Noma?

[ceo_esq]

My point was quite simply that religion cannot reveal any truths that science or philosophical inquiry can't.

I'm not sure this is strictly the case, for the following reason. It is possible (improbability aside) that the doctrines of some religion or other are true. Yet any revealed religion - that is, a religion founded in part upon some alleged divine revelation to humankind - comprises theological propositions that cannot be arrived at via scientific or philosophical inquiry (natural theology). Accordingly, rather than saying that religion cannot reveal any truths that science or philosophy can't, it would be more accurate to say that I don't know whether any such truths exist.

 

[mindcore]

Religion does not reveal any truths that science or philosophical inquiry can't

It might be a separate magisteria but it doesn't uniquely tell us anything other than contradictory speculation and superstition. Furthermore, it is often found, after the fact, to be wrong.

Personally, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Well said.

 

[This Guy]

I was a bit rushed on my last post, and thought I'd try to complete the thought I was trying to convey. I also want to say that while I seem to be arguing that religion has a right to overlap with science, that's not how I feel. I don't think religion SHOULD overlap with science, but I think that the majority of those that would call themselves religious feel that goddidit answers many questions.

I don't know how many, if any, believe a god simply created everything, and started the ball rolling, by setting up the laws of nature such that we, and all we know about, would come to be. That might be how a Deist would feel, but I don't think many Christians would make such a claim. The fact that a person claims to be Christian implies they believe their Saviour died for their sins, and was raised from the dead 3 days later.

I believe most Christians believe God had a role in the beginning of things, and will judge us at either the time of our death, or at the "2nd coming". Without such a belief, why would you even bother calling yourself Christian? To claim there is a god, but he hasn't done anything, and won't do anything later, sounds rather foolish to me, and I can't imagine anyone taking such a stance.

If they claim this god DID do something, it's a pretty good bet it's something that science has, or will disprove. If they claim he WILL do something, it is also likely something that science will present evidence against.

That's not to say that some evil scientist will set out to disprove the claims about god. But it's a pretty good bet that in the course of scientist doing what they do (research), they will uncover evidence that disproves past, and/or future claims regarding any given god. When that happens believers are forced to either concede that their god didn't do, or won't do what was claimed, try to find proof that counters the scientific evidence, or distort facts, misquote scientist, and make things up to back up their beliefs (you know, like the Fundies do now). If they don't try to fight back, their god keeps getting put in a smaller and smaller box, until finally there is no room for a god and they have to face reality (Heaven forbid!).

Some 50% of Americans do not believe in Evolution, based on most polls. If they don't believe in evolution, what do you think they believe in? I can tell you it ain't the stork! They believe God created us.

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118

Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Try and tell that 50% or so that when they die the electro/chemical processes that was "them" stops, and they no longer exist, on this or any other plane! Just make sure you have a good lead for a running start first

Should science and religion overlap? No. Does it? I'm afraid it does, and will for as long as people believe there is an invisible man somewhere that made things and is gonna spank us, or give us a goody when we die. Some 78% of American believe in an afterlife. nine out of ten among those that are most religious.

The most religiously observant Americans are most likely to say there is an afterlife: about nine in 10 of those who attend religious services weekly or almost every week believe in it. This view is shared by seven in 10 of those who rarely or never attend services. Americans of all age groups believe in an afterlife. So do most men and most women.

But for most, views about the afterlife will remain driven by faith, not scientific facts: the overwhelming majority of Americans do not think that science will ever be able to prove whether or not an afterlife of any kind exists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/29/opinion/polls/main994766.shtml

I don't know if there will ever be evidence strong enough to convince a majority of Americans that when we die, we just die. I do know that what I've read on the subject (from scientific sources, not the bible) indicates to me that death is about it. We then become a pile of whatever it is that we are made of. This idea indicates that belief in a second coming of the Lord, and reward/punishment after death, is all BS.

I can see no rational and reasonable way to prevent an overlap between science and religion.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure this is strictly the case, for the following reason. It is possible (improbability aside) that the doctrines of some religion or other are true. Yet any revealed religion - that is, a religion founded in part upon some alleged divine revelation to humankind - comprises theological propositions that cannot be arrived at via scientific or philosophical inquiry (natural theology). Accordingly, rather than saying that religion cannot reveal any truths that science or philosophy can't, it would be more accurate to say that I don't know whether any such truths exist.

Religion cannot reveal (as truth) anything in a way that we can have a high degree of certainty that it is religious truth. If it could there would not be so many different and contradictory religious ideas.

Religion doesn't tell us anything that philosophy can't. I'll stand by what I said.

 

[Rufo]

Am I still missing something? I expected that after reading the entire thread, I would have a better idea of what I had misunderstood about NOMA, because as far as I can understand, NOMA is an inherent part of the scientific principle - that science deals with the testable. What did I miss?

Is it something which NOMA says about philosophy? Because from what I understood, it says nothing about philosophy at all. Philosophy is not restricted by NOMA and has the right to trample all over religion.

As far as I see, the only problem is that we can not always determine what is testable and what is not. Not too long ago, any claim about the origin of the universe was considered to be a non-testable, and thus in religion's domain. Today, science has come closer to making it testable. Who knows what may be testable tomorrow?

But as far as I'm concerned, that is something to deal with then. If something becomes testable, then it can safely be moved from the realm of religion to the realm of science. Religion must accept that.

Science has everything to win on NOMA itself. Religion only has something to win on what it implies.

 

[brodski]

Am I still missing something? I expected that after reading the entire thread, I would have a better idea of what I had misunderstood about NOMA, because as far as I can understand, NOMA is an inherent part of the scientific principle - that science deals with the testable. What did I miss?

you missed the fact that science does deal with religious claims, as all major religions make clams of material fact. If religion only cornered itself;f with claims of non material fact (arguments of "should" rather than" is") then NOMA would have a hope in hell, but as it is founded on a straw man version of religion, it doesn't.

 

[Limbo]

you missed the fact that science does deal with religious claims, as all major religions make clams of material fact. If religion only cornered itself;f with claims of non material fact (arguments of "should" rather than" is") then NOMA would have a hope in hell, but as it is founded on a straw man version of religion, it doesn't.

People think NOMA is founded on a straw man version of religion? Brodski, how familiar are you with the difference between the 'exoteric' and 'esoteric' layers of religion? NOMA is 'founded' on the inner esoteric layer. Religious fundamentalism, religious claims of material fact, etc come from the outer exoteric layer. The commoner layer. The dime-a-dozen layer. The man-on-the-street layer. The layer of misunderstanding, of literalism, of kindergarten faith, of fundies. The layer which violates NOMA.

Problem is, too few people (atheist and theist alike) can tell the difference. Ignorance is the problem.

 

[Rufo]

you missed the fact that science does deal with religious claims, as all major religions make clams of material fact. If religion only cornered itself;f with claims of non material fact (arguments of "should" rather than" is") then NOMA would have a hope in hell, but as it is founded on a straw man version of religion, it doesn't.

NOMA does not state that science should never deal with religious claims - if the religious claims are within the boundaries of scientific inquiry to begin with, religion is at fault. All this means is that all major religions violate NOMA. Real science, following the scientific principle, does not. The principle is still valid, but for some reason, it appears here that science feels attacked by it. It has no reason to. Religion has.

 

[RandFan]

...it appears here that science feels attacked by it.

I didn't get that impression. What is your basis for this?

 

[Limbo]

The principle is still valid, but for some reason, it appears here that science feels attacked by it. It has no reason to. Religion has.

Well...perhaps some people aren't content with merely pushing religion back into it's magisteria. They want to destroy it utterly.

 

[Rufo]

I didn't get that impression. What is your basis for this?

Well, I meant in this thread, right here. I know that most of those who have opposed NOMA so far - including yourself, I guess - hold science in high regard, and see no reason to protect religion. I got that impression from that you and others are arguing against NOMA, seemingly to protect science. Since you're the authority on your own motivations, I presume I was wrong.

I do not think the majority of scientists feel that NOMA poses a problem to science.

 

[This Guy]

People think NOMA is founded on a straw man version of religion? Brodski, how familiar are you with the difference between the 'exoteric' and 'esoteric' layers of religion? NOMA is 'founded' on the inner esoteric layer. Religious fundamentalism, religious claims of material fact, etc come from the outer exoteric layer. The commoner layer. The dime-a-dozen layer. The man-on-the-street layer. The layer of misunderstanding, of literalism, of kindergarten faith, of fundies. The layer which violates NOMA.

Problem is, too few people (atheist and theist alike) can tell the difference. Ignorance is the problem.

I agree completely with the final sentence. Ignorance is the problem.

However, being ignorant of what you are actually trying to get across in the preceding sentences, would you mind elaborating? My (false, I'm sure) impression is that you are saying NOMA only applies to some inner circle of the religious that have the true knowledge of religion, or something. I am a bit dense, I admit it. Would ya help a fella out here?

 

[Rufo]

Well...perhaps some people aren't content with merely pushing religion back into it's magisteria. They want to destroy it utterly.

Then they may proceed to do so with their philosophy. NOMA only stops them from using science for it. Science is an instrument of discovery, not a weapon.

Personally, I'm content with a philosophy that is rarely a weapon either. But to each his own.

 

[Limbo]

Would ya help a fella out here?

Sure. Read my thread here:

The Great Divide in Religion

 

[RandFan]

Well, I meant in this thread, right here. I know that most of those who have opposed NOMA so far - include yourself, I guess - hold science in high regard, and see no reason to protect religion. I got that impression from that you and others are arguing against NOMA to protect science. Since you're the authority on your own motivations, I presume I was wrong.

I do not think the majority of scientists feel that NOMA poses a problem to science.

Again, I don't get the same impression that you do. This is a skeptics forum. We often discuss and debate ideas. Sometimes we do so forcefully. I don't think there is any point to take any more from that fact than is warranted.

I'm not here to protect science. I'm here because it's intellectually stimulating and from time to time I run into arguments that change my mind. When I came here I passionately argued for ID, Dualism, the Defense of Marriage Act and was far more conservative. I'm now an atheist, materialist and libertarian.

NOMA is simply a silly idea. It demonstrates how no one, even someone as intellectually gifted as Gould, is above dumb ideas.

Religion doesn't reveal, as truth, anything that science and philosophy can't.

 

[Limbo]

Then they may proceed to do so with their philosophy. NOMA only stops them from using science for it. Science is an instrument of discovery, not a weapon.

Personally, I'm content with a philosophy that is rarely a weapon either. But to each his own.

Yep. The problem seems to be when an anti-religion person is so ignorant of philosophy that they think they are making scientific claims when they are actually making philosophical claims. They blur the magesteria. So they end up violating NOMA as well.

 

[RandFan]

Well...perhaps some people aren't content with merely pushing religion back into it's magisteria. They want to destroy it utterly.

I care about the truth and I think most other skeptics do so also. Perhaps some are interested in destroying religion but that's not the point of these discussions. There's no rational basis for the religious here to take the position of martyr. If your ideas are of value and you can competently argue for them then they will persevere and convince others.

 

[RandFan]

Yep. The problem seems to be when an anti-religion person is so ignorant of philosophy that they think they are making scientific claims when they are actually making philosophical claims. So they end up violating NOMA as well.

Do you have an example or is this just a convenient straw man for which you can vent your emotions?

 

[Mobyseven]

Am I still missing something? I expected that after reading the entire thread, I would have a better idea of what I had misunderstood about NOMA, because as far as I can understand, NOMA is an inherent part of the scientific principle - that science deals with the testable. What did I miss?

You're half right...which unfortunately makes you half wrong too.

Science deals with the testable (or the falsifiable): That much is true. It doesn't follow from that that NOMA is an inherent part of the 'scientific principle', in that you still have to account for the other magesteria. Simply assuming that there are things that science cannot know is one unfounded assumption that you have made, and assuming that religion can provide us with any real information that science cannot is another unwarranted assumption.

It may be that there are things that science can never know, but it would be wrong to assume so.

Similarly, it may be that religion can provide us with real information that science cannot, but it would be wrong to assume so.

 

[Rufo]

Again, I don't get the same impression that you do. This is a skeptics forum. We often discuss and debate ideas. Sometimes we do so forcefully. I don't think there is any point to take any more from that fact than is warranted.

I'm not here to protect science. I'm here because it's intellectually stimulating and from time to time I run into arguments that change my mind. When I came here I passionately argued for ID, Dualism, the Defense of Marriage Act and was far more conservative. I'm now an atheist, materialist and libertarian.

You misunderstand me. I'm here because it's intellectually stimulating, too.

I was only trying to understand why you oppose NOMA and guessed it was due to that you percieved it would be harmful to science. So I tried to disprove this notion.

If it is, I'm prepared to change my mind, just like you. I still haven't voted in the poll, so my opinion is not set in stone in any way.

NOMA is simply a silly idea. It demonstrates how no one, even someone as intellectually gifted as Gould, is above dumb ideas.

I'm with you on that no one is above having dumb ideas, but I still fail to see what makes NOMA one.[/QUOTE]

Religion doesn't reveal, as truth, anything that science and philosophy can't.

First, assuming it's true, this does not make NOMA bad. Philosophy is still unrestricted, and if you prefer it above religion, then NOMA is not preventing you from using it. Second, it is an inherent property of the field which NOMA attributes to religion that 'truth' is not definable by the means I would guess you are using to define it - scientific ones.

Yep. The problem seems to be when an anti-religion person is so ignorant of philosophy that they think they are using science when they are actually using philosophy. So they end up violating NOMA as well.

As I see it, this is less of an urgent problem than the religious people who think they are using science when they are actually using religion. But yes, they both happen, NOMA considers both wrong, and they both are.