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.

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.

Are you an Egyptologist? You seem to be very knowledgeable. Good to have you here!

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.

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. — S

Well, I don’t think we would disagree that believing the Bible stories are literal truths are justifiable.

I happen to think that there is a God that causes dead matter to collect itself into conscious beings, and I think this is a good abductive inference.

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. — S

All a cogent argument can result in is “probably true.” That is induction, and it only deals with the physical world.

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.

and that it's inconsistent to selectively flip flop like that when it suits you. — S

Well, I’m not a physicalist. I don’t find their arguments compelling, so 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.

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.

Furthermore, and I don’t have the statistics to say what percentage of experiments fall into this category, but many experiments are not repeatable.

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. — S

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.

The point that Janus and others are making is comparable to pointing out that you can be a serial killer and Judge, and then pretending as though there's no conflict here. — S

Care to back up this analogy with an argument?

The spirit of the scientific method is about the epistemological standard employed, about the broader context. — S

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.

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. — S

And what is “the spirit of the scientific method?” And why should people value it?

The scientific method isn't based on principles whereby one can believe whatever they like purely on faith. — S

That’s where you’re wrong. 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.

Unless, you’re talking about the other domains, viz. history, psychology, sociology, etc. None of these can answer the spiritual questions either. To deny spirituality says more to having a brain defect. A majority of people experience these things.

There's nothing in the scientific method which says, "Just believe whatever you like because it is a part of some religion". — S

The scientific method doesn’t say anything about leaning to one side or the other when it comes to the unanswerable.

I don’t worship Hume.

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.

Or you could just not give that a silly name. — S

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

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. — S

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.”

And I’m not talking about the brain. Whatever causes dead matter to organize itself into life is Sally. Or God.

Coherence is whether a belief is justified (by other facts with a foundation in sense data). Consistency is whether beliefs contradict one another.

A belief in God is not justified empirically, but it is not inconsistent with having beliefs that are justified by science.

Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do and they would be wrong.

There are different versions of the meaning of “coherency” and “consistency.” Consistency has nothing to do with coherency. That is a confusion that many make.

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.)

Also, what makes someone religious? Do they have to be dogmatic and unquestioning in their accepting of the tenets of a faith?

Logical arguments are neither won nor lost when the premises cannot be agreed on. I think instead of “compatible,” the question should be:

Are they consistent?

And I use the term “consistent” in the strict epistemological sense.

I think people should know what the epistemological term “consistency” means.

I find that mood stabilizers (for me, 400 mg of Lamotrigine daily, a rather high dose which is needed) stop the cycle almost altogether. One hundred milligrams of Loxapine daily helps me, in the sense that I no longer think and speak poetically, something that never actually helped me anyways. Cognitive behavioral therapy doesn’t seem to be helping anyone here.

But if one values being inaccessible to people, then have at it.

where you would say the person is both employing empirical methods and is not doing science? — Moliere

Psychiatrists

Some examples that come to mind for me: A machine operator. A lighting technician. A cook. — Moliere

Any user of technology who isn’t trying to fix that technology.

Edit: except scientists who are employing technology in the pursuit of science.

Your language is very dense. By “dense,” I mean that there is a lot to unpack. I know you’re a busy person, but if you find the time, maybe you could humor me by explaining the premises further? Totally up to you.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps one would have to take that time machine trip 15 times in order to get the desired results. But desire is value driven. Are we responsible for our values? Or are they determined by circumstances beyond our control?

No worries.

I guess you’re right in questioning my interest in this topic. I’m not really interested enough to read the fundamental literature on the subject. I was just hoping you could provide me with some answers, so I could determine whether it was interesting enough to study further. As of now, to me it is not.

We all have our personal tastes. I’m sorry that I bullied you.

Maybe you're just accustomed to having things your own way, I don't know. But it's not unreasonable to expect some give-and-take here. There is plenty for you to be getting on with - I'm not sure what you are expecting of me, exactly. I suppose I could copy/paste material that is already easily accessible to you in the literature with which you are not familiar, but that doesn't help anybody in particular. You have raised, not so much challenges or problems for libertarianism, as much as queries about it, queries which are addressed in the material with which I have furnished you. In order to understand a position better, is the published work of its advocates not the first port of call? If, having become familiar with libertarianism, you have specific objections to its specific proposals, you are perfectly at liberty to start thread of your own. But, in the meantime, it seems as though the 'cowardice' only goes one way. The fact that you don't bother to deal with the substance of the argument I presented isn't even taken into account. — Virgo Avalytikh

My second set of concerns were raised. What is the libertarian definition of “liberty?” How do inherently aggressive humans fit into this system?

These seem to be foundations of your argument about market failure. I will not accept your answer to defer to the experts.

Are my questions not relevant to your system? I’m trying to engage you in discussion.

As to market failure, you fail to justify in your system that there would be “liberty,” and also how people would adhere to “non-aggression.”

That’s very cowardly.

It had been previously established in this thread that this is all highly speculative. Take the OP with a grain of salt.

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia. — Noah Te Stroete

I already noted that he thinks I'm an idiot. You might, too. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think you’re an idiot. On the contrary, I think you have a lot of original thought. I just disagree or don’t understand you a lot of the time.

If we all get to start off from square one with equal property, who’s to stop me from breaking Charles Koch’s teeth when I punch him in the mouth? Who’s going to run the jails?

Why don’t you tell us what “frame of reference” means?

If it's any solace, I think that the majority of people who regularly post here are idiots while being ridiculously arrogant... The arrogance comes from the fact that they're educated idiots--they know some things, in the sense of being familiar with them and being able to regurgitate them, but that's not at all the same thing as intelligence. — Terrapin Station

“I’m looking at the man in the mirror! (Oh, yeah!)
I’m asking him to change his ways! (Oh, yeah!)
And no message could’ve been any clearer!
If you want to make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and make that change!”