Goulds NOMA doesn't mean anything to anyone who isn't trying to construct a lane for science that doesn't injure religious sensibilities and thus make it's own life harder. Evolution, for example, ruffled feathers not just because or even primarily because it struck at the religious origin story in detail...details which were always up for grabs throughout christian history - but because it assaulted the white supremacy baked into western christianity.

(June 22, 2024 at 11:24 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Goulds NOMA doesn't mean anything to anyone who isn't trying to construct a lane for science that doesn't injure religious sensibilities and thus make it's own life harder.  Evolution, for example, ruffled feathers not just because or even primarily because it struck at the religious origin story in detail...details which were always up for grabs throughout christian history - but because it assaulted the white supremacy baked into western christianity.

On that note, I always thought African Americans had a much better idea of what Christianity was supposed to be than white Christians. Actually not sure why white people even bother with Christianity, doesn't seem like the right religion for them.

Why not, they invented it. Italians are white now.

(June 22, 2024 at 1:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 22, 2024 at 12:48 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: Millions of them had trouble accepting that they were just apes.

They still do have a problem accepting that we are in fact apes. That's because in the Western world it strikes directly at the origin story. Gould's no overlapping magisteria means nothings to them, first, because they've never heard of it, and second, because even if they have, as believers they see only one magisteria that is overarching, mostly. There are believers who accept evolution, but they are much quieter than the deniers.

Non-overlapping magisteria? That’s a very fancy set of words. It may have been mentioned in a certain Times magazine article that I have around here. In it, I do remember Stephen Jay Gould arguing for this sort of thing. I think he said that he found young earth creationism as ridiculous but also that religion is important and has value.
I’m sure that he has written a bunch of similar articles.

I guess some scientists don’t want to get into arguments with the majority of the population. Let’s face it. They are outnumbered by A LOT of theists.
In other words, we are suppose to say something like, both judaism and its derived religions are correct: The jewish god made humans, he created the soul and also there have been evolution and a certain ape species branched off 6 million y ago and it branched a few more times and as a result, we came into existence.

What about my VHS? Did Panasonic’s engineers design my VHS and as it was assembled in the factory, the jewish god breathed life into it?

There is no NOMA. The jewish flavor of religions plays a role in the real world. There is apparently the 10 plagues of Egypt and then Moses and his 600,000 left and the Nile river split.
+ all the other wild claims.
This has an effect on archaeology and also history.

You have stuff like the Shroud of Turin. If the catholic church doesn’t allow an analysis of the shroud, it becomes suspicious.
There are many miraculous claims.
Check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio

He flies around like superman and gives directions to pilots during WW2.
There is the bleeding hand thing. Some people have looked into it while he was alive and say it is bullshit and a large number of others, experts, doctors, chemists looked into it and claim that it is a magical event.
I’m sure that they were highly biased people.

Maybe these guys should invite James Randi the magician and multiple groups of experts from around the world who are willing to put their reputation on the line. Let’s see if any atheists get converted.

I like that James Randi ruined the reputation of a big wig biologist who was claiming that homeopathy works.

NOMA?
This is from wikipedia:

Quote:Francis Collins criticized what he saw as the limits of NOMA, arguing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped" while agreeing with Gould that morals, spirituality and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation.[14]

I thought that naturalistic explanations did cover morals, spirituality and ethics and that there is no evidence of anything supernatural.

(June 24, 2024 at 12:07 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: Non-overlapping magisteria? That’s a very fancy set of words.

[...]

NOMA?
This is from wikipedia:

Quote:Francis Collins criticized what he saw as the limits of NOMA, arguing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped" while agreeing with Gould that morals, spirituality and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation.[14]

I thought that naturalistic explanations did cover morals, spirituality and ethics and that there is no evidence of anything supernatural.

You appear to be under the impression that I support the notion of NOMA. I don't. I was pointing out that the majority of American Christians don't, either, as a rereading of my post will show.

(June 24, 2024 at 12:07 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(June 22, 2024 at 1:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: They still do have a problem accepting that we are in fact apes. That's because in the Western world it strikes directly at the origin story. Gould's no overlapping magisteria means nothings to them, first, because they've never heard of it, and second, because even if they have, as believers they see only one magisteria that is overarching, mostly. There are believers who accept evolution, but they are much quieter than the deniers.

Non-overlapping magisteria? That’s a very fancy set of words. It may have been mentioned in a certain Times magazine article that I have around here. In it, I do remember Stephen Jay Gould arguing for this sort of thing. I think he said that he found young earth creationism as ridiculous but also that religion is important and has value.
I’m sure that he has written a bunch of similar articles.

I guess some scientists don’t want to get into arguments with the majority of the population. Let’s face it. They are outnumbered by A LOT of theists.
In other words, we are suppose to say something like, both judaism and its derived religions are correct: The jewish god made humans, he created the soul and also there have been evolution and a certain ape species branched off 6 million y ago and it branched a few more times and as a result, we came into existence.

What about my VHS? Did Panasonic’s engineers design my VHS and as it was assembled in the factory, the jewish god breathed life into it?

There is no NOMA. The jewish flavor of religions plays a role in the real world. There is apparently the 10 plagues of Egypt and then Moses and his 600,000 left and the Nile river split.
+ all the other wild claims.
This has an effect on archaeology and also history.

You have stuff like the Shroud of Turin. If the catholic church doesn’t allow an analysis of the shroud, it becomes suspicious.
There are many miraculous claims.
Check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio

He flies around like superman and gives directions to pilots during WW2.
There is the bleeding hand thing. Some people have looked into it while he was alive and say it is bullshit and a large number of others, experts, doctors, chemists looked into it and claim that it is a magical event.
I’m sure that they were highly biased people.

Maybe these guys should invite James Randi the magician and multiple groups of experts from around the world who are willing to put their reputation on the line. Let’s see if any atheists get converted.

I like that James Randi ruined the reputation of a big wig biologist who was claiming that homeopathy works.

NOMA?
This is from wikipedia:

Quote:Francis Collins criticized what he saw as the limits of NOMA, arguing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped" while agreeing with Gould that morals, spirituality and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation.[14]

I thought that naturalistic explanations did cover morals, spirituality and ethics and that there is no evidence of anything supernatural.

Pssst!  James Randi died in 2020...

Quote:I would love to hear more "lazy atheist" arguments based on the the most basic flawed logic of religious beliefs.  Prima facie simple arguments. 

The fact that we have multiple viable religions in the first place. Wouldn't a deity want to reveal the truth to all of humanity? Not just to a small group. This is known as the argument from relgious confusion.

(July 16, 2024 at 3:36 pm)Modern Atheism Wrote:  Wouldn't a deity want to reveal the truth to all of humanity? Not just to a small group. 

I think there are two things to be wary of in this argument. 

First, it seems to rely on your knowing what an omniscient deity would want to do. And second, on knowing how an omniscient deity would go about achieving its goals. 

You may be right, and you may have discerned exactly what that deity would do if it existed. On the other hand, none of us is omniscient, so it may not be reasonable to assume that a deity's goals and methods would be the ones we prefer. 

For example, we assume that efficiency is always a good thing, but a god of infinite abundance would have no need to be efficient.

You could contrast this with, for example, Hegel's argument (mostly taken from Boehme) that a World Spirit would necessarily have to evolve through dialectical progress, over a great deal of time.

(July 16, 2024 at 7:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(July 16, 2024 at 3:36 pm)Modern Atheism Wrote:  Wouldn't a deity want to reveal the truth to all of humanity? Not just to a small group. 

I think there are two things to be wary of in this argument. 

First, it seems to rely on your knowing what an omniscient deity would want to do. And second, on knowing how an omniscient deity would go about achieving its goals. 

You may be right, and you may have discerned exactly what that deity would do if it existed. On the other hand, none of us is omniscient, so it may not be reasonable to assume that a deity's goals and methods would be the ones we prefer. 

For example, we assume that efficiency is always a good thing, but a god of infinite abundance would have no need to be efficient.

You could contrast this with, for example, Hegel's argument (mostly taken from Boehme) that a World Spirit would necessarily have to evolve through dialectical progress, over a great deal of time.

The unspoken corollary to your reply here, then, is that while this god may be "omniscient", if he withholds revelation and salvation from a bunch of mere mortals, he probably is not omnibeneficent -- he is clearly picking favorites.

And no one gives a shit about Hegel, unless he was, you know, god's BFF.

(July 16, 2024 at 3:36 pm)Modern Atheism Wrote:

Quote:I would love to hear more "lazy atheist" arguments based on the the most basic flawed logic of religious beliefs.  Prima facie simple arguments. 

The fact that we have multiple viable religions in the first place. Wouldn't a deity want to reveal the truth to all of humanity? Not just to a small group. This is known as the argument from relgious confusion.

Maybe it doesn't want to.  Maybe it hates our guts.  Maybe it can't do a damned thing about human beings cooking up religions.  Maybe it hasn't even noticed.