What is meaningful? — fishfry

Exactly. That's a glaring fault in the opening post. I would have made clarification on that point my top priority.

Meaningful may not be the best word but in the context of philosophy, meaningful discussions use clear terms and the people have a common understanding of the usage of words. — Wittgenstein

And this isn't much help either. I would predict that you'd get a mixture of affirmative and negative answers due to the lack of any firm, consistent, and shareable means or criteria upon which we can make that assessment, which ultimately means that there's no point in answering at all.

I would give this discussion set-up a rating of one out of ten.

You seem to have misquoted me.

Is Joe a threat? Of course, but not as large a threat as the government entity trying to care for me. — Obscuration

That point has been made plenty of times before, and what you say is true. Of course a tyrannical government turning on it's people would be a much bigger threat. But it's also hypothetical and extremely implausible in the US, so back in reality, it's not a credible threat, but in fact only functions as pro-gun propaganda or paranoid delusion.

Some unhinged Joe with a gun on the other hand... now that's a very real threat, as a number of US citizens have been unfortunate enough to find out.

In any case, this hysterical fear is probably best dealt with by mental health professionals. No-one here is going to be able to help you. — Baden

Hear, hear.

This actually makes sense to me. — Noah Te Stroete

It makes sense to me that it would make sense to you.

I didn’t say you were. — AJJ

Yes, you clearly did, and now you're contradicting yourself. You should reread what you wrote. You said that I was suggesting something I wasn't. Your exact wording was as follows:

So implicitly your answer is “no”. — AJJ

I deliberately rejected your question itself, as opposed to giving either an affirmative or negative answer, on the grounds that it was irrelevant and inapplicable, given that it was framed as a false analogy. We aren't talking about maths and fashion anymore if you're going to break that analogy. I stand by my previous answer about the incompatibility of science and religion.

You then responded with nothing other than your own misinterpretation of what I said. And you repeat that same misinterpretation yet again, as though it is fact, here:

It’s what follows from you implicitly answering ‘no’ to my previous question. — AJJ

You need to learn the difference between an implication and a misinterpretation.

If you aren't even capable understanding what I'm saying, which isn't all that complicated, then further discussion with you will be futile.

and also the respective methods of arriving at belief are opposed and incompatible for any given belief.
— S

What is the scientific method for arriving at the belief in a transcendent God, and why is it incompatible with the Kalam Cosmological Argument’s method, say? — AJJ

That's an odd question to ask in relation to my comment. I have no idea why you'd assume that there's a scientific method for arriving at the belief in a transcendent God, and I'm certainly under no burden to answer for your own peculiar imaginings which appear to have no logical relevance to my comment.

The Lib Dems are really getting on my nerves with their anti-Corbyn hysteria. They won’t even work with him to stop No Deal? — Michael

You beat me to the punch there. I just read that in the news a moment ago. It shows that their number one priority is not in fact stopping a No Deal Brexit, in spite of all the hot air coming from the Lib Dems. If the expected no confidence vote fails, they'll shoulder a responsibility for that, and for all of the detrimental consequences which follow. :down:

So implicitly your answer is “no”. And therefore as long as religion has no input on scientific questions (how old is the earth?), and science has no input on questions of natural theology/philosophy (does God exist?), then there will be no contradiction. — AJJ

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

But from your post you seem to be saying they conflict only when they encroach on each other’s territory; not that they do in principle. — AJJ

There are extremely prevalent religious beliefs, the content of which is in conflict with science, and also the respective methods of arriving at belief are opposed and incompatible for any given belief.

Providing mathematics has no input on fashion trends (and vice versa), could there be a contradiction? — AJJ

But as I've said many times now, religion does, in at least some cases, have an input on worldly matters open to science, so you're breaking down the analogy. That's why the notion of two entirely separate and non-overlapping domains is bullshit propaganda.

It was an example of a religion
— S

↪S
Right. Which is why your argument was an overgeneralization. — Pantagruel

No, it's why you misunderstood the target of my criticism.

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ

If they lead to contradiction with mathematics, then in that respect, yes. But it's hard to see how fashion trends could lead one to believe, say, that one plus one equals three, so the analogy doesn't work in every respect.

He's not the brightest bulb in the pack, so part of his mistake might be a failure to realise that arguments and ridicule are not mutually exclusive. For instance, my short yet effective argument against Wayfarer's attempt at criticising science is both.

But there are still clear arguments I've made which contain no ridicule at all, so that still wouldn't explain this apparent delusion he has.

I'm saying, science can't, in principle, determine if there is a 'first cause' or higher intelligence. It's simply not equipped to discover that, it's out of scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer

And you apparently have no response to my criticism of that argument, which I'm guessing you'll have convinced yourself is dismissible for some superficial reason.

I cannot keep track, do you have a personal beef with S? I observe he has provided arguments, good ones that have not been refuted. I can see for myself that what you just accused of S is not true. Either you do not understand those arguments or you have some personal reason to ignore them and pretend he has said nothing of substance... — DingoJones

It does amuse me when people make that accusation against me, on a public forum, in the middle of a debate we've been having. Janus did it too.

And yes, he does have a personal beef with me. It probably stems from the fact that when he says something stupid, I will have the gal to tell him.

It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

It's a daft argument: the equivalent in text form of shouting in anger at a lamppost for not playing fetch.

Neither of you are seeing the point - science cannot explain the order of nature. Given the order of nature, then science can explain many things, but it doesn't explain the order. It can't, for example, see 'before the singularity'. So natural theology can argue that the Big Bang developed in just the way it did, because God made it so; you may choose not to believe that, but science can't help make your case. It's out of scope. — Wayfarer

I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends.

What is at stake is whether 'science explains how the universe is'. — Wayfarer

Well yeah, of course it does to a large extent. Are you serious? There's no better recourse.

And you're the one claiming that science is the sole criterion for determining the answer to such questions. — Wayfarer

It would be helpful if you refrained from making up claims and attributing them to me. Do you think you can manage that?

What I'm showing you, is that science cannot determine the answer to those questions; science begins with the (quite reasonable) assumption that the universe exists, but really it is silent on what if anything is behind it all, whether there is a higher intelligence or not. — Wayfarer

No, it can explain how the universe is in great detail, and with a wealth of evidence behind it. And it is not at all silent in affirming that there has so far been no scientific evidence of any imagined "higher intelligence".

Everything you say on this topic falls into the category of both scientism and positivism. If you don't like it, change your tune! — Wayfarer

It's alright, I understand that you see it as advantageous to mischaracterise my position in that way, even though resorting to such underhanded tactics doesn't exactly put you in a good light.

Suit yourself. Ignorance is bliss. Laterz. I have better things to do. — creativesoul

No, don't go. Please stay.

(You'll just have to imagine my poker face and deadpan delivery, as it's difficult to convey in the text).

Again... you're conflating implication/entailment with incompatibility. — creativesoul

No. Just no.

I suggest that you first figure out what incompatibility means... then re-read what I've said. — creativesoul

And you know what you can do with that suggestion.

Science can't explain the 'order of nature' which underwrites the principles that it discovers and then utilises in order to proceed. Newton discovered that F=MA, and Einstein that E=MC2 - but neither could tell you why this should be so. — Wayfarer

Well "should" is the wrong word. They wouldn't be burdened with that to begin with. The burden would be on the person who assumed that there's an objective way the universe should be.

Scientific cosmology now says that the universe exploded into existence from a single point in a single instant. But there is no way of determining why, when this happened, it culminated in a stable Universe populated by intelligent beings. Even for there to be living planets, there had to be many pre-existing conditions. Science knows quite about about what happened, but it can't say why it happened, or why it culminated in an ordered universe. That leads to many debates about 'the fine-tuning argument vs the multiverse' - but all those arguments are likewise beyond the scope of science to solve.

So really all you're doing is preaching positivism. — Wayfarer

First of all, no, I'm not preaching positivism at all. That's just another misleading characterisation, much like the scientism label.

And although you think you're highlighting a fault with science, you're actually only making apparent your own unwarranted expectations of science.

Many also derive pantheism, although I've read counters to that derivation. That's still the same point. Pantheism (God is within all things) is also not incompatible with science. — creativesoul

Of course it is. Science results in no such conclusion. Going by science, I have no such belief. Going by blind faith, I have such a belief. I cannot both have such a belief and at the same time have no such belief. That's a contradiction. The two methods or ways of approaching this are not compatible. Science does not permit blind faith, and blind faith has no need of science, and the two can and do lead to different beliefs.

If you intend to overlook or disregard my meaning and talk past me by implicitly arguing in favour of a different sense of compatibility, then I will be making a swift exit from our discussion.

Compatibility in the only relevant sense S. Not contradictory to science. You're conflating entailment/implication with compatibility. — creativesoul

If it's not contradictory to science, then answer my question. Explain the scientific process which results in the conclusion that there exists a God.

Not all religious belief is incompatible with science. A creator of the universe that does not interfere is perfectly compatible. Many derive such from Spinoza. Einstein believed in a Spinozan God.

Einstein. — creativesoul

I suspect you're talking about compatibility in a different sense. In order to argue against the sense of incompatibility that I am speaking of, you would have to tell me what principle of science would lead one to the conclusion that there is a creator of the universe in the first place, whether intervening or otherwise. Perfectly compatible? I think not. In terms of methodology, I agree with the original poster 100%. They are chalk and cheese.

Read Spinoza's Ethics S... — creativesoul

I'll give that a pass. But if you have a point to make, then make it.

Ok.

Scientism seems to be more of an invented position than a position actually held, and those who do hold it seem to comprise only a small minority. It is mostly used around these parts as a smear: an exaggerated misrepresentation intended to damage the credibility of the other person in a debate.

Ah, okay. So you're done discussing the topic with me, and you demonstrate that by continuing to discuss the topic with me.

Why would I say that the two are incompatible for me? They're incompatible in the sense I've described, not just for me, but for anyone with half a brain.

So not for you, then.

My point is that there are different epistemic standards for different domains. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm not sure you understand the point that I'm making. I am critical of those who think that it is acceptable to drastically lower the quality of their epistemic standard when it comes to religion, when they don't do so with regard to other matters. That's where the inconsistency lies, even if there's no choice but to approach a particular religious claim through a means other than the scientific method. It is not just the methodology of science which is of import, but the reason why it is so successful. It wouldn't be so successful if it permitted the kind of flawed thinking behind many religious beliefs.

Then why isn’t the same epistemic standard used for science used for ancient history? Because they are two different domains. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't think you know what it means to be a physicalist, and you now seem to have lost track of our conversation.

I don't share that arrogance of yours — Janus

That's the funniest thing you've said by far.

I thought you "were done"? More evidence that you're full of it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.