Noma (Non Overlapping Magisteria)

[Rhondazvous]

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?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Elephants and hamsters are both animals. No Overlapping Magisteria there too. Ridiculous comparison there too. Religion is based on wishfulness and fiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

No, and no.  The concept, as you noticed, is a useful socio-political compromise...nothing more or less.  

Personally, I consider it to be a self inflicted wound on the integrity of those who espouse it. The christer god doesn't exist, and the question of some other god's existence will invariably find itself subject to falsification all the same.

[vorlon13]

If we can't expect God to get the details right on volcanoes and neutrinos and molybdenum and quasars we are still supposed to conclude He is correct on menstruation and usury and divorce and keeping the cheese off of pepperoni pizza ??

[Rhondazvous]

Elephants and hamsters are both animals. No Overlapping Magisteria there too. Ridiculous comparison there too. Religion is based on wishfulness and fiction.

Noma doesn’t compare science and religion. Noma is about scientists going along with theists who say there is no conflict between science and their respective holy book.

What it does is give theists sole jurisdiction over matters like morals, purpose and religious “truth.” While giving scientists sole jurisdiction over physical matters.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it forgets that theists base their teachings on books that claim to know god’s actions in the physical world. since science can’t disprove the existence of go, scientists have nothing to say about how the world works through the eyes of a believer.

Parents can let their children die of curable diseases by praying over them instead of taking them to a doctor. But it’s outside the scope of science to run controlled studies disproving the efficacy of prayer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Elephants and hamsters are both animals. No Overlapping Magisteria there too. Ridiculous comparison there too. Religion is based on wishfulness and fiction.

Noma doesn’t compare science and religion.  Noma is about scientists going along with theists who say there is no conflict between science and their respective holy book.

What it does is give theists sole jurisdiction over matters like morals, purpose and religious “truth.”  While giving scientists sole jurisdiction over physical matters.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it forgets that theists base their teachings on books that claim to know god’s actions in the physical world. since science can’t disprove the existence of go, scientists have nothing to say about how the world works through the eyes of a believer.

Parents can let their children die of curable diseases by praying over them instead of taking them to a doctor. But it’s outside the scope of science to run controlled studies disproving the efficacy of prayer.

The "non-overlapping" bit implies comparison to me. The fact that religion is based on lies makes a comparison to science ridiculous.

[Rhondazvous]

...keeping the cheese off of pepperoni pizza.

Without cheese, there would be no pizza. so that's gustatorially salvific.

[Jehanne]

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?

Consider what the NAS (the National Academy of Sciences) has to say (emphasis mine):

Compatibility of Science and Religion

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti...ility.html

If there is a stronger statement of atheism, I would like to know.  Ergo, "supernatural entities" do not exist, because "they are not part of nature".

[Rhondazvous]

Consider what the NAS (the National Academy of Sciences) has to say (emphasis mine):

Compatibility of Science and Religion

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti...ility.html

If there is a stronger statement of atheism, I would like to know.  Ergo, "supernatural entities" do not exist, because "they are not part of nature".

Wow, how slick this is. We know what this means, but the article is careful not to actually say that which is not a part of nature doesn't exist. This way the theists can't accuse them and the scientist is free to placate the theist and deny what we know the article actually means.

The good news is while the theist edits his religious beliefs to make them compatible with science, the scientist, to my knowledge and to his credit, does not edit facts to make them compatible with religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Strange, because it seems like the "supernatural entities" that make cattle die and mens units shrivel can, in fact, be investigated by science....but what would I know.