Can have my cup of science and slice of religion to?

[Nerdologist]

Rumblestiltskin

He's not a philosopher. He's an apologist.

WLC studied philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, where he came up with the KCA. He is currently Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology (granted, it's a conservative Christian seminary).

[Rumblestiltskin]

Nerdologist

Rumblestiltskin

He's not a philosopher. He's an apologist.

WLC studied philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, where he came up with the KCA. He is currently Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology (granted, it's a conservative Christian seminary).

I knew he studied philosophy and such, so maybe I should have been a little more clear. Within the discussion for where we usually see Craig and listen to what he has to say, it's not "philosophy"...it's apologetics.

[Username Why Not Zoidberg]

GoneCrazyResurrected

Rumblestiltskin

GoneCrazyResurrected

Sorry you don't know what that word means, you're using it in an incorrect way.

How about you actually go read about what hedonistic philosophy actually is (yeah reading Wikipedia or a dictionary isn't the same as an education in philosophy by the way) before attempting to respond to what I have said.

Or, you could explain how "OMG you don't believe what I believe!?! WTF" has any relevance to whether a person can apply the scientific method to religious claims or not.....

Just calling something a "religious claim" is too vague to make a serious comment on whether the scientific method can be applied to it.

For example is this "religious claim" a metaphysical claim, a moral claim, a scriptural claim? What kind of claim is it? Secondly, is this claim an empirical claim, meaning it is a claim that can be investigating by the use of our 5 senses or through other empirical means?

Religious claims have a very wide spread distribution. For example if you just look at Christianity alone, you have philosophers like William Lane Craig who being an analytic philosopher, very much makes religious claims that are based upon empirical premises. In that case science is appropriate to analyze his claims.

However on the other end of the spectrum, you have Christians who are more like mystics, who actually completely disagree with Craig's rational approach to religion and instead take a more spiritual approach. An example of this is a guy named David Bentley Hart who takes the approach that "God" is not actually a separate being in itself, rather God is the fundamental basis for everything that exists. That is to say God is pure spirit, pure intellect, etc, etc. Even though this is a metaphysical claim about the nature of God, it is not a claim that can be investigated at all by any empirical methodology, so therefore science is completely irrelevant.

I could go on and on, but the point is that making these sweeping generalizations like "Science can/can't investigate religious claims" or the too often made claim "God can't be proven/disproven by science!" are rooted in an ignorance of basic philosophy.

Certain conceptions of God can actually be disproven, it just depends on how "God" is defined (or whether God is defined at all, some religious people actually believe that to define God at all is fallacious because God is infinite and therefore cannot be defined as anything but. That God is beyond anything we could possibly comprehend).

I heard there was a feather headed dipshit being a a d**k. I just gotta say featherhead, you obviously don't know s**t about philosophy. While I'll admit it might be fun to just toss that word out there, maybe you should take a few classes first. Philosophy is not a science. It is an literary art used to pursue the answer of consciousness. The main question in philosophy is whether or not consciousness is a physical out come of a spiritual one. Brains in a vat theory, the forum, theory these sort of things have not been tested. The majority of philosophy consists of thought experiments. Quesitoning consciousness is not a science, but even scientist and matmeticions have dabbled in it. By comparison those minds have wondered the same questions as my friend.

In conclusion; as an atheist, I can say you're a total turd for using this forum as means to insult someone who is expressing their views in an non-insulting manner. Understand by claiming to believe in philosophy while scrutinizing others for whether or not they believe in a deity is an a**-backward's rebuttal in this sort of argument.

[Requiem ex Inferni]

It's possible to be spiritual, or be a theist, and still accept scientific facts as the truths they are; many scientists are spiritual (Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for example, kind of hinted at himself being at least somewhat spiritual in Cosmos). Organized religion, however, has this nasty tendency to discredit or dismiss any scientific facts that disprove, or fail to prove, their dogma and beliefs, because it's hard to keep control over people when something is actively contradicting your claims.

Personal faith and science can easily be compatible; with a few rare examples, religion and science aren't.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Username Why Not Zoidberg

GoneCrazyResurrected

Rumblestiltskin

GoneCrazyResurrected

Sorry you don't know what that word means, you're using it in an incorrect way.

How about you actually go read about what hedonistic philosophy actually is (yeah reading Wikipedia or a dictionary isn't the same as an education in philosophy by the way) before attempting to respond to what I have said.

Or, you could explain how "OMG you don't believe what I believe!?! WTF" has any relevance to whether a person can apply the scientific method to religious claims or not.....

Just calling something a "religious claim" is too vague to make a serious comment on whether the scientific method can be applied to it.

For example is this "religious claim" a metaphysical claim, a moral claim, a scriptural claim? What kind of claim is it? Secondly, is this claim an empirical claim, meaning it is a claim that can be investigating by the use of our 5 senses or through other empirical means?

Religious claims have a very wide spread distribution. For example if you just look at Christianity alone, you have philosophers like William Lane Craig who being an analytic philosopher, very much makes religious claims that are based upon empirical premises. In that case science is appropriate to analyze his claims.

However on the other end of the spectrum, you have Christians who are more like mystics, who actually completely disagree with Craig's rational approach to religion and instead take a more spiritual approach. An example of this is a guy named David Bentley Hart who takes the approach that "God" is not actually a separate being in itself, rather God is the fundamental basis for everything that exists. That is to say God is pure spirit, pure intellect, etc, etc. Even though this is a metaphysical claim about the nature of God, it is not a claim that can be investigated at all by any empirical methodology, so therefore science is completely irrelevant.

I could go on and on, but the point is that making these sweeping generalizations like "Science can/can't investigate religious claims" or the too often made claim "God can't be proven/disproven by science!" are rooted in an ignorance of basic philosophy.

Certain conceptions of God can actually be disproven, it just depends on how "God" is defined (or whether God is defined at all, some religious people actually believe that to define God at all is fallacious because God is infinite and therefore cannot be defined as anything but. That God is beyond anything we could possibly comprehend).

I heard there was a feather headed dipshit being a a d**k.

Hmmm yes, I heard there was a pot here talking about a kettle, too. White-knighting behind a keyboard is such a safe pastime, don't you think?

Quote:

I just gotta say featherhead, you obviously don't know s**t about philosophy.

And we should accept you as an authority on philosophy why?

Quote:

While I'll admit it might be fun to just toss that word out there, maybe you should take a few classes first.

Why should anybody care what you consider to be fun, or take your advice on classes to take? It would appear you think far too highly of yourself.

Quote:

Philosophy is not a science.

Who is claiming it is?

Quote:

It is an literary art used to pursue the answer of consciousness.

Actually, that's a very simplified version of the scope of philosophy. Convenient how it seems to counter a rational approach when in fact philosophy often concerns itself with rational argument.

Quote:

The main question in philosophy is whether or not consciousness is a physical out come of a spiritual one.

This is just incorrect. Philosophy deals with a great deal more than that.

Quote:

Brains in a vat theory, the forum, theory these sort of things have not been tested.

This is incoherent.

Quote:

The majority of philosophy consists of thought experiments.

Incorrect. Some of philosophy consists of thought experiments.

Quote:

Quesitoning consciousness is not a science, but even scientist and matmeticions have dabbled in it.

Consciousness is absolutely with the realm of medical science - and if you ever happen to have a brain injury, you'd better hope the doctor understands what that means.

Quote:

By comparison those minds have wondered the same questions as my friend.

So what?

Quote:

In conclusion; as an atheist, I can say you're a total turd for using this forum as means to insult someone who is expressing their views in an non-insulting manner.

And as a skeptic, I'd like to point out that your overweening need to rush to someone else's defense, to the degree that you are willing to make incorrect statements in an overblown effort to make someone else "feel bad" has been duly noted - and heartily laughed at.

Quote:

Understand by claiming to believe in philosophy while scrutinizing others for whether or not they believe in a deity is an a**-backward's rebuttal in this sort of argument.

Understand that people do not "believe in philosophy" to begin with, and acknowledging its existence is inconsequential to belief in deity.

[Fermionic]

Nerdologist

Fermionic

One can have religious conviction, and be scientists.

I am scientists. We are Groot.

Gosh.

[M E C H A N I C A R M]

Religion isn't all about God, though. Perhaps more importantly religions are about moral teachings and these are not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

[King Shining Heaven]

You can have both; ignore zealots on either side who say it must be one or the other

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

The Legendary Guest

Cupcakes HD

When theres too many times a religion contradicts science, it strongly hurts its credibility.

Whose credibility is being hurt in this scenario?

Whichever one is not well established and evidenced.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Cupcakes HD

The Legendary Guest

Cupcakes HD

When theres too many times a religion contradicts science, it strongly hurts its credibility.

Whose credibility is being hurt in this scenario?

Whichever one is not well established and evidenced.

Being established and having credible evidence are two entirely different sets of circumstances.

You presented a scenario. Your sentence structure is such that the point is conveyed poorly. What is being contradicted and which one's credibility is being damaged?

[Lightning the Lulu]

M E C H A N I C A R M

Religion isn't all about God, though. Perhaps more importantly religions are about moral teachings and these are not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

Really? Please discuss intelligently why morality is not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

[Rumblestiltskin]

M E C H A N I C A R M

Religion isn't all about God, though. Perhaps more importantly religions are about moral teachings and these are not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

I was originally going to respond to this to point out that religion only makes moral pronouncements, not teachings, but I felt that might have been too nit picky....and then I saw the rest of your comment. Logical thinking is the ONLY way we get our morality. In fact, most of the things religions would tell you are moral, were considered moral BEFORE they were written down. But, let's pretend for a second that your assertion that religions are more about moral teachings...are these things moral because the religion says so, or are they moral regardless? If morality is determined by the religion, then morality is arbitrary. Anything can be moral, depending on what that religion says is moral. If the things they are saying are moral regardless, then it doesn't take a religion to tell people that something is moral, as morality is independent of the religion. Either way, if you only choose to act "morally" based on what the religion tells you, then you are not being a moral being...you are being obedient, which, in this scenario, would be amoral.

[M E C H A N I C A R M]

The Legendary Guest

Really? Please discuss intelligently why morality is not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

Rumblestiltskin

I was originally going to respond to this to point out that religion only makes moral pronouncements, not teachings, but I felt that might have been too nit picky....and then I saw the rest of your comment. Logical thinking is the ONLY way we get our morality. In fact, most of the things religions would tell you are moral, were considered moral BEFORE they were written down. But, let's pretend for a second that your assertion that religions are more about moral teachings...are these things moral because the religion says so, or are they moral regardless? If morality is determined by the religion, then morality is arbitrary. Anything can be moral, depending on what that religion says is moral. If the things they are saying are moral regardless, then it doesn't take a religion to tell people that something is moral, as morality is independent of the religion. Either way, if you only choose to act "morally" based on what the religion tells you, then you are not being a moral being...you are being obedient, which, in this scenario, would be amoral.

Teachings/pronouncements that is nit-picky, it's semantics really. ;P But in response to the rest of you comment morals are arbitrary. Any set of morals has to based on an assumption and depending on the assumption the rules change dramatically. This can be seen quite obviously by the contradicting morals of different cultures/religions/people. Granted, if you want to get semantical (and I apologise for confusing things) morals can be analysed by logic, but what I mean to say is that there is no universal set of morals - there is no scientific way to define how people should live as the morals you chose to live by are all derived from the original assumption. This is not a feature unique to religion, but it is perhaps the most important part of one.

P.S. I completely agree with your statement that people following moral teachings out of obedience are not truly moral.

[Rumblestiltskin]

M E C H A N I C A R M

The Legendary Guest

Really? Please discuss intelligently why morality is not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

Rumblestiltskin

I was originally going to respond to this to point out that religion only makes moral pronouncements, not teachings, but I felt that might have been too nit picky....and then I saw the rest of your comment. Logical thinking is the ONLY way we get our morality. In fact, most of the things religions would tell you are moral, were considered moral BEFORE they were written down. But, let's pretend for a second that your assertion that religions are more about moral teachings...are these things moral because the religion says so, or are they moral regardless? If morality is determined by the religion, then morality is arbitrary. Anything can be moral, depending on what that religion says is moral. If the things they are saying are moral regardless, then it doesn't take a religion to tell people that something is moral, as morality is independent of the religion. Either way, if you only choose to act "morally" based on what the religion tells you, then you are not being a moral being...you are being obedient, which, in this scenario, would be amoral.

Teachings/pronouncements that is nit-picky, it's semantics really. ;P But in response to the rest of you comment morals are arbitrary. Any set of morals has to based on an assumption and depending on the assumption the rules change dramatically. This can be seen quite obviously by the contradicting morals of different cultures/religions/people. Granted, if you want to get semantical (and I apologise for confusing things) morals can be analysed by logic, but what I mean to say is that there is no universal set of morals - there is no scientific way to define how people should live as the morals you chose to live by are all derived from the original assumption. This is not a feature unique to religion, but it is perhaps the most important part of one.

P.S. I completely agree with your statement that people following moral teachings out of obedience are not truly moral.

Morals aren't arbitrary. They change, yes, but the change with our understanding of why something is moral or immoral. Morals also change based on a situation (i.e. killing someone is generally immoral, but a case could made for killing someone out of protection of another person being moral), but if morality were arbitrary, then it means nothing. Anything and everything could be moral or immoral. However, that's why we have objective moral standards...and they're pretty basic, such as pleasure generally being preferable to pain.

[Lightning the Lulu]

M E C H A N I C A R M

The Legendary Guest

Really? Please discuss intelligently why morality is not so easily dealt with through logical thinking.

Rumblestiltskin

I was originally going to respond to this to point out that religion only makes moral pronouncements, not teachings, but I felt that might have been too nit picky....and then I saw the rest of your comment. Logical thinking is the ONLY way we get our morality. In fact, most of the things religions would tell you are moral, were considered moral BEFORE they were written down. But, let's pretend for a second that your assertion that religions are more about moral teachings...are these things moral because the religion says so, or are they moral regardless? If morality is determined by the religion, then morality is arbitrary. Anything can be moral, depending on what that religion says is moral. If the things they are saying are moral regardless, then it doesn't take a religion to tell people that something is moral, as morality is independent of the religion. Either way, if you only choose to act "morally" based on what the religion tells you, then you are not being a moral being...you are being obedient, which, in this scenario, would be amoral.

Teachings/pronouncements that is nit-picky, it's semantics really. ;P But in response to the rest of you comment morals are arbitrary. Any set of morals has to based on an assumption and depending on the assumption the rules change dramatically. This can be seen quite obviously by the contradicting morals of different cultures/religions/people. Granted, if you want to get semantical (and I apologise for confusing things) morals can be analysed by logic, but what I mean to say is that there is no universal set of morals - there is no scientific way to define how people should live as the morals you chose to live by are all derived from the original assumption. This is not a feature unique to religion, but it is perhaps the most important part of one.

P.S. I completely agree with your statement that people following moral teachings out of obedience are not truly moral.

There is a difference between teachings and pronouncements and pointing out the difference is not a mere matter of semantics. Morals are not arbitrary, either. I don't think you followed what Rumble said and I am still waiting for you to discuss why morality is not so easily dealt with through logical thinking in an intelligent manner, because it is also not a mere matter of semantics.