Our two worlds

[kowalskil]

God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Such position, put forward by an evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould, is known as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). Many theologians who are also scientists, and many scientists who are also theologians, accept NOMA. Experts are usually tolerant and respectful toward each other. Feuds about God's existence would probably disappear if NOMA became a norm among all educators. Do you agree with this?

[naturalist.atheist]

I do not disagree that NOMA has been proposed but the claim that somehow they are non-overlapping is not correct.

What people do not want to see is that both schemes are trying to do the same thing, that is explain the same reality. In that regard they are in direct conflict because their explanations and approaches to explanation could not be more discordant.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Many theologians who are also scientists, and many scientists who are also theologians, accept NOMA. Experts are usually tolerant and respectful toward each other. Feuds about God's existence would probably disappear if NOMA became a norm among all educators. Do you agree with this?

Why restrict this to educators?

And even if it were a "a norm among all educators" I hardly see how that would stop the argument over the existence/nonexistence of God. There is no correlation, actually.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I do not disagree that NOMA has been proposed but the claim that somehow they are non-overlapping is not correct.

What people do not want to see is that both schemes are trying to do the same thing, that is explain the same reality. In that regard they are in direct conflict because their explanations and approaches to explanation could not be more discordant.

I adopt NOMA as my default position and gloss over any reality claims, emphasizing that such is the bailiwick of science for mostly strategic purposes. If everyone signs on to NOMA then people will hopefully keep their religion out of science.

That and of course there are limits to current and, in some cases perhaps, any scientific understanding.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

God is a . . .

Which god?

Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate. . . .

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Actually, it rather denies the existence of such fairy tales most effectively. Rather why Gould tried to hide his argumentum ad ignorantiam in jargon. Rather why it is not taken seriously.

Best to cease believing in fairy tales, son.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

NOMA is useful in education, as it allows the religious to study science without being forced to review their world-view. Science is thus kept out of what is called "the realm of the spiritual".

But at the same time, religion does not see any reason to keep out of the physical realm. It influences law, sexual mores, politics, morality in general, and so forth. When science wants to reply, it is told that it has nothing to say as the justification for these actions is spiritual.

So really NOMA is just religion telling Science that it cannot argue with religious decisions, while religious decisions are still held as valid in the physical realm. Thus religion and religious apologists get it all their way.

Now if religion could be trusted to only ever be used as a source for inspiration and not justification, we could have a level playing field. But this is simply not the case, and only a few very honest religious people are willing and able to take that position. The rest of the time, NOMA just means that science has to play with one hand tied behind it's back.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

NOMA is useful in education, as it allows the religious to study science without being forced to review their world-view.

Which is useless. Again, it is an appeal to ignorance--and retreat into continued ignorance.

Nothing for Gentlemen.

Of course, I have my own "NOMA" regarding my current position as Personal Oiler of Mila Kunis--you should not question it: it is special and not to be examined.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Which is useless. Again, it is an appeal to ignorance--and retreat into continued ignorance.

Nothing for Gentlemen.

Of course, I have my own "NOMA" regarding my current position as Personal Oiler of Mila Kunis--you should not question it: it is special and not to be examined.

--J.D.

I do not agree with it myself, but I can see how it can be a useful compromise in a world were religion has such a huge influence. More useful for religion than for science though, and I do see your point that a far more honest approach would be to just face the fact that most religious ideas are flatly contradicted if rationally examined, or at least found to be completely unsupported.

I also agree that no-one should examine your position on Mila Kunis and a large bottle of baby oil. Ever.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Of course, I have my own "NOMA" regarding my current position as Personal Oiler of Mila Kunis . . .

--J.D.

Worked for those Houston dudes. Now they've become veritable Titans . . .

[Doctor X]

+ =

--J.D.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I adopt NOMA as my default position and gloss over any reality claims, emphasizing that such is the bailiwick of science for mostly strategic purposes. If everyone signs on to NOMA then people will hopefully keep their religion out of science.

That and of course there are limits to current and, in some cases perhaps, any scientific understanding.

NOMA is the idea that there is god's book and then there is nature's book and somehow the god believers are supposed to think they are separate. But they don't think they are separate, they think they are both god's books. If there is a strategy at work here it is the religious trying to get the scientific community to think that the religious are not gonna tinker with science so scientists will let their guard down. The religious are not above injecting religion into science. The pope said so much in so many words when he gave his talk at the University of Regensburg.

ZENIT - Papal Address at University of Regensburg

In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

In other words the pope expects that one of the missions of science should be to prove god. So much for NOMA.

[Iacchus]

If God exists, everything is proof thereof ... even science.

[Gonzo]

If God were to exist, what created God?

[Iacchus]

If God were eternal, I don't suppose it would be required, no more than it would be required of the laws of physics if they were eternal. Either way you look at it though, we are speaking of something that is entirely absurd or, if you prefer, "magical." The only real difference being, is one conveys a sense of rhyme or reason or, purpose behind it all, and the other one doesn't. And, if it wasn't for human nature, where humans are always questioning things and, whose lives are full of intent and purpose (nothing but that), I would say stick with the laws of physics, albeit it does nothing to explain why humans behave the way they do.

[SR71]

It doesn't follow that there is no purpose without God. People can choose their own purpose 100% free of supernatural belief.

[Iacchus]

Except that intent and purpose is a sign of intelligence, and I am merely asking, Where does intelligence come from? Can we pinpoint an origin or a source? or, does it "just happen" like everything else?

[SR71]

Intelligence comes from these big expensive brains we carry around with us. Our brains are only 2% of us, by weight, but they expend 20% of our energy in their operations. No other animal has such an expensive brain. It's just biology, electro chemical processes. Nothing woo about it. It all happens right between our ears, right behind our eyes, right there in the confines of the brain case. There is still a lot to learn about the precise mechanisms by which it all happens, but we are learning more and more at a pretty good rate. It's becoming less mysterious all the time. We are lucky to be alive at this particular moment, there is so much you can learn about how you work that was absolutely mysterious in earlier times. I intend to avail myself of this benefit of modern science as far as my interests desire. I certainly won't fight against it and pretend it's not happening while favoring archaic beliefs.

In other words, intelligence does not just happen, our brains synthesize it for us.

[Iacchus]

The GPS tracking devices that we use, as complicated as they can be, operate from a signal that is entirely remote. And no, these devices aren't generally deemed as archaic, except perhaps when compared to the intricacies of the brain? Or, maybe this is why brains are that much more intricate, to pickup a much more elaborate signal?

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The GPS tracking devices that we use, as complicated as they can be, operate from a signal that is entirely remote. And no, these devices aren't generally deemed as archaic, except perhaps when compared to the intricacies of the brain? Or, maybe this is why brains are that much more intricate, to pickup a much more elaborate signal?

Ok, what is the nature of the supernatural signal? Do we have any evidence of it? Is this just another God is Beyond Human Understanding argument?

Stating that our understanding of EM is not archaic does not support any conclusions about the existence of the supernatural.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

If God exists, everything is proof thereof ... even science.

I know that you will not understand this nor accept it but god has not been discovered any more than the toothfairy. Simply because people believe in god does not make god real. Now one can presuppose god if they wish and see where that takes them but that is not sufficient for science. And if you allow the Christans to distort science to accommodate their god then what about the Hindus or Shinto or Native American. Science has to go where the evidence takes it not where superstition wants to go.

[Iacchus]

Who's trying to distort anything? The fact that anything exists at all is proof of something. I am merely postulating what that something might be? In which case, yes, there either is a greater intelligence that exists behind the creation of the Universe or, there isn't. Its' as simple as that. While my statement is a perfectly valid statement.

Oh, and since it can only be postulated by means of intelligent inquiry, why shouldn't it also facilitate intelligence as part of the reply? Intelligence does give rise to intelligence doesn't it? So, why shouldn't that entail looking for a greater intelligence than our own? That, of course, would be the intelligent thing to do, if intelligence were looking for its source or origin ... which it is.

[naturalist.atheist]

Iacchus, do you need to take your meds?

Your contention was that god was a legitimate topic for scientific investigation. It's not. And it isn't because it hasn't been already tried. It just doesn't produce anything of scientific merit. And the history of science shows that when the presupposition is forced on science as a valid topic of investigation it stifles the advancement of science.

If god ever could be a legitimate topic other than as an investigation of the human brain, then it will happen but only when god is discovered.

I doubt it ever will happen. I know you and god are best buds and all but what could god possibly need humans for? It just doesn't make any sense. To a god the universe is a puny thing. It is finite after all.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

NOMA is the idea that there is god's book and then there is nature's book and somehow the god believers are supposed to think they are separate. But they don't think they are separate, they think they are both god's books. If there is a strategy at work here it is the religious trying to get the scientific community to think that the religious are not gonna tinker with science so scientists will let their guard down. The religious are not above injecting religion into science. The pope said so much in so many words when he gave his talk at the University of Regensburg.

Thank you for the mansplainin there. Is that what noma means? I thought it meant naturalatheist occassionally mansplains awfully
*note here I am using a very loose definition of mansplainin wherein its only about the person saying stupid shit while "explaining" something.

ZENIT - Papal Address at University of Regensburg

In other words the pope expects that one of the missions of science should be to prove god. So much for NOMA.

That thing you quoted, i don't think it means what you think it means.

I missed where he said science should prove god. I think hes talking more philosophy anyway.

[naturalist.atheist]

Go bait someone else beyelzu.

[beyelzu]

You think that noma is about getting scientists to let their guard down?

and I am the one trolling?