NOMA and Deism vs. the Material World

[MindForgedManacle]

Since we know that the creation story of Genesis is objectively false and human beings did in fact evolve from Homo Erectus, Australopithecines, and Homo Hominids to today's Hominoidea, the only half-plausible religious view is that of Deism. This says God created the universe but left it to run on natural causes. Well, we see some major problems with deistic beliefs, too. From the essay, Religion is Bullshit:

Few of issues I have here.

Firstly, at best you could say that "We know 'objectively' that a literal reading of te Genesis account of creation is false given our understanding of cosmology and biology." The reason I say this is because there is a significant number of Christians who don't read Genesis literally in every detail. I myself did not when I was a Christian.

Secondly, Deism can't really be called a religious position. Unless you're saying that belief in ANY god equals having a religious position. But that's not what religion really is. I mean, point out some common ritual system of practice Deists have; I doubt you can.
And deists don't think the deity they believe in is "God"/Yahweh, just a god/'Divine Architect'.

[quoted passage]
In other words, once someone creates something, the creation only exists from that point on in time, and it did not exist prior to its creation. The universe is time, and time is infinite, so it is impossible for (a) God to have created the universe because time does not exist outside of the universe.

If time "began", how could it be infinite? Further, even the whole time having begun isn't some set-in-stone knowledge.

For all we know, a deistic God could have created our universe, while residing in its own universe. Remember, deists don't equate the deity they believe in with that of the Abrahamic god.

Then there is the theory of Non-Overlapping Magisterial (NOMA). This says religions and science are different categories: the former is philosophical materialism, and the latter is methodological materialism. So religions only deal with non-material substance that cannot be proven by science. So if (a) God(s) exist(s) in objective reality, then science could measure it. During the past few hundred years, no one has ever proven (a) God(s) exist. One's faith also cannot be tested by the Scientific Method.

Really, NOMA is just something stupid Gould whipped up, seemingly to placate the religious.

Er, religion isn't 'philosophical materialism'. Most of the religious are emphatically not materialists of any sort. Nor does that commit any or all religious folk to 'non-material substance', or making claijs not verifiable by science. Ever hear of natural theology? That's exactly the kind of arguments that come out of natural theology, ex: Fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, design argument, etc., each of which are - so far as I can tell - science-accessible at least in potential.

Also, not all truths are accessible by science. In fact, to even claim that (if you are) is self-defeating. Basically, if you say "all truths are only those accessible by science;, you clearly believe that statement to be true, but it wasn't a true statement reached by science/the scientific method(s).

Do a Google search on "Religion is Bullshit" and you will see all of this enlightening information and much more. Kudos to Lemonvariable72 for the great website, Evil Bible.

Boo. And before you ask, yes I'm an atheist. :p