Who knows? It just might change the way you approach the topic of religion.

The way I approach religion is to ask "Why should I believe any of it?" I found nothing in the encyclical giving me a good reason to change that approach.

You might not "personally" know anyone who embraces that viewpoint, but then again, you probably do not know every person who has walked the earth (not that you need to or that this is important) but the point is that if this point is to be made, it needs to be made from an argumentative one and not a rhetorical one. Nonetheless, here are two sources with commentary to discuss your claim about what scientism is.

From the Stanford EoP, "The key text is Hayek's paper, “Scientism and the Study of Society,” serialized in Economica (1942–44), and later published as the first part of The Counter-Revolution of Science (1955). In Hayek's view, the desire on the part of social scientists to emulate the physical sciences creates an exaggerated fear of teleological or “purposive” concepts." For some social scientists, by Hayek's definition the teleological/purposive definition takes the same definition of scientism goes beyond mere empiricism or acquisition of knowledge but that the only way things can be known is through science.

The following citation shows another iteration of this statement through a science-only approach: "Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:[18][19][20] To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[21] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[22] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[20] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[15] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[23][24]"

A few key quotations from that last post: "This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective."

It's is not being argued that science does not have a good track record or that it is not an extremely reliable way to get knowledge. Science does have these qualities (that is not being denied); however, science is not the only field that has logical usefulness. It would be a red herring to continue that point. The point is that philosophy of logic, of science, and of mathematics, for example, also have rigorous reliability and ought not be excluded.

Faithism has two definitions and I think you are using the second one: "(1) Discrimination towards a person or group of people solely dependent on their faith, beliefs or religion. - Used in place of racism when applicable. (2) A belief that faith or religion is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that religious differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular religion or beliefs." As such, the equivalency that was pointed out, under this definition, is not shown.

No, Scientism is equivalent to faithism and is the position that science is the only way to get knowledge. I personally don't know anyone who embraces that viewpoint.

It's people who want to know something, not science and science has a track record of being an extremely reliable way to get knowledge.

"Faith doesn't do that science does. Science demands progress, demands testing and if possible invalidating established facts and science rewards those who so. Faith encourages acceptance and accommodation of facts with beliefs."

This is a view of scientism. Science is a tool in and of itself, and if there is any demanding, there must be intentionality behind that demand. As such, if there is a scientist who demands progress, testing, and finding/using a principle of verifiability, fine; however, this does not put the intentionality upon science itself which is at best, a tool. Moreover, once one sees this aspect, one will have to not that there must be another aspect that contributes to this "demanding", namely, human intentionality. Therefore, if a scientist, or rather any individual, wishes to establish facts, there must be some reason for wanting understanding those facts beyond science itself since science does not desire, or will, or naturally bring to fruition, in itself, such demands of progress. Moreover, since science is in itself as a tool, inductive, and not deductive, there is only a set of probability from 0 to 1. Given this, there requires faith to correspond to facts with beliefs about the probability of those inductive/empirical facts. The usefulness of science is that it allows one to make that jump without a blind leap in the dark. For example, if there is a 99.8% probability and verification of X, then one has good reason to trust the results that derive from X's truth-value. However, that does not mean that X does not require any faith at all since the factors that make up that 99.8% are a culmination of other factors that make up that percentage [number of tests performed, reproducibility, observable and testable, variety of tests performed, etc.] As such, just the same way that scientists, theist and atheist alike, use the dimension of faith within "good reason" in a belief of the probability of inductive facts on a 0 to 1 scale. Therefore, the theist can very well blend together faith and reason much in the same way that the scientist does. Moreover, this is only the inductive aspect; if one wishes to eliminate the aspect of non-inductive processes from an argument, one cannot use non-inductive principles to make such a claim that might be employed through non-empirical, propositional statements by individuals. This stated, St.Thomas Aquinas' argument, and not Dawkins' representation/assessment of his argument, is valid within such a spectrum upon which Father Robert Barron expands: http://youtu.be/3ZkHv8iTJPo.

Rick hit the nail on the head. It's about faith AND reason. Knowledge is power but faith provides direction. Give power a direction and you have a useful laser. Give power no direction and you risk a harmful explosion.

Hi 42Olon,

Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner. i understand your point and i agree that many of the prechristian philosophies as well as much of antiquity was growing in learning and knowledge prior to the influence of the church. i guess i just get a little frustrated when i hear "some" atheists define faith such that people of faith believe in stuff that has no evidence in reality or history, when i will hear them make faith proclamations themselves. i have never read anything that implied you do that but i do think one could have a discussion on faith and reason outside of the influence of the Christian faith in how one views life. i do think they are two different venues who have connections (speaking about faith in general not necessarilly the Christian faith) that help us to make decisions in life. sometimes it gets frustrating to hear an atheists claim that their all reason and logic and therefore their way of thinking is superior which the idea in and of itself is a faith proclamation.

Then we are to a certain extent in agreement. I would just add that in the case of the creed, scripture, or the constitution, it seems to me a good thing that there is a great deal of room for differing interpretations. Even though it drives me crazy to see so many Supreme Court decisions where Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito very predictably agree, I do still believe they are interpreting the Constitution honestly (consciously, if not subconsciously), and I would rather have them interpreting the Constitution than just deciding the issue by their own lights.

It was widely believed that Pope Paul VI was going to in effect reverse Catholic teaching on contraception and say the pill was permissible as a means of birth control, and there was a joke among Catholics that the announcement would begin, "As the Church has always taught . . . " It is not only people outside the Church who recognize that Catholicism is overly fond of the idea of perfect continuity.

Gratuitous Catholic joke: Many are critical of the architecture and decor of The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. There is an old Catholic joke that when it was completed, the Virgin Mary appeared on the steps and said, "Build me a beautiful church on this spot!"

Oh I agree that Catholics then and now still hold Jesus as their central figure of worship, we wouldn't call them Christians otherwise. (Although even there one has to be careful about defining just who we are talking about given Arianism, but you did pick the Nicene Creed.) There are certain claims they can't easily back down from without giving up the whole game. But around those fixed statements it turns out there is huge room for interpretation and interpolations which could give one set of indisputable meanings to one generation only to fall by the wayside when another is confronted with a different social milieu.

Sort of like US law. Any judge or lawyer must defer to the Constitution as the highest law in the land. But the consequences of that terse document have had vast and changing implications to different ages and factions.

The problem is that Catholics believe it is established and guided by a divine power of infinite goodness, and that its central teachings haven't changed.

I don't have too much to quarrel with this analysis, except that I think Catholics can make an reasonable argument that the most central of central teachings have not changed. Catholics (and other Christians) can still recite the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), and mean basically the same thing by its statements as the Christians of the fourth century did.