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?

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.

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.

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.

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...?

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.

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.

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.

:yawn:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

All that demonstrates is an incompatibility between the mind-set of faith and the mind-set of skepticism when it comes to questions that are not within the purview of science; it indicates no inherent incompatibility between science and religion (or Christianity in this case). — Janus

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".

A subject that is unanswerable by the scientific method, but that brings us to the “hard problem,” and I’m not interested in having that debate here. — Noah Te Stroete

You don't have to. There's a simple and short answer if that's the case, namely scepticism. But you're not a sceptic, so you're not scientifically-minded.

It’s my personal preference which isn’t subject to the scientific method, nor is it inconsistent with science. — Noah Te Stroete

You can call it whatever you like, but the cause of our consciousness is subject to the scientific method. Saying things like, "It's my personal preference", or "It's my faith", doesn't make any difference. It just seems to be an attempt to get a free pass. Well, permission denied.

I've made the point. You're simply wrong, and I'm not going to go around in circles with you.

Well, for me whatever causes our conscious experience which made the laws of nature discoverable is what I call “God.” I suppose I don’t need to call it that. I could call it “Sally.” — Noah Te Stroete

Or you could just not give that a silly name.

No.

If you're a Christian, for example, then that means that you have a set of key beliefs, or things you'd claim to be true.
— S

So, you claim to speak for all Christians? (And take note that the OP is not specifically about the compatibility of science with Christianity). — Janus

So Christian's don't have a set of key beliefs or things they'd claim to be true? (And I can read, thanks. You don't need to point out things that I'm well aware of).

The point about metaphor in religion is that religious ideas such as the resurrection of Christ need not be taken literally, and if they are not, then there is no coherent question about their compatibility with science. (Even on a literal interpretation that Christ's resurrection actually took place, and is thus to be considered an empirical event; it is not an event that science could investigate, since it took place 2000 years ago). Same goes for most of history, in fact.

Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. Since the existence of spiritual beings, or the spirituality of empirical beings is not a question science can either ask or answer, there would seem to be no inherent incompatibility between science and religion. — Janus

There's a name for someone who has no literal theistic beliefs: an atheist. I'm not talking about atheists. I specifically addressed theistic religions in my original comment.

And even for those claims which science can't investigate, there's still an inconsistency, as the scientifically-minded person would be a sceptic, not a believer, with regard to these claims. It's either one or the other. It can't be both.

Most religions, whether primitive, ancient or modern, think the existence of spiritual beings. Since the existence of spiritual beings, or the spirituality of empirical beings is not a question science can either ask or answer, there would seem to be no inherent incompatibility between science and religion. — Janus

The argument has been made, and the above is not a refutation of it. It doesn't even address it.

You're apparently using Abrahamic religion as your only point of reference.

I don't have any "scripture" at all, as my religion is not a revealed religion.
We have an abundance of religious texts and mythology, but all of these we acknowledge as being written by human beings. There may be bits of divine revelation among those texts, but we have no method nor any desire to hunt for those bits, because this is not the point.
Mythology is meant to be metaphorical, and our conceptions of gods and goddesses are naturally allegorical. The aim of myth is to give us a framework of meaning and reference to understand our place in the world. And myth teaches us useful insights by pointing out certain archetypes and structures. — WerMaat

Look, if you you're an exception, then good for you. You obviously in that case wouldn't be who I'm talking about, and therefore beside the point.

The Abrahamic religions happen to be the biggest religions by far.

I personally believe that the gods and goddesses exist, that I can interact with them in meaningful ways and that one of them created our world (ok, more like three of them, but it's complicated :grin: ) Therefore: Theist. (Polytheist, to be precise) — WerMaat

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.

WLC — AJJ

Lol.

No. In the informal usage of the ignorant it may sometimes seem to, but they misspeak, and in misspeaking their speaking is not the speaking of Christianity. Claims made by Christians are claims as matters of faith and belief - and that is all. No science, no claim of truth, except in misspeaking faith. That is, correctly understood, there is no discussion of merit here. — tim wood

In other words, you want these absurd claims shielded from scientific scrutiny, on the basis of a complete irrelevancy, namely that they are taken upon faith.

Well, no.

Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do. — Noah Te Stroete

By definition, yes. Unless you have some other meaning in mind. What's your point?

And a belief in a god or the supernatural cannot be justified by the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that belief is inconsistent with science. (Again, using “inconsistent” in the strict epistemological sense.) — Noah Te Stroete

The reasoning behind the conclusion has been explained. What don't you understand about it? They're inconsistent in the sense which matters most, which is the logical sense.

It's pretty meaningless talking about religion as a whole because of the sizeable variation in different religions and how they're interpreted. That's why I've been more specific.

And I don't know why some people are still acting as though the question of consistency hasn't already been answered.

For example, it is not possible to determine if the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815 using the method of experimental testing. The question is simply part of another epistemic domain, i.e. the historical method, and can only be handled by corroborating witness depositions. — alcontali

The historical method doesn't support the incredible claims of religion either.

Therefore, scientism is an irritating absurdity:

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. — alcontali

Scientism is a red herring used in discussions such as this as a smear by people who can't win arguments.

Science and religion are different domains, that's all. — Pantagruel

That's nothing but a self-serving delusion. You turn a blind eye to those religious claims of fact. These claims are open to scientific examination, whether you like it or not. And trying to distract attention away from these claims, as you've consistently done here, won't achieve anything, logically speaking.

According to science, the scientific method, there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that there is a god. That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.
Its not that complex. Just because someone believes in science and believes in god doesn't mean the two are compatible. Its called cognitive dissonance I believe.
If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god. If you have some other standard, “faith” probably, then have it but it isnt science. Thats it. Simple.
And to those discussing the open mindedness, perhaps some knows who said this (rough paraphrase) “do not have a mind so open that your brain falls out”. Also, the traits you specify scientists possess apply to the wider population. Its a human thing, not a scientist thing. — DingoJones

Exactly.

Descartes is the father of methodological skepticism, of the strictest kind. And he was a devout Catholic. Maybe it just requires exceptional abilities. — Pantagruel

He was a devout Catholic and he wasn't a skeptic, so there's no contradiction.

"Core claims in Christianity"

This would be the fallacy of overgeneralization. Christianity is not religion, any more than you are "humanity."

The topic is not "Are science and scripture compatible" or "Are science and Christianity compatible". — Pantagruel

It was an example of a religion. The biggest one, by the way. The topic is religion. That is of obvious relevance to the topic. My points have only ever been about some religions, not all religions.

The rifle used in the Garlic Festival shooting was legally purchased in Nevada. One of the victims who sadly died was a six year-old boy.

Sure, but there the core claims do not contradict science. — Coben

Yes they do. Core claims in Christianity: God exists, there's an afterlife, Jesus is the son of God, the Holy Spirit of Jesus rose from the grave.

Science has a method. Application of that method does not result in the above. So you can't both adhere to the scientific method, which would result in scepticism at best, and at the same time hold beliefs which fly in the face of that scepticism.

How can anyone be so blind to the obvious incompatibility here?

Hmmm. Your definition is the one I am using. It clearly has nothing to do with scriptures? Are you feeling ok? Dizzy or anything? — Pantagruel

When you've read my posts properly, feel free to get back to me for a serious discussion in relation to scripture.

You don't get to make up your own definitions. Theism is what it is. Your definition is convenient to your argument. True Scotsman. — Pantagruel

What a load of nonsense. I didn't make it up. If you were paying any attention, you would've noticed that I said I'd got it from Google dictionary, and this can be easily verified.

You are attempting to equivocate scripture and theism. — Pantagruel

No, that's an erroneous inference on your part. I already quoted the definition of theism I'm adhering to. I've mentioned scripture because it's of obvious relevance in a discussion about religion.

And I'm certainly not going to answer your questions when you've repeatedly evaded so many of mine.

Now you are just committing multiple fallacies. Red herring, equivocation.
The definition of theism is belief in the existence of a deity. Scriptures do not even enter into the definition of theism. Is that succinct enough for you?

Sorry to be curt, but this is getting kind of childish. — Pantagruel

Empty charges without explanation. You clearly don't know what you're talking when it comes to fallacies. I've neither changed the subject nor equivocated my terms.

And to answer you question, no, that's not succinct enough for me because you are, deliberately, evading my questions seeking clarification. You talk about metaphor, yet don't bother to properly explain yourself. If deity is a metaphor, then once again, there's the question of what it is a metaphor of. And if it's to be taken literally, then we're back to my original point that there's no science to support it. You can't both abide by the scientific method, and at the same time make special exemptions without warrant. Therein lies the inconsistency, therein lies the incompatibility.