If you agree with the logic of the argument I've presented then yes. If not, why not?

Of course, it is possible to be a religious believer and a scientist.

The question is: Is it epistemically consistent to be a believer and a scientist? — Brainglitch

Indeed. It's possible to be a Catholic priest who molests children and a law enforcement officer who breaks the law: it doesn't follow that those activities can be reasonably reconciled. It only points out humans' capacity to rationalize (or not), compartmentalize, or explain away their quirks, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies.

Science is itself a myth without strictly adhered to principles, besides trying to do what the last superstar did. Science is so respected because of technology, and it's association with substantial dividends. The intellectual patent brought about the industrial revolution, not science. The first too big winners of it having stole their technology and then patented it. One made wigs, the other did something with farming, or agriculture... I forget...

The desperate need for slaves in the south was also due to a new invention. Something that like sorted cotton super fast, meaning that they needed a super fast supply, and the emancipating of the slaves was more an economic move than anything...

I said that on the one side, 'intelligent design' arguments attempt to use empirical arguments to justify belief in God. On the other side, 'scientific materialist' arguments attempt to use empirical arguments against belief in God. But if the nature of God is transcendent, then it's a misapplication of empirical arguments. It is all based on a literal intepretation of Genesis. If you interpret texts such as Genesis allegorically, then they can still be regarded as meaningful, and not 'faux science'.

Have a look at Aquinas vs Intelligent Designers for an example of an argument which recognises this. It explains how Catholic philosophy differs with Intelligent Design philosophy. — Wayfarer

I don't think this article is saying quite what you think it says. For instance (bolding added):

"ID theorists are often perplexed—and even a bit put out—that Thomists do not acknowledge the cogency of Behe’s argument. After all, Thomists are quite open to the notion that Creation provides evidence for the existence of the Creator—cosmological arguments for the existence of God based on the order and operation of nature have long been the special preserve of Thomism."

In other words, even if Thomists are not on board with intelligent design creationism with regard to biological systems, they are quite happy to appeal to other facets of nature to argue for the existence of God. That is, their arguments are at least partly based on empiricism, a tact which you excoriate above.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

Science is itself a myth without strictly adhered to principles... — Wosret

Try jumping out of a window and then tell me about the "myth" of gravity. :D

...besides trying to do what the last superstar did.

Nope: this is almost exactly backwards. Scientists make their bones by refuting the superstars.

I had no idea that it was science that makes stuff fall to the ground. It also, I hear, has improved life expectancy by a third, and instead of chanting theories like dogma, they're always opposed and ready for opposing the establishment!

I hear that immortality is just around the corner too. That's usually a good sign that everything's legit.

I had no idea that it was science that makes stuff fall to the ground. — Wosret

Nope. That would be gravity. You can read all about the scientific studies of this amazing force, which can tell you just how fast and how hard you'll hit the ground if and when you take the plunge out of that window.

It also, I hear, has improved life expectancy by a third, and instead of chanting theories like dogma, they're always opposed and ready for opposing the establishment! I hear that immortality is just around the corner too. That's usually a good sign that everything's legit.

Hmm, I wouldn't hold your breath for that last one. (I sense some implicit criticism of science here, but I'm not sure which scientists are claiming this. You aren't confusing, say, Ray Kurzweil for a scientist are you?).

Nope. That would be gravity. You can read all about the scientific studies of this amazing force, which can tell you just how fast and how hard you'll hit the ground if and when you take the plunge out of that window. — Arkady

Really now, then I suggest that you undertake your own suggestion. Take the plunge, and then tell me that science told you anything remotely as informative.

The only real problem of science is that it doesn't exist. It is a top down idea of a special path, or way which leads to truth. Except that that's not the thing it is, it's about testing, and collecting data, and then trying to make sense of that data (often entirely different disciplines), and money talks, as it always has. Scientists need funding, so they make promises that they cannot possibly deliver on (like cancer research), rather than just funding a wide variety of smaller projects. Sagan made this point, I believe that it was part of the last speech he gave.

I find the new cosmos (the like two episodes I watched) offensive compared to the original, particularly head by an idiot and a liar. Tyson the first time I saw him was criticism Dawkins for being too much of a dick, and now is all trying to be cool and witty, can't beat 'em join 'em. More significantly though, he claims a relationship with Sagan he never had, and blatantly lied in a letter he sent to him claiming he was getting his PHD when by that time he would have been fully aware that he wasn't...

Scientists are not objective truth machines, they're human beings. Some are better than others, and just like with everything else, revolutions begin to take hold when enough of the old fuckers in the way die already.

Creationism? I cannot believe you are bothering to discuss it. This is not the middle ages.

So, believers believe. But unlike intelligent design proponents, Catholics don't look to science to validate that belief.

Aquinas's theological proofs of God's existence were not intended as polemical devices to convert unbelievers, but as theological exercises for the faithful. Aquinas would always say that one must have faith at the outset.

I personally find the cosmological argument philosophically persuasive, but I would never suggest it amounts to an empirical hypothesis. How could it? How could you empirically validate such an idea?

↪Punshhh Where did we see that?

It seems to me that it's implicit throughout the thread. I haven't read the whole thread though, so I don't know if it has been stated bluntly.

If I was to teach evolutionary biology or paleontology I would never have reason to even discuss religious beliefs about the issue, but if it came up, I would make it clear that the accounts operate on different levels; that the religious accounts are intended to convey moral and existential truths about life, which are not dependent on them being literally true, in the way the scientific account is. — Wayfarer

Is this not a double standard? If science has 'no jurisdiction' when it comes to religion, then why is it okay for religion to stick it's oar in on science?

[W]hat Dawkins should do, is realise that whether God exists or not, is not a matter for science. It's really very simple. — Wayfarer

Then perhaps what you should do is realise that evolutionary biology, palaeontology, and other branches of science, are not a matter for religion.

Theistic evolution... — Wayfarer

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science... — Wikipedia

Yet you, on the other hand, accept the conflict thesis. Trying to have it both ways?

OK, not 'many'! I will readily concede that. — Wayfarer

By the way, it's nice to see you concede, rather than evade.

You guys are like a room full of puppys. It's quite simple. You see that Colin has had mental health issues, so he must be delusional. This does not follow. — Punshhh

Ad hominem followed by straw man. Nice contribution to the discussion.

So, being an atheist in combination with being a scientific realist makes one a fundamentalist atheist? I don't think so. The philosophical debate of scientific realism vs. scientific anti-realism is far from settled.

Nor do I think that having a stance based on philosophy as well as science makes one a fundamentalist. And if so, then scientific anti-realists would be likewise fundamentalist.

Your assessment of Dawkins is not impartial.

Nope. That would be gravity. You can read all about the scientific studies of this amazing force, which can tell you just how fast and how hard you'll hit the ground if and when you take the plunge out of that window. — Arkady

No, no. That's just a myth. I prefer the one about the Minotaur. ;)

The only real problem of science is that it doesn't exist. — Wosret

This is very funny stuff, Wosret.

It seems to me that it's implicit throughout the thread. — Punshhh

Oh, it seems to you, does it...?

I haven't read the whole thread though, so I don't know if it has been stated bluntly. — Punshhh

I have. Allow me to inform you. No. It has not. Feel free to check.

At least that's my understanding of science. — dukkha

Your understanding of science is mistaken. You're describing instrumentalism, which is a philosophical interpretation of claims such as scientific claims. Science itself (that is, the received view, or the vast majority consensus in the field) has no commitment to an instrumentalist interpretation versus a realist/truth-bearing/ontological-commitment interpretation.

Scientists tend to have the latter (realist etc.) interpretation of many claims, although they'll easily focus on pragmatism instead in some situations, with that pragmatism not being exactly the same as an instrumentalist interpretation. For example, they tend to see Newtonian mechanics as "correct in some situations," or as "close to true, and close enough for this situation."

Most scientists seem put off by a strictly instrumentalist approach, and a strictly instrumentalist approach usually has to be explained to them, as the idea is odd to them (and they also do not typically recognize the term "instrumentalism").

Heck, it even seems like a majority of scientists are mathematical platonists.

Aquinas's theological proofs of God's existence were not intended as polemical devices to convert unbelievers, but as theological exercises for the faithful. Aquinas would always say that one must have faith at the outset.

I personally find the cosmological argument philosophically persuasive, but I would never suggest it amounts to an empirical hypothesis. How could it? How could you empirically validate such an idea? — Wayfarer

How does one validate any idea except empirically?

The cosmological argument has the same problem as any other God hypothesis. It doesn't explain why God isn't dependent on something else where everything else is. Like the "Complex Design" argument that says that complex designs require a designer, it creates an infinite regress that is halted in it's tracks by the existence of something that defies the logic that created the infinite regress in the first place (if everything has a designer then why doesn't God have a designer?).

The cosmological argument has the same problem as any other God hypothesis. It doesn't explain why God isn't dependent on something else where everything else is. Like the "Complex Design" argument that says that complex designs require a designer, it creates an infinite regress that is halted in it's tracks by the existence of something that defies the logic that created the infinite regress in the first place. — Harry Hindu

The popular way around that lately is to treat that objection as naive, sophomoric, or at least hackneyed enough that you should feel embarrassed for bringing it up. The hope is that you won't want to be seen as any of those things, so you'll just drop it.

Sorry I missed this thread, which seems to have reached too far into the yes-I-did no-you-didn't phase for a newcomer to contribute much, so I'll say this and pass on. I'm a hardline atheist but mostly in Wayfarer's corner. There doesn't seem much talk here about religious experience, which is where the thread began. I've been a practising creative writer all my life, love art, and think our aesthetic (for want of a better word) sense is an abiding mystery, and a great source of pleasure, insight and consolation. For many people this artistic experience, as maker and art-enjoyer, seems to approach something very like what others describe as spiritual experience. I find people like Dennett and Dawkins - from both of whom I've learnt a great deal about stuff like consciousness and genetics - to have a crass insensitivity to this whole sphere of human life. They try and apply ways of thinking they feel they have learnt from science to areas where such an approach only reveals how limited are their sensibilities.

One small area that might require another thread is to observe how (in my view) their approach to religion bypasses the sociological and anthropological work that has been going on for a couple of centuries; as if the social sciences weren't scientific. The wave of physicalism that has swept through philosophy while I was alive and busy with other things seem to make observers like them think they're looking with exciting fresh neuro-enlightened eyes at matters that have been studied far more carefully and sensitively for a long time across the campus - where those pesky relativists believe everything is just social, ungodammit...

One reason I hate Dennett is that I'm a physicalist who isn't an eliminative materialist. But Dennett is popular enough that people assume that his brand of physicalism IS physicalism, and apparently some folks even believe that he even invented physicalism.

Your understanding of science is mistaken. You're describing instrumentalism, which is a philosophical interpretation of claims such as scientific claims. Science itself (that is, the received view, or the vast majority consensus in the field) has no commitment to an instrumentalist interpretation versus a realist/truth-bearing/ontological-commitment interpretation.

Scientists tend to have the latter (realist etc.) interpretation of many claims, although they'll easily focus on pragmatism instead in some situations, with that pragmatism not being exactly the same as an instrumentalist interpretation. For example, they tend to see Newtonian mechanics as "correct in some situations," or as "close to true, and close enough for this situation."

Most scientists seem put off by a strictly instrumentalist approach, and a strictly instrumentalist approach usually has to be explained to them, as the idea is odd to them (and they also do not typically recognize the term "instrumentalism").

Heck, it even seems like a majority of scientists are mathematical platonists. — Terrapin Station

True that.

"science" is a hyperobject, or is an umbrella term for a large conglomerate of institutions, individuals, and practices. It subsumes, implicitly whatever anyone thinks it does when they hear the word, and also connotes different things depending on which camp you're allied with.

Which philosophers of science have you read? I'm thinking of Feyerabend and Kuhn respectively. The former for my view that "science" cannot be demarcated from any form of problem solving activity in any substantial way, and Kuhn with respect to the history of science, and the methodological trends, and theoretical frameworks operated within as "normal science", kind of drudgery, and then there is revolutionary extraordinary science which makes and breaks the rules, rather than follows them.

There was also a super awesome book that I forget the title and author of now (herhaps someone will know?), but it was written by a journalist, about the history of scientists themselves, what quirky crazy fucks most of them were, and how much infighting posturing, and tribalism is present among scientists, for some reason I remember the author being on a plain... or something... but anyway, it was a sweet counter-balance to the distancing/denotative/former language scientists like to use by focusing on the people themselves.

He sees no difference in kind between the biblical account of the past and how we came to be, and the scientific account.
— dukkha

Ehm...

Suppose I was to proudly proclaim "there was snow on the peak of Mount Everest last Wednesday localtime". What, then, would it take for my claim to hold? Why that would be existence of snow up there back then of course, regardless of what you or I may (or may not) think. — jorndoe

Your hypothesis would hold if there was a convergence of observations (eg, memories, weather reports for that day, snow which doesn't appear fresh being observed on mt. Everest, etc) could best be explained by the hypothesis and no other. What makes an explanation the best, is one that cohesively accounts for the widest array of observations, and has the best predictive value.

Your conceiving of the past is something which exists independent of the present, and contains a sort of linear progression of facts/truth-values to which our statements about the past correspond (Or not) to. This is confused - there is no past full of facts to which our statements can correspond. At the very least there's certainly no evidence of one. We perpetually inhabit the present - the past is unobservable.

Does your relativization of science also extend to medicine (and your family doctor)? — jorndoe

Yes.

To the OP, why are you privileging the truth of your religious experience over the truth of your non-religious experiences? What's your justification for deciding it was the religious experience that was the true/real one and not the other way round (or neither)?

Did the religious experience simply 'feel' more real/true?

The dispute in this thread is not about people's experiences, it's about the propositional claims--such as the existence and action of a supernatural agent source--of their experiences.

"science" is a hyperobject, or is an umbrella term for a large conglomerate of institutions, individuals, and practices. It subsumes, implicitly whatever anyone thinks it does when they hear the word, and also connotes different things depending on which camp your allied with.

Which philosophers of science have you read? I'm thinking of Feyerabend and Kuhn respectively. The former for my view that "science" cannot be demarcated from any of form of solving problem activity in any substantial way, and Kuhn with respect to the history of science, and the methodological trends, and theoretical frameworks operated within are "normal science", kind of drudgery, and then there is revolutionary extraordinary science which makes a breaks the rules, rather than follows them.

There was also a super awesome book that I forget the title and author of now (herhaps someone will know?), but it was written by a journalist, about the history of scientists themselves, what quirky crazy fucks most of them were, and how much infighting posturing, and tribalism is present among scientists, for some reason I remember the author being on a plain... or something... but anyway, it was a sweet counter-balance to the distancing/denotative/former language scientists like to use by focusing on the people themselves. — Wosret

Seems to me that one could substitute the term "religion" for "science" here, and it would fit quite seamlessly--including "the quirky crazy fucks most of them were, and how much infighting posturing, and tribalism is present."

Which philosophers of science have you read? — Wosret

Who? Me? Oh, I've read them all. They all just love talking about something which doesn't exist. Almost as much as religious folks. Except that in the former case, it obviously does exist, and some variation of the continuum fallacy won't change that.

Yes. — dukkha

Excellent.

People commonly come to the logically fallacious conclusion that if one's view of science is not that it is about the Real Truth, it's, therefore, anything-goes-relativism.

More people talk about God. Yup, love me some sacred cow. Yum yum yum.