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. — 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. — Janus
If that's all you were saying, then you aren't addressing the topic of discussion. — 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. — Noah Te Stroete
It's ludicrous to use that as a justification for treating such beliefs as credible — S
But that's what we're talking about: epistemology. — S
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
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
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 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
That's two diametrically opposed and incompatible approaches. — 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. — 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. — S
Ridicule is a natural human response to those things perceived as absurd. — JosephS
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
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
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
It's simply not true that all claims of a religious nature are nonempirical. — S
It's definitely a problem if you actually care enough about these matters intellectually. — S
Because I’m not a physicalist! Sheesh — Noah Te Stroete
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.