Are you a secularist

[Craig B]

Sure, I agree. But so what? I don't see how this affects NOMA.

Its an observation on your comment

That's why I am staggered that scientists like Jerry Coyne are so against NOMA. NOMA is a good razor that slices off the (pseudo-)sciency bits from religion. But it has been framed as "protecting religion", so Coyne and others seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against it. They don't want any kind of recognition for religion at all.

The definition applied by NOMA to the region within which religion exercises its alleged "Magisterium" is based on the false premise that this is confined to the moral domain. If indeed NOMA slices off the (pseudo-) sciency bits from religion, it unwittingly excises from religion the very foundation of its existence, which is precisely that pseudo science. If I think I should love my neighbour I may or may not be religious, because I may do so on the grounds that it is socially beneficial, or whatever. Only if I love my neighbour because Jesus said so, and if I believe Jesus has authority because He is the Living God, am I religious. But if the God disappears then the religion disappears even in the moral domain.

This affects NOMA because I think the doctrine, well intentioned as it may be, is based on a misapprehension about the nature of the religious magisterium, and is therefore useless.

ETA. To make my point clearer. You say

But Gould's NOMA doesn't use religion as it is now, it describes how religion should be. NOMA doesn't describe how science and 'religion' (which for Gould included philosophy and ethics) interact now, it describes how they should interact. I think a lot of the criticisms of Gould and NOMA is the belief that Gould was making a claim of how things were now.

And my criticism is that essentially things can never even in principle be the way Gould suggests, because religion cannot be defined or confined in the manner NOMA requires it to be.

 

[GDon]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. Just on your last sentence: "things can never even in principle be the way Gould suggests". I disagree. I understand in practice that religions would not want to be confined in the manner NOMA requires it to be, for the reasons you give. But as a theist myself, I'm hopeful that it could work, in principle and in practice. Good discussion! Thanks.

 

[godless dave]

The "magisterium of religion" doesn't claim anything, if I understand your sentence correctly. Religions make claims about the empirical realm -- for Gould, such claims are the province of science, and are fair game for criticism by science.

If religions make claims about the empirical realm, then obviously the magisterium of religion includes claims about the empirical realm.

That's why I am staggered that scientists like Jerry Coyne are so against NOMA. NOMA is a good razor that slices off the (pseudo-)sciency bits from religion.

It would be if religions abided by it, but there is absolutely no chance they will because it goes against millenia of religious tradition and against the very core of what religions are.

 

[godless dave]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. Just on your last sentence: "things can never even in principle be the way Gould suggests". I disagree. I understand in practice that religions would not want to be confined in the manner NOMA requires it to be, for the reasons you give. But as a theist myself, I'm hopeful that it could work, in principle and in practice. Good discussion! Thanks.

Being a theist means believing a god actually exists. That's an empirical claim. That's why NOMA doesn't work - theistic religions all make empirical claims by the very nature of being theistic religions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah even if we could accept this DMZ between empirical and non-emperical thoughts this would be dependant on religion not making empirical claims and that's.... not how it works.

- God exists.
- You can achieve a perfect mental level of awareness.
- After you die you will be reincarnated into another body.
- Upon your death some greater power will judge you and award some sort of reward or punishment.
- Jesus was killed by the Romans and arose from the dead 3 days later.
- Mohammad was the perfect prophet of God.
- The Buddha achieved perfect enlightment while sitting under a Bodi Tree.

And so on and so forth.

These are not "subjective" (in either its real meaning or its Woo meaning) statements. They are objective statements of proposed facts about how the universe works. And those, or claims like them, are the basic tenets of the religion.

If there is a NOMA religion isn't staying on its side of it very well.

 

[Correa Neto]

I think religions bound to NOMA's guidelines are possible; one could even argue some Buddhim variants are real life examples. If religion X says there is a god which is a source of a given moral/ethics code and this code causes no social tensions, then it would be quite close to Gould's proposal. Sure, it will contradict science here and there, but that religion will be a smaller source of tensions.

Problem is, what we are dealing with day-by-day are Abrahamic religions. Of course there are versions which can be mostly harmless, but depending on where you are, these variants are not majoritary. Another issue is that even in these mild variants the seeds of prejudice and extremism may and will still be there, dormant.

 

[PixyMisa]

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

What about the morality of late-term abortion? What is your question?

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

Define "wrong".

 

[godless dave]

Maybe in the US, but in the UK there is no death penalty.

But police officers and soldiers are still allowed to kill in certain circumstances. Civilians are allowed to kill in self-defense. Whether killing another human is called murder or not depends on the circumstances.

 

[angrysoba]

But police officers and soldiers are still allowed to kill in certain circumstances. Civilians are allowed to kill in self-defense. Whether killing another human is called murder or not depends on the circumstances.

Yes, but this is determined by the circumstances, not by the word.

 

[annnnoid]

What about the morality of late-term abortion? What is your question?

Define "wrong".

…typical cop out.

What, specifically, does science say about murder?

How does science determine the morality of murder?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

…typical cop out.

What, specifically, does science say about murder?

How does science determine the morality of murder?

Science says too much murder leads to the extinction of the species.

Evolution by natural selection selects against too much murder in a species.

Science has nothing say about "goodness" or "badness".

 

[angrysoba]

Misread, probably. Ignore.

 

[PixyMisa]

…typical cop out.

Typical complete lack of understanding of science.

Science can't answer meaningless questions.

Of course, neither can anything else.

What, specifically, does science say about murder?

A lot. What's your question?

How does science determine the morality of murder?

First, you ask a meaningful question. Then science answers it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Define "wrong".

What about something novel? Observe how wrong takes place? Where do you find wrong? What does it take for wrong to take place?
You know, do like a scientist

Here are some articles and wiki about wrong:
http://the-mouse-trap.blogspot.dk/2008/01/five-moral-foundations.html
http://www.moralfoundations.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory

1. Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
2. Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Aternate name: Proportionality)
3. Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
4. Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Aternate name: Ingroup)
5. Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Aternate name: Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Aternate name: Purity.)

In short moral wrong comes from one or more of these 6 categories and is a combination of biological, psychological and cultural factors. I.e. a base regularity where there is some variation observable between 2 or more humans.

You don't as a scientist define wrong, you observe how it take place. You know empirical observation and not rational definition. The latter is philosophy

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Science says too much murder leads to the extinction of the species.

Evolution by natural selection selects against too much murder in a species.

Science has nothing say about "goodness" or "badness".

So as long it is not to much, murder can work???

 

[PixyMisa]

What about something novel? Observe how wrong takes place? Where do you find wrong? What does it take for wrong to take place?
You know, do like a scientist

How can you know you're observing it if you can't even define what it is?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So as long it is not to much, murder can work???

Yes. There are/were whole societies that survive and thrive with just a little bit of murder. From the killing of a twin at birth to attempts to execute convicted killers by poison. In the case of a human society its members find some sort of justification for such actions.

Too much murder and the society self implodes.

 

[annnnoid]

Typical complete lack of understanding of science.

Science can't answer meaningless questions.

Of course, neither can anything else.


A lot. What's your question?


First, you ask a meaningful question. Then science answers it.

…well then…do like a scientist.

Don’t just stand there and endlessly complain that it’s someone else’s fault.

…do your job!

Establish if there is something to be investigated.
Establish the parameters of investigation if necessary.
Establish the parameters of definition if necessary.
IOW…do what a scientist supposedly does.

…and stop endlessly complaining that someone else isn’t doing it for you.

Eventually you’ll arrive at an exclusively scientific meaning for the word ‘meaning’ and an exclusively scientific meaning for each and every one of those words, including morality and murder…at which point you, and science, can explicitly establish a scientific dialectic for murder.

What’s stopping you? If you can’t do it…then identify, precisely, in that chain of events, where science fails!

If science does not fail…then do it!

 

[PixyMisa]

…well then…do like a scientist.

Establish if there is something to be investigated.

There always is.

Eventually you’ll arrive at an exclusively scientific meaning for the word ‘meaning’ and an exclusively scientific meaning for each and every one of those words, including morality and murder…at which point you, and science, can explicitly establish a scientific dialectic for murder.

You seem confused. Did you have an actual question you wanted to ask?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

How can you know you're observing it if you can't even define what it is?

Ask the actual scientists who did the observations concerning, which categories moral and ethical claims consists of?

But here is the fun part; it is called reductio ad absurdum and here is how it works - You can only know what you observe if you have defined beforehand what you observe. That is absurd, because it means that your definition determines what you observe.

PixyMisa, you are so easy! If what you say was true for any life form, then it could only observe and see if it had a prior definition for which it could use to categorize its observations. I would like evidence for that.

Now please try to understand the difference between observation(empiricism), explanation and definition. You only use a definition as an explanation for a given word. You don't define the meaning of all words, that would be absurd universal social constructivism and mean that you define the meaning of the world in all aspects.

You don't define the meaning of a word without having a prior observation(empiricism). If you think you can define that meaning of anything without observation(empiricism), then you are an epistemological rationalist. Are you that, PixyMisa? Do you think you can define and think truth into being or do you accept that there is no knowledge without a prior experience/observation(empiricism)?