No true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true theist believe that scriptures are metaphorical.

You can believe there is a divine being without believe scriptures are literal or factual. There is absolutely, absolutely no reason that those two beliefs have to be interdependent. Except that you are forcing it to be so. — Pantagruel

You haven't fully answered my response to your criticism. Again, you must explain how it makes any sense for a theist to believe that scriptures are entirely metaphorical. (I've already acknowledged that some areas of scripture can be interpreted metaphorically, but "some" doesn't refute my position). In what sense are they theist? What does that mean? How are they distinct from an atheist? What's a divine being a metaphor for, then?

Please answer these questions so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

You literally used the term "no actual theist" in exactly the paradigmatic sense of the fallacy's "no true Scotsman." — Pantagruel

So what's the exception that I'm wrongfully excluding? Explain yourself properly if you're going to accuse me of committing the fallacy.

You have just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Bullshit. I'm just talking about what theists believe. The answers you'd get if you went out into the real world and spoke to theist after theist. Do you think you know of an exception? There must be some definition of theism or set of criteria for one to count as a theist. I'm simply abiding by the conventional definition, which is meaningful. Are you going by some idiosyncratic meaning which suits your own beliefs, ideals, preconceived notions...?

Right, I meant that one would take the idea that there is a God literally, and that one can have a relationship with that God, and that the commandments will be of aid in being a Good person, say, and that Jesus' teaching are also an aid in both being good and being close to God and perhaps adding in taking the parts about Heaven literally. IOW the core theist positions. I actually think this is fairly common. — Coben

So then you should agree with the point that I was making, namely that there are at least some key beliefs which must be taken literally. And these beliefs are not supported by science. Unless you know something that I don't, i.e. that some group of scientists, say, has just discovered God and Heaven after running some lab tests.

No? Didn't think so.

Hence the ridiculousness of saying that the two are compatible.

Weren't you just warning against the No True Scotsman fallacy yourself? — WerMaat

Not the same thing at all. He, apparently, was trying to exclude any religion which makes factual claims, whereas I'm saying that the term "theism" doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean, and it must have a meaning in distinction from atheism.

This is how Google dictionary defines theism:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Are you seriously going to tell me that a theist would claim that that is a metaphor, too, like everything else? A metaphor for what? And what would distinguish them from an atheist?

Cut the crap, I say. No actual theist believes that that's just a metaphor. They really do believe that there's a Being, namely God, who literally created the universe. No actual theist really believes that the entirely of the scriptures which comprise their religion contains not a single literal passage, but instead is full of nothing but metaphor. No actual theist has a set of beliefs which are entirely consistent with atheism, or else they're a theist in name only.

Religions don't make claims; people make claims. — Janus

Oh really? Thanks for pointing that out. :roll:

But people make religions, and they make them with commitments which can be expressed through language. And that's what I was referring to. If you're a Christian, for example, then that means that you have a set of key beliefs, or things you'd claim to be true.

So, within the class of the religious who make, or appear to make, factual claims based on scripture, there is a diversity of interpretation of scripture that exists on spectrum from completely metaphorical to completely literal, and hence there is a diversity of claims, more or less compatible or incompatible with science.. — Janus

Yes, and that's basically a repetition of an earlier response which I've already addressed, so please see my earlier response to this.

Just because a person is a scientist does not make all of his or her actions scientific. Any more than claiming to be religious makes all of one's actions spiritual. I interpret the question are religion and science compatible to mean could they be compatible, not "are they currently playing well together, as currently practiced today." — Pantagruel

And the answer is still a resounding no, unless they scrap their most fundamental tenets.

That fact that things are a certain way is descriptive. The fact that they ought to be another way is normative. That's basic stuff. — Pantagruel

Yes, and I learned that distinction many years ago. It is, however, a distinction of no relevance to the point I've been making.

So has science. I'm sorry, but if your best response is to ignore when science is not scientific and religion is not spiritual you're not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say (or anyone else for that matter). It's called a preconception or, more accurately in this case, a prejudice. Cheers! — Pantagruel

You're the one who is ignoring my valid point about the claims of religion. Whether you like it or not, religions do make factual claims, not just normative claims. Apparently you have nothing to say about that, except to repeat your red herring which has no bearing whatsoever on the point I'm making.

I am saying that things like the length of time the earth has been here and the universe has been here, iow areas of scripture where religion contradicts theory, are taken as metaphorical. But one still believes there is a God and that there was some guy, for example, Jesus, whose teachings can help one be a good person, come closer to God and so on. — Coben

Yes, there are areas of scripture that can be taken as metaphorical, such as the length of time the earth has been here. But you can't take everything in scripture as metaphorical whilst maintaining to be a theist in any meaningful sense of the word, and this is not a common position. The key tenets, most essentially God, are not widely considered metaphors, and no credible science leads to a supernatural creator of the universe or whatever. In Christianity, Jesus isn't held to be a human like other humans. He is believed to be the son of God, whose holy spirit rose from the grave. Again, this isn't supported by science.

I am afraid you are missing the point of that. It is NOT the business of science to make normative claims. — Pantagruel

But the point you accuse him of missing is a red herring. His point (and it is a salient one) is that there are claims of religion which are contradicted by science.

If you are a theist in one of these religions who took much of the scriptures as metaphorical attempts to describe spiritual values and processes, this could be compatible with science. And then if you were not bound to scripture, it could also be compatible. IOW consider these culture bound and historically bound texts, but still ones with facets of truth. And then if one is not in one of the Abrahamic religions and none of one's beliefs contradict scientific models. — Coben

If you're one of those "It's all a metaphor" theists, then a) you're not really a theist in any meaningful sense, and b) you're not who I was referring to, and therefore beside the point I was making.

I was careful to say if each is true to its essence. Anything can be bastardized. Science that is true to scientific principles and religion that is not in a state of self-contradiction, two things as the ideally should be, are applicable to different domains of things. — Pantagruel

You seem to be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. I've just brought to your attention the fact that the biggest organised religions do make factual claims which aren't supported by science. It is therefore not the case that these religions and science are reconcilable, and dismissing them along the lines that they're not True religions and therefore don't count isn't a valid response.

"I don't know" he says. We've just named things that can be done. Things within his power. And there's plenty of available reading material on this.

As such, [religions] should have nothing to say about science, or other factual domains. — Pantagruel

Except that they do, so your comment is meaningless. The biggest organised religions make factual claims - factual claims which aren't supported by science.

So science and religion are or should be fully reconcilable. — Pantagruel

But they're not.

You've merely repeated (surprise, surprise) your heavily criticised prior position, from a prior discussion, which logically implies a form of idealism.

And there are counterexamples to this, but of course you won't acknowledge them whilst you cling to your position. And you cling to your position like Tara Reid clings to alcohol and fame.

As it stands, with his predecessor as a benchmark, Trump isn't really that bad.
— frank

I will note my disagreement on this and leave it there. — Fooloso4

It really is an astonishing claim to make. Obama had his faults, but he wanted to work with Iran and the international community to resolve the issue of nuclear development, he wanted to work with the international community on climate change, he wanted to expand access to healthcare, he wanted to shut down Guantanamo Bay, he wanted to sort out the public shootings mess that pervades America...

And what has Trump done? Well, to name a few things, he has escalated tensions in the Middle-East - indirectly costing lives in the events which followed his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he has provoked Iran, he has spewed out offensive and discriminatory remarks left, right and centre, he withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, withdraw from the Iran deal, there was his "Muslim ban", he's expressed pro-gun views, split children from their parents and held them in cages, and, of course, there's his stupid, bloody, costly "wall".

Someone's missing the point. It's not about "stopping" global warming. It never was. It's about acting to alleviate as opposed to indifference or exacerbation. Evidence of Trump's actions and intentions in this regard have been given and are not hard to find. Closing your eyes and ears to it doesn't mean that it isn't there, or hasn't been given. Perhaps some people should familiarise themselves with the fallacy of moving the goalposts before repeatedly asking for more reasons and evidence.

And it's pretty darn ridiculous to say that Trump isn't that bad. Open your eyes. I'd say he's in the running for worst president in the history of the United States.

Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness. — DanielPhil

That's what's called a non sequitur.

Rejoin the Paris climate agreement.

You seem to be using the word "meaning" in at least three different senses:
Meaning as the definition of a word
Meaning as the interpretation of a set of ideas
Meaning as significance.

They all seem to get mashed up together. I think things would have been clearer if you had defined your term better at the beginning. — T Clark

Bingo.

Cute and nice. I used to be mean, whereas now... oh, shut the fuck up.

“He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.”

Evidence, please. — Reshuffle

Your call for evidence is selective. You "double-yawned" when I pointed out that you were applauding a racist, in spite of all the evidence of his racism - evidence previously submitted in this discussion. When the evidence is there for all to see, funnily enough, you don't seem to care. You're just a Trump apologist, aren't you?

No theistic religion is compatible with science. And by compatible, I mean fully compatible. So sure, you can do science whilst being religious, but the key tenets of a religion like Christianity are not supported by science, so there's an inconsistency. You don't get to God through science - not if you're doing science properly.

Yet it's something to go against what the entire world disagrees with. If you were an ISIS soldier, you'd be hunted down across the entire globe. If you were a Nazi, no one would spare you and no one would give a damn about you. If you were a Japanese, you'd already have honor with the Bushido code, even though it was taken too far. It's very bold to against the world, and these men did it. It's something to consider. — MomokoBandori

I wouldn't become a soldier, full stop.

A Nazi and a Japanese soldier is an example. But I don't hold them in high regards. I don't like them, but the thing I respect about them is them fighting for what they believe in. Even though it's cruel and even though they have been blinded by propaganda, they still fought in battlefields and they still fought against thousands of men. But that's the only thing that deserves respect among them. The rest of the deeds like rapes, torture, etc. Do not absolutely deserve respect at all. — MomokoBandori

Fighting for what you believe in doesn't deserve respect at all without qualification. It entirely depends what you believe in, and even then, you should be judged on your actions over and above your beliefs. The Japanese soldiers who attacked Pearl Harbour and tortured prisoners of war in horrifying ways do not deserve respect. The Nazi soldiers who invaded Europe do not deserve respect. Isis soldiers do not deserve respect.

Why so? — MomokoBandori

So a soldier goes to war, and he guns down some women and children, and rapes some of the women, but he's a soldier after all, so he's entitled to respect?

No.

Do you think you have some example where a soldier deserves respect in spite committing an immoral act?

Care to explain? — SethRy

Not really, no. Why don't you explain your disagreement, instead? Assuming you do actually disagree.

:rofl:

Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? Furthermore, are soldiers different people in different places? Should they be responsible, would they no longer be responsible if peace is acclaimed? — SethRy

They're fully responsible for their own actions, including going to war and following orders.

Now, if the morality and identity of a soldier is totally subjective, we would be the total arbiters of right and wrong (which shouldn't be a surprise). And that as an entirety, is every soldier entitled to respect of today's people, for attending war, despite of any immoral action they could've done? — SethRy

No, certainly not.

Proud to be a member of the anti-Trump tribe.

moreover, he purged well over 10 million of his glorious proletariat, whom he duped into putting him in charge... — Reshuffle

They didn't put him in charge, he put himself in charge.

How so? — Wallows

Because you're always talking about yourself, and your feelings, and your state of mind, and your worries, and your insecurities.

I can throw labels too. — Wallows

Good for you. Go ahead. Do you think that would bother me? Just the other day I was called a psychopath, piece of shit with nothing to teach. On the contrary, I find it highly amusing.

Stay away from sex, autoerotica, and self-actualization;

Stay away from fatty food, from carbs, from proteins, from opioioioioids, from salt, from natural and artificial sweeteners, colouring and spices; from dairy prodcts, (they are full of dihydrogen monoxide, you know), from insecticides, from genicides, from pesticides; stay away from sleeping, from sitting, from standing, walking and running; stay away from people (they are a deadly bunch), and stay away from animals and plants, rocks, sand, grass, etc. — god must be atheist

And philosophy forums. Stay away from them most of all.

Insecurity and self-obsession.

Corbyn is a Marxist, he’s going to nationalise the banks and ruin the economy. — Wayfarer

That's not true. He's a democratic socialist, and he has pledged to nationalise the railways and end the energy consumer rip off. He has said nothing about nationalising the banks, and you won't hear the sort of Marxist rhetoric you'd find from the Communist Party of Great Britain from the mouth of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour party is not a Marxist party, Militant members were expelled, and they removed clause four many years ago.

Vote Lib Dem — Michael

They don't stand a chance of getting into government, so it'd be a wasted vote.

Philosophy doesn't need evidence... — Anthony

That would be a subset of philosophy known as bad philosophy.

However, S would say that I am a wishful thinker. — Noah Te Stroete

Because you clearly are.

So am I, obviously. Something about his personality strikes me as defective, though. This from someone who knows personal defects. He’s absolutely pathological. I hope he seeks professional help. — Noah Te Stroete

:lol:

However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns. — Andrew4Handel

Well, we know plenty about consciousness through experience and science, and we know plenty about morality through experience and sociology. And, realistically, gods and the afterlife aren't really unknowns. That's a misleading statement, a bit like saying that dragons and fairies are unknowns. To the best of our knowledge, there's nothing there to know. They seem instead to be merely a product of our imagination.

So I don't agree with your classification of the things you've mentioned. I don't agree with the way that you've assessed them and grouped them together.

I call myself a general agnostic because there are things I can't know and so I live without factoring in certainty in these issues. — Andrew4Handel

This point has been made hundreds of times, but clearly it bears repeating: that something is uncertain doesn't amount to much in terms of epistemology. There are innumerable things which are uncertain, and only a relatively tiny number of things which are certain. So that's a poor criterion upon which to base your epistemological methodology. Knowledge doesn't require certainty.

Also I can't pretend as if I know. Some people try and argue with you such as saying gods are really implausible or there is no afterlife etc. I don't think you can entirely prove something by argument but only evidence resolves things. (I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling). — Andrew4Handel

In another discussion, I recently brought up a useful distinction I make between acknowledging a possibility and taking it seriously. Merely pointing out that something is possible or uncertain is, in itself, insignificant. A sophisticated epistemological methodology would take into account other factors, most importantly evidence. If there's practically zero evidence in favour of an afterlife, then that doesn't warrant being taken particularly seriously in my book. The burden of proof lies with the proponent of an afterlife.

But you don't like it when they bounce back with force and hit you in the face. You prefer to play catch with people who throw like a little girl. :grin:

Ok, I will leave you with this...

"Noah is a fanatical religious stupid head".
-Richard Dawkins