Noma?

[RandFan]

I thought about it this way today.

Is there any question that is 1) worth answering? and 2) Not answerable by science?

If so, then NOMA makes sense.

One might argue that if science cannot answer the question, then neither religion nor philosophy can answer that question, either. All they can do is claim answers without proof. Well, yes. That's what they do.

But religion doesn't provide any answers that philosophy can't as it relates to discerning truth.

 

[Meadmaker]

But religion doesn't provide any answers that philosophy can't as it relates to discerning truth.

Of course. Does that invalidate NOMA? Surely the extra-scientific magisterium includes all answers to questions that cannot be answered scientifically, not merely those answers whose origins are in some religious tradition.

 

[RandFan]

Of course. Does that invalidate NOMA?

No, but it was formulated to resolve issues beteen religion and science. If religion is at best redundant then so is NOMA.

 

[This Guy]

I thought about it this way today.

Is there any question that is 1) worth answering? and 2) Not answerable by science?

If so, then NOMA makes sense.


One might argue that if science cannot answer the question, then neither religion nor philosophy can answer that question, either. All they can do is claim answers without proof. Well, yes. That's what they do.

If your claim is that in those instances where science can not answer a question, NOMA applies, I might agree with you. If your saying if any question (worth answering) is not answerable by science, then NOMA totally applies, I believe I would beg to differ.

I'm taking more of an all or nothing view though. Either NOMA applies always, or it never applies.

Since ( I believe) I have shown examples of when NOMA would not apply, I think NOMA simply doesn't apply, or make sense. I can see why it would be a good thing. But I don't think it applies to the real world.

Let's look at the evolution example again, from a slightly different point of view.

Has science proved that man evolved from a common ancestor? No. And will likely never prove it 100%. But the evidence is so overwhelming that to not believe it would take...Religion? The fact is that, right or wrong, Evolution conflicts with the teachings of several major religions. Though the extent of the conflict certainly varies from religion to religion, and even sub-religion to sub-religion, and I would guess even between members of some religious groups. There is still a conflict between the scientific Theory of Evolution and some religions. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning of NOMA, but doesn't this one conflict prove NOMA to be a false idea?

I've mentioned several times on the forum, and at least once in this thread, I don't do philosophy well. Maybe NOMA is more a philosophical idea than I'm understanding it to be? Won't be the first time I've gone off on a tangent because of a misunderstanding. (think Rosan Rosanadana from the old SNL )

Perhaps it's time for me to say "Never mind!"

 

[edge]

But I don't think it applies to the real world.

But what if this isn't the real world since it is fleeting at best?
We are in we are out.
Then eternity and what will we face then?

The opera man!

 

[Meadmaker]

If your claim is that in those instances where science can not answer a question, NOMA applies, I might agree with you. If your saying if any question (worth answering) is not answerable by science, then NOMA totally applies, I believe I would beg to differ.

Certainly my claim is the former. There are questions that are worth answering, but which science cannot answer. In those cases, we turn somewhere else for answers. In other words, to a different "magisterium".

The fact is that, right or wrong, Evolution conflicts with the teachings of several major religions. Though the extent of the conflict certainly varies from religion to religion, and even sub-religion to sub-religion, and I would guess even between members of some religious groups. There is still a conflict between the scientific Theory of Evolution and some religions. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning of NOMA, but doesn't this one conflict prove NOMA to be a false idea?

No. It means that sometimes religion encroaches on territory outside of its domain. The question of evolution is a scientific one. The fact that some religious people (very few major religions, but some subsets of those religions) don't accept evolution means that their practitioners aren't all that good at applying NOMA.

 

[This Guy]

Certainly my claim is the former. There are questions that are worth answering, but which science cannot answer. In those cases, we turn somewhere else for answers. In other words, to a different "magisterium".


No. It means that sometimes religion encroaches on territory outside of its domain. The question of evolution is a scientific one. The fact that some religious people (very few major religions, but some subsets of those religions) don't accept evolution means that their practitioners aren't all that good at applying NOMA.

My problem with the last part of your post is that many (most?) religions have their own versions of creation. My experience is mostly with the various Christian faiths, so my responses are mostly related to them.

The bible does say God created man in his image. Evolution says humans evolved from other forms of life, through common decent/selection. These two views, the Biblical and the scientific, are opposite views. I do not believe the the Biblical statement. Many religious people do not believe the Biblical statement. That does not remove the fact that the book that many religious people base their faith on states that their God created man in his image.

Do you agree or disagree that taken at face value, the Bible contradicts science, and thus crosses the line that NOMA alleges exist? My point being that if it does how can NOMA be a valid principle in the case of Christianity? Since the largest group of religious people in the USA claim some form of Christianity as their religion, how can we say there is no overlap between science and religion? We may disagree with the interpretation of the Bible by these Christians, and I certainly disagree that any God exist, let alone created us, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible makes a claim that directly conflicts with science. I'm sure there are similar examples of conflicts with many other religions (I can provide links to creationist Muslim sites if that would help).

We may feel that there is no conflict, but when the basis on which a religion is founded indicates a conflict, how can we say the practitioners are in violation of NOMA, when they are following the guidelines/information laid out by the creators of the religion? I contend that it is the religion that crossed the line at it's inception, and that, IMHO, invalidates the idea of NOMA. The line between religion and science was already crossed before what we, today, know as science existed.

 

[Meadmaker]

My problem with the last part of your post is that many (most?) religions have their own versions of creation. My experience is mostly with the various Christian faiths, so my responses are mostly related to them.

The bible does say God created man in his image. Evolution says humans evolved from other forms of life, through common decent/selection. These two views, the Biblical and the scientific, are opposite views. I do not believe the the Biblical statement. Many religious people do not believe the Biblical statement. That does not remove the fact that the book that many religious people base their faith on states that their God created man in his image.

Do you agree or disagree that taken at face value, the Bible contradicts science, and thus crosses the line that NOMA alleges exist? My point being that if it does how can NOMA be a valid principle in the case of Christianity? Since the largest group of religious people in the USA claim some form of Christianity as their religion, how can we say there is no overlap between science and religion? We may disagree with the interpretation of the Bible by these Christians, and I certainly disagree that any God exist, let alone created us, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible makes a claim that directly conflicts with science. I'm sure there are similar examples of conflicts with many other religions (I can provide links to creationist Muslim sites if that would help).

We may feel that there is no conflict, but when the basis on which a religion is founded indicates a conflict, how can we say the practitioners are in violation of NOMA, when they are following the guidelines/information laid out by the creators of the religion? I contend that it is the religion that crossed the line at it's inception, and that, IMHO, invalidates the idea of NOMA. The line between religion and science was already crossed before what we, today, know as science existed.

Taken at face value, the Bible does contradict science, but only fundamentalists take it at face value.


(Hmmm....off to google. Perhaps more later.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Commenting on the poll: I'm pleased to see so many people support my view of this matter.

 

[Piscivore]

Now that that's over...

Numa?



I am so squicked this guy sort of looks like me...