Noma?

[KingMerv00]

I chose "other". Faith and science certainly do not overlap but that doesn't mean they are equal.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, and since religion is very often dogmatic, is infused with mythology and presuppositions then it makes for poor philosophical inquiry.

Religion is handicapped philosophy.

A religion is a moral philosophy; it's the institution of the particular religion that may or may-not have the handicapping dogmas. There are plenty of non-centralized religions that do not have central dogmas concerning objective facts; many strains of Buddhism and taoist philosophy are good examples of this.

While I share your sentiment that many religious institutions do have unreasonable dogmas and inflexible interpretations I do not agree that counter factual dogmas are inherent to religion, per se.

 

[brodski]

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?

And you've just hit the nail on the head of why NOMA fails, in order for it to hold you must tell the Christan that claims of the virgin birth and of the resurrection are not religious calms, that the Muslim can make no claim as to the angelic revelation to Mohamed, and the Jews cannot make religious claims regarding teh reverlations to Moses.

NOMA fails as it fails top account for religion as it exists, it make a good case for separating moral philosophy from science, but although religion may lead to moral philosophy in some aces, at its heart religion makes claims of material fact, not of moral philosophy.


In order for NOMA to be meaningful one must redefine religion into a form which is unrecognisable to the religious.

 

[brodski]

A religion is a moral philosophy;

utter nonsense, many religious traditions incorporate moral philosophy, but religious claims are not, at their core, about morality or indeed philosophy.

 

[RandFan]

A religion is a moral philosophy; it's the institution of the particular religion that may or may-not have the handicapping dogmas. There are plenty of non-centralized religions that do not have central dogmas concerning objective facts; many strains of Buddhism and taoist philosophy are good examples of this.

While I share your sentiment that many religious institutions do have unreasonable dogmas and inflexible interpretations I do not agree that counter factual dogmas are inherent to religion, per se.

• 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.

 

[Limbo]

And you've just hit the nail on the head of why NOMA fails, in order for it to hold you must tell the Christan that claims of the virgin birth and of the resurrection are not religious calms

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".

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 the Muslim can make no claim as to the angelic revelation to Mohamed, and the Jews cannot make religious claims regarding the revelations to Moses.

"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.

 

[pastime]

I am persuaded by Dawkins's example: suppose that science found incontrovertible DNA evidence (don't ask me where - maybe the Shroud of Turin?) that Jesus of Nazareth had a biological mother but no biological father.
What's the chance that religionists would say, "That's irrelevant! Non-Overlapping Magesteria means science can provide no insight into religious truth!"
I would rate that chance at pretty close to nil.
As the man says, the reason some religionists like the idea of NOMA is precisely because there is no scientific evidence that supports religion. If there were in fact such evidence, they would likely be among NOMA's fiercest opponents.
Similar to others on this thread, I admire Gould, too, and if anyone can be considered to have been entitled to the occasional mistake, he should certainly receive that benefit, but I think he missed the mark by a pretty wide margin on NOMA.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, all I have to say is that when half the people of a nation the size of the USA dispute evolution, and believe in some form of creation, I think it matters not if they are Exoteric or Esoteric (or any other words you choose to banter about) there is a problem. When you consider that the reason for their belief is mostly based on religion, it clearly (in my view) shows an overlap of science and religion, and that is what NOMA claims doesn't exist, unless I'm missing something.

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.

 

[Elvis666]

I don't give a damn what NOMA says. It's silly. The religious magisteria is a function of geography and or familial ties.

• If you were born in Utah or to Mormon parents it is very likely that your set of truths is based on the ideas of Joseph Smith.
• If you were born in a predominately Muslim nations or to Muslim parents it is very likely that your set of truths is based on the ideas of Mohammad.
• If you were born in a predominately Catholic nation or to Catholic parents then it is very likely that your set of truths is based on the ideas of the Nicene Council.

The religious magisterium doesn't have to conform to a scientific need for consistancy. That's why it is a magisterium.

The religious magesteria works very little if at all and it reveals nothing as truth that philosophy can't.

Say it a few more times and maybe it will be counted as evidence. Probably would help if you did it in ALL CAPS next time.

On top of all of that is demonstrably dogmatic, contradictory and loaded with mythological baggage and presuppositions.

All of which may be true, but does nothing the further your cause.

 

[Elvis666]

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.

To be honest, most people would probably also think "Hmm ... God is interesting, but really, who cares if God is true - it doesn't help me put food on my table and pay the mortgage." There really aren't that many people in the U.S. that are deeply religious. Most people pay their "beliefs" lip-service, at best. But they have never had even one critical thought pass through their minds, either.

 

[RandFan]

The religious magisterium doesn't have to conform to a scientific need for consistancy. That's why it is a magisterium.

And meaningless.

Say it a few more times and maybe it will be counted as evidence. Probably would help if you did it in ALL CAPS next time.

Can you argue against it?

The claim of ad nauseam is a fair one but have the honesty to admit that not one person has mounted an argument to rebut mine. Why is that? Will you?

All of which may be true, but does nothing the further your cause.

I don't have a cause. I'm staing my opinion and making arguments why NOMA is silly. I note that no one has done anything to rebut those arguments.

Which brings us to your post. Got anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Limbo]

I'm staing my opinion and making arguments why NOMA is silly.

Well you're sure stating your opinion a lot but you're not offering much else that I can see. Where are your (non-opinion) arguments, again?

 

[Elvis666]

And meaningless.

Can you argue against it?

The claim of ad nauseam is a fair one but have the honesty to admit that not one person has mounted an argument to rebut mine. Why is that? Will you?

I don't have a cause. I'm staing my opinion and making arguments why NOMA is silly. I note that no one has done anything to rebut those arguments.

Which brings us to your post. Got anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?

You do become upset easily. I'm not interested in arguing with you or anyone else on this. But I wanted you to see that you are not arguing about it either, only stating your opinion over and over. When the woos do that, many on this forum will call them on it. Why is this any different?

The problem with NOMA is that you can't argue against it (or for it) effectively. The idea of a magisterium is not one that is subject to scientific debate, by definition. It's kind of like the idea of the many worlds interpretation of QM. By definition, the universes are forever forbidden any knowledge of any other. Since NOMA claims that the various magisteria are independent of each other, they have no points of congruence.

You may be completely right, and NOMA is silly. But it is not worth getting upset over it, since, by definition, it is nonfalseifiable.

 

[RandFan]

Well you're sure stating your opinion a lot but you're not offering much else that I can see. Where are your (non-opinion) arguments, again?

For crying in the dark. I get accused of arguing ad nauseam then I'm accused for not arguing. Sheesh. And I've responded to you directly and you've ignore me.

But why religion? Religion seems arbitrary and biased in its base assumptions. Why not get rid of the template and simply deal with such questions head on without any pre-set assumptions. Now, this isn't to say that any all arguments that originate in religion should be discarded. Only that we leave ourselves open to any and all arguments. Religion seems to start out by limiting arguments that can be considered.

I would feel encumbered to philosophically consider such questions by using religion.

BTW, there is no reason to suppose that we can't understand the basis for our sense of morality from a scientific (neurological) basis.

IMO, questions of morality are best answered apart from religion because religion brings with it so much baggage and assumptions that are often rooted in ancient mythology.

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.

Science:

• Science has competing egos tearing apart each others ideas. The good ideas lead to consensus and persist the bad ideas fall away.
• Scientists make predictions based on their ideas. They then set out and prove them by making things like atom bombs or by traveling to the moon.
• We see real results with thousands and thousands of examples including cars, microwaves, computers, rocket ships, planes, medicine, etc., etc. We have practical evidence that science works. We don't need to figure out if difficult concepts are true we only need to understand the scientific method and why we can trust it (but always keep a healthy dose of skepticism).

Religion:

• More and more religions with mutually exclusive concepts and ideas and little consensus.

No, we just have divisions in scientific hypothesis that lead to futher and further understanding of the natural world and we have many different fragmented religions with contradictory beliefs.

Huge difference.

The average person has more than ample reason to trust the scientific method (if you don't then might I suggest that you not use your car).

• 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.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

To be honest, most people would probably also think "Hmm ... God is interesting, but really, who cares if God is true - it doesn't help me put food on my table and pay the mortgage."

That could be true too.

There really aren't that many people in the U.S. that are deeply religious.

I'm not sure how a person can decide how deeply religious most people in the USA are, but in polls most Americans claim to be religious and believe in God.

Most people pay their "beliefs" lip-service, at best. But they have never had even one critical thought pass through their minds, either.

Now you're just being silly, elitist or telepathic. Which is it?

 

[RandFan]

You do become upset easily.

I'm not upset. Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about me. Just stick with the arguments.

But I wanted you to see that you are not arguing about it either, only stating your opinion over and over.

I'm stating premises that lead to a conclusion.

• Religion has a lot of mythological baggage, is contradictory and full of presuppositions.
• Religion tells us nothing that philosophy can't.
• Noma is therefore silly.

When the woos do that, many on this forum will call them on it. Why is this any different?

I'm arguing. Asserting that I'm only stating opinion doesn't make it so.

The problem with NOMA is that you can't argue against it...

Sure I can, it is at best silly and at worst lends credence to something it shouldn't.

Easy.

...(or for it) effectively. The idea of a magisterium is not one that is subject to scientific debate, by definition. It's kind of like the idea of the many worlds interpretation of QM. By definition, the universes are forever forbidden any knowledge of any other. Since NOMA claims that the various magisteria are independent of each other, they have no points of congruence.

Nonsense. Noma serves no purpose but to mislead.

You may be completely right, and NOMA is silly. But it is not worth getting upset over it, since, by definition, it is nonfalseifiable.

It demonstrably serves no purpose. It's at best a waste of time and at worst misleading.

Get off the personal. Telling me that I'm upset when I'm simply here having a discussion, again, is not contributing to the discussion. Unless you are Sylvia Browne and are a mind reader don't tell me what my state of mind is.

Fair enough sport?

Now, I will ask again, do you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?

If not then it would seem you are wasting your time here.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

This poll http://people-press.org/commentary/d...AnalysisID=118 that That-Guy referred too actually did take into account the belief in both.

The results are actually higher than I would have thought.

 

[Elvis666]

Get off the personal. Telling me that I'm upset when I'm simply here having a discussion, again, is not contributing to the discussion. Unless you are Sylvia Browne and are a mind reader don't tell me what my state of mind is.

Fair enough sport?

Now, I will ask again, do you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion?

If not then it would seem you are wasting your time here.

"Sport"? Naw, not upset at all.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[RandFan]

"Sport"? Naw, not upset at all.

Pot, meet kettle.

"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.

 

[Elvis666]

Now you're just being silly, elitist or telepathic. Which is it?

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.