I'm reading about Noma (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) in Jerry Coyn’s Faith Versus Fact. This view, espoused by Stephen Gould, tries to resolve the inimical relationship between science and religion by keeping them separate. Gould contends that this parallel approach will allow both science and religion to travel their respective paths to truth without conflict.
I understand the political and financial need for Noma. When theists are pulling the purse strings that fund scientific research, scientists don’t want to appear to be stepping on their toes. But unless theists have all scientific meetings and communications wire tapped, I think that among ourselves we should be honest.
I don’t pretend to be a scientist, but I think that while Noma may apply to the possibility of q god, it does not and should not apply to religion.
As long as theists keep their concept of god out there somewhere, nebulous and ineffable, that concept remains safe. Science can’t touch it. But the moment they bring their concept of god into human history, the moment they entomb that concept in a book claiming god did this and that in the physically observable world, they make that concept subject to the scrutiny of scientific disciplines.
Is it beyond the scope of science to discredit a book that sys god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon? Are historians at a loss when the bible ascribes to historical figure actions that no historical record corroborates such a claim?
I understand the political and financial need for Noma. When theists are pulling the purse strings that fund scientific research, scientists don’t want to appear to be stepping on their toes. But unless theists have all scientific meetings and communications wire tapped, I think that among ourselves we should be honest.
I don’t pretend to be a scientist, but I think that while Noma may apply to the possibility of q god, it does not and should not apply to religion.
As long as theists keep their concept of god out there somewhere, nebulous and ineffable, that concept remains safe. Science can’t touch it. But the moment they bring their concept of god into human history, the moment they entomb that concept in a book claiming god did this and that in the physically observable world, they make that concept subject to the scrutiny of scientific disciplines.
Is it beyond the scope of science to discredit a book that sys god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon? Are historians at a loss when the bible ascribes to historical figure actions that no historical record corroborates such a claim?
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
