Sure, but there the core claims do not contradict science. — Coben
This would be the fallacy of overgeneralization. Christianity is not religion, any more than you are "humanity."Core claims in Christianity
So you can't both adhere to the scientific method, which would result in scepticism at best, and at the same time hold beliefs which fly in the face of that scepticism.
True that. I am often amazed at how dogmatic some science disciples can be. To me, the most important aspect of science is always retaining an open mind. — Pantagruel
That's right. It's pretty much the whole point that has been made. Conclusions about god are not scientific. Science and religion are different domains, that's all. They are neither compatible or incompatible. They could, however, be complementary.That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.
That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.
(...)
If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god. — DingoJones
Core claims in Christianity: God exists, there's an afterlife, Jesus is the son of God, The Holy Spirit of Jesus rose from the grave. Science has a method. Application of that method does not result in the above. — S
Sure, but there the core claims do not contradict science.
— Coben
Yes they do. Core claims in Christianity: God exists, there's an afterlife, Jesus is the son of God, The Holy Spirit of Jesus rose from the grave. — S
You're apparently using Abrahamic religion as your only point of reference.Again, you must explain how it makes any sense for a theist to believe that scriptures are entirely metaphorical. — S
I personally believe that the gods and goddesses exist, that I can interact with them in meaningful ways and that one of them created our world (ok, more like three of them, but it's complicated :grin: ) Therefore: Theist. (Polytheist, to be precise)In what sense are they theist? What does that mean? How are they distinct from an atheist? — S
I believe that the divine is too vast to be grasped by a human mind. Therefore metaphor is a necessary instrument to approach it.What's a divine being a metaphor for, then? — S
Well, my approach is not very conventional in the modern Western world, but I didn't make it up to "suit my preconceived notions", I merely build up on an old African tradition.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...? — S
Your logic is not sound.
There is no scientific prove for the existence of gods - true
Therefore gods don't exist - false! The absence of proof does not prove absence. — WerMaat
I have read the paragraph again, but I apologize, I have not found these differences.Pay closer attention to my first paragraph, there are distinct differences between what I said and what you characterised as my argument. — DingoJones
If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god — DingoJones
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. — S
Yes, and that's basically a repetition of an earlier response which I've already addressed, so please see my earlier response to this. — S
Since the existence of spiritual beings, or the spirituality of empirical beings is not a question science can either ask or answer, there would seem to be no inherent incompatibility between science and religion. — Janus
Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians') may believe there is an incompatibility between science and religion, but they can provide no good argument for this belief. It is, quite simply, a category error. Of course, they'll never admit that, but will carry on blustering and puffing up their "arguments" with empty rhetoric instead. — Janus
So what, if an old creation myth is contradicted by evolution or geology?
Our ancestors didn't have those answers, so the religious metaphor was all they could rely on. — WerMaat
Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians') may believe there is an incompatibility between science and religion, but they can provide no good argument for this belief. It is, quite simply, a category error. Of course, they'll never admit that, but will carry on blustering and puffing up their "arguments" with empty rhetoric instead. — Janus
Janus, you speak truly like one who is devoted to a faith, and facts, arguments, will never daunt you. This diatribe you wrote only proves your ignorance borne out of blind faith and borne out of a conviction to never accept an otherwise valid argument if it speaks against your religion.
Your devotion to faith on the expense of rejecting known facts and valid teories is well described in your little note there.
When you say "they can provide no good argument" you admit that the huge amount of good arguments you simply, by necessity of convenience, ignore. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.