In what respect wrong? It's you who are confused about Christian belief. Make your case or just - you know. Or, more politely, put up or shut up.

In what respect wrong? It's you who are confused about Christian belief. Make your case or just - you know. Or, more politely, put up or shut up. — tim wood

I have done so. You want me to repeat it? You enjoy going around in circles?

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". — S

There's nothing in the scientific method that says anything about what to believe about subjects which fall outside the purview of science.

There's nothing in the scientific method which says, "Just believe whatever you like because it is a part of some religion". — S

The scientific method doesn’t say anything about leaning to one side or the other when it comes to the unanswerable.

Look, if you you're an exception, then good for you — S

This "exception" is a religion that has endured for more than 3000 years as the main religion of large and powerful nation.
Again: the title of the thread says "science and religion" not "science and Christianity", and the term "theist" is not limited to Christians either. This is why I consider it legit to offer a non-Christian perspective to the discussion.

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

Why not? It's not a metaphor for "something else", but a metaphor for that which it truly is.
If I show you a model: a big yellow plastic ball in the center, and a number of smaller balls arranged on wires around it. And I tell you: "This is the solar system... here's the sun, this is earth, this wire here represents a distance of 150 million kilometers"
Would you say that I'm lying, that I cannot point to little bits of plastic and say "that's a planet", this is obviously false?
The mythology and the images of the gods - that's my model, the representation. The divine being behind it is more vast and abstract.

There's nothing in the scientific method that says anything about what to believe about subjects which fall outside the purview of science. — Janus

You're wrong on that point. You are responding to this matter like someone who is unduly focused on the letter of the law, whilst neglecting the spirit of the law. The scientific method isn't based on principles whereby one can believe whatever they like purely on faith. That's about as far away from the scientific method as you can get. So sure, you can do both, if you're disingenuous and able to compartmentalise.

You're wrong on that point.You are responding to this matter like someone who is unduly focused on the letter of the law, whilst neglecting the spirit of the law. — S

Yeah, of course I am wrong because you must be right!

You are responding like someone who thinks there is an objective or absolute law where there is none. You should know by now that I do not have any sympathy for any kind of fundamentalism including the kind of scientism you are espousing.

The scientific method isn't based on principles whereby one can believe whatever they like purely on faith. — S

That’s where you’re wrong. Science cannot answer everything, and any scientist worth his salt knows this. One can believe anything one wants when it comes to things science cannot deal with.

Unless, you’re talking about the other domains, viz. history, psychology, sociology, etc. None of these can answer the spiritual questions either. To deny spirituality says more to having a brain defect. A majority of people experience these things.

It's not a metaphor for "something else", but a metaphor for that which it truly is. — WerMaat

That doesn't make any sense.

Would you say that I'm lying, that I cannot point to little bits of plastic and say "that's a planet", this is obviously false? — WerMaat

So, in this example, a plastic ball is a metaphor for something else: a planet. That's how metaphors work.

The mythology and the images of the gods - that's my model, the representation. The divine being behind it is more vast and abstract. — WerMaat

A god isn't a metaphor for a "divine being". That's just what a god is. And again, there's no scientific support for a god or a divine being. So we're back at square one where you can't approach the issue both ways: it's one or other, otherwise you're inconsistent.

Yeah, of course I am wrong because you must be right!

You are responding like someone who thinks there is an objective or absolute law where there is none. You should know by now that I do not have any sympathy for any kind of fundamentalism including the kind of scientism you are espousing. — Janus

Oh look, it's the childish "scientism" smear again. Nothing in your above reply addresses my point, which I stand by. You're not wrong because I must be right, you're wrong because you're wrong. You're acting like a lawyer or someone who is oblivious to the context behind the scientific method. You know that I'm right that no one who is true to the spirit of the scientific method would believe the whacky unsubstantiated stuff of religion.

You know that I'm right that no one who is true to the spirit of the scientific method would believe the whacky unsubstantiated stuff of religion. — S

That's simply bullshit. There are many scientists who are religious. What they believe about matters that science and the scientific method have nothing to say is a matter for them. This talk about "the spirit of the scientific method" just is an expression of scientism, because it is saying that if science cannot give us an answer, then we should remain skeptical, and that those kinds of questions are not of any importance, in any case.

This really amounts to a form of dogmatic authoritarianism. Most of what is most important to people consists in just the kinds of questions that science cannot answer, and your version of the spirit of the scientific method would have everyone remain skeptical about it. That is impractical because skepticism simply won't satisfy most people.

Look at this way: the scientific method itself says nothing about whether anyone should adhere to it outside the domains of science. There is no "spirit of the scientific method" there are just different people's responses to it as a normative principle, and how far they see that normative principle as having its proper range of application and influence.

Science cannot answer everything, and any scientist worth his salt knows this. One can believe anything one wants when it comes to things science cannot deal with. — Noah Te Stroete

I know that science can't answer everything, and I've never claimed or suggested otherwise. Not once. This ridiculous suggestion, or outright accusation in some instances, coming from yourself and others that I'm somehow defending scientism is a product entirely of your respective imaginations.

And yes, you can believe anything you want, but if you're going to kid yourself into believing that that doesn't fly in the face of the spirit of the scientific method, then I'm minded to set you straight.

There are many scientists who are religious. — Janus

Yes, and they selectively lower the high standards you get with the scientific method when it comes to their dogmatic religious beliefs. They lower the standard to such an extent that virtually anything goes.

Anyone who doesn't see a clear conflict here between science and religion is either dumb or wilfully blind. Perhaps you have some stake in the game. That would explain why you're responding in this way. Are you religious?

but if you're going to kid yourself into believing that that doesn't fly in the face of the spirit of the scientific method, then I'm minded to set you straight. — S

And what is “the spirit of the scientific method?” And why should people value it?

You really come across as a chauvinistic fuckwit who lacks any decent arguments and has resort only to vacuous assertions! All I can say is it's a good thing you don't have much influence and are not in any position of authority.

And what is “the spirit of the scientific method?” And why should people value it? — Noah Te Stroete

Why don't you read about the Enlightenment and contrast it with the Dark Ages? That should give you some idea of what I'm getting at.

The spirit of the scientific method is about the epistemological standard employed, about the broader context.

The point that Janus and others are making is comparable to pointing out that you can be a serial killer and a Judge, and then pretending as though there's no conflict here.

:yawn:

The point that Janus and others are making is comparable to pointing out that you can be a serial killer and Judge, and then pretending as though there's no conflict here. — S

Care to back up this analogy with an argument?

The spirit of the scientific method is about the epistemological standard employed, about the broader context. — S

This epistemic standard only deals with the physical world, and almost all of the people who were responsible for the Enlightenment were believers in God.

I already know that you are, and have been for as long as I have "known" you, "asleep at the wheel", so there's no need for you to declare it.

Care to back up this analogy with an argument? — Noah Te Stroete

I've been making the argument throughout this discussion. That analogy is just a different way to express what I've been saying from the start. Just because it's possible to do two things, whether that be selectively suspending the epistemological standard you abide by with regard to science by believing in God or the tooth fairy or all manner of fantastical things based on nothing but faith, or serially murdering people despite upholding the rule of law and passing judgement in court as part of your job role, that doesn't for a second mean that there's no inconsistency here. That's an argument which holds no water.

This epistemic standard only deals with the physical world, and almost all of the people who were responsible for the Enlightenment were believers in God. — Noah Te Stroete

So what if it only deals with the physical world? It does so for a reason, and that reason is because it is part of a broader framework whereby there's a standard for what passes as knowledge, and all else warrants only scepticism, not diving headfirst into fantasy land. God-of-the-gaps-style thinking is neither scientific nor even comes close to the standards of the scientific method.

And so what if the people who were responsible for the Enlightenment were largely believers in God? Are you trying to miss the point or what? Those people didn't go far enough in that respect, but the point is about the direction of travel.

It does so for a reason, and that reason is because it is part of a broader framework whereby there's a standard for what passes as knowledge, and all else warrants only scepticism, not diving headfirst into fantasy land. — S

The epistemic standard for investigating the physical world is grounded in sense data. Couldn’t the epistemic standard for investigating the spiritual be grounded in conscious experience? If not, please explain.

The epistemic standard for investigating the physical world is grounded in sense data. Couldn’t the epistemic standard for investigating the spiritual be grounded in conscious experience? If not, please explain. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure it can. Why not? I'm only making the point that the epistemological standards are nothing alike in terms of merit or credibility, and that it's inconsistent to selectively flip flop like that when it suits you. But also, you're not giving a clear or full account of what you mean by that. What you mean is that you'll have some "conscious experience" and then jump to conclusions about what exactly it was an experience of, what it consisted in, and what it entails. It's not really an investigation at all, it's just wishful thinking.

I already know that you are, and have been for as long as I have "known" you, "asleep at the wheel", so there's no need for you to declare it. — Janus

Sorry, it's just that the hot air you're sending my way is making me drowsy.

Well, as a Hume scholar yourself, you already know that induction, the basis of science, is nothing more than habit. Habit, wishful thinking... pick your poison.

Furthermore, and I don’t have the statistics to say what percentage of experiments fall into this category, but many experiments are not repeatable.

and that it's inconsistent to selectively flip flop like that when it suits you. — S

Well, I’m not a physicalist. I don’t find their arguments compelling, so I must rely on my conscious experience for some beliefs. This conscious experience may not give rise to predictions about the physical world or discover any laws about itself, but that’s not the same domain.

Well, as a Hume scholar yourself, you already know that induction, the basis of science, is nothing more than habit. Habit, wishful thinking... pick your poison. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh, right. I see. So, because I think highly of Hume, I must therefore agree with everything he had to say. I think that very few people, in this day and age, would agree that the basis of science is nothing more than habit.

Furthermore, and I don’t have the statistics to say what percentage of experiments fall into this category, but many experiments are not repeatable. — Noah Te Stroete

Is this point leading somewhere, or...?

Oh, right. I see. So, because I think highly of Hume, I must therefore agree with everything he had to say. I think that very few people, in this day and age, would agree that the basis of science is nothing more than habit. — S

All a cogent argument can result in is “probably true.” That is induction, and it only deals with the physical world.

A believable conscious spiritual experience is when it occurs to many different people throughout the ages. We don’t use induction in this domain. We use abduction.

Well, I’m not a physicalist. — Noah Te Stroete

You don't have to be. I'm not a physicalist either.

I must rely on my conscious experience for some beliefs. This conscious experience may not give rise to predictions about the physical world or discover any laws about itself, but that’s not the same domain. — Noah Te Stroete

But I have no problem with arriving at beliefs through conscious experience. I have a problem with arriving at religious beliefs unjustifiably based on conscious experience.

But I have no problem with arriving at beliefs through conscious experience. I have a problem with arriving at religious beliefs unjustifiably based on conscious experience. — S

Well, I don’t think we would disagree that believing the Bible stories are literal truths are justifiable.

I happen to think that there is a God that causes dead matter to collect itself into conscious beings, and I think this is a good abductive inference.

But I have no problem with arriving at beliefs through conscious experience. I have a problem with arriving at religious beliefs unjustifiably based on conscious experience. — S

Problem is that you know only your own conscious experience and how you interpret that as constituting evidence for any belief, and can only guess at the nature of the conscious experience of others and how they might interpret that as constituting evidence for any belief.