Pantagruel

Well, if source A relies on corroboration from source B, which relies on corroboration from source C, etc., Unless you are explicitly saying that ther...

Ok, so there is a "reliability hierarchy". Do you need to be aware of that hierarchy? Doesn't this lead to an infinite regress? Or a 'conspiracy of mu...

I think it is pretty much universally accepted to refer to "spiritual beliefs" vs. "spiritual knowledge." Since an epistemic standard is a standard of...

Right. Which is why your argument was an overgeneralization. There are myriad religions, many of which do not share the characteristics of Christianit...

Personally, I think it is self-evident that there is 'more going on' than falls within the limits of science. At least a science that rejects phenomen...

LOL!

Too, these automisms may represent 'cognitive habits' that have evolved either ontogenetically or phylogenetically. They may be pre-conscious or sub-c...

What do you make of this excerpt from Bergson's "Creative Evolution" where he describes consciousness as not requiring a brain: Between mobility and c...

I don't mind being a passenger as long as the driver always goes where I want.

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

Right, but what I am saying is, based on the way learning evolves, that choice could still be construed as "conscious" in a more inclusive kind of con...

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 domain...

What you are talking about is more or less synonymous with "Background processing". John Searle has described how conscious awareness "rises to the le...

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

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 Rel...

This would be the fallacy of overgeneralization. Christianity is not religion, any more than you are "humanity." The topic is not "Are science and scr...

Well, this is kind of the goal of the phenomenolgical reduction or epoche. To reduce the vagaries of perspective to the lowest common denominator of c...

When this becomes a discussion about scriptures I will.

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

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

You are attempting to equivocate scripture and theism. And that is a red-herring. If you don't understand the explanation it's not from its not being ...

I'm with you there. The ecosystem has been balancing itself out over millenia. The idea that we can introduce genetic changes into the real world and ...

That kind of hearkens back to Descartes' idea that science can make us "masters and possessors of nature." Personally, I see it as more of a coming in...

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 mi...

Yes, this is kind of the spirit of what I had in mind. Like Durkheim's idea of anomie...progress too far in one direction starts to become damaging in...

Now you are just committing multiple fallacies. Red herring, equivocation. The definition of theism is belief in the existence of a deity. Scriptures ...

No true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. No true theist believes that scriptures are metaphorical. You can believe there is a divine being without...

You literally used the term "no actual theist" in exactly the paradigmatic sense of the fallacy's "no true Scotsman."

I agree that science is a well-defined field of practice, exemplified by the steps of the scientific method which are unambiguous and therefore nothin...

You have just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy.

I think the consensus is that you are conflating the opinions of individuals with principles of the systems to which those individuals declare allegia...

Most people believe it is wrong to harm another person intentionally, although there is absolutely no way to "prove" this. All you can prove is what w...

Thanks, this was my initial premise. You can also frame it in terms of the is-ought gap (Hume's law).

A very pragmatic exposition.

Just because a person is a scientist does not make all of his or her actions scientific. Any more than claiming to be religious makes all of one's act...

That fact that things are a certain way is descriptive. The fact that they ought to be another way is normative. That's basic stuff. Religions have be...

I am afraid you are missing the point of that. It is NOT the business of science to make normative claims.

I was careful to say if each is true to its essence. Anything can be bastardized. Science that is true to scientific principles and religion that is n...

The domains of science and religions are (or ought to be, if each is true to its essence) non-overlapping and perhaps complementary. Religion, particu...

"what is the philosophy behind discovery/invention?" — regel Actually, I would say the experimental method fits this bill.

I would suggest you close the topic. :)

Well, first, you assume that I haven't done any further reading, which I have. That fact that you would in any way denigrate the quality of a work bas...

What's wrong with 17th century philosophy exactly?

LIke I said, Descartes, the "father of modern philosophy" Anyway, I'm sorry that you (that is the 'you' that is the cause of the rather repetitive obj...

It isn't a "claim" it's the definition of thinking. What you are proposing is absurd. A reductio ad absurdum to be precise.

Precisely

Descartes is the funny little guy on the 1937 French postage stamp that is my avatar. Interesting trivia. There are two versions of that stamp. One la...

My argument is that if the thoughts in my head were not caused by me, there would be no me to have them, ergo they would not be occurring. And it isn'...

The sense of the word "do" is what as at question here. I am asserting that there is such a thing as subjective causation. I'm sure that it does 'mesh...

So, and for the last time, I will assert: we have a fundamental disagreement about definitions. What you call the "phenomenal illusion of freedom" is ...