Theism, scientism, atheism …

This post is more in the nature of confirming to myself that at this particular time, when I am 57 years old, my ideas of theism, scientism, atheism were these.

This is one of the reasons I am not referring to the dictionary. The other reason is that a dictionary allows one to pick and choose from among the various meanings given therein for a word. That would allow me to be as dishonest as I wished. Alas, the Devil has me in a stranglehold and at least this once I want to be honest. And, I am not Googling while penning this post.

I want to be tied down to one meaning at this instant. If people read this post, engage me in a conversation, and if I change my idea of any or all of these –isms, then so be it. Those meanings will enter my personal dictionary till they are subsequently changed (I am an eternal optimist, that I will live long enough for that!).

Theism means a credo that accepts the validity of the concept of God. Along with the validity come the necessity and usefulness of the concept. Note that I have not said that theists, the adherents of theism, accept the existence of God. What I understand is one step removed from that definiteness. Because of this distance between the conceptual theist and God, I never discuss the existence of God with theists.

That is just as well, because I will start with a huge handicap in any such discussion. I had blogged elsewhere on a celebrated essay [1] by Antony Flew about how what starts out as a solid assertion, “God exists,” pretty much mutates into nothingness. God, as the initial assertion gets progressively diluted, suddenly becomes one with nature and how can one argue against it, even if one wished to? If God is nature, at least as per our definition of nature, God exists! This is precisely why I shy away from discussing existence of God. David Hume has more logically sound arguments about why the existence of nothing can be asserted.

Now, I want to take up scientism. My understanding is, scientism puts too high a value on empiricism, like what management courses teach, “If you cannot measure something, that something does not exist.” I reject this idea. Empiricism is valuable, no doubt. But, it is not the only thing that is valuable, and it may not even be the most valuable. That takes one into normative questions, and I would leave it at that.

The dogma associated with scientism does not leave space for speculation. And, as I believe it is only speculation (you need a speculation-based goal post for your empiricism to score a goal) that can get you to the next step while venturing into the unknown, scientism is first cousin of religion, both being born of dogmatism.

I am not saying we can assert that something that is not measurable exists. My position is a simple, “We do not know!” That is the level of my assertion. “I do not know!” is as much an assertion as, “I do know!” The problem with scientism is it constrains its own imagination, allows no leaps of faith. It freezes frames of human thought at times convenient to itself. I am not sure scientism by itself it could thaw those frames.

Scientism, in my dictionary, is a word that expresses scorn. It is not a positive philosophy that can light the path ahead. Check that. There is no path ahead. You are not allowed to speculate. So, where would you go?

So far, I have argued that both theism and scientism start off with assertions. Whereas the former descends into nothingness, the later stops at the starting point. What about atheism? It lights the way. It is never definitive about anything. No atheist worth his salt (and, if you are keen you can check out Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan) claims with certainty that God does not exist. The door to belief is left ajar for fresh breeze to enter. Atheism allows speculation, indeed speculates. In fact, atheism was born of continued speculation of theism, but straining against the leashes; a series of “what ifs” that led to, “What if God never existed?”

It is uncertainty that atheism celebrates.

As the last point in this disquisition, I would differentiate atheism from theism first, and later from scientism. You would not find a single theist even offering to forego his belief in the concept of God, no matter the proof. I never offered, even to myself, to turn to atheism. It just happened. May be the Devil made me do it. Or, perhaps it was God!

Atheists are always ready. It is only that their demand for proof of God – concept, necessity and usefulness, not to mention existence – will be daunting. Richard Dawkins has said so. And, I say so. Read the above in the context of the recent stir in physics – neutrinos travelling faster than light. Can this brouhaha be created ever within the folds of theism? I thought not.

Scientism also will never accept that human mind has faculties that are fertile in creating valid worldviews in realms other than empiricism. Atheists will have no problem with that. They, without denying that theism may have brought some good, would rather argue that whatever good that theism/religion has brought into the world but with negatives, could have been done better (less negatives, at worst) without the concept of God.

That is why I repeatedly assert, and my assertion has not been diluted so far and has had a terrific run. 


My brand of atheism: The concept of God is sterile; useless to me.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References
1. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

Disclaimer: The two sentences given in bold face are in response to the comments I have received; the sentences were otherwise unmodified from the original