques of scientism

    Critiques of vertificationism

    Critiques of logical posititivism

    Critiques of skepticism

    Critiques of hume (both arguments)

    ——-
    Hopefully:

    critique of the churchlands & (reductive) materialism/physicalism

    critique of steven pinker (re: scientism)

    critique of krauss (ie something from nothing)

  82. compassioninpolitics / Jul 7 2015 5:40 pm
  83. compassioninpolitics / Oct 3 2015 12:29 am

    This is on the neuro-science/free will aspects of the materialism question:
    http://lawneuro.typepad.com/the-law-and-neuroscience-blog/2010/01/neurocriticisms-by-raymond-tallis.html

  84. compassioninpolitics / Oct 3 2015 12:40 am

    This video from 40 minutes to around 50 minutes (and beyond–up to about 60 minutes) has indicts/critiques of Libet (and determinism) more broadly:

  85. compassioninpolitics / Oct 18 2015 3:18 am

    Christian journalism:
    http://www.worldji.com/monographs

    Christian communication

  86. compassioninpolitics / Oct 18 2015 3:20 am
  87. compassioninpolitics / Nov 9 2015 6:16 pm

    Here is more a generic apologetics website. I haven’t checked it out yet much:
    http://alphausa.org/

    I think its more oriented toward the core story of Christianity

  88. compassioninpolitics / Nov 9 2015 6:26 pm

    This blog has a number of short articles which quote Ed Feser which may be helpful:
    http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/

    I’m sure there is other stuff too.

  89. compassioninpolitics / Nov 20 2015 2:16 am

    Systems theory–non reductionist. Parallel between faith and environmentalism:
    http://computingforsustainability.com/2009/03/15/visualising-sustainability/

  90. compassioninpolitics / May 22 2016 3:13 am

    Determinism:
    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/

    This mini-podcast makes the point itself.

    Google “Nancy Pearcy and determinism” or “Nancy Pearcy and free will”

Trackbacks

  1. The indict of scientism and scientific reductionist worldview–Can you be both a Christian and a Scientist? | Compassion in Politics: Christian Social Entrepreneurship, Education Innovation, & Base of the Pyramid/BOP Solutions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: