Science is, roughly, the name for human knowledge (in its classic definition, justified true belief).

You justify statements with good reasons (eg evidence, true argument), not by dismissing or attempting to undermine the most basic criteria for what counts as knowledge in order to get away with anything.

Okay, that is a very different definition than what science means within my real life circles. I would generally just call that philosophy.

Under that definition, I'm not really sure you can say theism is against science. You may say it is bad science or mistaken science- you may say that theism has poor arguments or make mistakes somewhere - but it would still be science. I'm not even sure I would call it bad science, considering it would pretty much assume all theistic arguments are without merit.

Yet a "community of minds" approach to pragmatic inquiry would logically require everyone to have the same kind of experience in repeatable fashion under the same conditions. — apokrisis

As you probably know, Peirce claimed in the article that "any normal man" who engaged in the kind of Musement that he recommended, and did so "in scientific singleness of heart," would come to love and adore "his strictly hypothetical God" to the point of shaping his "whole conduct of life" accordingly, which according to Peirce "is neither more nor less than the state of mind called Believing." Of course, in the second additament - the one that actually appeared with the original article in The Hibbert Journal - he explicitly grounded this assertion in the admittedly dubious assumption "that my own intellectual disposition is normal." He also acknowledged "that no pessimist will agree with me," adding, "I do not admit that pessimists are, at the same time, thoroughly sane." :D

If your essay gets published, send me a link. — apokrisis

Will do, but it will be a while. I finally heard back from the journal editor today, confirming that he received the manuscript and is initiating the review process, which will likely take a few months.

he explicitly grounded this assertion in the admittedly dubious assumption "that my own intellectual disposition is normal." — aletheist

Heh, heh. I would have loved to meet the guy because even biographical accounts don't paint a picture that make sense to me - even as in the classic mold of "eccentric mathematical genius/borderline autist".

I don't agree with any of those statements. Big bang "in sync with creation"? Wtf — jkop

I think the purported ''beginning'' of the universe 13.8 billion years ago can be easily interpreted as the moment God ''created'' the universe. There's nothing unreasonable about that is there?

Well if you are discussing the actual details of science and how religion can be compatible, then you are right. But I would talk about it from the other perspective, like I did in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/45969), which you might have missed or wasn't convincing enough that you didn't think it was worth replying.

The conclusion, that god created the big bang, is arbitrary and not based on reason.

The theist may have reasons and arguments for their position, which is simply something called god exists. The only real big push for the existence of a god and a connection to the Big Bang I can think of (within more intellectual circles, not random apologetists for whatever religion) is William Craig's formulation of the Kalaam cosmological argument.

The theist may have reasons and arguments for their position, which is simply something called god exists. — Chany

That would be a statement, not an argument, nor a reason.

Perhaps my phrasing conveyed my message poorly, as I could see how you got that. I meant to convey this:

The position of the theist is that something called god exists. The theist may have reasons and arguments for believing this god exists.

What do you think is achieved by rephrasing the same statement?