Noma?

[Elvis666]

"Pot meet kettle"? Are you upset?

Well, chill out. I'm sorry I upset you. Look, it's not all that big of a deal. It's just a debate about NOMA. This isn't a think tank and none of this will have any major reprecussions on the world...ok?

So, better? If not I recomend a nice glass of milk and if you've got a cookie or two that will help also. Put on some music and relax. No ill will here on my part.

No worries here.

 

[Elvis666]

Dupe.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Didn't mean to be silly or elitist, nor to indicate possible telepathic abilities. I should have added IMO, but I assumed that was obvious. Most of the people I know who claim to be religious certainly don't act like they believe the things they claim to believe.

It was a tounge-in-cheek response on my part. It doesn't translate that well onto forums I've learned. Welcome to JREF by the way.
Can't wait to see your Avatar - with the a name like Elvis666 - think of the possibilities!

 

[AkuManiMani]

• The vast majority of religions are dogmatic, based on mythology full of presuppositions (like virgin birth and other magical thinking).
• If you could get rid of these I would still not have any use for NOMA but I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. As it is, it is a silly idea that lends some air of respectability to institutions that are all of the things I keep pointing out.
• In short, NOMA doesn't lead us to the truth on the religious side of the equation.

I would argue that when a religion or religious institution makes a claim of supposed objective fact the claim is not religious in nature but steps into the domain of science. For instance, if a religious institution claims that all organisms on earth were literally created in a seven day period they are making a statement of alleged objective fact [and a falsified one at that] but the statement isn't made religious just because a religious person holds it.

On the other side of the coin, if you had someone in the field of science claiming [as some did decades ago] that caucasians are superior to all other "races" then it is not a scientific statement but a statement of subjective value [and a poor one at that]. Just because a practitioner of science makes the statement it does not make it scientific.

I think the real enemy in question is human stupidity, which no institution has a monopoly on. The the older the institution the longer its historical track record of follies will be. Religion has been around for just about all of human history while modern science is a relative newcomer -- hence it has a longer rep sheet. Go figure...

 

[Elvis666]

It was a tounge-in-cheek response on my part. It doesn't translate that well onto forums I've learned. Welcome to JREF by the way.
Can't wait to see your Avatar - with the a name like Elvis666 - think of the possibilities!

Sorry I didn't get the nuance.

Thanks. My avatar doesn't really have much to do with my name, which dates back from online gaming years ago.

 

[brodski]

Wrong. You do not need to tell the Christian that claims of the virgin birth are not religious. You need to tell them that claims of the virgin birth were not originally literal exoteric claims. They are mystical esoteric "claims"...never intended to be taken literally by the ancients in the "inner circle".

ah so you must tell them that they do not understand their own religion., that's much better...

In ancient times, saying someone was 'born of a virgin' was bestowing a spiritual title on them, not saying that a literal miracle of birth occurred. But of course the inner meaning of the virgin birth became misunderstood over time.

that is irrelevant to how religion is practised today.

"The belief of many Muslims that their prophet Mohammad went to seventh heaven to meet God is possible only if they conceive of God as living in a special corner of the universe. Otherwise they will believe that Mohammad had a special mystical experience that could not be explained in ordinary language and that he shared it metaphorically." God Is a Metaphor, Dr. Khalid Sohail

Metaphorical interpretations do not violate NOMA. Literal interpretations do. As soon as the virgin birth is understood by the religious as a metaphor, and it's meaning is grokked, there is no violation.

Thank you for proving my point, in order for NOMA to function one must redefine religion so that it no longer resembles the beliefs and practises of the religious.

It is a meaningless fudge.

 

[brodski]

Wrong. You do not need to tell the Christian that claims of the virgin birth are not religious. You need to tell them that claims of the virgin birth were not originally literal exoteric claims. They are mystical esoteric "claims"...never intended to be taken literally by the ancients in the "inner circle".

ah so you must tell them that they do not understand their own religion., that's much better...

In ancient times, saying someone was 'born of a virgin' was bestowing a spiritual title on them, not saying that a literal miracle of birth occurred. But of course the inner meaning of the virgin birth became misunderstood over time.

that is irrelevant to how religion is practised today.

"The belief of many Muslims that their prophet Mohammad went to seventh heaven to meet God is possible only if they conceive of God as living in a special corner of the universe. Otherwise they will believe that Mohammad had a special mystical experience that could not be explained in ordinary language and that he shared it metaphorically." God Is a Metaphor, Dr. Khalid Sohail

Metaphorical interpretations do not violate NOMA. Literal interpretations do. As soon as the virgin birth is understood by the religious as a metaphor, and it's meaning is grokked, there is no violation.

Thank you for proving my point, in order for NOMA to function one must redefine religion so that it no longer resembles the beliefs and practises of the religious.

It is a meaningless fudge.

 

[Complexity]

What a waste of time.

This thread only continues to provide evidence of the desperation and anti-intellectualism of the religious.

Religion has nothing good, useful, meaningful, or helpful to offer mankind.

 

[AkuManiMani]

What a waste of time.

This thread only continues to provide evidence of the desperation and anti-intellectualism of the religious.

Religion has nothing good, useful, meaningful, or helpful to offer mankind.

Sounds like you and religion have something in common...

 

[This Guy]

If it falls outside of science, then wouldn't disputing it by "offering strong [scientific] evidence against it's likelihood" be a violation of NOMA?

On the other hand, if claims of a literal virgin birth fall outside of religion, then isn't it fair game for science to dispute it?

The fact that science discovers facts that just happen to cast doubt on some religious belief does not mean that science has violated NOMA, it simply shows that there is an overlap of scientific evidence and religious beliefs.

If a Christian reads scientific publications (something I highly recommend!) and discovers that the results of scientific research cast doubt on one of his/her beliefs, they haven't violated NOMA, they have simply found evidence against their belief, which current trends in the USA indicate will be ignored or rationalized away.

 

[This Guy]

Let me throw out some speculation on why half the people of in the USA dispute evolution. I think it's because of the conflict between the Young Earth Creationists vs. everyone else. (Am I correct in that this dispute and the push for Intelligent Design is rather stronger in the USA then elsewhere?)

They are being told by Creationists that you can't accept evolution and believe in God and Christianity. They perceive (and often rightly so) they are being told by some evolutionists that they can't believe in evolution and God and / or Christianity.

See for example how this guy presented evolution vs. God to his mother and his frustration when she chose her belief in God. Until he put the question to her she was content believing both.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105325

For the average person my guess is that they don't really care how God created them. But if asked to choose one of these 1) Believe in God (and YEC) or 2) belief in evolution (and thus not God - as they perceive it) they will pick the choice that adds the most meaning to their life. If they are even a tiny bit religious they'll choose 1, because what is 2 offering them?

They could believe both - but is that even given as an option? Again - my guess is - apart from the thought of "Hmm ... evolution is interesting, but really, who cares if evolution is true - it doesn't help me put food on my table and pay the mortgage." It's probably not thought about much.

I tend to agree with you. So much of what Christians consider Biblical fact has been refuted, or at least had doubt cast on it, by science, that their God has been reduced more and more over the centuries. Given the option of accepting that there is a God, or there is science, many would choose the God option. I suspect the reasons for this are many, and varied, and have been discussed and debated many times by people far smarter than I am.

I think I mentioned that I know Christians that accept the possibility that God used Evolution as the tool to create man, and that the "Days" of Genesis were actually ages, thus allowing the time required for natural selection to do it's thing. I know these Christians, because I used to be one. It was the only way I could rationalize my belief in the Bible with the overwhelming strong scientific evidence that supports evolution. I now understand that the Hebrew used in Genesis for Day most likely meant a 24 hour period, and the Bible is at best an attempt by early humans to explain the things they could not otherwise explain (at worse it's a collection of hallucinations, and lies, with a bit of history thrown in).

I also agree with the idea that many people do not take the time to read about the scientific discoveries that would cast doubt on their faith. As you said, it doesn't put food on the table, or pay the bills. And besides, the fish are biting down on the lake, and deer season starts tomorrow!

 

[Meadmaker]

Religion can only tell us, "Do not steal," and then expect us to blindly follow.

What's your point? Of course that's what religion does. Actually, they can also pad it with whatever philosophy that they want to, and then add, "and if that doesn't make sense to you, do it anyway."

Implicit in the question, "Why are we here?" is an assumption: That there is some inbuilt purpose behind our existence.

Yes. What's your point?

Then there is no evidence at all that would suggest the universe gives two quarks one way or another whether we exist or not.

True. But then again, maybe the universe exists in order that we should exist, and there is a grand scheme to all this. Sure, there's no evidence to it, but there's no evidence against it, either. That's why it doesn't fall in the realm of science.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

I agree. Philosophy occupies the same magisterium as religion.

 

[Meadmaker]

as all major religions make clams of material fact.

I'm not aware of any material claims made at my synagogue. Oh, sure, we read a book about God giving commandments and blah, blah, blah, but the Rabbi assures us that that is all legend.

There are Buddhist legends about the nonmaterial, but it is quite possible to be a devout Buddhist and a skeptic at the same time.

All major religions have, in their origins, made claims of material fact, but lately, not as much.

 

[Limbo]

ah so you must tell them that they do not understand their own religion., that's much better...

Ah but after their misunderstandings are corrected, fundamentalism is removed and they are left with much. They have an entirely new dimension of world religion and mythology to explore. They will have a certain spirituality which transcends theology, ideology, culture, religion, science, dogma, race, gender, etc. And which does not violate NOMA.

Thank you for proving my point, in order for NOMA to function one must redefine religion so that it no longer resembles the beliefs and practices of the religious.

I don't think a correction is a redefinition.

 

[Complexity]

Meadmaker is babbling nonsense.

 

[Walter Wayne]

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.

Others have said this, but I now of few religions that don't makie claims of the physical. The church I grew up in had some intelligent clergy, and they had a scientific bent. They didn't believe in biblical literalism, did believe in evolution and one made his living as a geologiest at one point. However, they did (and still do I bet) believe in the efficacy of prayer, which is a claim belonging to the magesterium of science.

As the religion claims that, it is part of their magesterium as well. Hence the overlap.

Walt

 

[Mobyseven]

What's your point? Of course that's what religion does. Actually, they can also pad it with whatever philosophy that they want to, and then add, "and if that doesn't make sense to you, do it anyway."

What's my point? My point is that, when it comes to moral philosophy, religion is a piss poor basis. It is a very unsophisticated sort of morality that tells one what to do, but not why. Jesus may have given good advice when he told people to love their neighbours as they love themselves, but the reason he gave as to why people should take his advice was shoddy at best ('God commands it'). It is not enough to be right (on the rare occasions religion might get it right) - you have to be right for the correct reasons.

Yes. What's your point?

What's my point? My point is that there is an unwarranted assumption in your argument that you have yet to address or justify. Your assumption that we exist for a determined purpose is unfounded, and the rest of your argument depends upon it. I'd get cracking with some justification if I were you.

True. But then again, maybe the universe exists in order that we should exist, and there is a grand scheme to all this. Sure, there's no evidence to it, but there's no evidence against it, either. That's why it doesn't fall in the realm of science.

I'm going to be generous and assume, for the moment, that you've never heard of the burden of proof. I'm going to let you google it, and I'm going to wait here for you to come back and say, "Well gee, wasn't it silly of me to confuddle the burden of proof like that! I understand now that when I make a positive claim, I need to justify it! Otherwise I'm committing the exact same fallacy that conspiracy theories, creationists and psychics, just to name a few, commit every day! Thanks for pointing that out to me, as I would have looked mighty silly otherwise!"

Just click here. I even googled it for you.

 

[Meadmaker]

But the prayer claim only is part of the scientific magisterium if the claim is that the effects of prayer can be detected by experiment. As an example, my father once had a heart attack. His odds of survival were given as about 10%. He survived. My mother was praying for him, and the religious in our family chalked it up to divine intervention. I think he got lucky.

Which of us is right? No experiment can tell us.

The magisterium of science can say that 10% of the people in his condition will survive. The magisterium of religion can claim that there is something significant in "God's plan" that selects which 10% survive. Obviously, dad survived an extra decade because God wanted it that way. You don't believe that? Well, neither do I, but if you want to try and convince my mother, good luck. I would love to hear a scientific explanation of why my father lived, while others with the same symptoms did not.

FWIW, given more knowledge and better tests, it would probably be possible to make that determination more accurately in similar cases in the future, but for now, there is no scientific explanation. Some might say that religion can't explain it either, but religion doesn't have to. That's not its business. Religion simply asserts an answer. "It's God's plan."

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm going to be generous and assume, for the moment, that you've never heard of the burden of proof.....Just click here. I even googled it for you.

You might want to read some of those links. They don't say what you appear to think they say.