Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Is it more that one cannot hold religious beliefs whilst maintaining some sort of rational consistency.For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are not rational, logical, consistent, subjct to evidential scrutiny blah blah blah.Isn't that what scienceishonesty ultimately is saying?

More specifically he said:

quote:

---

When one BELIEVES in a religion they already assume that it is correct on SOME level, whether it is extreme fundamentalism or strictly that "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins". At some level the religious person draws a line and says "this is truth regardless of what science might make probable or improbable".

---

Message 10Maybe. But he seems to have two points.1) That maintaining a scientific-evidence-based approach and holding religious beliefs involves some inconsistency.2) That making the term 'god' a definitionless exercise in incoherent meaninglessness is a method of hiding those inconsistencies.

Did I say you did? Stop being dishonest..... And I said that your beliefs are not subject to evidential scrutiny. Are you suggesting that as things stand we can subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny? Can you specify how we might do that?

For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are:not rational
not logical
not consistent
not subject to evidential scrutinyWhich one of those is wrong/"dishonest"?

See Mod's post.

Agnosticism describes the state of one's knowledge. As Mod himself put it in the post to which you replied:

quote:

---

"I submit this isn't a matter of the state of your knowledge, but an intrinsic consequence of a position that is not reasonable, inconsistent and ill-defined."

---

So in answer to your question - No, not really.