• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noma?

Do you support NOMA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 11.1%

  • No

    Votes: 52 82.5%

  • Other (will explain)

    Votes: 4 6.3%
  • Total voters
    63
NOMA is a cheap attempt to lend credibility to a specific subset of untestable and unfalsifiable concepts, with no good reason given as to why we should respect such a subset of the untestable and unfalsifiable but not the entire set. It is arbitrary and solves nothing.
 
I do have respect for what Gould was trying to do, and I have read the book where he introduces the concept.

I think that it is simpler and more accurate to understand 'relgion' as a product of the same natural, creative impulse that produce art. Science does not originate from that creative influence, but needs it. Science does not need religion, but enriched by the same deeper imaganitive impulse that religion arises from.
 
I know of so few religions that don't make claims about the physical world, that the term rarely applies. I am not sure why Gould liked it so much, given how often religion decided to overlap with the magesterium of science.
 
Mobyseven said:
NOMA is a cheap attempt to lend credibility to a specific subset of untestable and unfalsifiable concepts, with no good reason given as to why we should respect such a subset of the untestable and unfalsifiable but not the entire set. It is arbitrary and solves nothing.
Click to expand...

I think you are being a touch harsh here. Humans by nature are dreamers creators of complex imagination. The self consiouness that leads us to explore the universe is the same mechanism that asks "What I am I here?"

A scientist, in theory, should never overlay their research with moral imperritive. To do so is to go against the basic tennant of science. However the philosopher or religous person needs to ask the moral question of the scientific endevour. The balance of two hopefully leads man on the course of advancement.

The conflict comes, when the philospher tries to delve into the world of science, using unscientifc methods. Same with the scientist who demands scientific proof of philosphical issues
 
I actually only clicked on this poll because I am from the town of Sonoma in California, and when I was in high school, we referred to it as 'Noma. As in, if one had school spirit, one had "'Noma Pride". This was often written on banners at games and rallies and such. In fact, NP became a popular tattoo for idiots football players at my school. I often used the term ironically back then, but now that I'm older and I really do have pride in my hometown, I say it sincerely.

So, in that sense yes. I do support 'Noma.

Otherwise, I don't personally like it, but I respect others who believe it's necessary. It's like, whatever you do on your side of the fence, I don't care. I'm not going to waste my mental energies speculating on the particulars of something that logically can't affect me, so I won't, but you are free to do so if you like. So long as it stays Non-Overlapping, I'm fine with it. Just don't yap at me about your imaginary nonsense for too long or my eyes will glaze over.

EDIT: Why doesn't the strikethrough code work for me? :( Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I liked Gould and respect his work, but his efforts regarding NOMA are wrong.

In his terminology, there is a magisterium of science but not a magisterium of religion.

What he and others believed were a part of the 'magisterium of religion' either belong to that of science or have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

It was a misguided attempt to allow science and religion to coexist in a sane and honest mind. They can not.
 
As others have said, as long as science tries to answer questions like "where did we come from", "Where did the universe come from", and many others, there will be conflict between science and religion.

I think Gould tries to be a bit of a counter balance for the Dawkins in your face type of atheism. I respect his efforts, but I wonder what good it actually does. Maybe placate the naive?
 
Complexity said:
I liked Gould and respect his work, but his efforts regarding NOMA are wrong.

In his terminology, there is a magisterium of science but not a magisterium of religion.

What he and others believed were a part of the 'magisterium of religion' either belong to that of science or have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

It was a misguided attempt to allow science and religion to coexist in a sane and honest mind. They can not.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the ad hominem
 
MG1962 said:
Thanks for the ad hominem
Click to expand...
Looks more like an ad argumentum to me. Where's the ad hom?

Edit: Oh, do you mean the "sane and honest mind" bit? I think that's valid. We all compartmentalise to some degree, but I wouldn't describe that as being sane and honest; of necessity it fails of one or the other.
 
Last edited:
Other

I like Gould's attempt, but I think it's just a simple as differentiating between subjective and objective facts.

"Red is a color that is 700nm in wavelength and when this strikes the eye, blah blah." That's objective fact.

"Red is my favorite color. It reminds me of passion." That's subjective fact.

"The universe began with a big bang." Objective fact.

"I think a god was behind the origin of the universe." Objective claim that is provisionally Subjective as we cannot yet objectify things outside of the universe, if there is anything.

"God created each individual animal species." Objectively false.

"I think evolution is god's way of making each individual animal species." Subjective interpretation of objective fact.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong: I like and respect Gould. But on this issue, I think he was unequivocally wrong. He had good intentions, to be sure, but in the end it basically boils down to what I said above.
 
Mobyseven said:
NOMA is a cheap attempt to lend credibility to a specific subset of untestable and unfalsifiable concepts, with no good reason given as to why we should respect such a subset of the untestable and unfalsifiable but not the entire set. It is arbitrary and solves nothing.
Click to expand...

I think for him it may have been self-preservation -- a way to get out of all those friggin' creationist debates that wasted his time.
 
If you go to my Myspace blog, I have one of my readers using NOMA to justify astrology.

Astrology!
Nuff said.
 
Walter Wayne said:
I know of so few religions that don't make claims about the physical world, that the term rarely applies. I am not sure why Gould liked it so much, given how often religion decided to overlap with the magesterium of science.
Click to expand...


Well there is obviously dispute and overlap. But is it legitimate dispute? I think NOMA is about whether or not there is any LEGITIMATE dispute between science and religion, yes? That is - if scientists and religious people both understand and respect the boundaries of their own fields, then they've got nothing to argue about. If they ARE arguing, then it's because someone illegitimately crossed the line in the sand.
 
Last edited:
Haven't heard of this word for it before, but from the Wikipedia article it seems to fit very well with how I think the conflict should be handled. However, the resounding negative reactions makes me curious as to if I have missed something about the concept, so I'll save my vote until I know more.

As far as I know, the vast majority of infringements on this rule are made by religion. I hear of religious people arguing that their ideas on scientific matters should be treated as science even though they are not all the time. I very rarely hear of scientists claiming they have answers to questions regarding morality or existentialism. How would skepticism not benefit from this rule?

The only personal objection I can think of is that philosophy should have the same authority as religion in its field, which should be more clearly expressed.
 
There are worse things in the world than NOMA. At least the person has some sense of reality. As long as the results are benign, and no one is getting hurt, and science is not being tread upon; I tend not to fight against it.

It is a curious quirk of doublethink psychology, that might not be terribly healthy for everyone. But, we have bigger fish to fry, don't you think?
 
But, if it makes the religious feel good about themselves so they leave real science alone - everywhere - I am fine with it.
 
Limbo said:
Well there is obviously dispute and overlap. But is it legitimate dispute? I think NOMA is about whether or not there is any LEGITIMATE dispute between science and religion, yes? That is - if scientists and religious people both understand and respect the boundaries of their own fields, then they've got nothing to argue about. If they ARE arguing, then it's because someone illegitimately crossed the line in the sand.
Click to expand...

The problem, IMHO, is that there is an overlap. The bible says god created man in his image, in part of a seven day period of creation, during which the earth and the universe were also created. And all this happened about 6000 years ago.

Science says we (humans) are a product of evolution, over a period of many millions of years. While evolution does not speak on origins of life, I think most proponents of evolution believe, or at least suspect the origin of life was from some form of abiogenises, perhaps aided by microbes in a rock from space. Science also says the universe is billions of years old, and came about through non-supernatural actions.

These two views are pretty much opposites. The only place for NOMA, IMHO, is with those religious people that take the bible at something less than face value. Those that believe every word of the bible was inspired by god, and is completely true and accurate, will always be offended by scientific answers to those questions that the religious believe have only one answer - goddidit.

I think the mere fact that there are people pushing to have ID taught in our schools is a clear indication that science and religion have overlapping areas of concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom