When this becomes a discussion about scriptures I will.

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?

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".

We all hold tend to hold various 'contradictory beliefs'. It takes a bit of intellectual sophistication to realize that ! One concept which follows from that is 'the committee nature of self'.

I think this whole confusion stems from a lack of exposure to the true breadth and depth of religious materials. Maybe William James' Varieties of Religious Experience would be a good jumping off point.

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.

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

True that. I am often amazed at how dogmatic some science disciples can be. To me, the most important aspect of science is always retaining an open mind. — Pantagruel

Yes, that's the idea of science I grew up with, but then more and more I realized how keeping an open mind is precisely not an attitude that characterizes most scientists nowadays, instead they see an open mind as a defect, as a mind that lets in ideas and beliefs and theories and practices that do not fit the superior realm of Science. If only they could at least define that realm precisely and consistently, but they don't, or rather they can't and that's the worst part of it, they say something is Science because it fits some criteria, and then they say some other thing isn't Science even though it fits the exact same criteria, and then they ridicule that other thing and use derogatory terms to qualify it. That's like the antithesis of having an open mind.

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.

That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.

That's right. It's pretty much the whole point that has been made. Conclusions about god are not scientific. Science and religion are different domains, that's all. They are neither compatible or incompatible. They could, however, be complementary.

Like I said, cognitive dissonance.

It isn't causing any dissonance for me. Quite the reverse.

That is to say, conclusions that there is a god are not scientific.
The two are not compatible.
(...)
If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god. — DingoJones

Your logic is not sound.
There is no scientific prove for the existence of gods - true
Therefore gods don't exist - false! The absence of proof does not prove absence.

Even if the existence of gods cannot be proven, neither can their non-existence be proven.
The absence of useful falsification methods further removes the religious sphere from the scientific.

Therefore I can see science as my standard in some matters, and religion as my standard in other matters. Applying scientific method to the religious sphere is about as useful as trying to measure temperature with a speedometer.

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. — S

If a question does not fall under the purview of a particular epistemic method, it could still be handled by another one. The fallacy of scientism, is that experimental testing would be the only legitimate, epistemic method.

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.

The question of completeness has been investigated for the axiomatic method.

A set of axioms is (syntactically, or negation-) complete if, for any statement in the axioms' language, that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms. This is the notion relevant for Gödel's first Incompleteness theorem. There are sentences expressible in the language of first order logic that can be neither proved nor disproved from the axioms of logic alone.

The axiomatic method is capable of self-investigation and determine by itself that it is incomplete. The scientific method is not even capable of carrying out that kind of self-investigation. So, how could the scientific method possibly be complete?

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.

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. — S

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.

As to Scotsmen, S. may very well be a real one, though by no means a true one - as any real Scotsmen would observe.

Again, you must explain how it makes any sense for a theist to believe that scriptures are entirely metaphorical. — S

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.

In what sense are they theist? What does that mean? How are they distinct from an atheist? — S

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)

One point I have to concede is that I take my beliefs to be entirely subjective and based on personal study and experience. And I freely admit that I may be wrong. So you might say that I am a bit of an agnostic - but certainly not an atheist!

What's a divine being a metaphor for, then? — S

I believe that the divine is too vast to be grasped by a human mind. Therefore metaphor is a necessary instrument to approach it.
All the images we have of the gods can never reflect a pure and absolute truth.
Instead the names, titles and pictures we have each reflect a certain aspect of the gods. The more we have, the richer and more varied our perception of the divine becomes.
The monotheists call it idolatry, of course...

There must be some definition of theism or set of criteria for one to count as a theist. I'm simply abiding by the conventional definition, which is meaningful. Are you going by some idiosyncratic meaning which suits your own beliefs, ideals, preconceived notions...? — S

Well, my approach is not very conventional in the modern Western world, but I didn't make it up to "suit my preconceived notions", I merely build up on an old African tradition.
However, I think that I am within your proposed definition of:
" Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. "

Your logic is not sound.
There is no scientific prove for the existence of gods - true
Therefore gods don't exist - false! The absence of proof does not prove absence. — WerMaat

That is not what I said, while you are looking up cognitive dissonance also take a look at the term “strawman”.
Pay closer attention to my first paragraph, there are distinct differences between what I said and what you characterised as my argument.

Pay closer attention to my first paragraph, there are distinct differences between what I said and what you characterised as my argument. — DingoJones

I have read the paragraph again, but I apologize, I have not found these differences.
Your text it still seems to imply that from your proposition that god cannot be proven by science you follow that "If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god".
Why does the scientific approach prevent belief? That was exactly my point: It's not like science can disprove the existence of gods either.
If you feel that I'm misrepresenting your position, would you kindly explain where I'm going wrong?

I also don't see the cognitive dissonance.
Your argument basically goes: "I cannot hear the color red, so as a person who hears I cannot believe in the color red"
Where's now the cognitive dissonance if you say: "I cannot hear "red", but I can see it, for I am a person who both hears and sees."


By the way, thank you for the "strawman" - I was not familiar with the term and learned something new in looking it up. :grin:

If science is your standard, you cannot believe in god — DingoJones

I don't know what you intend by having science as a standard (a standard for what).

Perhaps you can help delineate it in the following way.
Which, if any, of the following are compatible with your stance

If science is your standard
- you cannot believe that you exhibit subjective self-awareness
- you cannot believe that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists
- you cannot believe that blue is a nice color
- you cannot believe that you love your child

Oi.
“Insufficient evidence to support the proposition that there is a god” is not the same as “there is no scientific proof that god exists therefore there is no god”.
I get that it can be difficult to catch certain subtle differences in word use but come on...if you cannot tell that those sentences mean different things then you are displaying a poor understanding of science and its method, and I would guess the burden of proof as well.

I seriously have to explain to you what science is a standard for?! Hard pass.
I cannot believe I exhibit subjective self awareness? This is the most basic, singular certainty anyone can have, it has zero need of the scientific method. Terrible example for you to use here.
I cannot believe that alien intelligence exists? Correct, not using the scientific method. Its entirely possible, thats as far as science can say at this time.
I cannot believe that blue is a nice colour? Correct, according to the scientific method blue is not a nice color, as colors being nice is a subjective fact about someones tastes. That is not what science is used for, but then I guess you dont really know that considering you indicated as much above.
I cannot believe I love my child? Again, this subjective experience you reference multiple times here (excepting the alien one, your few claims are actually all the same thing, already dispelled when I addressed the first one) is more fundamental than science, it is actually the one thing we do not need science for at all because we have something better...Descartes inarguable “I think therefore I am”.
Anyway, that was fun and all but you clearly have some things you need to brush up on before you can properly have this discussion, maybe we can pick it up after you do so.

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).

Yes, and that's basically a repetition of an earlier response which I've already addressed, so please see my earlier response to this. — S

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.

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

True, but not for followers of scientism.

Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians') may believe there is an incompatibility between science and religion, but they can provide no good argument for this belief. It is, quite simply, a category error. Of course, they'll never admit that, but will carry on blustering and puffing up their "arguments" with empty rhetoric instead.

Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians') may believe there is an incompatibility between science and religion, but they can provide no good argument for this belief. It is, quite simply, a category error. Of course, they'll never admit that, but will carry on blustering and puffing up their "arguments" with empty rhetoric instead. — Janus

I distinguish between science and scientism. Science’s domain is the physical world. Scientists do not have to adhere to scientism, the unfounded faith that science can explain everything. Many scientists don’t adhere to scientism. Dfpolis is such a person right here on this forum.

So what, if an old creation myth is contradicted by evolution or geology?
Our ancestors didn't have those answers, so the religious metaphor was all they could rely on. — WerMaat

There is one problem with interpreting scripture's impossible tales as moral metaphors or religious metaphors. I believe that the authors of scriptural mistakes in science were not trying to write metaphors, and neither was god when he instilled the prophets to write the scriptures. They were simply ignorant, and their efforts were honestly science-minded; they did not follow through, or had no sufficient knowledge base to follow through the ramifications of their facts; re: Noah's story, the guy in the big fish, etc. etc.

To call these tales scientific metaphors or moral- or religious metaphors is one the vile tricks the religious employ to defend their indefendible faiths.

I know actual scientists don't necessarily adhere to scientism, I mean that is the whole point of saying that religion and science are not inherently incompatible: that scientists can be sympathetic to religion or even be religious themselves without their practice of science being diminished in any way.

My point about what practitioners of science should be called was, of course, a little "tongue in cheek", but the name 'scientist' does literally mean "adherent of scientism",in the same sense as a feminist is an adherent of feminism, a racist is an adherent of racism, a utopianist is an adherent of utopianism and so on.

That there are disciplines such as geology, psychology, archeology and others where this principle doesn't follow is just another example of the inconsistency of English.The difference between the two sets seems to involve the presence of some ideology or other.

Scientists, in the sense of 'adherents of scientism' (I have long thought that practitioners of science should be called 'sciencers' or 'scienticians') may believe there is an incompatibility between science and religion, but they can provide no good argument for this belief. It is, quite simply, a category error. Of course, they'll never admit that, but will carry on blustering and puffing up their "arguments" with empty rhetoric instead. — Janus

Janus, you speak truly like one who is devoted to a faith, and facts, arguments, will never daunt you. This diatribe you wrote only proves your ignorance borne out of blind faith and borne out of a conviction to never accept an otherwise valid argument if it speaks against your religion.

Your devotion to faith on the expense of rejecting known facts and valid teories is well described in your little note there.

When you say "they can provide no good argument" you admit that the huge amount of good arguments already extant, you simply, by necessity of convenience, ignore.

I didn’t know the etymology of “scientism.” I guess I assumed it was a word made up by those who were labeling others who have this unfounded faith in science to explain everything.

How wrong you are: I am not religious at all! And by the way; you haven't provided a single argument.

Janus, you speak truly like one who is devoted to a faith, and facts, arguments, will never daunt you. This diatribe you wrote only proves your ignorance borne out of blind faith and borne out of a conviction to never accept an otherwise valid argument if it speaks against your religion.

Your devotion to faith on the expense of rejecting known facts and valid teories is well described in your little note there.

When you say "they can provide no good argument" you admit that the huge amount of good arguments you simply, by necessity of convenience, ignore. — god must be atheist

Scientism doesn’t provide any cogent arguments that science can explain everything. That’s the point. Scientism is the religion. Science includes fields of study and the scientific method. I don’t think Janus is religious by the way.