going in circles, but again i think the particular semantics you are using here just panders to and aids in validating irrational thinking about questions that happen to be untestable. it happened in the post immediately following the above in this thread. i do understand you don't think that's a big deal, but you at least have to recognize that's how unqualified statements about limits on scientific knowledge like the above are invariably taken by the religious.
my opinion obviously, but i think it is beneficial to recognize that all specific questions about objective reality are intrinsically of a scientific nature, even if you choose to apply the term 'unscientific' to the currently untestable. external observation is the only tool we have that has proven to be of any practical value for dealing with this type of question - while introspection, religious revelation, human instinct, and philosophy bereft of observation have a track record of being almost completely unreliable.
Acknowledging the limitations of the scientific method may indirectly validate those who seek to promote irrational thinking, but I consider the alternative (hiding or ignoring those limitations) worse. You keep using the word "pander", which is a negative, subjective, and (I believe) inaccurate description -- I am simply being honest about the strengths and limitations of science. If I understand your arguments correctly, you read this as "showing weakness to the enemy", and that may be true. But I think it's a better alternative than attempting to obscure the fact that there will always be questions unanswerable by empirical tests, and therefore outside the boundaries of science.
I'll admit that there is a gray area in regards to the definition of science and how it relates to questions that are specific and objective, but not currently testable. However, I think it's largely academic. We may be able to formulate perfectly scientific-seeming questions about string theory, and which (if any) version is correct, but unless and until we can actually devise a test to sort the truth out, I have a hard time separating the pursuit from philosophy, which I do not consider to be a science in the modern sense of the word. Again, I acknowledge that this is a fuzzy boundary, and some disagree. Regardless, I think we have to acknowledge the important difference between those empirical questions we can test and those we cannot, and recognize that it is very likely (if not certain) that we will never even come close to a complete understanding of even the objective. You may call the existence of an immaterial "soul" an empirical, scientific question, but if you can't back it up with a test your views will be properly relegated to
American Philosophical Quarterly rather than PRL.
true, although science has steadily pushed the type of higher power an informed person can rationally believe in away from traditional theism and closer to the deistic end.
Absolutely. I certainly don't mean to imply that ALL religious belief is compatible with scientific knowledge. I am continuously surprised and disappointed by the crazy stuff people are willing to believe in the name of "faith".
for the most part that's demonstratably a cultural phenomenon rooted in tradition. i find nothing significant about it.
I was responding specifically to this statement:
i don't see how someone versed in science can disagree that an overall picture has been painted by observation of the natural world that superstitious religious tenets such as the christian narrative concerning the soul are improbable.
I'm guessing you were actually referring to me here, since I earlier claimed to be "well-versed in science", but I'm not interested in comparing scientific credentials or sharing personal information online. You may not understand
how someone versed in science can believe religious narratives, but quite obviously some do (though generally in a much more limited sense than those unfamiliar with science).
