Lol, nice to have you back.

Logical arguments are neither won nor lost when the premises cannot be agreed on. I think instead of “compatible,” the question should be:

Are they consistent?

And I use the term “consistent” in the strict epistemological sense.

Also, what makes someone religious? Do they have to be dogmatic and unquestioning in their accepting of the tenets of a faith?

It's pretty meaningless talking about religion as a whole because of the sizeable variation in different religions and how they're interpreted. That's why I've been more specific.

And I don't know why some people are still acting as though the question of consistency hasn't already been answered.

And a belief in a god or the supernatural cannot be justified by the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that belief is inconsistent with science. (Again, using “inconsistent” in the strict epistemological sense.)

There are different versions of the meaning of “coherency” and “consistency.” Consistency has nothing to do with coherency. That is a confusion that many make.

And a belief in a god or the supernatural cannot be justified by the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that belief is inconsistent with science. (Again, using “inconsistent” in the strict epistemological sense.) — Noah Te Stroete

The reasoning behind the conclusion has been explained. What don't you understand about it? They're inconsistent in the sense which matters most, which is the logical sense.

Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do and they would be wrong.

Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do. — Noah Te Stroete

By definition, yes. Unless you have some other meaning in mind. What's your point?

Coherence is whether a belief is justified (by other facts with a foundation in sense data). Consistency is whether beliefs contradict one another.

A belief in God is not justified empirically, but it is not inconsistent with having beliefs that are justified by science.

No. In the informal usage of the ignorant it may sometimes seem to, but they misspeak, and in misspeaking their speaking is not the speaking of Christianity. Claims made by Christians are claims as matters of faith and belief - and that is all. No science, no claim of truth, except in misspeaking faith. That is, correctly understood, there is no discussion of merit here. — tim wood

In other words, you want these absurd claims shielded from scientific scrutiny, on the basis of a complete irrelevancy, namely that they are taken upon faith.

Well, no.

They're inconsistent in the sense which matters most, which is the logical sense. — S

I’ve brought up the Kalam Cosmological Argument before with you. WLC uses scientific evidence to back up its second premise, the first premise is backed up by straightforward logic, and the conclusion is a logical deduction. Science and God complement each other very well in the context of that particular argument.

WLC — AJJ

Lol.

Lol. — S

Witty and insightful, thank you.

You're apparently using Abrahamic religion as your only point of reference.

I don't have any "scripture" at all, as my religion is not a revealed religion.
We have an abundance of religious texts and mythology, but all of these we acknowledge as being written by human beings. There may be bits of divine revelation among those texts, but we have no method nor any desire to hunt for those bits, because this is not the point.
Mythology is meant to be metaphorical, and our conceptions of gods and goddesses are naturally allegorical. The aim of myth is to give us a framework of meaning and reference to understand our place in the world. And myth teaches us useful insights by pointing out certain archetypes and structures. — WerMaat

Look, if you you're an exception, then good for you. You obviously in that case wouldn't be who I'm talking about, and therefore beside the point.

The Abrahamic religions happen to be the biggest religions by far.

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) — WerMaat

Sure, except that you don't really believe that if that's all a metaphor for something else entirely. You can't have it both ways.

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

So, you claim to speak for all Christians? (And take note that the OP is not specifically about the compatibility of science with Christianity). — Janus

So Christian's don't have a set of key beliefs or things they'd claim to be true? (And I can read, thanks. You don't need to point out things that I'm well aware of).

The point about metaphor in religion is that religious ideas such as the resurrection of Christ need not be taken literally, and if they are not, then there is no coherent question about their compatibility with science. (Even on a literal interpretation that Christ's resurrection actually took place, and is thus to be considered an empirical event; it is not an event that science could investigate, since it took place 2000 years ago). Same goes for most of history, in fact.

Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. 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

There's a name for someone who has no literal theistic beliefs: an atheist. I'm not talking about atheists. I specifically addressed theistic religions in my original comment.

And even for those claims which science can't investigate, there's still an inconsistency, as the scientifically-minded person would be a sceptic, not a believer, with regard to these claims. It's either one or the other. It can't be both.

Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. 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

The argument has been made, and the above is not a refutation of it. It doesn't even address it.

In other words, you want these absurd claims shielded from scientific scrutiny, on the basis of a complete irrelevancy, namely that they are taken upon faith.

Well, no. — S

No. That's just your tendency either to misread or not comprehend what you have read. Science can scrutinize what it likes. I simply would like folks to understand that Christians don't claim truth in any scientific terms whatsoever. So-called Christians who do, are not making a Christian claim; they are making a personal claim based on their own failure to understand both their language and their religion - unless they have a personal religion that they call "Christianity." If the latter, then their claim is a fraud.

What Christians do claim is faith. "We believe...". As a claim of faith it is far from absurd. To hold that absurd is simply a display of manifold ignorance.

Sure, except that you don't really believe that if that's all a metaphor for something else entirely. You can't have it both ways. — S

Well, for me whatever causes our conscious experience which made the laws of nature discoverable is what I call “God.” I suppose I don’t need to call it that. I could call it “Sally.”

And I’m not talking about the brain. Whatever causes dead matter to organize itself into life is Sally. Or God.

No.

No. — S

You used up my civility and patience several threads ago, so either be substantive or Fuck-off, mere-s.

Well, for me whatever causes our conscious experience which made the laws of nature discoverable is what I call “God.” I suppose I don’t need to call it that. I could call it “Sally.” — Noah Te Stroete

Or you could just not give that a silly name.

I've made the point. You're simply wrong, and I'm not going to go around in circles with you.

Or you could just not give that a silly name. — S

It’s my personal preference which isn’t subject to the scientific method, nor is it inconsistent with science.

You used up my civility and patience several threads ago, so either be substantive or Fuck-off, mere-s. — tim wood

It seems he isn't worth responding to, since he is only interested in maintaining at any cost his illusion that he must be right.

It’s my personal preference which isn’t subject to the scientific method, nor is it inconsistent with science. — Noah Te Stroete

You can call it whatever you like, but the cause of our consciousness is subject to the scientific method. Saying things like, "It's my personal preference", or "It's my faith", doesn't make any difference. It just seems to be an attempt to get a free pass. Well, permission denied.

A subject that is unanswerable by the scientific method, but that brings us to the “hard problem,” and I’m not interested in having that debate here.

There's a name for someone who has no literal theistic beliefs: an atheist. I'm not talking about atheists. I specifically addressed theistic religions in my original comment. — S

I have no literal theistic beliefs, and I am not an atheist. I am not religious either. Some religious people have no "literal theistic beleifs": have you never heard of apophatic theology?

And even for those claims which science can't investigate, there's still an inconsistency, as the scientifically-minded person would be a sceptic, not a believer, with regard to these claims. It's either one or the other. It can't be both. — S

All that demonstrates is an incompatibility between the mind-set of faith and the mind-set of skepticism when it comes to questions that are not within the purview of science; it indicates no inherent incompatibility between science and religion (or Christianity in this case).

A subject that is unanswerable by the scientific method, but that brings us to the “hard problem,” and I’m not interested in having that debate here. — Noah Te Stroete

You don't have to. There's a simple and short answer if that's the case, namely scepticism. But you're not a sceptic, so you're not scientifically-minded.

I don’t worship Hume.

All that demonstrates is an incompatibility between the mind-set of faith and the mind-set of skepticism when it comes to questions that are not within the purview of science; it indicates no inherent incompatibility between science and religion (or Christianity in this case). — Janus

Of course there's an incompatibility! You just spoke of it yourself. There's nothing in the scientific method which says, "Just believe whatever you like because it is a part of some religion".