That's just lame and sad, but I'm going to laugh anyway. :rofl:

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

I don't share that arrogance of yours — Janus

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

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

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.

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. — S

My point is that there are different epistemic standards for different domains.

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.

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

Done with attempting to discuss anything with you, not done with ridiculing you.

I don't share that arrogance of yours — Janus


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

Again you show your ignorance; I'm not telling anyone what to think, I'm only telling you what I think about your telling others, and without any cogent arguments to back it up, what they should think.

If you were to say that for you religion and science are incompatible, I would say that is fine; I am not arrogant enough to claim that you should not find them incompatible for you. But when you are arrogant enough to claim they are incompatible per se, as though that is some kind of objective or empirical fact, then you are just talking unsubstantiated shit, and I will be arrogant enough to call you out on it. (And that wasn't part of any "discussion" by the way (how could it be when dealing with you?) just in case you want to gleefully score some kindergarten points by saying I'm "full of it" because I said I was done with attempting to carry on a discussion with you). :lol:

Ok.

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.

Read Spinoza's Ethics...

Read Spinoza's Ethics S... — creativesoul

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. — S

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.

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.

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

To be clear here, I'm an agnostic on the matter of the origen of the universe. I'm also a very strong adherent of Ockham's razor and the avoidance of unnecessarily multiplying entities in order to explain some observation. I work from the tenets of methodological naturalism, so...

:kiss:

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.

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.

Of course it is. Science results in no such conclusion. — S

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

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. — S

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

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

No. Just no.

The burden would be on the person who assumed that there's an objective way the universe should be. — S

What is at stake is whether 'science explains how the universe is'. And you're the one claiming that science is the sole criterion for determining the answer to such questions. 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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

This is a fallacy, the argument from ignorance I believe. Since science doesnt know the answer, it can’t know the answer and I can insert so and so god did it. (Or whatever).
You do not get to make up an answer because you aren’t comfortable with “I dont know” as an answer. Not if you are interested in being rational/reasonable.

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.

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

This is a fallacy, the argument from ignorance I believe. — DingoJones

Not so. 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.

I'm not mischaracterising your position - you're arguing positivism, pure and simple. I did an undergraduate unit in A J Ayer, Language Truth and Logic. And you're singing from that hymnsheet, even if you don't understand that you are.