Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Non-Overlapping Magisteria-Seperate Domains

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:56:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Science and religion cannot be in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains."

That is a faithful surmise of Gould's thesis, though it requires a few...expositions; Gould demarcates an examination of the empirical constitution of the universe that, on the basis of basic scientific philosophy--fact and theory (although there are certainly more in this theoretical hierarchy), can be extended to incorporate practical and theoretical investigations, and more so in regards to the ethical and spiritual nature of our lives ("the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives").

Through his relatively eloquent statements, discussions, and discombulating exposition and commentary, Gould qualifies this simple notion of dichotomy as if to note the implications. He states, unequivocally, in regards to the preserve of each domain, "If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium [used to designate such a domain] of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution." The two do interact, just to note.

The result is a relatively diplomatic pastiche of a consideration; by understanding the nature, let alone the importation, of the preserve, we may at least soften and undermine our view of it, especially in regards--as a ground for moral discussion and spiritual (and intellectual) foray into our lives and the intrinsic worth of our consideration. [And this is to note that Gould doesn't agree with the "delusion that we might read moral truth passively from nature's factuality," or, in other words, subscribing to divinity as the source of our morality, in this case Nature herself. And yet, most certainly, he understands it, despite certainly disagreeing with such an opinion, from the viewpoint of the preserve.]

Just to ask though--what is your critique of the NOMA proposition? I understand Gould also appended a diplomatic value to such a proposition--" Here, I believe, lies the greatest strength and necessity of NOMA, the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion. NOMA permits"indeed enjoins"the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input from both magisteria toward the common goal of wisdom," though I ask--is such a differentiation necessary and indeed, in the imposition of such to our understanding, a realistic one???

[For the foundational article, it is simply called "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" by Stephen Jay Gould. http://www.stephenjaygould.org...]
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 12:50:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, any response?...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 7:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(Considering the issue in defining the junction of science and religion, I would have thought that Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria would function as a localization of said issue...O.o)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 7:47:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Responding. Please wait a little
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 7:58:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would like to respond in a non-conventional way. This means that I will not be responding point-by-point or quoting you as commonly done in the forums. (I believe that causes confusion)
This idea of Gould"s has been widely discussed on the internet, and I"m going to take my ideas (but I"ll be typing out, so no copy-paste syndrome) straight from a creationist website. Hope you don"t mind.
It makes a distinction between fact and value, when in fact, (no pun intended) no such distinction exists. Take a look at many examples where faith can science can interact. See for example Jesus" miracles (which is an integral portion of the Christian faith). The biggest would be his resurrection. There is a whole lot of evidence pointing to the fact that Christ was above and beyond natural laws by rising from the dead. (For just a drop of the evidences, see smithereens debate with stephan_hawkins).
NOMA basically makes the claim that that religion is within one"s head, and science is not. This, as shown, is false.
Gould is also double-talking. See this quote from Kenneth Miller"s Finding Darwin"s God p. 170 (as quoted in my source, but you can verify the interview easily and the book simply using google books),
"Some wonder if Gould, in his heart, really believes these words. Late in 1997, Phillip Johnson described Gould"s essay as "a tissue of half-truths aimed at putting the religious people to sleep, or luring them into a "dialogue" on terms set by the materialists". Had Johnson seen Gould on television a year later, his sense of Gould"s duplicity might have been dramatically confirmed:

INTERVIEWER: Gould disputes the religious claim that man is at the center of the universe. The idea of a science-religious dialogue, he says, is "sweet" but unhelpful.
[Speaking to Gould]: Why is it sweet?
Gould: Because it gives comfort to many people. I think that notion that we are all in the bosom of Abraham or are in God"s embracing love is-look, it"s a tough life and if you can delude yourself into thinking that there"s all some warm and fuzzy meaning to it all, it"s enormously comforting. But I do think it"s just a story we tell ourselves.

Hard to see how something Gould regards as "just a story we tell ourselves" could also be an obligatory step in "the attainment of wisdom"."

Thus, the whole idea of NOMA is meant to put religious people to sleep while they are being taken over by "reason."

Any objection to this?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:19:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 7:58:44 PM, Muted wrote:

It makes a distinction between fact and value, when in fact, (no pun intended) no such distinction exists.
Please clarify (and elaborate) since I can't really tell what you're saying in the next few sentences. Sorry.

And just to note, Gould does not necessarily center nor orient his view of the scientific investigation into the "empirical constitution"; he not only differentiates between fact and theory, but does not seem to elevate "fact" as the main constituent of such an investigation, if my interpretation of your comment is correct.
[To corroborate, he states, "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what it is made of (fact) and why does it work that why (theory)."]

NOMA basically makes the claim that that religion is within one"s head, and science is not. This is,as shown, false.
That's not its central tenet, and neither is how Gould actually describes it...Although it is implied that religion can be considered as part of perusing nature for an understanding of moral absolutes, I do think that by assigning it a separate domain of investigation, Gould establishes a base legimitability to it that you are undermining with your characterization of NOMA, and, as stated even in my prefatory post, would restrain the theoretical nature of both domains to specific sectors: the empirical constitution here, just to reiterate, does not extend beyond the natural, and so forth

INTERVIEWER: Gould disputes the religious claim that man is at the center of the universe. The idea of a science-religious dialogue, he says, is "sweet" but unhelpful.
[Speaking to Gould]: Why is it sweet?
Gould: Because it gives comfort to many people. I think that notion that we are all in the bosom of Abraham or are in God"s embracing love is-look, it"s a tough life and if you can delude yourself into thinking that there"s all some warm and fuzzy meaning to it all, it"s enormously comforting. But I do think it"s just a story we tell ourselves.

Hard to see how something Gould regards as "just a story we tell ourselves" could also be an obligatory step in "the attainment of wisdom"."

I do not know Gould's beliefs; I only consider NOMA in terms of its theoretical insight and limitations.

Thus, the whole idea of NOMA is meant to put religious people to sleep while they are being taken over by "reason."

Any objection to this?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:23:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And just to note, I would like a consideration of NOMA on its limits and merits, not on whether Gould was truly honest in imparting such a foundational principle. :)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, let me rephrase. NOMA basically separates "religion" and "science." This is because of the philosophical assumption that they are mutually exclusive. Per the example, they are not. Archeology is certainly a science. And archeology confirms one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Thus Christians have an ability to use science to support their religion.
Or take it another way. Look at all the founding fathers of science. How many of them used their religion as a basis for their research?
The distinction is really a modern invention that has no basis in facts or history. What are your own views on it?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 9:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 8:46:16 PM, Muted wrote:
What are your own views on it?

I'll provide my view once there's enough insight (and discussion) in this thread. :D
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 9:20:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok. I eagerly await!
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 4:08:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 8:46:16 PM, Muted wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase. NOMA basically separates "religion" and "science." This is because of the philosophical assumption that they are mutually exclusive. Per the example, they are not. Archeology is certainly a science. And archeology confirms one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Thus Christians have an ability to use science to support their religion.
Or take it another way. Look at all the founding fathers of science. How many of them used their religion as a basis for their research?
The distinction is really a modern invention that has no basis in facts or history. What are your own views on it?

Hey muted, here I am like you asked.

So...... Basicallly, I agree with what you said here, though I of course disagree that archeology proves christianity. To say science can say nothing of religion seems, to me, an attempt to cop out from attempts to disprove/prove. Science is the method of examining phenomenom in the universe, and if religion makes claims about the universe then science can be used to adress them. Im not to familiar with Gould, so I don't know why he came up with this concept, and I don't know what led him to it, all I know is that it is ridiculously wrong. Seriously. It is entirely absurd.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 5:49:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 4:08:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/5/2012 8:46:16 PM, Muted wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase. NOMA basically separates "religion" and "science." This is because of the philosophical assumption that they are mutually exclusive. Per the example, they are not. Archeology is certainly a science. And archeology confirms one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Thus Christians have an ability to use science to support their religion.
Or take it another way. Look at all the founding fathers of science. How many of them used their religion as a basis for their research?
The distinction is really a modern invention that has no basis in facts or history. What are your own views on it?

Hey muted, here I am like you asked.

So...... Basicallly, I agree with what you said here, though I of course disagree that archeology proves christianity. To say science can say nothing of religion seems, to me, an attempt to cop out from attempts to disprove/prove. Science is the method of examining phenomenom in the universe, and if religion makes claims about the universe then science can be used to adress them. Im not to familiar with Gould, so I don't know why he came up with this concept, and I don't know what led him to it, all I know is that it is ridiculously wrong. Seriously. It is entirely absurd.

Good that we mostly agree on this then. I can't debate you on the topic of archeology supporting Christianity this week or the next. Some other time, maybe.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 6:21:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 5:49:36 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/7/2012 4:08:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/5/2012 8:46:16 PM, Muted wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase. NOMA basically separates "religion" and "science." This is because of the philosophical assumption that they are mutually exclusive. Per the example, they are not. Archeology is certainly a science. And archeology confirms one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Thus Christians have an ability to use science to support their religion.
Or take it another way. Look at all the founding fathers of science. How many of them used their religion as a basis for their research?
The distinction is really a modern invention that has no basis in facts or history. What are your own views on it?

Hey muted, here I am like you asked.

So...... Basicallly, I agree with what you said here, though I of course disagree that archeology proves christianity. To say science can say nothing of religion seems, to me, an attempt to cop out from attempts to disprove/prove. Science is the method of examining phenomenom in the universe, and if religion makes claims about the universe then science can be used to adress them. Im not to familiar with Gould, so I don't know why he came up with this concept, and I don't know what led him to it, all I know is that it is ridiculously wrong. Seriously. It is entirely absurd.

Good that we mostly agree on this then. I can't debate you on the topic of archeology supporting Christianity this week or the next. Some other time, maybe.

If you want I can try, I'v read some of your debate. From what i'v seen your a better debate then me, but experience will only make me better.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 11:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:56:20 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
"Science and religion cannot be in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains."
Just to ask though--what is your critique of the NOMA proposition?

I found NOMA appealing when I first read it, but I never managed to actually believe it is true.

"Science and religion cannot be in conflict"? Then how do we account for religious suppression of science? Is it not true that the Catholic church suppressed Galileo's discovery of motion in the Heavens?

Maybe Gould meant to say that the Church shouldn't have opposed Galileo, rather than it didn't oppose Galileo. But, if so, how would he justify such a claim? Wouldn't he have to avoid using logic (the stuff of science) , and instead go in search of a holy book or a divine revelation? And if that's his point, that he believes---for religious reasons---that religion shouldn't conflict with science, then why should we pay his opinion any attention at all? It's just a non-scientific opinion, as susceptible to convenient reversals as "thou shalt not kill," and the injunction against eating meat on Fridays.

I see no way to make NOMA work.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 9:33:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 7:58:44 PM, Muted wrote:

It makes a distinction between fact and value, when in fact, (no pun intended) no such distinction exists.

Nonsense, the fact /value dichotomy is foundational to science, it is the basis of the objectivity which science necessarily pursues. It is why science is ideologically neutral, and it is an absolutely fundamental principle of science.

NOMA basically makes the claim that that religion is within one"s head, and science is not. This, as shown, is false.

It does not make any such claim, it merely recognizes the limitations of science.

I recognize what Gould is saying and most of it is valid, it's nothing new though, he merely took ancient principles and gave them new names and put complex words around old ideas to make them look new. While I accept most of his argument, I reject Gould's basic NOMA premise because I consider science and religion to be complementary, rather than completely independent or in any way opposed.

Reality is experiential, and Man is not only a rational being, we are also an emotional, sentient, and spiritual being, so the view that is most appropriate, most true to reality, is the one that is consistent with the full complement of human sensitivities. If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

Science is only a tool, which is to say it is limited in application, true science has never contended that reality can be reduced to a single ontological level, on the contrary, science asserts that reality is in fact, multileveled, it asserts that the four dimensions of existence that we call reality, are contingent and relative to a greater reality of more dimensions, in which we live and move and have our being, a greater reality of which we cannot have scientific knowledge. Consequently, a strictly scientific worldview is in principle impossible because it cannot give us purpose, meaning and a vision in which everything coheres. It can only give us one aspect of reality.

There are four separate and distinct "types" of knowledge, four ways of knowing and expressing, roughly categorized as Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Art. The very fact that there are four categories of knowledge, or "ways of knowing", implies that they are all incomplete. Each requires the others to make a whole. If we are ever to have wisdom and peace of mind; we must work to harmonize the different ways of knowing into a single, coherent whole. We must understand that all knowledge is relative knowledge, operating in context. We must take the seemingly conflicting aspects of knowledge, the different "ways of knowing", and reconcile them rather than think that they are opposed or seperate. Each aspect of knowledge by itself ends in nothing. Taken together they give us a world of infinite complexity, abundant with life and filled with meaning, a universe that is itself incomplete, but one that is progressing toward something. We must know that we are much more than our intellect. To be whole we must unite science, religion, philosophy and art into an illuminating synthesis of mind, body and soul.

"Taken in its entirety, the universe is not the way science says it is; it is the way science, philosophy, religion, and art say it is." " Huston Smith
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 10:50:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before I even comment on the article I have to note that the OP is really well written for a 16 year old. Did you really write that?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 11:01:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 10:50:07 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Before I even comment on the article I have to note that the OP is really well written for a 16 year old. Did you really write that?

Yeah but he still can't dribble a basketball...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 11:38:49 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/5/2012 1:56:20 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
"Science and religion cannot be in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains."
Just to ask though--what is your critique of the NOMA proposition?

I found NOMA appealing when I first read it, but I never managed to actually believe it is true.

"Science and religion cannot be in conflict"? Then how do we account for religious suppression of science? Is it not true that the Catholic church suppressed Galileo's discovery of motion in the Heavens?

Maybe Gould meant to say that the Church shouldn't have opposed Galileo, rather than it didn't oppose Galileo. But, if so, how would he justify such a claim? Wouldn't he have to avoid using logic (the stuff of science) , and instead go in search of a holy book or a divine revelation? And if that's his point, that he believes---for religious reasons---that religion shouldn't conflict with science, then why should we pay his opinion any attention at all? It's just a non-scientific opinion, as susceptible to convenient reversals as "thou shalt not kill," and the injunction against eating meat on Fridays.

I see no way to make NOMA work.

There's a difference between science and religion being in conflict and the teachings of science and religion being in conflict (which is what I think is meant by the statement); religion can oppose science without opposing the teachings of science because religion does not dictate the truth of the natural world and does not necessarily make accurate claims about the natural world. Using Galileo as an example, the Church did oppose Galileo however due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world, the teachings of religion couldn't conflict with the empirical observations of Galileo because the teachings of religion do not occupy the same domain as scientific teachings.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:53:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 10:50:07 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Before I even comment on the article I have to note that the OP is really well written for a 16 year old. Did you really write that?

Yes. I have my better moments as a writer.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 11:01:39 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/9/2012 10:50:07 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Before I even comment on the article I have to note that the OP is really well written for a 16 year old. Did you really write that?

Yeah but he still can't dribble a basketball...

What?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 6:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.

The bible attempts to be a source of knowledge, and what it try's to say is knowledge is in conflict with what science say's is knowledge.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 6:59:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.

The bible attempts to be a source of knowledge, and what it try's to say is knowledge is in conflict with what science say's is knowledge.

I guess we have a different way of looking at it; I still don't see a conflict. People once believed that the earth was flat due to claims of the bible. When science found evidence that the earth was actually a sphere and all religion had was an unevidenced claim of the earth's flatness, there couldn't have been an actual debate about the truth of the earth's roundness because the earth was round. If religion does not have divine insight into the workings / truth of the natural world as NOMA claims, then there's no conflict between any claims about the natural world made by religion (which doesn't have knowledge of the natural world) and those made by science (which through its methodology, does have insight into the workings of the natural world).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 7:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 6:59:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.

The bible attempts to be a source of knowledge, and what it try's to say is knowledge is in conflict with what science say's is knowledge.

A more simple explanation.

Evolution is accepted as true by the vast majority of scientists.

An argument from religion that Evolution is not true because the bible says life was divinely created does not disprove evolution in anyway. This can be attributed to science and religion occupying different domains of knowledge which don't interact.

Religion can object to evolution and be in conflict with science, however a conflict over the truth of evolution does not exist on a religious and scientific level.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 9:02:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 7:28:48 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 6:59:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.

The bible attempts to be a source of knowledge, and what it try's to say is knowledge is in conflict with what science say's is knowledge.

A more simple explanation.

Evolution is accepted as true by the vast majority of scientists.

An argument from religion that Evolution is not true because the bible says life was divinely created does not disprove evolution in anyway. This can be attributed to science and religion occupying different domains of knowledge which don't interact.

Or it can be attributed to the fact that 'my book says so' is not a valid argument.


Religion can object to evolution and be in conflict with science, however a conflict over the truth of evolution does not exist on a religious and scientific level.

How is it that religion can say evolution is wrong, and science say's it it right, and yet they are not in conflict?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 9:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 9:02:06 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 7:28:48 PM, Enji wrote:

An argument from religion that Evolution is not true because the bible says life was divinely created does not disprove evolution in anyway. This can be attributed to science and religion occupying different domains of knowledge which don't interact.

Or it can be attributed to the fact that 'my book says so' is not a valid argument.

Is the bible (or other religious doctrine) not the source of religious knowledge? (i suppose you could include a personal revelation as a source of religious knowledge, but that still doesn't make a valid argument for your claims). Due to the inability to make valid claims about the natural world, the religious domain of knowledge does not occupy that of the sciences.


Religion can object to evolution and be in conflict with science, however a conflict over the truth of evolution does not exist on a religious and scientific level.

How is it that religion can say evolution is wrong, and science say's it it right, and yet they are not in conflict?

As I said before, I interpreted conflict as a conflict between the teachings of the two since NOMA refers to the knowledge from science and religion.

Saying that something is right or wrong does not make it true; science has the empirical evidence to support its claims about the natural world whereas religion does not, thus religion's argument does not stand and there is no conflict between the teachings of science and the teachings of religion.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 9:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 9:17:41 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 9:02:06 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 7:28:48 PM, Enji wrote:

An argument from religion that Evolution is not true because the bible says life was divinely created does not disprove evolution in anyway. This can be attributed to science and religion occupying different domains of knowledge which don't interact.

Or it can be attributed to the fact that 'my book says so' is not a valid argument.

Is the bible (or other religious doctrine) not the source of religious knowledge? (i suppose you could include a personal revelation as a source of religious knowledge, but that still doesn't make a valid argument for your claims).

I disagree that religion is the source of any knowledge, but I am willing to agree it is a source of religious information.

Due to the inability to make valid claims about the natural world, the religious domain of knowledge does not occupy that of the sciences.

Excuse me?????? That is ridiculous. Just because it can't make valid claim, I disagree that it can't, does not mean it cannot make claims that are about the natural world which conflict with science.



Religion can object to evolution and be in conflict with science, however a conflict over the truth of evolution does not exist on a religious and scientific level.

How is it that religion can say evolution is wrong, and science say's it it right, and yet they are not in conflict?

As I said before, I interpreted conflict as a conflict between the teachings of the two since NOMA refers to the knowledge from science and religion.

Saying that something is right or wrong does not make it true; science has the empirical evidence to support its claims about the natural world whereas religion does not, thus religion's argument does not stand and there is no conflict between the teachings of science and the teachings of religion.

I don't want to be rude, but are you actually stupid? Just because religion is wrong does not mean it does not conflict with science.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 10:07:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 9:27:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 9:17:41 PM, Enji wrote:

Is the bible (or other religious doctrine) not the source of religious knowledge? (i suppose you could include a personal revelation as a source of religious knowledge, but that still doesn't make a valid argument for your claims).

I disagree that religion is the source of any knowledge, but I am willing to agree it is a source of religious information.

Due to the inability to make valid claims about the natural world, the religious domain of knowledge does not occupy that of the sciences.

Excuse me?????? That is ridiculous. Just because it can't make valid claim, I disagree that it can't, does not mean it cannot make claims that are about the natural world which conflict with science.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part (I don't think you mean to say that religion can make claims about the natural world based on the sources of religious knowledge due to your previous comments). Conflict between religious knowledge based on religious doctrine and personal revelation and scientific knowledge based on empirical evidence can not exist because the religious argument is made based on a priori premises and there is no way to know the empirical world outside of observation (which is a posteriti) thus no logically supported conclusion can be reached about the empirical world.


Religion can object to evolution and be in conflict with science, however a conflict over the truth of evolution does not exist on a religious and scientific level.

How is it that religion can say evolution is wrong, and science say's it it right, and yet they are not in conflict?

As I said before, I interpreted conflict as a conflict between the teachings of the two since NOMA refers to the knowledge from science and religion.

Saying that something is right or wrong does not make it true; science has the empirical evidence to support its claims about the natural world whereas religion does not, thus religion's argument does not stand and there is no conflict between the teachings of science and the teachings of religion.

I don't want to be rude, but are you actually stupid? Just because religion is wrong does not mean it does not conflict with science.

I don't believe I actually am.. If religion lacks a valid, supported argument to uphold its claims about the natural world while science has one, then there is no conflict between religion's unsupported assertion and scientific knowledge; there is no debate or opposition to science's claims. Religion must lack a valid, supported argument to uphold its claims about the natural world, thus there can not be a conflict between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 2:15:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 6:59:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:47:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:20:38 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 11/9/2012 1:28:14 PM, Enji wrote:
... due to religion's inability to make factual claims about the natural world ...

They have the ability; they use it all the time. When they said nothing in the Heavens moves, they were making a factual claim about the natural world.

But it wasn't a factual claim. To claim that the Bible makes factual claims about the natural world does not make any of the Bible's claims about the natural world true, and thus the Bible is not a source of knowledge about the natural world and so no conflict exists.

The bible attempts to be a source of knowledge, and what it try's to say is knowledge is in conflict with what science say's is knowledge.

The Bible was written two thousand years ago, it was written within the context of knowledge available at the time, there are things said about the natural world that refelect the science of the day.

It appears your argument is more against science than it is against religion, science has progressed, things believed by the scientific community today are different than the things the scientific community believed two thousand years ago, and two hundred years ago, so what?

Do you really think religious texts were intended to be scientific texts?

I suppose you could say religion is wrong because the Bible isn't a very good cookbook either, but it would just be silly.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater