What do you think?
Rate this book
Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology
Rigid adherence to scientism―as opposed to a healthy respect for science―is all too prevalent in our world today. Rather than leading to a deeper understanding of our universe, this worldview actually undermines real science and marginalizes morality and religion. In this book, celebrated philosopher J. P. Moreland exposes the selfdefeating nature of scientism and equips us to recognize scientism’s harmful presence in different aspects of culture, emboldening our witness to biblical Christianity and arming us with strategies for the integration of faith and science―the only feasible path to genuine knowledge.
224 pages, Paperback
Published September 30, 2018
87 people are currently reading
727 people want to read
About the author
J.P. Moreland
91 books256 followersJ.P. Moreland is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has four earned degrees: a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Missouri, a Th.M. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, an M. A. in philosophy from the University of California-Riverside, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California.
He has co-planted three churches, spoken and debated on over 175 college campuses around the country, and served with Campus Crusade for Christ for 10 years. For eight years, he served as a bioethicist for PersonaCare Nursing Homes, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
His ideas have been covered by both popular religious and non-religious outlets, including the New Scientist and PBS’s “Closer to Truth,” Christianity Today and WORLD magazine. He has authored or co-authored 30 books, and published over 70 articles in journals, which include Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, American Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Philosophia Christi, and Faith and Philosophy.
He has co-planted three churches, spoken and debated on over 175 college campuses around the country, and served with Campus Crusade for Christ for 10 years. For eight years, he served as a bioethicist for PersonaCare Nursing Homes, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
His ideas have been covered by both popular religious and non-religious outlets, including the New Scientist and PBS’s “Closer to Truth,” Christianity Today and WORLD magazine. He has authored or co-authored 30 books, and published over 70 articles in journals, which include Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, American Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Philosophia Christi, and Faith and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
September 17, 2018
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the intellectual tectonic plates shifted with a force that continues to reverberate to this day. One of the tragic consequences (among many) that the book helped spawn was the philosophical notion of scientism. While this trendy worldview looks and sounds scientific, it is anything but. On the contrary, scientism aggressively advances the idea “that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality.” Stated another way, the other disciplines (theology and philosophy, for example) which have long sought to provide epistemological answers are no longer valid and offer no new insight when it comes to truth claims.
Scientism and Secularism, by J.P. Moreland explores the themes of scientism in particular and helps readers uncover the diabolic implications of this school of thought. Dr. Moreland offers a comprehensive explanation of scientism and provides several examples of how it is influencing students in a postmodern age. He pulls the curtain back on scientism and helps the unsuspecting see that it is, in the final analysis, the enemy of science and as a result, is at odds with the historic Christian faith.
Moreland is typically fair and even-handed in his treatment of scientism. but ultimately argues that scientism has nothing in the way of explanatory power and should be rejected.
Science and Secularism is a readable and winsome book. It should be carefully read by university students, Christian and non-Christian alike. Christians will be better equipped to respond to typical arguments posited by scientism and non-Christians will be challenged to reconsider their presuppositions.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review.
Scientism and Secularism, by J.P. Moreland explores the themes of scientism in particular and helps readers uncover the diabolic implications of this school of thought. Dr. Moreland offers a comprehensive explanation of scientism and provides several examples of how it is influencing students in a postmodern age. He pulls the curtain back on scientism and helps the unsuspecting see that it is, in the final analysis, the enemy of science and as a result, is at odds with the historic Christian faith.
Moreland is typically fair and even-handed in his treatment of scientism. but ultimately argues that scientism has nothing in the way of explanatory power and should be rejected.
Science and Secularism is a readable and winsome book. It should be carefully read by university students, Christian and non-Christian alike. Christians will be better equipped to respond to typical arguments posited by scientism and non-Christians will be challenged to reconsider their presuppositions.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review.
December 4, 2018
Scientism is the Dominate Religion of our Public Schools and Universities.
Having finished the book, I have added it to my short list of "Core Knowledge" books. Here are the others: Logic and Metaphysics by Aristotle, Mere Christianity by Lewis, He is There and He is Not Silent by Schaeffer, True Spirituality by Schaeffer, Loving God by Colson, Reasonable Faith by Craig, and Signature in the Cell by Meyer. I hope you see the level to which this book rises.
An important chapter is "Scientism Is the Enemy of Science". He says, "The Conclusions of Science Can Only Be as Strong as Its Presuppositions". Moreland lists six presuppositions of science that science itself cannot justify. Here are two of them: (2) The nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception, (6) The laws of logic and mathematics exist. Science would not exist without them, yet, science itself cannot justify them. These presuppositions require Philosophy, which Scientism rejects. Therefore Scientism ends up being the enemy of science itself.
In the last chapter, Moreland introduces the last of five means for integrating science with Philosophy and Christian Theology, "The Direct Interaction Model". He uses the Intelligent Design Theory against the Theory of Macro evolution to illustrate what this means. It was very enlightening. He said, "when four criteria are met, one is rationally justified in embracing intelligent design theories of the origin and development of life...". He gives these and shows how Intelligent Design is the best explanation of the scientific facts because it satisfies all of them.
I highly recommend you read this book and, like me, add it to your Core-Knowledge Library.
Having finished the book, I have added it to my short list of "Core Knowledge" books. Here are the others: Logic and Metaphysics by Aristotle, Mere Christianity by Lewis, He is There and He is Not Silent by Schaeffer, True Spirituality by Schaeffer, Loving God by Colson, Reasonable Faith by Craig, and Signature in the Cell by Meyer. I hope you see the level to which this book rises.
An important chapter is "Scientism Is the Enemy of Science". He says, "The Conclusions of Science Can Only Be as Strong as Its Presuppositions". Moreland lists six presuppositions of science that science itself cannot justify. Here are two of them: (2) The nature of the world is orderly, especially its "deep structure" that lies under and beyond the manifest world of ordinary perception, (6) The laws of logic and mathematics exist. Science would not exist without them, yet, science itself cannot justify them. These presuppositions require Philosophy, which Scientism rejects. Therefore Scientism ends up being the enemy of science itself.
In the last chapter, Moreland introduces the last of five means for integrating science with Philosophy and Christian Theology, "The Direct Interaction Model". He uses the Intelligent Design Theory against the Theory of Macro evolution to illustrate what this means. It was very enlightening. He said, "when four criteria are met, one is rationally justified in embracing intelligent design theories of the origin and development of life...". He gives these and shows how Intelligent Design is the best explanation of the scientific facts because it satisfies all of them.
I highly recommend you read this book and, like me, add it to your Core-Knowledge Library.
January 27, 2019
J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has written an extremely important book that all thinking Christians would benefit from. The title makes the point: the book is a response to the dangerous ideology of scientism. Moreland defines scientism as the view that true knowledge of reality is provided only by the natural sciences. The negative implication of scientism is that any beliefs we may think we have about reality that are not demonstrable by empirical science are technically meaningless, mere expressions of our subjective feelings.
Moreland points out that scientism exists in both a strong and a weak version. The strong version claims scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge we have; the weak version claims scientific knowledge is more valuable or more authoritative than non-scientific knowledge. Weak scientism seems to grant that in theory there can be non-scientifically derived knowledge, that we can know some things about reality through other means than science. In practice, however, weak scientism ends up at pretty much the same place as strong scientism, since non-scientific knowledge is still viewed has having “negligible intellectual value” (p. 30). It is important to recognize these two versions of scientism because the weak version is the one that has such had such a great cultural impact. It is almost the air we breathe at least here in U.S. and the West in general.
Why is it so important to identify and unmask scientism? Moreland answers, “The ubiquity and cultural authority of scientism can be discouraging and corrosive to faithful Christians who are seeking to follow Christ, as it immerses them in a pervasive secularism” (p. 43). He shows how scientism puts Christian claims about God and morality, which are not empirically or scientifically demonstratable, outside of the realm of knowledge. Our claims are viewed by a scientistic culture as “de-cognitivized,” that is, “not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration” (p. 31). This makes it harder to present the gospel to the culture, and it also leads many Christians into unnecessary doubts about their faith. This can also be seen in the difficulty many Christian parents have in raising children in this culture, especially as they get into their teen years and young adulthood and are confronted by the hostility of the secular world to their Christian faith.
Moreland’s critique of scientism is compelling. He shows, first of all, that it is self-refuting. The claim that the only valid knowledge of reality is derived from science is a philosophical claim that is not itself proved or even provable by science. Logical positivism lost all credibility almost as soon as it was articulated back in the 20th century for precisely this reason—it is self-refuting and therefore incoherent.
Furthermore, there are whole swaths of human intellectual endeavor where everyone acknowledges we can have justified true beliefs about reality totally apart from empirical science, where, in fact, empirical science is in principle incapable of providing proof. For example, mathematical propositions such as 2 + 2 = 4 are true and part of our valid knowledge of reality, and yet they are in principle not subject to scientific or empirical verification. The laws of logic; the existence of the extra-mental world; my (your) own existence; consciousness; perception of color, sensation, pain, etc.; beliefs about morality (e.g., that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, or that we ought to avoid racist bigotry, p. 155) – these are all things that we know about reality and yet have no scientific basis for. Science presupposes many of them but cannot prove a single one them. Most philosophers of science know these things but many practicing scientists and the general public are blissfully unaware and so continue to assume at least weak scientism.
I really enjoyed Chapter 12, “Five Things Science Cannot in Principle Explain (But Theism Can).” The five things are:
1. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe (this section includes a cosmological argument for the existence of God).
2. Science cannot explain the origin of the fundamental laws of nature (e.g., Newton’s first law of motion).
3. Science cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
4. Science cannot explain the origin of consciousness.
5. Science cannot explain the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties.
The book is not without its flaws. I was frustrated when Moreland deployed philosophical jargon without explanation. For example, in the chapter on how scientism changed the universities, he abruptly throws out the terms “cognitivist” and “noncognitivist or positivist” (p. 46) without definition or context, and only one of these terms appears in the glossary (from which one would have to try to infer the meaning of the other two terms). The chapter defending “first philosophy” (Ch. 9) is also pretty advanced. Unlike other chapters, this one gets into the weeds of engaging the views of various philosophers, and here we are introduced to philosophers like George Bealer, Patricia Churchland, David Papineau, Rom Harré, and Daniel Stoljar. Look, if you want to write a book against scientism for philosophers or an article in a philosophy journal, that level of scholarship would be appropriate, but in a Crossway book for lay Christians? It’s just not helpful and makes the reader feel lost.
Another flaw is that there were certain sections where he attempted to make a technical philosophical argument. I am a highly educated person (I have a Ph.D. in New Testament), but I struggled with these sections, had to re-read them multiple times, and still wasn’t sure I grasped them. This is surprising, because Moreland is clearly trying to reach a lay Christian audience that isn’t trained in philosophy. He is trying to teach us non-philosophers some basic philosophy so that we will be equipped to respond to the scientism that dominates our culture and the secular universities. I would like to be able to give this book to young adult Christians who are about to go off to secular university, but some chapters in this book would be way over the head of even the sharpest college-bound student.
My final criticism is that the title is misleading since he really tackles scientism and only mentions secularism in passing. While he is careful to define scientism, there is no definition of secularism.
Moreland points out that scientism exists in both a strong and a weak version. The strong version claims scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge we have; the weak version claims scientific knowledge is more valuable or more authoritative than non-scientific knowledge. Weak scientism seems to grant that in theory there can be non-scientifically derived knowledge, that we can know some things about reality through other means than science. In practice, however, weak scientism ends up at pretty much the same place as strong scientism, since non-scientific knowledge is still viewed has having “negligible intellectual value” (p. 30). It is important to recognize these two versions of scientism because the weak version is the one that has such had such a great cultural impact. It is almost the air we breathe at least here in U.S. and the West in general.
Why is it so important to identify and unmask scientism? Moreland answers, “The ubiquity and cultural authority of scientism can be discouraging and corrosive to faithful Christians who are seeking to follow Christ, as it immerses them in a pervasive secularism” (p. 43). He shows how scientism puts Christian claims about God and morality, which are not empirically or scientifically demonstratable, outside of the realm of knowledge. Our claims are viewed by a scientistic culture as “de-cognitivized,” that is, “not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration” (p. 31). This makes it harder to present the gospel to the culture, and it also leads many Christians into unnecessary doubts about their faith. This can also be seen in the difficulty many Christian parents have in raising children in this culture, especially as they get into their teen years and young adulthood and are confronted by the hostility of the secular world to their Christian faith.
Moreland’s critique of scientism is compelling. He shows, first of all, that it is self-refuting. The claim that the only valid knowledge of reality is derived from science is a philosophical claim that is not itself proved or even provable by science. Logical positivism lost all credibility almost as soon as it was articulated back in the 20th century for precisely this reason—it is self-refuting and therefore incoherent.
Furthermore, there are whole swaths of human intellectual endeavor where everyone acknowledges we can have justified true beliefs about reality totally apart from empirical science, where, in fact, empirical science is in principle incapable of providing proof. For example, mathematical propositions such as 2 + 2 = 4 are true and part of our valid knowledge of reality, and yet they are in principle not subject to scientific or empirical verification. The laws of logic; the existence of the extra-mental world; my (your) own existence; consciousness; perception of color, sensation, pain, etc.; beliefs about morality (e.g., that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, or that we ought to avoid racist bigotry, p. 155) – these are all things that we know about reality and yet have no scientific basis for. Science presupposes many of them but cannot prove a single one them. Most philosophers of science know these things but many practicing scientists and the general public are blissfully unaware and so continue to assume at least weak scientism.
I really enjoyed Chapter 12, “Five Things Science Cannot in Principle Explain (But Theism Can).” The five things are:
1. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe (this section includes a cosmological argument for the existence of God).
2. Science cannot explain the origin of the fundamental laws of nature (e.g., Newton’s first law of motion).
3. Science cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
4. Science cannot explain the origin of consciousness.
5. Science cannot explain the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties.
The book is not without its flaws. I was frustrated when Moreland deployed philosophical jargon without explanation. For example, in the chapter on how scientism changed the universities, he abruptly throws out the terms “cognitivist” and “noncognitivist or positivist” (p. 46) without definition or context, and only one of these terms appears in the glossary (from which one would have to try to infer the meaning of the other two terms). The chapter defending “first philosophy” (Ch. 9) is also pretty advanced. Unlike other chapters, this one gets into the weeds of engaging the views of various philosophers, and here we are introduced to philosophers like George Bealer, Patricia Churchland, David Papineau, Rom Harré, and Daniel Stoljar. Look, if you want to write a book against scientism for philosophers or an article in a philosophy journal, that level of scholarship would be appropriate, but in a Crossway book for lay Christians? It’s just not helpful and makes the reader feel lost.
Another flaw is that there were certain sections where he attempted to make a technical philosophical argument. I am a highly educated person (I have a Ph.D. in New Testament), but I struggled with these sections, had to re-read them multiple times, and still wasn’t sure I grasped them. This is surprising, because Moreland is clearly trying to reach a lay Christian audience that isn’t trained in philosophy. He is trying to teach us non-philosophers some basic philosophy so that we will be equipped to respond to the scientism that dominates our culture and the secular universities. I would like to be able to give this book to young adult Christians who are about to go off to secular university, but some chapters in this book would be way over the head of even the sharpest college-bound student.
My final criticism is that the title is misleading since he really tackles scientism and only mentions secularism in passing. While he is careful to define scientism, there is no definition of secularism.
January 4, 2020
This short work does a relatively good job of covering the limited view and shortcomings of science along with various questions that science can't answer—such as the origins of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, and human uniqueness. It also does a commendable job of explaining which questions belong in the realm of science and which belong in the realm of philosophy. The author also touches upon what often occurs when scientists, often unknowingly, leave the realm of empirical science and assert philosophical opinions: you get laughably weak philosophical opinions...and Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking come to mind in that regard. However, even the author J.P. Moreland himself, while slamming scientists and materialist atheists who make unsubstantiated assertions, makes plenty of unproved (and perhaps unprovable) assertions himself—seemingly in the hope that his triumphalist and confident tone will get uncritical evangelical readers, after listening to his long list of academic credentials, to simply accept them. Yes, the author is an evangelical Christian and the book is obviously written with that audience in mind, thus in places it gets a bit preachy. However, the parts of the book that are solid in their argumentation will pretty much work for any theist—whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim—or anyone trying to come to terms with the "Science versus Religion" debate.
January 13, 2019
I enjoyed reading this book very much. In a world that fetishizes science and champions it unconditionally, it's good reading a book that humbles science by enumerating the numerous shortcomings of science and the intrinsic incoherency of scientism as a worldview. I didn't find too much on Secularism and will have to refer to other books for that. However, the exposition on the danger of scientism (both morally and intellectually) were pleasant to read. Moreland also speaks on Intelligent Design (ID) and makes a case for it being scientific (something I personally disagree with). Nonetheless, he did provide a perspective of ID's being a science that I haven't encountered before.
The only section of this book I found confusing was his explanations on human consciousness. However, I would attribute my confusion to my own lack of acquaintance with that topic.
I especially enjoyed the except on scientism impacting our "plausibility structure."Plausibility structures are frameworks of beliefs, influenced by our culture and upbringing, that dictate to us what beliefs are plausible enough for consideration. One of the consequences of scientism is man becoming distrustful of God and theistic accounts of reality - such accounts are treated to be supernatural and wishful thinking.
All in all, it was a good book and I enjoyed reading it.
The only section of this book I found confusing was his explanations on human consciousness. However, I would attribute my confusion to my own lack of acquaintance with that topic.
I especially enjoyed the except on scientism impacting our "plausibility structure."Plausibility structures are frameworks of beliefs, influenced by our culture and upbringing, that dictate to us what beliefs are plausible enough for consideration. One of the consequences of scientism is man becoming distrustful of God and theistic accounts of reality - such accounts are treated to be supernatural and wishful thinking.
All in all, it was a good book and I enjoyed reading it.
December 11, 2018
This book is written primarily with Christian leaders, pastors, professors and parents in mind. The goal is to explain what Scientism is, how it is a major contributor to the secularization of society, but, how it is not true science, nor, in fact, scientific. Scientism is a philosophical position that is self-refuting yet which is anchored in our modern minds. J. P. Moreland easily demystifies, demantles, and refutes Scientism; shows the reader how to do the same; and provides hints on how to approach science (true science) as a Christian thinker. Definitely a book that is worth reading and passing on.
December 3, 2018
3.5 stars*
Originally I received an e-book copy of this book from the publisher in hopes of an honest review, however I found myself highlighting so much of it that I decided to go out and buy a physical copy. The first several chapters of the book I was highly engaged in and wanted to fist-pump the air and shout "yeah! You tell em!" but then unfortunately the author went quite over my head for a while. Not that it was bad in content, but it kind of made my head spin. I tried my best to keep up though.
Unfortunately scientism has infiltrated multiple places in the world including the school system. One of the quotes that really got under my skin was shared on page 28:
"At times some students may insist that certain conclusions of science cannot be true because of certain religious or philosophical beliefs they hold... It is appropriate for the teacher to express in this regard, 'I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in their field, and it is my responsibility to teach it because it is part of our common intellectual heritage.'"
The quote was taken from a piece called Invitation to Conflict: A retrospective Look at the California Sciences Framework. Can I just be honest that reading that statement absolutely infuriates me?! I recall several of my teachers parroting similar statements like that in the past, and even as a teenager those statements rubbed me the wrong way. I'm not sure of their full reasoning, but my parents were big advocates of just telling the teachers what they wanted to hear to get the good grades. I know they didn't know the real answers, but they also thought good grades were more important. I felt too convicted to spit it all back the way they wanted it to be worded though. At least the good thing that came out of it was that it awakened an interest in studying creation and disproving evolution. I would word answers like "some scientists believe..." or "evolutionists believe..." but I couldn't bring myself to state the answers they wanted as facts. It saddens me to see that these arguments have been made even fiercer for the next generation. If kids aren't taught the truth and how to defend it, we are crippling them already in a world that is all to quick to suck them into the lies.
My biggest argument against this book is that the author appears to be an old-earth creationist which I cannot get behind. Once he started to explain some of his scientific arguments, I started to lose some of my enthusiasm for the book. I fully supported his frustrations towards scientism's reach in the world, but he lost some of my respect as well when he tried to defend Christianity from an old-earth perspective. In my opinion that's part of the argument! I much more strongly stand in support of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis when it comes to creation theories.
I recommend this book to people who love the science vs religion debate and have a functional knowledge of more complex scientific terms. It can be read by those with a beginning interest in the topic however they may need the internet nearby to lookup some of the terms and theories. I would have preferred reading this from a young-earth creationist's perspective, however the dangers of scientism were very clear and obvious regardless of your other perspective.
*While I received a free e-book copy of this book, I also went out and purchased a physical copy after just a few chapters in. Thoughts and opinions expressed are mine alone.
Originally I received an e-book copy of this book from the publisher in hopes of an honest review, however I found myself highlighting so much of it that I decided to go out and buy a physical copy. The first several chapters of the book I was highly engaged in and wanted to fist-pump the air and shout "yeah! You tell em!" but then unfortunately the author went quite over my head for a while. Not that it was bad in content, but it kind of made my head spin. I tried my best to keep up though.
Unfortunately scientism has infiltrated multiple places in the world including the school system. One of the quotes that really got under my skin was shared on page 28:
"At times some students may insist that certain conclusions of science cannot be true because of certain religious or philosophical beliefs they hold... It is appropriate for the teacher to express in this regard, 'I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in their field, and it is my responsibility to teach it because it is part of our common intellectual heritage.'"
The quote was taken from a piece called Invitation to Conflict: A retrospective Look at the California Sciences Framework. Can I just be honest that reading that statement absolutely infuriates me?! I recall several of my teachers parroting similar statements like that in the past, and even as a teenager those statements rubbed me the wrong way. I'm not sure of their full reasoning, but my parents were big advocates of just telling the teachers what they wanted to hear to get the good grades. I know they didn't know the real answers, but they also thought good grades were more important. I felt too convicted to spit it all back the way they wanted it to be worded though. At least the good thing that came out of it was that it awakened an interest in studying creation and disproving evolution. I would word answers like "some scientists believe..." or "evolutionists believe..." but I couldn't bring myself to state the answers they wanted as facts. It saddens me to see that these arguments have been made even fiercer for the next generation. If kids aren't taught the truth and how to defend it, we are crippling them already in a world that is all to quick to suck them into the lies.
My biggest argument against this book is that the author appears to be an old-earth creationist which I cannot get behind. Once he started to explain some of his scientific arguments, I started to lose some of my enthusiasm for the book. I fully supported his frustrations towards scientism's reach in the world, but he lost some of my respect as well when he tried to defend Christianity from an old-earth perspective. In my opinion that's part of the argument! I much more strongly stand in support of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis when it comes to creation theories.
I recommend this book to people who love the science vs religion debate and have a functional knowledge of more complex scientific terms. It can be read by those with a beginning interest in the topic however they may need the internet nearby to lookup some of the terms and theories. I would have preferred reading this from a young-earth creationist's perspective, however the dangers of scientism were very clear and obvious regardless of your other perspective.
*While I received a free e-book copy of this book, I also went out and purchased a physical copy after just a few chapters in. Thoughts and opinions expressed are mine alone.
June 15, 2020
Philosophical explanation of why science is not the only source of knowledge.
September 24, 2021
My rating is based solely on my own ignorance. The author is evidently very well versed in philosophy and science and it shows in his writing. However, I found this book to be mostly unreadable to someone who is a novice in these fields. There were times when I felt like I was reading a philosophy textbook and plain language would’ve done just fine. I would give two stars if it was left up to my gut reaction; four stars if you’re well-versed in these fields already; so I’ll settle in the middle for 3 stars.
October 3, 2025
Extremely sophomoric discussion about science and its relation to evangelical Christianity. I was going to do a highly detailed review deconstructing its main points, but the reality is that it’s just a highly unserious propaganda piece meant to make evangelicals think they have the upper hand in science.
I’ll just give two quick examples to show how laughable this book is. On page 49, Moreland recounts meeting a professor from Johns Hopkins, who nicely sets himself up as an example of Moreland’s “scientism” punching bag. This guy says, “I used to be interested in those things (theology and philosophy) when I was a teenager. But I have outgrown those interests. I know now that the only sort of knowledge of reality is that which can be and has been quantified and tested in the laboratory. If you can measure it and test it scientifically, you can know it. If not, the topic is nothing but private opinion and idle speculation!”
Moreland responded to this professor by pointing out that the professor said a bunch of things (none of which are recounted) that could not be proven scientifically and which, by the professor’s own standard, should be discounted. The professor turned red and Moreland was the hero of the story. I don’t know about anyone else, but this story feels very “and then everyone clapped” to me. I don’t know of any serious, professional scientist who doesn’t understand that science is underpinned by philosophy. I also don’t know of any secularist who doesn’t understand that anything outside of that which can be demonstrated to be true is, in fact, opinion, including any of their own.
The other example is from pages 66-67, in which Moreland says that if evolutionary naturalism is true, then creatures to not need accurate beliefs to survive, only ones that are sufficient to keep them alive. But this is obviously true? There are a billion competing beliefs among humans, and we’re all surviving to some extent or another.
Overall, just a very dumb book, and I left not even sure if he could properly define scientism. The only thing I will say is that he did show that strong scientism, as he defined it, is very clearly ridiculous. I just don’t know that he demonstrated that it is a real thing that anyone in real life actually believes, or if it is a boogeyman that he made up to win points with his intended audience, who drools at anything a Christian who sounds vaguely smart says.
I’ll just give two quick examples to show how laughable this book is. On page 49, Moreland recounts meeting a professor from Johns Hopkins, who nicely sets himself up as an example of Moreland’s “scientism” punching bag. This guy says, “I used to be interested in those things (theology and philosophy) when I was a teenager. But I have outgrown those interests. I know now that the only sort of knowledge of reality is that which can be and has been quantified and tested in the laboratory. If you can measure it and test it scientifically, you can know it. If not, the topic is nothing but private opinion and idle speculation!”
Moreland responded to this professor by pointing out that the professor said a bunch of things (none of which are recounted) that could not be proven scientifically and which, by the professor’s own standard, should be discounted. The professor turned red and Moreland was the hero of the story. I don’t know about anyone else, but this story feels very “and then everyone clapped” to me. I don’t know of any serious, professional scientist who doesn’t understand that science is underpinned by philosophy. I also don’t know of any secularist who doesn’t understand that anything outside of that which can be demonstrated to be true is, in fact, opinion, including any of their own.
The other example is from pages 66-67, in which Moreland says that if evolutionary naturalism is true, then creatures to not need accurate beliefs to survive, only ones that are sufficient to keep them alive. But this is obviously true? There are a billion competing beliefs among humans, and we’re all surviving to some extent or another.
Overall, just a very dumb book, and I left not even sure if he could properly define scientism. The only thing I will say is that he did show that strong scientism, as he defined it, is very clearly ridiculous. I just don’t know that he demonstrated that it is a real thing that anyone in real life actually believes, or if it is a boogeyman that he made up to win points with his intended audience, who drools at anything a Christian who sounds vaguely smart says.
September 17, 2018
The modern era, with all its conveniences and luxuries, is an increasingly strange period. Many authors have traced the current climate (my favorite must be Francis Schaeffer’s, “How Should We Then Live“), but suffice it to say that we can find ourselves in the predicament (depending on whom you ask, it’s less a problem and more of a good thing) of modernity thanks, in large part, to the Enlightenment ideals. The term “modernism” refers to the Enlightenment man: one who see’s the universe and all its properties as a giant clock that has been wound up; where all things can be reduced not to an intelligent designer, but to their naturalistic conclusions. And thus the modern man was born.
With the rise of evolution in the 20th and 21st century, this issue has become even more convoluted. It wasn’t that science changed, but rather the philosophical undergirding of science changed. Instead of being purely objective in scope, there was an agenda: to prove that God did not exist; that people no longer needed a deity because they had science, which ultimately could answer all the questions you could have. Indeed, in some instances, science became the primary modus operandi to which truth was determined. There are some who believe that science holds the keys to how to obtain that whimsical and fleeting concept of “truth,” particularly in our post-modern time.
That’s why it is not only refreshing to have a resource to combat this system of thinking, but we must be even more grateful that J.P. Moreland, philosopher and scientist at Talbot Seminary, wrote this volume, “Scientism and Secularism.” I have come into contact in the circles I have been in with this shattered thinking. In reading this book, I had a conversation with a co-worker of mine who proclaimed that you can only know something is true when you are able to test it. He used this as a means to say that in this way, it is difficult to assume God is true. I was able to venture the waters as well as I could given the circumstances, but it made me relish the opportunity I have been given in drinking deeply of the concepts of this book that I might be able to respond in kind to those who have similar objections to Christianity.
To begin, Dr. Moreland defines “scientism” as: “the view that the hard sciences provide the only or at least a vastly superior knowledge of reality compared to other disciplines.” In other words, because science is testable, quantifiable, and measurable, it is tangible; because it is tangible and academic in scope, it provides a more logical and reasonable way to truth than the contrary. In this book, Dr. Moreland begins to dismantle this thought process. In chapters 1, 2, and 3, Dr. Moreland lays out the landscape: what Scientism is, why it matters, and how it changed the universe. In chapter 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Dr. Moreland approaches the subject by bringing down arguments from both a logical perspective and by the reason that scientism is actually the enemy of science (chapter5). For example, in chapter 4, Dr. Moreland demonstrates how scientism is self-refuting (the only truth is in what is testable, a contingent truth that can’t be tested). Chapter 8 provides the reader with a case study of how science reaches beyond its stated goals. Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 examine scientism from a philosophical perspective. Why do the arguments of scientism fail when put under the microscope of philosophy? Lastly, chapters 13, 14, 15, and a final plea in chapter 16 all fall under the auspice of how the Church can respond correctly to the blight of scientism.
Overall, I learned most from the beginning chapters 4-7. These were my favorite of the book because they gave me tools that I could use (and have already started using) to combat this errant thinking. For those who, like me, interact with a populace that condemns religion as superstition and yet worships at the altar of science, even reading these first few chapters will make this entire book well worth the money, energy, and time. The arguments that Dr. Moreland present are so convincing that they gave me much comfort even though I do not agree with scientism in the first place.
But a word of caution: the last few chapters, particularly 9-13, are very technical. I believe I will have to re-read these sections to grasp the nuance of the argument (particularly of “first philosophy” and its implications about scientism, chapter 9).
To Christians, skeptics, or scientists, this should be a book that you purchase, read, and think deeply upon. It will challenge you in ways that you cannot imagine; further, it will equip you with the necessary tools to combat harmful, and wrong, ideologies in your schools and work places.
I was given this book for free by Crossway Books in order to provide an honest review.
With the rise of evolution in the 20th and 21st century, this issue has become even more convoluted. It wasn’t that science changed, but rather the philosophical undergirding of science changed. Instead of being purely objective in scope, there was an agenda: to prove that God did not exist; that people no longer needed a deity because they had science, which ultimately could answer all the questions you could have. Indeed, in some instances, science became the primary modus operandi to which truth was determined. There are some who believe that science holds the keys to how to obtain that whimsical and fleeting concept of “truth,” particularly in our post-modern time.
That’s why it is not only refreshing to have a resource to combat this system of thinking, but we must be even more grateful that J.P. Moreland, philosopher and scientist at Talbot Seminary, wrote this volume, “Scientism and Secularism.” I have come into contact in the circles I have been in with this shattered thinking. In reading this book, I had a conversation with a co-worker of mine who proclaimed that you can only know something is true when you are able to test it. He used this as a means to say that in this way, it is difficult to assume God is true. I was able to venture the waters as well as I could given the circumstances, but it made me relish the opportunity I have been given in drinking deeply of the concepts of this book that I might be able to respond in kind to those who have similar objections to Christianity.
To begin, Dr. Moreland defines “scientism” as: “the view that the hard sciences provide the only or at least a vastly superior knowledge of reality compared to other disciplines.” In other words, because science is testable, quantifiable, and measurable, it is tangible; because it is tangible and academic in scope, it provides a more logical and reasonable way to truth than the contrary. In this book, Dr. Moreland begins to dismantle this thought process. In chapters 1, 2, and 3, Dr. Moreland lays out the landscape: what Scientism is, why it matters, and how it changed the universe. In chapter 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Dr. Moreland approaches the subject by bringing down arguments from both a logical perspective and by the reason that scientism is actually the enemy of science (chapter5). For example, in chapter 4, Dr. Moreland demonstrates how scientism is self-refuting (the only truth is in what is testable, a contingent truth that can’t be tested). Chapter 8 provides the reader with a case study of how science reaches beyond its stated goals. Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 examine scientism from a philosophical perspective. Why do the arguments of scientism fail when put under the microscope of philosophy? Lastly, chapters 13, 14, 15, and a final plea in chapter 16 all fall under the auspice of how the Church can respond correctly to the blight of scientism.
Overall, I learned most from the beginning chapters 4-7. These were my favorite of the book because they gave me tools that I could use (and have already started using) to combat this errant thinking. For those who, like me, interact with a populace that condemns religion as superstition and yet worships at the altar of science, even reading these first few chapters will make this entire book well worth the money, energy, and time. The arguments that Dr. Moreland present are so convincing that they gave me much comfort even though I do not agree with scientism in the first place.
But a word of caution: the last few chapters, particularly 9-13, are very technical. I believe I will have to re-read these sections to grasp the nuance of the argument (particularly of “first philosophy” and its implications about scientism, chapter 9).
To Christians, skeptics, or scientists, this should be a book that you purchase, read, and think deeply upon. It will challenge you in ways that you cannot imagine; further, it will equip you with the necessary tools to combat harmful, and wrong, ideologies in your schools and work places.
I was given this book for free by Crossway Books in order to provide an honest review.
December 23, 2020
This was an excellent book that I highly recommend. The author, who (based on his talks) likes to use too much professional Philosopher lingo managed to mostly avoid this tendency in this book. As a result, it was very readable. The book isn’t perfect as there were a few chapters that seemed less relevant than the others. Also, the author spent some effort in arguing strongly that theistic evolution is not a reasonable view for both theological and philosophical reasons. While I am not an advocate of theistic evolution, I also don’t see it being as dangerous as the author does. Thus, I would be very interested in reading an intelligent review of the book by a Christian who supports theistic evolution.
April 26, 2021
J.P. gives an amazing layout of various arguments that have to do with scientism, and how a lot of time scientists reject philosophy because it actually makes it more difficult for scientists to be able to dismantle Christianity. I really enjoyed especially chapter 10 and 11 where Moreland broke down Stephen Hawkins view of God not existing. Very fascinating read, with a lot of great detail highly recommend as an excellent tool to broaden your mind on the way the world thinks of Christianity and how you can answer really tough questions.
Read
April 10, 2022There are some arguments in here that I wouldn't make, and Jay's Analysis viewers will be familiar with the reasons why. I don't think it's a bad book, though.
November 7, 2018
Has not science disproved god? shown that it is not necessary for Him to exist? If you have grown up in the Western world, you have probably heard claims like this. You may also have heard stronger ones, that truth is impossible to grasp, that philosophy is a useless endeavour, or—ultimately—that we can only know what we can empirically verify. That is, we can only have knowledge of those things that are testable through science or open to our immediate experience. Though you may never have heard it expressed in this way, this belief—known as scientism—is in the very air we breathe. Yet, for all its influence and the numbers of adherent stacked behind it, scientism in its various forms is profoundly unreasonable. At least that is the argument that J. P. Moreland sets out to make in his book Scientism and Secularism, which I was pleased to receive as part of the Crossway blog review program.
Not only is Scientism unreasonable but Moreland argues that it is destructive to science, the very thing for which it seeks primacy. Scientism and Secularism is a book for which J. P. Moreland is particularly fitted to write; not only is he a gifted and influential Christian philosopher, he also has a background in the physical sciences and has maintained interest in that field.
With Scientism and Secularism, Moreland has given the church a gift. He has provided us with a tool to better understand our peers, our education system, and the books we read; to interact with these intelligently; and, ultimately, to have confidence that there are answers to the scientistic objections to Christianity. (The review below can also be found at https://teleioteti.ca/?p=3144.)
The Argument of Scientism and Secularism
The argument of Scientism and Secularism extends over 15 chapters, besides an introduction and conclusion. The first three chapters explain what Moreland means by “scientism” and considers its influence. He helpfully differentiates between a strong scientism, which claims that there is no knowledge outside of the hard sciences, and weak scientism, which claims that all other forms of knowing have less authority (27). Defined in these ways, he shows that our society is steeped in the presuppositions of scientism. Specifically, scientism has shaped our society by placing all Christian claims outside of society’s “plausibility structure,” the grid by which things are consider rational or plausible (31). That is, if only science gives us knowledge or if all other disciplines produce less authoritative or less trustworthy knowledge claims, then there are no rational reasons to believe the non-scientific claims of Christianity or at least no reasons to believe them when they contradict a scientific “truth.”
In the next 10 chapters, Moreland shows that both forms of Scientism are self-defeating—that they cannot sustain their own claims and destroy the very thing they attempt to uphold (ch. 4-6)—and that non-scientific forms of knowledge are equally valid and even have presuppositional priority over science (ch. 7-12). Regarding the latter point, he argues that science rests on various assumptions that can only be proven through philosophy—non-scientific reason. The last three chapters consider how Christianity and science should be integrated and how this should be done (ch. 13-15). Moreland’s repudiation of methodological naturalism (the idea that all questions of God or theological claims about God should be excluded from scientific discourse) in these last chapters is particularly important, for many Christians have subtly bought into this.
Moreland’s argument is highly competent, clear, and largely compelling. There is much in the book to strengthen the faith of a Christian. However, as an adherent of presuppositional epistemology (basically, we need to build our theory of knowledge and truth from the Bible), I observed several areas where his adherence to a more classical model of epistemology weakened his argument.
Trouble with the Positive Argument
The first 6 chapters of Scientism are particularly persuasive because in them Moreland undertakes an internal critique of scientism. That is, he demonstrates that scientism fails on its own claims, that it is self-refuting and too weak to uphold its claims—even in its weakest forms. However, when it comes to argue the positive case, defending other forms of knowledge and their priority over science, Moreland assumes the classical model of Christian epistemology. This model identifies a rational common ground between atheists and Christians. The problem here is this: by seeking common ground with the atheist, such an approach establishes humans as the epistemic authority in intellectual endeavours. That is, humans are established as the final reference point of knowledge.
This comprises the strength of the Christian position, leading to various problems in Christian philosophy, apologetics, education, etc., and gives the atheist false confidence in his own rational abilities. That is, such an approach implies that one can rationally believe many things without believing in God. The problem is that the Bible does not allow such a position. Instead, it claims that God’s existence is undeniable and identifiable in all aspects of creation (Rom 1:18-30). To reject God is to sin and commit oneself to foolishness, to be ultimately unreasonable. Because all creation testifies to God and can only properly be interpreted in light of God’s eternal plan for creation, to reject God is to commit oneself to a position that cannot make sense of the data in God’s creation, making it an unreasonable position. Furthermore, by allowing such common ground, Moreland and other Christians with a similar epistemology allow the atheist to continue in the delusion that life and the created order can be explained and understood rationally apart from the objective existence of God and subjective belief in Him.
Foundationalism
For example, consider his defense of a broad foundationalism. Essentially, a broad foundationalist position believes that at the bottom of human knowledge is a body of basic beliefs. These beliefs are not supported by other beliefs; they are either self-evident or grounded in immediate sensory perception (“my belief that the leaves are rustling… is justified by an experience, namely, I seem to hear the rustling leaves” 109). According to foundationalism, any person is justified in believing these basic beliefs. Every other belief (a non-basic belief) is justified ultimately by an appeal to these basic beliefs (e.g. all logically derived beliefs rest on the laws of logic) (109). The problem in this position is that it grounds all knowledge in an ultimately unreliable authority, the self. That is, basic beliefs are those beliefs that are immediate evident in one way or another to the subjective observer; they rest on no higher authority than the observing subject, a human being. This produces two significant problems, one theological and one philosophical.
The Theological Problem
Theologically, this raises the problem of ultimate authority. Once man is seated in the position of authority, when beliefs are justified with reference to those beliefs basic to humanity, it is near to impossible to unseat him. Think of it this way: if my belief in everything else depends on my reason and immediate experience, should not my belief in God and the trustworthiness of His Word be built on the same foundation? No longer is belief in God the self-evident starting point of human thought, as Romans 1 suggests, and no longer is the word of God self-attesting. Instead, the truth of God’s word needs to be established with reference to human authority, such as logic and historical sciences. This produces a problem, for the Word of God claims absolute authority over human reasoning. If the authority of the Word is established on the foundation of human authority—human basic beliefs—it is next to impossible to reverse the order of authority.
The Philosophical Problem
Philosophically, this system can also be shown to be flawed. In many ways, basic foundationalism builds reason and knowledge on an irrationalistic foundation. Think about this way. Foundationalism seeks to provide a firm footing by which we can justify all human knowledge. It finds this footing in reason and immediate experience. Yet it has bought into a circle: by seeking to ground rationality and knowledge in a foundation of basic beliefs, it presupposes that humans are indeed rational and that their immediate experience can be trusted. Presupposing that humans reasonable, that our sense experience can be trusted, and that humans are the authority or reference point for knowledge, foundationalism presents a doctrine of basic beliefs as the necessary condition for these things. In doing so, it offers no substantiation for its basic premises and, therefore, becomes untenable if a better explanation of reason and knowledge proffers itself.
If we begin with the individual as the reference point or authority for knowledge, we can never rationally get beyond the self. Without presupposing that our senses are reliable, we can never show that they are reliable. Without presupposing that our reason corresponds to an external reality, we cannot demonstrate that our subjective reason is true—that it counts as knowledge. Indeed, if we start with ourselves as the reference point, we cannot reasonably show that others exist. The foundationalist may counter that these things are evidently true—impossible to deny. This is true, yet the self-evident nature of these truths needs to be explained. Foundationalism is unable to do so.
Presuppositional epistemology, argued for by Van Til and his followers and for which my forthcoming book The Gift of Knowing argues, maintains that such a worldview is ultimately irrational. The only rational worldview is that which has God as revealed in the Bible as the ultimate authority and reference point for knowledge. Unless God objectively exists and has revealed Himself in creation and through the Bible, there is no reasonable foundation for human reason. Only this position presents a sufficient explanation for the human ability to interpret creation and for human reason. By accepting the postulate of human authority, a Christian foundationalism misses the most powerful apologetic Christianity can offer: without Yahweh and His Word, there is no possibility for reason.
Conclusion
However, this final caveat aside, Moreland’s book is of tremendous value for the contemporary Church. Though a reader without a background in philosophy or theology may find it difficult, those who take up and read Scientism and Secularism stand to gain a better understanding of Western culture and how its challenges to Christianity ultimately rest on a faulty foundation.
Not only is Scientism unreasonable but Moreland argues that it is destructive to science, the very thing for which it seeks primacy. Scientism and Secularism is a book for which J. P. Moreland is particularly fitted to write; not only is he a gifted and influential Christian philosopher, he also has a background in the physical sciences and has maintained interest in that field.
With Scientism and Secularism, Moreland has given the church a gift. He has provided us with a tool to better understand our peers, our education system, and the books we read; to interact with these intelligently; and, ultimately, to have confidence that there are answers to the scientistic objections to Christianity. (The review below can also be found at https://teleioteti.ca/?p=3144.)
The Argument of Scientism and Secularism
The argument of Scientism and Secularism extends over 15 chapters, besides an introduction and conclusion. The first three chapters explain what Moreland means by “scientism” and considers its influence. He helpfully differentiates between a strong scientism, which claims that there is no knowledge outside of the hard sciences, and weak scientism, which claims that all other forms of knowing have less authority (27). Defined in these ways, he shows that our society is steeped in the presuppositions of scientism. Specifically, scientism has shaped our society by placing all Christian claims outside of society’s “plausibility structure,” the grid by which things are consider rational or plausible (31). That is, if only science gives us knowledge or if all other disciplines produce less authoritative or less trustworthy knowledge claims, then there are no rational reasons to believe the non-scientific claims of Christianity or at least no reasons to believe them when they contradict a scientific “truth.”
In the next 10 chapters, Moreland shows that both forms of Scientism are self-defeating—that they cannot sustain their own claims and destroy the very thing they attempt to uphold (ch. 4-6)—and that non-scientific forms of knowledge are equally valid and even have presuppositional priority over science (ch. 7-12). Regarding the latter point, he argues that science rests on various assumptions that can only be proven through philosophy—non-scientific reason. The last three chapters consider how Christianity and science should be integrated and how this should be done (ch. 13-15). Moreland’s repudiation of methodological naturalism (the idea that all questions of God or theological claims about God should be excluded from scientific discourse) in these last chapters is particularly important, for many Christians have subtly bought into this.
Moreland’s argument is highly competent, clear, and largely compelling. There is much in the book to strengthen the faith of a Christian. However, as an adherent of presuppositional epistemology (basically, we need to build our theory of knowledge and truth from the Bible), I observed several areas where his adherence to a more classical model of epistemology weakened his argument.
Trouble with the Positive Argument
The first 6 chapters of Scientism are particularly persuasive because in them Moreland undertakes an internal critique of scientism. That is, he demonstrates that scientism fails on its own claims, that it is self-refuting and too weak to uphold its claims—even in its weakest forms. However, when it comes to argue the positive case, defending other forms of knowledge and their priority over science, Moreland assumes the classical model of Christian epistemology. This model identifies a rational common ground between atheists and Christians. The problem here is this: by seeking common ground with the atheist, such an approach establishes humans as the epistemic authority in intellectual endeavours. That is, humans are established as the final reference point of knowledge.
This comprises the strength of the Christian position, leading to various problems in Christian philosophy, apologetics, education, etc., and gives the atheist false confidence in his own rational abilities. That is, such an approach implies that one can rationally believe many things without believing in God. The problem is that the Bible does not allow such a position. Instead, it claims that God’s existence is undeniable and identifiable in all aspects of creation (Rom 1:18-30). To reject God is to sin and commit oneself to foolishness, to be ultimately unreasonable. Because all creation testifies to God and can only properly be interpreted in light of God’s eternal plan for creation, to reject God is to commit oneself to a position that cannot make sense of the data in God’s creation, making it an unreasonable position. Furthermore, by allowing such common ground, Moreland and other Christians with a similar epistemology allow the atheist to continue in the delusion that life and the created order can be explained and understood rationally apart from the objective existence of God and subjective belief in Him.
Foundationalism
For example, consider his defense of a broad foundationalism. Essentially, a broad foundationalist position believes that at the bottom of human knowledge is a body of basic beliefs. These beliefs are not supported by other beliefs; they are either self-evident or grounded in immediate sensory perception (“my belief that the leaves are rustling… is justified by an experience, namely, I seem to hear the rustling leaves” 109). According to foundationalism, any person is justified in believing these basic beliefs. Every other belief (a non-basic belief) is justified ultimately by an appeal to these basic beliefs (e.g. all logically derived beliefs rest on the laws of logic) (109). The problem in this position is that it grounds all knowledge in an ultimately unreliable authority, the self. That is, basic beliefs are those beliefs that are immediate evident in one way or another to the subjective observer; they rest on no higher authority than the observing subject, a human being. This produces two significant problems, one theological and one philosophical.
The Theological Problem
Theologically, this raises the problem of ultimate authority. Once man is seated in the position of authority, when beliefs are justified with reference to those beliefs basic to humanity, it is near to impossible to unseat him. Think of it this way: if my belief in everything else depends on my reason and immediate experience, should not my belief in God and the trustworthiness of His Word be built on the same foundation? No longer is belief in God the self-evident starting point of human thought, as Romans 1 suggests, and no longer is the word of God self-attesting. Instead, the truth of God’s word needs to be established with reference to human authority, such as logic and historical sciences. This produces a problem, for the Word of God claims absolute authority over human reasoning. If the authority of the Word is established on the foundation of human authority—human basic beliefs—it is next to impossible to reverse the order of authority.
The Philosophical Problem
Philosophically, this system can also be shown to be flawed. In many ways, basic foundationalism builds reason and knowledge on an irrationalistic foundation. Think about this way. Foundationalism seeks to provide a firm footing by which we can justify all human knowledge. It finds this footing in reason and immediate experience. Yet it has bought into a circle: by seeking to ground rationality and knowledge in a foundation of basic beliefs, it presupposes that humans are indeed rational and that their immediate experience can be trusted. Presupposing that humans reasonable, that our sense experience can be trusted, and that humans are the authority or reference point for knowledge, foundationalism presents a doctrine of basic beliefs as the necessary condition for these things. In doing so, it offers no substantiation for its basic premises and, therefore, becomes untenable if a better explanation of reason and knowledge proffers itself.
If we begin with the individual as the reference point or authority for knowledge, we can never rationally get beyond the self. Without presupposing that our senses are reliable, we can never show that they are reliable. Without presupposing that our reason corresponds to an external reality, we cannot demonstrate that our subjective reason is true—that it counts as knowledge. Indeed, if we start with ourselves as the reference point, we cannot reasonably show that others exist. The foundationalist may counter that these things are evidently true—impossible to deny. This is true, yet the self-evident nature of these truths needs to be explained. Foundationalism is unable to do so.
Presuppositional epistemology, argued for by Van Til and his followers and for which my forthcoming book The Gift of Knowing argues, maintains that such a worldview is ultimately irrational. The only rational worldview is that which has God as revealed in the Bible as the ultimate authority and reference point for knowledge. Unless God objectively exists and has revealed Himself in creation and through the Bible, there is no reasonable foundation for human reason. Only this position presents a sufficient explanation for the human ability to interpret creation and for human reason. By accepting the postulate of human authority, a Christian foundationalism misses the most powerful apologetic Christianity can offer: without Yahweh and His Word, there is no possibility for reason.
Conclusion
However, this final caveat aside, Moreland’s book is of tremendous value for the contemporary Church. Though a reader without a background in philosophy or theology may find it difficult, those who take up and read Scientism and Secularism stand to gain a better understanding of Western culture and how its challenges to Christianity ultimately rest on a faulty foundation.
November 4, 2022
I took a philosophy of science class in college and I’ll never forget a student declaring mid-class, “the only things that we can really know 100% are things that we learn through science and prove from the scientific method.” My professor, in response, asked, “Is the statement that you just uttered learnable from science and provable via the scientific method?” To his credit, the student immediately realized his delusion and admitted he was wrong.
Why bring this story up? Because many people in the world today share this same erroneous view of the nature of knowledge, and this is exactly what Moreland seeks to correct in this book. Overall, he is very successful. Sadly, the book is very poorly written and includes lots of technical discussions on the philosophy of mind and neuroscience that make this book almost unreadable to anyone without at least a master’s level education in analytic philosophy.
Why bring this story up? Because many people in the world today share this same erroneous view of the nature of knowledge, and this is exactly what Moreland seeks to correct in this book. Overall, he is very successful. Sadly, the book is very poorly written and includes lots of technical discussions on the philosophy of mind and neuroscience that make this book almost unreadable to anyone without at least a master’s level education in analytic philosophy.
January 20, 2024
Scientism and Secularism
Started off slow then rapidly heated up. Very pertinent revelation about the topics. Great spiritual warfare underlies all visible warfare, including what we see in science.
Started off slow then rapidly heated up. Very pertinent revelation about the topics. Great spiritual warfare underlies all visible warfare, including what we see in science.
November 24, 2024
A PHILOSOPHICAL ATTACK UPON ‘ONLY SCIENCE GIVES US KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY’
Apologist J.P. Moreland wrote in the Introduction to this 2018 book, “In college, my interests developed in physical chemistry … But something happened to me in November of 1968… that would alter my life and my plans… I was led to Christ by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff worker … upon conversion, a whole new world of ideas opened to me: history, biblical studies, theology, and most importantly, apologetics and philosophy… I sensed my own calling … [to] join the staff of Campus Crusade … and stayed on staff for ten years… My love for these newfound subjects led me to get a ThM in theology… an MA.. and a PhD in philosophy…
“Sadly, during the process of my various studies, I constantly bumped into something dark, hideous, and, I dare say, evil. It was the philosophical notion of SCIENTISM, roughly the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else… [is] based on private emotions, blind faith or cultural upbringing… One of the great ironies of all of this is that scientism is NOT a doctrine of science; rather, it is a doctrine of philosophy… another irony: scientism distorts science. By its very nature, science cannot claim to be the only way to know reality… In this book I will provide you with reasons why scientism is harming our children, destroying the church, and undermining our ability to get a fair hearing for the gospel. But… My problem is not science, properly practiced. I love science. My issues are with scientism… part of my calling from God … is to stand against scientism… to show that it is… a grave danger.” (Pg. 22-24)
He elaborates, “scientism is the view that the hard sciences… provide the only genuine knowledge of reality… this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable, but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective and regarded as private matters of opinion… the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science… may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance.” (Pg. 26)
He outlines, “One of the effects of scientism … is making the ridicule of Christianity’s truth claims more … acceptable… it has harmed our efforts to produce mature disciples of Christ among both children and adults... 1. Scientism puts Christian Claims Outside of the Plausibility Structure… 2. Scientism has Brought About Several Shifts the Now Define Our Culture… 3. Scientism Has Led to Increasing Hostility Toward Christianity… 4. Scientism has Derailed the Church from Making Disciples and Has Made Christian Parenting Less Effective…: (Pg. 31-39)
He recounts how a man studying physics at Johns Hopkins came to one of Moreland’s lectures, and “basically told me that … the only sort of knowledge of reality is that which can be quantified and tested scientifically.” Moreland replied, “Sir… you have made thirty to forty assertions in the last few minutes…not one of them can be quantified, measured, and scientifically tested in the laboratory… By your own standards, all you have been doing in our conversation is spouting your private opinions and idle speculation. Given this, I am wondering why I or anyone else ought to give you the time of day or think a single thing you said is knowably true.” He adds, “The gentleman’s face turned red… and he quickly changed the subject!” (Pg. 52-53)
He argues, “weak scientism does not get off the hook here just because it allows for some minimal justification for nonscientific claims while retaining the cognitive superiority of scientific assertions. Why?... the conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions on which those conclusions rest.” (Pg. 74)
He contends, “the science of near-death experiences … [has] demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that a conscious self does not depend on the brain to function; it can survive death, and can have either a heavenly or a hellish experience. So, since conscious states are not physical states, neuroscience is inept at discovering their nature… If we want to know how conscious states relate to and are dependent on the brain … neuroscience is critical and extremely helpful. But it is of little or no value in discovering the very nature of mental states in the first place.” (Pg. 92-93)
He notes that in ‘The Grand Design,’ Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow “claim that the universe can ‘create itself,’ that is, it came into existence out of nothing… alas, Hawking and Mlodinow … are very poor philosophers… For Hawking and Mlodinow, ‘nothing’ means a quantum vacuum, which contains energy and is itself located in space…. This is hardly a case of the universe coming into being from nothing! The philosophical notion of nothing is just that---the complete and total lack of any being whatsoever, including the absence of particles, causal powers, fields, properties, and so on… something cannot come FROM nothing without a cause, because there is nothing to come from!” (Pg. 115)
He summarizes “Five Things Science Cannot in Principle Explain (but Theism Can)”: 1. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of the Universe…2. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of the Fundamental Laws of Nature… 3. Science Cannot Explain the Fine-Tuning of the Universe… 4. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of Consciousness… 5. Science Cannot Explain the Existence of Moral, Rational, and Aesthetic Objective Laws and Intrinsically valuable Properties.” (Pg. 135-156)
He recounts, “In… the late 1970s, I changed from being a ‘young-earth creationist’ (the days of Genesis are 24-hour consecutive days and the universe [is]…10,000-40,000 years old) to being an ‘old earth progressive creationist' (a… view held by most… Christian intelligent design advocates)… I changed my view because… there were a number of credible Old Testament experts (e.g., Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser) who held that Genesis taught an old earth view…However, I happily acknowledge that there are numerous well trained and sophisticated advocates of young earth creationism… In my view, young and old earth creationism are views that should be accepted within the orthodox Christian community, grace and kindness should be extended between the two camps, and theistic evolution is NOT acceptable---for theological, philosophical, and scientific reasons…” (Pg. 189)
He concludes, “Scientism is a silent yet deadly killer of Christianity. But the evidence presented in this book provides part of a successful inoculation against scientism. How sad it would be if pastors, parachurch leaders, parents, and grandparents continued to turn their heads away, ignore scientism, and unintentionally continue to foster Christian ignorance in this area.” (Pg. 197-198)
This book will interest (mostly Evangelical) Christians wanting to study the philosophy of science.
Apologist J.P. Moreland wrote in the Introduction to this 2018 book, “In college, my interests developed in physical chemistry … But something happened to me in November of 1968… that would alter my life and my plans… I was led to Christ by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff worker … upon conversion, a whole new world of ideas opened to me: history, biblical studies, theology, and most importantly, apologetics and philosophy… I sensed my own calling … [to] join the staff of Campus Crusade … and stayed on staff for ten years… My love for these newfound subjects led me to get a ThM in theology… an MA.. and a PhD in philosophy…
“Sadly, during the process of my various studies, I constantly bumped into something dark, hideous, and, I dare say, evil. It was the philosophical notion of SCIENTISM, roughly the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else… [is] based on private emotions, blind faith or cultural upbringing… One of the great ironies of all of this is that scientism is NOT a doctrine of science; rather, it is a doctrine of philosophy… another irony: scientism distorts science. By its very nature, science cannot claim to be the only way to know reality… In this book I will provide you with reasons why scientism is harming our children, destroying the church, and undermining our ability to get a fair hearing for the gospel. But… My problem is not science, properly practiced. I love science. My issues are with scientism… part of my calling from God … is to stand against scientism… to show that it is… a grave danger.” (Pg. 22-24)
He elaborates, “scientism is the view that the hard sciences… provide the only genuine knowledge of reality… this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable, but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective and regarded as private matters of opinion… the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science… may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance.” (Pg. 26)
He outlines, “One of the effects of scientism … is making the ridicule of Christianity’s truth claims more … acceptable… it has harmed our efforts to produce mature disciples of Christ among both children and adults... 1. Scientism puts Christian Claims Outside of the Plausibility Structure… 2. Scientism has Brought About Several Shifts the Now Define Our Culture… 3. Scientism Has Led to Increasing Hostility Toward Christianity… 4. Scientism has Derailed the Church from Making Disciples and Has Made Christian Parenting Less Effective…: (Pg. 31-39)
He recounts how a man studying physics at Johns Hopkins came to one of Moreland’s lectures, and “basically told me that … the only sort of knowledge of reality is that which can be quantified and tested scientifically.” Moreland replied, “Sir… you have made thirty to forty assertions in the last few minutes…not one of them can be quantified, measured, and scientifically tested in the laboratory… By your own standards, all you have been doing in our conversation is spouting your private opinions and idle speculation. Given this, I am wondering why I or anyone else ought to give you the time of day or think a single thing you said is knowably true.” He adds, “The gentleman’s face turned red… and he quickly changed the subject!” (Pg. 52-53)
He argues, “weak scientism does not get off the hook here just because it allows for some minimal justification for nonscientific claims while retaining the cognitive superiority of scientific assertions. Why?... the conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions on which those conclusions rest.” (Pg. 74)
He contends, “the science of near-death experiences … [has] demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that a conscious self does not depend on the brain to function; it can survive death, and can have either a heavenly or a hellish experience. So, since conscious states are not physical states, neuroscience is inept at discovering their nature… If we want to know how conscious states relate to and are dependent on the brain … neuroscience is critical and extremely helpful. But it is of little or no value in discovering the very nature of mental states in the first place.” (Pg. 92-93)
He notes that in ‘The Grand Design,’ Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow “claim that the universe can ‘create itself,’ that is, it came into existence out of nothing… alas, Hawking and Mlodinow … are very poor philosophers… For Hawking and Mlodinow, ‘nothing’ means a quantum vacuum, which contains energy and is itself located in space…. This is hardly a case of the universe coming into being from nothing! The philosophical notion of nothing is just that---the complete and total lack of any being whatsoever, including the absence of particles, causal powers, fields, properties, and so on… something cannot come FROM nothing without a cause, because there is nothing to come from!” (Pg. 115)
He summarizes “Five Things Science Cannot in Principle Explain (but Theism Can)”: 1. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of the Universe…2. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of the Fundamental Laws of Nature… 3. Science Cannot Explain the Fine-Tuning of the Universe… 4. Science Cannot Explain the Origin of Consciousness… 5. Science Cannot Explain the Existence of Moral, Rational, and Aesthetic Objective Laws and Intrinsically valuable Properties.” (Pg. 135-156)
He recounts, “In… the late 1970s, I changed from being a ‘young-earth creationist’ (the days of Genesis are 24-hour consecutive days and the universe [is]…10,000-40,000 years old) to being an ‘old earth progressive creationist' (a… view held by most… Christian intelligent design advocates)… I changed my view because… there were a number of credible Old Testament experts (e.g., Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser) who held that Genesis taught an old earth view…However, I happily acknowledge that there are numerous well trained and sophisticated advocates of young earth creationism… In my view, young and old earth creationism are views that should be accepted within the orthodox Christian community, grace and kindness should be extended between the two camps, and theistic evolution is NOT acceptable---for theological, philosophical, and scientific reasons…” (Pg. 189)
He concludes, “Scientism is a silent yet deadly killer of Christianity. But the evidence presented in this book provides part of a successful inoculation against scientism. How sad it would be if pastors, parachurch leaders, parents, and grandparents continued to turn their heads away, ignore scientism, and unintentionally continue to foster Christian ignorance in this area.” (Pg. 197-198)
This book will interest (mostly Evangelical) Christians wanting to study the philosophy of science.
April 20, 2020
I began reading this book for the first time over a month ago (my profile says I have now read it twice, but this is false). It is a foundational book for understanding this issue, which is, as the subtitle indicates, responding to a dangerous ideology. I am unapologetically a supernaturalist. In fact, I do not believe it to be possible to be a Biblical Christian if one does not also recognize that we live in a world that is primarily supernatural, even though we seem oblivious to the realm of the supernatural because, I suppose, because "this world is too much with us". The physical world is so obtrusive, so omnipresent that we often forget that there is more than the physical that we deal with...and just as often as we deal with the physical too! For example, our thoughts are on the most important level, non physical! In other words, thoughts are mediated by chemical processes and are saved or stored by yet other chemical processes, but their primary importance is the ideas that they themselves are! Further, those thoughts have consequences, some of those are physical again, but more importantly, the deeper, more important aspect of those consequences are the ways in which they then influence further decisions, actions, deliberations, etc.
Moreland is a Christian philosopher and thus the two of us will agree on a very fundamental basis about many issues. However, a critical issue for me is that he believes in old age creationism while I believe that the Bible indicates (clearly!) that the age of the universe, especially the earth, is very young. I do not have anything of any academic weight in terms of a resume to argue with him in depth on this issue...and yet I remain convinced of the position that I have come to. For me, the theology, specifically the salvation theology/history, are primary here and the old age position significantly undercuts the Biblical truths of Adam, the Fall and the significance of the Cross. That being said, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his beliefs, nor of his good standing with God/"his salvation". This means that there is a significant, serious theological difference between us, but that I still am convinced that he is a fellow believer, even if misguided on this point.
I say this because this book deals with one aspect of why so many people decide to turn away from Christianity, either they once were Christians and leave the faith or they were interested in the faith but "science" or something of a "scientific mindset" convinced them to reject this way of life. For many people today faith is anti-scientific, opposed to science and therefore rationality and therefore, if you want to maintain your intellectual integrity, you almost have to reject Christianity. I believe that Moreland effectively shows that this is completely false and that the problem is not with science but with a particular philosophy of science that is invalid and untenable. In other words, the problem is not with science or the scientific method, but with the idea that science is the sole arbiter or even the first/primary decider of truth. The simplest part of the argument is also the most compelling: that is, you cannot use science or the scientific method to prove that science is true or the best way to discover the truth. The kind of arguments one must use are, OF NECESSITY, philosophical, NOT scientific!
Moreland has provided us with an elegant explanation of this point of view. Everyone should read and think through what he says here. As a Christian, you will be encouraged to know that our faith is both reasonable and rational and will be aware of the battleground you will be walking on should you want to go on to higher education, especially in the sciences. Nonetheless, those who have the character traits and interests in these fields should definitely proceed. All truth is God's truth. You have no reason to fear and great reason to hope.
Please: read this book until you understand the principles and the strategies you must employ.
Moreland is a Christian philosopher and thus the two of us will agree on a very fundamental basis about many issues. However, a critical issue for me is that he believes in old age creationism while I believe that the Bible indicates (clearly!) that the age of the universe, especially the earth, is very young. I do not have anything of any academic weight in terms of a resume to argue with him in depth on this issue...and yet I remain convinced of the position that I have come to. For me, the theology, specifically the salvation theology/history, are primary here and the old age position significantly undercuts the Biblical truths of Adam, the Fall and the significance of the Cross. That being said, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his beliefs, nor of his good standing with God/"his salvation". This means that there is a significant, serious theological difference between us, but that I still am convinced that he is a fellow believer, even if misguided on this point.
I say this because this book deals with one aspect of why so many people decide to turn away from Christianity, either they once were Christians and leave the faith or they were interested in the faith but "science" or something of a "scientific mindset" convinced them to reject this way of life. For many people today faith is anti-scientific, opposed to science and therefore rationality and therefore, if you want to maintain your intellectual integrity, you almost have to reject Christianity. I believe that Moreland effectively shows that this is completely false and that the problem is not with science but with a particular philosophy of science that is invalid and untenable. In other words, the problem is not with science or the scientific method, but with the idea that science is the sole arbiter or even the first/primary decider of truth. The simplest part of the argument is also the most compelling: that is, you cannot use science or the scientific method to prove that science is true or the best way to discover the truth. The kind of arguments one must use are, OF NECESSITY, philosophical, NOT scientific!
Moreland has provided us with an elegant explanation of this point of view. Everyone should read and think through what he says here. As a Christian, you will be encouraged to know that our faith is both reasonable and rational and will be aware of the battleground you will be walking on should you want to go on to higher education, especially in the sciences. Nonetheless, those who have the character traits and interests in these fields should definitely proceed. All truth is God's truth. You have no reason to fear and great reason to hope.
Please: read this book until you understand the principles and the strategies you must employ.
October 25, 2022
Short review
Overall I greatly enjoyed this book. The strong points of the work were, the explanation and refutation of scientism, the brevity of the work, and the coherent argumentation and intelligent writing style. It is easy to read and does not take long to do so without sacrificing the intelligence and cited nature of philosophical works. That being said, there were points that were not fleshed out due to them not being the center of this work. This made some of the points seem shallow or incomplete.
Strong points
-Scientisms cultural and historical nature is examined well
-Scientisms errors are examined
-a refutation of scientism on clearly laid out premises is made
-Argument made for non-scientific knowledge
Week points
-Not all events and causes are cited that are referenced. A major omission is where Moreland states that secular philosophers of science considered Intelligent Design as a legitimate study of science. This statement is not cited and definitely needs it as it is one of the harder to believe given my interactions.
-Theistic evolution delt with incompletely
Long review.
As I mentioned in my short review I really liked this book. I really liked it for one reason: its decisive and clear dealings with scientism and complimentary examples given with equal clarity. This book is clearly written for a Christian audience. However, there are excerpts that can be used in a broader context. For example, chapter three of the self-refuting nature of scientism is clear and short and not particularly religious. Chapter 8 walks through a case study on consciousness in a similar way-clear, short, and not particularly religious. The book is clearly written by a philosopher and you don't doubt that Moreland knows what he is talking about. Moreland's defense and argumentation for 'non-scientific knowledge' is adequate (given the length of the book) as well as his discussion on how people of faith are to engage with science. There are many secular and mainstream works and authors cited that demonstrate his deep understanding and reading of the opposition's view. There are a couple of authors that I was surprised that he did not mention -K. Poppler, M. Midgley, and N. Cartwright have all expressed the need for science to "stay in its lane", but he mainly pulled from others. Other ideas like Cartesian naturalism, the supremacy of philosophy, and methodological naturalism, are explained and argued for or against well. I appreciated his side note and deconstruction of Hawking's "non-philosophical" philosophy started in chapter 10.
The latter half of the book is where there are a few more bumps. Moreland is a committed Dualist and his view of the interpretation of biblical scripture is a little tighter and more grammatical- historically litteral than I generally assume (especially when textual genera allows). These are not major issues just things I disagreed with. His view of theistic evolution and the portrayal of those who ascribe to that belief is oversimplified and overly compared to naturalism. He also, earlier in the work, pretty much infers that theistic evolution is a byproduct of scientism and not legitimate textual interpretation.
Moreland is a strong advocate of intelligent design as a way of "doing" science and makes a, smaller argument, for why the theistic position can still be a legitimate epistemological position as well as a scientific one. This argument is also well made yet feels a bit inadequate for the size of the
ask. That being said, it serves as s good thinking piece to counter the assumed "methodological naturalism" and "God of the Gaps" arguments.
Overall I greatly enjoyed this book. The strong points of the work were, the explanation and refutation of scientism, the brevity of the work, and the coherent argumentation and intelligent writing style. It is easy to read and does not take long to do so without sacrificing the intelligence and cited nature of philosophical works. That being said, there were points that were not fleshed out due to them not being the center of this work. This made some of the points seem shallow or incomplete.
Strong points
-Scientisms cultural and historical nature is examined well
-Scientisms errors are examined
-a refutation of scientism on clearly laid out premises is made
-Argument made for non-scientific knowledge
Week points
-Not all events and causes are cited that are referenced. A major omission is where Moreland states that secular philosophers of science considered Intelligent Design as a legitimate study of science. This statement is not cited and definitely needs it as it is one of the harder to believe given my interactions.
-Theistic evolution delt with incompletely
Long review.
As I mentioned in my short review I really liked this book. I really liked it for one reason: its decisive and clear dealings with scientism and complimentary examples given with equal clarity. This book is clearly written for a Christian audience. However, there are excerpts that can be used in a broader context. For example, chapter three of the self-refuting nature of scientism is clear and short and not particularly religious. Chapter 8 walks through a case study on consciousness in a similar way-clear, short, and not particularly religious. The book is clearly written by a philosopher and you don't doubt that Moreland knows what he is talking about. Moreland's defense and argumentation for 'non-scientific knowledge' is adequate (given the length of the book) as well as his discussion on how people of faith are to engage with science. There are many secular and mainstream works and authors cited that demonstrate his deep understanding and reading of the opposition's view. There are a couple of authors that I was surprised that he did not mention -K. Poppler, M. Midgley, and N. Cartwright have all expressed the need for science to "stay in its lane", but he mainly pulled from others. Other ideas like Cartesian naturalism, the supremacy of philosophy, and methodological naturalism, are explained and argued for or against well. I appreciated his side note and deconstruction of Hawking's "non-philosophical" philosophy started in chapter 10.
The latter half of the book is where there are a few more bumps. Moreland is a committed Dualist and his view of the interpretation of biblical scripture is a little tighter and more grammatical- historically litteral than I generally assume (especially when textual genera allows). These are not major issues just things I disagreed with. His view of theistic evolution and the portrayal of those who ascribe to that belief is oversimplified and overly compared to naturalism. He also, earlier in the work, pretty much infers that theistic evolution is a byproduct of scientism and not legitimate textual interpretation.
Moreland is a strong advocate of intelligent design as a way of "doing" science and makes a, smaller argument, for why the theistic position can still be a legitimate epistemological position as well as a scientific one. This argument is also well made yet feels a bit inadequate for the size of the
ask. That being said, it serves as s good thinking piece to counter the assumed "methodological naturalism" and "God of the Gaps" arguments.
October 28, 2023
All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today's culture for people to accept "scientism," which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.
Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book "Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology" Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity's knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians' internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide "...reasons for the hope that [they] have..."
The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions (whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.
This is a shortened version of the full review. To see the full review, go here: https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023...
Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book "Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology" Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity's knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians' internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide "...reasons for the hope that [they] have..."
The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions (whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.
This is a shortened version of the full review. To see the full review, go here: https://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2023...
May 7, 2023
Absolutely fantastic.
In this book, J.P. Moreland absolutely decimates the modern notion of strict Scientism as the vehicle and foundation of all truth. That is, the idea that whatsoever can be known as objectively true must be scientifically discovered and verified.
Moreland shows that this epistemological claim is completely self-refuting.
“Only what is testable by science can be true.” This is a philosophical statement about science that cannot itself be tested by science. It is not itself testable by science.
Scientism is self-refuting. It defeats itself.
What makes a statement self-refuting? Such a statement has three features.
1.) The claim establishes some requirement of acceptability for an assertion. Such as having to be empirically verifiable.
2.) The claim places itself in subjection to the requirement.
3.) Then the claim falls short of satisfying the requirement of acceptability that the assertion itself stipulates.
In other words, when a statement is included in its own subject matter—that is, when it refers to itself, but fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability— it is self-refuting.
“All sentences are exactly three words long.” “I cannot utter a word of English (spoken in English).” “I do not exist.” “This sentence is false.” “Truth can only be verified by the five senses or by science.” Self-refuting statements are necessarily false.
“Scientism is philosophy, not science.” This is the irony. It is a philosophical, epistemological viewpoint about science. It is not a statement of science.
The rest of the book is a number of arguments that further prove the absurdity of holding to strict Scientism.
Side note: “Science cannot explain the origin of the universe which is the very thing it needs before it can start explaining anything. When scientific explanations are applied, they use one part of the universe, [and] plug it into a law of nature to explain another part of the universe. But you cannot explain how the universe and its laws came into existence by doing that.”
The conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science. But the nature of the presuppositions of Scientism are philosophical, not scientific.
Moreland also points out that Scientism itself, presupposes:
1.) The uniformity of nature
2.) The orderliness of the universe
3.) The manifest image
a.) In the worlds deep structure (atoms, molecules, etc.)
b.) Mathematics applies to each world in an orderly way
Logic and math — both are known in an a priori manner, by a direct rational intuition or awareness. These hold greater epistemic authority as a priori truths over against scientific data which is a posteriori.
And there's much more where that came from. Every Christian would do well to read this book, especially parents and students attending secular schools where such things are being propagated.
In this book, J.P. Moreland absolutely decimates the modern notion of strict Scientism as the vehicle and foundation of all truth. That is, the idea that whatsoever can be known as objectively true must be scientifically discovered and verified.
Moreland shows that this epistemological claim is completely self-refuting.
“Only what is testable by science can be true.” This is a philosophical statement about science that cannot itself be tested by science. It is not itself testable by science.
Scientism is self-refuting. It defeats itself.
What makes a statement self-refuting? Such a statement has three features.
1.) The claim establishes some requirement of acceptability for an assertion. Such as having to be empirically verifiable.
2.) The claim places itself in subjection to the requirement.
3.) Then the claim falls short of satisfying the requirement of acceptability that the assertion itself stipulates.
In other words, when a statement is included in its own subject matter—that is, when it refers to itself, but fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability— it is self-refuting.
“All sentences are exactly three words long.” “I cannot utter a word of English (spoken in English).” “I do not exist.” “This sentence is false.” “Truth can only be verified by the five senses or by science.” Self-refuting statements are necessarily false.
“Scientism is philosophy, not science.” This is the irony. It is a philosophical, epistemological viewpoint about science. It is not a statement of science.
The rest of the book is a number of arguments that further prove the absurdity of holding to strict Scientism.
Side note: “Science cannot explain the origin of the universe which is the very thing it needs before it can start explaining anything. When scientific explanations are applied, they use one part of the universe, [and] plug it into a law of nature to explain another part of the universe. But you cannot explain how the universe and its laws came into existence by doing that.”
The conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science. But the nature of the presuppositions of Scientism are philosophical, not scientific.
Moreland also points out that Scientism itself, presupposes:
1.) The uniformity of nature
2.) The orderliness of the universe
3.) The manifest image
a.) In the worlds deep structure (atoms, molecules, etc.)
b.) Mathematics applies to each world in an orderly way
Logic and math — both are known in an a priori manner, by a direct rational intuition or awareness. These hold greater epistemic authority as a priori truths over against scientific data which is a posteriori.
And there's much more where that came from. Every Christian would do well to read this book, especially parents and students attending secular schools where such things are being propagated.
November 4, 2025
This was a book read for the Cave to the Cross Apologetics podcast. It was there that we went through chapter-by-chapter discussing the contents of the book.
In this book, J. P. Moreland, who has been a stalwart Christian philosopher and apologist for years, brings out the warning to strict adhearance to scientism, which - and atheists if you are listening this time - is not science but a byproduct of secular naturalism carried out in science. Moreland discusses two different aspects after defining scientism (the belief that only things in the realm of science provide the only genuine knowledge of reality). He discusses the incoherent and untrue nature of the assertion. He also talks about how even science itself must adhere to a philosophy first tenant to be able to be justified. While Moreland is more in the evidentialists or classical apologetic camp there is a lot of overlap he has here with presuppositionalism. He's at home asking for those who hold to methodological naturalism to apply their standard to itself and to be able to justify their use of their standard and of science. Within those main avenues, Moreland has a great chapter of the byproducts of scientism as seen in the academies, the schools, and in culture. Fitting right at home with rants about government school education is the removal of virtue from the classroom and of education and it being regulated to the extracurricular activities. Someone needs to let the football coaches they were supposed to be teaching people good character while hoping they don't get CTE.
Where the book gets a little week is not in the substance but in the style, as in the layout of the book. Moreland's ending of the book talks about areas where scientism doesn't have good explanations for things like origins or consciousness or morality. All good things to bring up but these were left for the back of the book. Also in the back in looking at how Christianity should be integrated with science. This made the form seem more like begging a place at the table rather than demanding a place as being usurped from the position that it gave for those to sit in the seats of the universities Christianity formed, the scientific revolution Christianity inspired, and the classical education that we've been treading on that led to the Western Civilization that those in the ivory towers can piere down upon the faithful and spit.
Moreland still remains an amazing Christian philosopher and this was a good read and a great book to sit down with a mentor and go over on a little-known podcast and have a good discussion. Final Grade - B+
In this book, J. P. Moreland, who has been a stalwart Christian philosopher and apologist for years, brings out the warning to strict adhearance to scientism, which - and atheists if you are listening this time - is not science but a byproduct of secular naturalism carried out in science. Moreland discusses two different aspects after defining scientism (the belief that only things in the realm of science provide the only genuine knowledge of reality). He discusses the incoherent and untrue nature of the assertion. He also talks about how even science itself must adhere to a philosophy first tenant to be able to be justified. While Moreland is more in the evidentialists or classical apologetic camp there is a lot of overlap he has here with presuppositionalism. He's at home asking for those who hold to methodological naturalism to apply their standard to itself and to be able to justify their use of their standard and of science. Within those main avenues, Moreland has a great chapter of the byproducts of scientism as seen in the academies, the schools, and in culture. Fitting right at home with rants about government school education is the removal of virtue from the classroom and of education and it being regulated to the extracurricular activities. Someone needs to let the football coaches they were supposed to be teaching people good character while hoping they don't get CTE.
Where the book gets a little week is not in the substance but in the style, as in the layout of the book. Moreland's ending of the book talks about areas where scientism doesn't have good explanations for things like origins or consciousness or morality. All good things to bring up but these were left for the back of the book. Also in the back in looking at how Christianity should be integrated with science. This made the form seem more like begging a place at the table rather than demanding a place as being usurped from the position that it gave for those to sit in the seats of the universities Christianity formed, the scientific revolution Christianity inspired, and the classical education that we've been treading on that led to the Western Civilization that those in the ivory towers can piere down upon the faithful and spit.
Moreland still remains an amazing Christian philosopher and this was a good read and a great book to sit down with a mentor and go over on a little-known podcast and have a good discussion. Final Grade - B+
October 10, 2018
J.P. Moreland published Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Idolatry through Crossway this year. Moreland desires to assist the church in her response to the current intellectual milieu, in which truth is accessible only through rigorous application of the scientific method--implying that any "knowledge" obtained through other means is derivative at best, non-knowledge and harmful at worst.
I'm not totally convinced that scientism as Moreland understands it is the predominant mode of understanding at work in the world today; it certainly is a popular epistemology, though one among a number of others--common sense realism and intuitive knowledge epistemology, to name a couple. Nevertheless, insofar as Moreland's guide is targeted at scientism as such, he is quite successful at flipping the tables and driving out smugglers of the anti-philosophical first principles of scientism. Moreland thoroughly strips scientism of its intellectual credibility, and for that reason alone it would be a handy resource for upcoming high school graduates on their way to college.
Moreland's attempts at re-substantiating foundationalism as a workable epistemology can be forgiven. This book is quite adequate for the problem at hand. How should Christians respond to the privileged position the hard sciences have in our culture? Return the debate to the philosophical first principles, and work from there. Scientism is a bankrupt philosophy that denies its philosophical nature. Disassemble it in confidence.
<><><>
I received a complimentary edition of this work from Crossway in exchange for an honest review.
I'm not totally convinced that scientism as Moreland understands it is the predominant mode of understanding at work in the world today; it certainly is a popular epistemology, though one among a number of others--common sense realism and intuitive knowledge epistemology, to name a couple. Nevertheless, insofar as Moreland's guide is targeted at scientism as such, he is quite successful at flipping the tables and driving out smugglers of the anti-philosophical first principles of scientism. Moreland thoroughly strips scientism of its intellectual credibility, and for that reason alone it would be a handy resource for upcoming high school graduates on their way to college.
Moreland's attempts at re-substantiating foundationalism as a workable epistemology can be forgiven. This book is quite adequate for the problem at hand. How should Christians respond to the privileged position the hard sciences have in our culture? Return the debate to the philosophical first principles, and work from there. Scientism is a bankrupt philosophy that denies its philosophical nature. Disassemble it in confidence.
<><><>
I received a complimentary edition of this work from Crossway in exchange for an honest review.
December 18, 2018
A superb analysis of the phenomenon of scientism (as distinct from science), in both its strong and weak forms. Moreland is quite able to write at both the easy popular level and at a very advanced philosophical level. As I started this book, it initially appeared to be chiefly at the popular level. But as I read on it became clear this was a very sophisticated discussion. While it is not advanced philosophy, it does help to be at least somewhat familiar with the terms and concepts he discusses. Helpfully he does include a substantial glossary at the end of the book to assist those who might find themselves in somewhat new territory. Scientism, as Moreland and many other philosophers and thinkers have pointed out, is the belief that science provides either our only source of knowledge about reality (strong scientism), or by far are most reliable and authoritative source of knowledge (weak scientism). Moreland demonstrates that this is not only obviously false, but is also particularly destructive to real science, to our culture, and to Christian theism. He demonstrates that there are sources of knowledge independent of science, with a particular focus on philosophy and theology. There is far more in this text than I can mention here, but this book is an important read, and for those for whom it introduces some new territory, it would be well worth the effort to understand it.
January 25, 2021
"The idea that knowledge- and of course reality- is limited to the world of the natural sciences is the single most destructive idea on the stage of life today." - Dallas Willard
In this book, Professor J.P. Moreland makes the case that the popular philosophy of Scientism cannot stand when critically examined and is something that needs to be argued against (If you're not familiar with Scientism, see the definition below).
The book was well written and doesn't require a graduate degree in philosophy to comprehend the author's arguments. I highly recommend it, especially for people of faith.
What is Scientism?
"Roughly, scientism is the view that the hard sciences - like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy - provide the only genuine knowledge of reality. At the very least, this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective in regarded as private matters of opinion. According to scientism, the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science, and therefore ought to be affirmed like scientific truths, may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance."
In this book, Professor J.P. Moreland makes the case that the popular philosophy of Scientism cannot stand when critically examined and is something that needs to be argued against (If you're not familiar with Scientism, see the definition below).
The book was well written and doesn't require a graduate degree in philosophy to comprehend the author's arguments. I highly recommend it, especially for people of faith.
What is Scientism?
"Roughly, scientism is the view that the hard sciences - like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy - provide the only genuine knowledge of reality. At the very least, this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective in regarded as private matters of opinion. According to scientism, the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science, and therefore ought to be affirmed like scientific truths, may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance."
November 25, 2021
Scientism is the religion of secularism. That is that for our day, science has become the standard of truth and arbiter of disputes. The problem of course is that science is not monolithic - and beyond that - it is continually changing and adapting to new truth, errr, I mean evidence.
Moreland exposed the inconsistent ideology that surrounds scientism without disparaging science itself, which is a helpful tool for navigating the natural phenomena in this world.
It should be noted that Moreland advocates for an intelligent design position in this book, while simultaneously holding to a form of old-earth creationism. If you are young-earth, this will only bother you until the last chapters when he addressed the issue, and he gives some simplistic argument against it, though it is certainly not the topic of the book. And if you are an evolutionary creationist/theistic evolutionist, this will also bother you at the end of the book when he argued for a sort of conglomerate position of science and faith working together, but writes off EC/TE for no apparent reason outside of the normal stock arguments.
Moreland exposed the inconsistent ideology that surrounds scientism without disparaging science itself, which is a helpful tool for navigating the natural phenomena in this world.
It should be noted that Moreland advocates for an intelligent design position in this book, while simultaneously holding to a form of old-earth creationism. If you are young-earth, this will only bother you until the last chapters when he addressed the issue, and he gives some simplistic argument against it, though it is certainly not the topic of the book. And if you are an evolutionary creationist/theistic evolutionist, this will also bother you at the end of the book when he argued for a sort of conglomerate position of science and faith working together, but writes off EC/TE for no apparent reason outside of the normal stock arguments.
May 5, 2023
While I didn't read this book as thoroughly as I probably should've, the bits I picked up on were excellent. This was a last-minute thesis read that I found after reading an article by Moreland on the topic which I quoted to define scientism as "the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality." I wanted to learn a bit more so got this book and perused parts of it. I'll probably skim it a few more times in preparation for the thesis defense, but it seems even more widely applicable as it addresses the root philosophy of idealistically holding up science to reinforce belief. This worldview is in stark contrast to the past majority of those reasonably practicing natural philosophy who were continually pursuing truth and shaping models around what they observed. Many of these past scientists were also devout Christians marveling at the meaningful creation around them, and pursuing its study because of their belief and finding it amenable, not the other way around. I don't think I put that very well haha, so read the book to have it actually well-explained!
September 10, 2018
Science (the study of God's creation) is good. Scientism (the dogma that only science can discern what is true about the universe) is a terrible idolatry. That is more or less the argument of this book. Moreland capably demonstrates why scientism is self-defeating and, worse, dangerous. The argument meanders at times (hence, I suspect, the second half of the title--Moreland threw in a bunch of other odds and ends that he wanted to publish somewhere about secularism). His arguments against scientism are very clear and could easily be incorporated into a believer's conversations with unbelievers. At other times he ranged into quite technical territory, but I'm not sure such sections were vital to the argument of this book.
If Christians are going to make any converts in the 21st century, they will have to confront scientism head-on. Moreland shows us how.
If Christians are going to make any converts in the 21st century, they will have to confront scientism head-on. Moreland shows us how.
September 11, 2020
Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland offers a succinct but formidable challenge to the prevailing philosophy undergirding secular theories of reality and knowledge, showing that they are self defeating and nowhere near as rational as their theistic equivalents. Moreland focuses on deconstructing and exposing secularism’s over reliance on and misappropriation of science as a totalizing epistemological framework before turning to theism’s more robust alternatives. I find that he accomplishes his task. He is an old earth creationist, but expresses a clear irenic spirit to young earthers. There is no quarter given to theistic evolutionists, who he sees as deceived even if well intentioned. 224 pages or 6 hours of theism versus materialism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews