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. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't care about any of that unless you expect me to take any beliefs you might have about supernatural beings and whatnot credibly. Because they're not credible, they're based on flawed thinking. I don't doubt that people have these experiences, just the conclusions they reach and how they get there.

I don't care about any of that unless you expect me to take any beliefs you might have about supernatural beings and whatnot credibly. Because they're not credible, they're based on flawed thinking. — S

Organized religion as dogma is unjustified in the epistemic sense. Practicing a religion without accepting dogma can be and is a good exercise for a lot of people, as it gets them to feel love for reality. Science cannot do that.

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. — Janus

No, I don't have to resort to guesswork. What a ludicrous thing to say. It's possible that there are some people who have secret paranormal abilities and the like. I can't rule that out with absolute certainty. But just because it's possible, that doesn't mean that it has anything going for it or that it should be treated seriously in academia. That's the stuff of science fiction and fantasy.

Typical vapid response. Why is it "ludricous" to say that you don't know the nature (in the sense of what they are like) of others' conscious experience and their reasons for interpreting it as they do? I was not talking about "paranormal abilities" by the way, but about "heightened states" and on a more "normal" or mundane level, just the way people feel about their lives.

I wasn't calling it ludicrous to say that you or I don't know the (full) nature of another's conscious experience and their reasons for interpreting it as they do. If that's all you were saying, then you aren't addressing the topic of discussion. Is it not obvious that I was speaking about that in relation to the kind of religious beliefs I've previously mentioned? It's ludicrous to use that as a justification for treating such beliefs as credible, and it's ludicrous to suggest that we must rely on guessing. And it's ludicrous because it would mean that anything goes. And what kind of epistemological standard would that be? It would be a joke. It would make a mockery of philosophy. And in relation to your comment about guessing, that would mean that we couldn't know half the things we do about other people, how they think, what they experience, what it's like, and so on. Other people are not an impenetrable mystery.

And yes, once again, I can read. Obviously I was mentioning paranormal abilities as an analogy. Back to basics?

If that's all you were saying, then you aren't addressing the topic of discussion. — S

But that is the topic of discussion, because it is on the basis of that individual experience and interpretation of it (given that someone is not merely subject to social influences or brainwashing) that people form their ethical, aesthetical, social, political, economic and religious beliefs and judgements.

The "spirit of the scientific method" has little or no sway in the above-mentioned domains of belief and judgement, and hence beliefs in those domains cannot be in conflict with science (unless they purport to be empirically, fundamentally or objectively true). You need to produce an argument or account to show just how such beliefs and judgements should, or even could, be subject to the scientific method. You have previously admitted that aesthetical, ethical and moral beliefs (at least) are matters of personal experience and judgement, so now you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Organized religion as dogma is unjustified in the epistemic sense. Practicing a religion without accepting dogma can be and is a good exercise for a lot of people, as it gets them to feel love for reality. Science cannot do that. — Noah Te Stroete

But that's what we're talking about: epistemology. Anything else is a digression. Certainly remarks about feeling love for reality are light-years away from any point I've raised.

But that's what we're talking about: epistemology. Anything else is a digression. — S

Religion, if understood in anything but fundamentalist terms, has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemology.

It's ludicrous to use that as a justification for treating such beliefs as credible — S

They need not be credible to you. If they are credible to the believer is another matter, and it depends on the specific beliefs in question whether or not they are consistent with science.

S seems to fail to realize that credibility, except when it comes to empirical beliefs, is a subjective matter.

But that's what we're talking about: epistemology. — S

The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs in the physical world.

There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences.

Is there any means to find common ground in this forum's dispute by distinguishing between those characteristics of the divine that might overlap with something, at least in theory, testable, with those things outside of science's reach. Say, for example:

Historical claims, examples:
- virgin birth
- 2 of every species aboard a ship

Non-historical claims:
- Individual judgment upon death
- God as author of directive to be good to others
- God as first cause

Neither the former not the latter should insulate those who hold them from ridicule, but if we're talking about the tool of ridicule, the former provides a more expansive tool chest. The latter doesn't insulate one from ridicule but simply that those who would ridicule it might accept that its profile provides a smaller exposure to attack.

I have no intention of attacking anyone's icons, but consider the current dispute one might be sharpened and refined by considering the nature of the dispute.

Neither the former not the latter should insulate those who hold them from ridicule, but if we're talking about the tool of ridicule, the former provides a more expansive tool chest. — JosephS

I wouldn’t say “ridicule” is appropriate for any religion, except maybe Satanism. Questions are completely appropriate, though.

But that is the topic of discussion, because it is on the basis of that individual experience (given that someone is not merely subject to social influences or brainwashing) that people form their ethical, aesthetical, social, political, economic and religious beliefs and judgements. — Janus

Now you're just basically echoing my own point back to me, namely that it's only relevant to the topic insofar as it relates to religious beliefs, although you've also mentioned a load of other topics which are clearly not the focus of this discussion.

The "spirit of the scientific method" has little or no sway in the above-mentioned domains of belief and judgement, and hence beliefs in those domains cannot be in conflict with science. — Janus

You've already said that. Obviously I disagree. We're talking about two standards of judgement which couldn't be further apart. Science doesn't jump to conclusions. Religious experience-based belief does. That's a big difference. That's two diametrically opposed and incompatible approaches.

You need to produce an argument or account to show just how such beliefs and judgements should, or even could, be subject to the scientific method. You have previously admitted that ethical and moral beliefs are matters of personal experience and judgement, so now you appear to be contradicting yourself. — Janus

No I don't, because that's not a claim that I've made. Haven't you been listening to a word I've been saying? Whether it's subject to the scientific method is neither here nor there. As I've said, in those cases where a religious belief of the sort I've referred to is not subject to the scientific method - and no, I don't mean ethical or moral beliefs, which is not the subject of my criticism, and is off-topic - then the default position consistent with the spirit of the scientific method is scepticism. That's the point you're supposed to be addressing, although you seem to have run out of new things to say.

I haven't contradicted myself at all, you've just misunderstood.

S seems to fail to realize that credibility, except when it comes to empirical beliefs, is a subjective matter. — Janus

That's a highly misleading statement. It's not a "beauty is in the eye if the beholder" type thing. You can't polish a turd.

That's two diametrically opposed and incompatible approaches. — S

Of course I am not saying that the faith approach is compatible with the scientific method in the field of science, nor am I saying that the approach that we call "the scientific method" is compatible with the "faith" or intuitional approach in the field of religion. The other fields I mentioned are to various degrees kinds of hybrids where something of both approaches operates, again demonstrating that they are not incompatible except when ones tries to use one or other approach in a domain where it does not belong. Each domain has its own appropriate method of reaching judgement. the point is that there is no incompatibility, per se.

Anyway the fact that highly intelligent scientists can be religious shows us that the two approaches are not incompatible in any context-free way: the proof is in the pudding. If you want to object to that fact, then it would only be because you asset that those scientists are not behaving as you think they should; an attitude which, again, has nothing to do with the scientific method, but is merely your own prejudice.

The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs in the physical world.

There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences. — Noah Te Stroete

There's no universal epistemic standard, you must mean. And yes, you haven't told me anything new there. I've been over where the two standards differ, and why it's inconsistent to flip flop between the two extremes instead of maintaining an overarching consistent standard in your world view.

Ridicule is a natural human response to those things perceived as absurd. That I won't (or at least I try really hard not to) can't be considered a constraint on others. Ridicule (as opposed to threat) should be expected by anyone who would publicly present themselves on topics philosophical, spiritual or political.

I don't hold an opinion about Deepak Chopra and his reflections on quantum mechanics. I do, however, find value when a scientist who I've read and value responds to the claims of a Chopra or a Penrose (this is not in any way to say I find any commonality between the two -- only that I'm aware of attacks on Penrose's thoughts on quantum effects relation to consciousness).

It is a means for a layman to prioritize how much of our limited time is spent reading an author.

For the current discussion, I find your comments and those of @Janus in agreement with those of mine, but I'm open to splicing the space of the conversation to give @S a region where I can at least understand (while not sharing) his perspective.

Different people have different standards of credibility in different domains. Get over it. The only thing this has to do with turds is that you are behaving like (an unpolished) one.

There's no universal epistemic standard, you must mean. And yes, you haven't told me anything new there. I've been over where the two standards differ, and why it's inconsistent to flip flop between the two extremes instead of maintaining an overarching consistent standard in your world view. — S

Because I’m not a physicalist! Sheesh

Ridicule is a natural human response to those things perceived as absurd. — JosephS

I realize that as a metaphysical truth. I was making a normative claim.

You mention an important issue. When new age or religious thinkers try to co-opt science to support their faith in a positivistic way they are committing the sin of fundamentalism in my view. Then there is indeed incompatibility between religion and science, unless the use of scientific ideas is self-acknowledged as being merely more or less wild speculation, and thus not to be taken very seriously.

This notion of two separate and mutually exclusive domains is balderdash. For that to be the case, it would have to be true of all religious claims, which it is not. Some people here seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because there are some religious claims for which they favour a metaphorical interpretation, or for which they interpret in a way so as to be rendered outside the remit of science, that therefore the scientific method is completely inapplicable for all religious claims, or that there's no related problem in throwing the standards entailed by the scientific method out of the window and pretending as though anything goes. That view is woefully mistaken. If that illusion is how you justify your inconsistency to yourself, then so be it, but that's all it is: an illusion.

Different people have different standards of credibility in different domains. Get over it. The only thing this has to do with turds is that you are behaving like (an unpolished) one. — Janus

But it's hard to get over such a silly comment. I get that someone else might be stupid enough to call all manner of ridiculous things credible, but that's not a point that has any weight or bearing on a discussion that's supposed to be of a serious, intellectual nature such as this.

The two domains are mutually exclusive in the sense that one deals with the empirical and the other does not. And they are not mutually exclusive in the sense that society and individuals can operate in both domains without any problem, provided fundamentalism does not creep in on either side. On your side it has not merely crept in, but is running a marathon.

No wonder you erroneously believe that science and religion are incompatible; they are incompatible for you, and being a fundamentalist you are incapable of imagining that it would not be the same for others. But keep up your vacuous stream of assertions: I'm still finding it mildly amusing. It would be much more interesting if you actually provided a single argument, though, it is starting to wear thin.

a serious, intellectual nature — S

:rofl: Coming from an "intellectual" such as you who apparently lacks all subtlety, that is simply hilarious!

Anyway, thanks for the laughs, I'm done now.

The two domains are mutually exclusive in the sense that one deals with the empirical and the other does not. And they are not mutually exclusive in the sense that society and individuals can operate in both domains without any problem, provided fundamentalism does not creep in on either side. On your side it has not crept in, but is running a marathon.

No wonder you erroneously believe that science and religion are incompatible; of they are incompatible for you, and being a fundamentalist you are incapable of imagining that it would not be the same for others. But keep up your vacuous stream of assertions: I'm still finding it mildly amusing. It would be much more interesting if you actually provided a single argument, though, it is starting to wear thin. — Janus

It's simply not true that all claims of a religious nature are nonempirical. You seem to be confusing your own personal take on religion for religion itself. Either that or your have a major lack of imagination.

And it's only "not a problem" in a psychological sense, as in, people can get by just fine with the shortage of critical thinking skills or turning a blind eye entailed by the kind of religious beliefs I've mentioned. It's definitely a problem if you actually care enough about these matters intellectually. That would call for an urgent rethink.

Coming from an "intellectual" such as you who apparently lacks all subtlety, that is simply hilarious!

Any way, thanks for the laughs, I'm done now. — Janus

You're done now? Phew, that's a relief. You almost blew me away! Not with impressive arguments, of course. You've produced enough hot air to have filled an entire airfield of hot air balloons.

It's simply not true that all claims of a religious nature are nonempirical. — S

I'm tired of wasting time with your strawmen. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that fundamentalist religious claims are (or do at least purport to be) empirical claims.

It's definitely a problem if you actually care enough about these matters intellectually. — S

It is a problem for you because you apparently want to arrogate over how others should think. I don't share that arrogance of yours, so it doesn't matter to me except when people become fundamentalistic (from either side) in their thinking. That kind of thinking creates the very incompatibilities it erroneously claims are simply inherent.

Anyway I can't see anything new coming out of this discussion; so I think we are done.

Because I’m not a physicalist! Sheesh — Noah Te Stroete

That's a complete non sequitur. Again, you do not have to be a physicalist in order to maintain consistency in the sense I've described.