Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:17 AM
kowalskil's Avatar
kowalskil kowalskil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Fort Lee NJ, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXVI
Default Our two worlds

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?
__________________
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) is the author of a FREE ON-LINE autobiography, entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA). Writing it was a moral obligation.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Iacchus (12-30-2011)
  #2  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:22 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
maddog (12-30-2011), SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #3  
Old 12-30-2011, 03:11 AM
Kyuss Apollo's Avatar
Kyuss Apollo Kyuss Apollo is offline
happy now, Mussolini?
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: location, location
Posts: VCDXC
Blog Entries: 7
Images: 17
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalskil View Post
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.
__________________
This week's track: Slint - Good Morning, Captain




Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #4  
Old 12-30-2011, 09:40 AM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMMMC
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
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.
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #5  
Old 12-30-2011, 10:52 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalskil View Post
God is a . . .
Which god?

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #6  
Old 12-30-2011, 01:09 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLIII
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
maddog (01-03-2012), naturalist.atheist (12-31-2011), SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #7  
Old 12-30-2011, 01:31 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:13 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLIII
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (12-31-2011), Doctor X (12-30-2011), SR71 (12-30-2011)
  #9  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:13 PM
ShottleBop's Avatar
ShottleBop ShottleBop is offline
The Dread Poster Robert
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Greater San Diego Area
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMLXXVI
Images: 8
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
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 . . .
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (12-30-2011)
  #10  
Old 12-30-2011, 08:28 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: Our two worlds

+ = :pleased:

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Vivisectus (12-31-2011)
  #11  
Old 12-31-2011, 06:10 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
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.
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

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (12-31-2011)
  #12  
Old 01-02-2012, 11:23 AM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Our two worlds

If God exists, everything is proof thereof ... even science.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Gonzo's Avatar
Gonzo Gonzo is offline
It's however you interpret the question...
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Our two worlds

If God were to exist, what created God? :blank:
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-02-2012, 05:29 PM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-02-2012, 05:32 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VCDXLI
Images: 2
Default Re: Our two worlds

It doesn't follow that there is no purpose without God. People can choose their own purpose 100% free of supernatural belief.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-02-2012, 05:59 PM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Our two worlds

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?
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-02-2012, 06:29 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VCDXLI
Images: 2
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-02-2012, 06:50 PM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Our two worlds

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?
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-02-2012, 07:24 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VCDXLI
Images: 2
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iacchus View Post
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.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-02-2012, 07:54 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iacchus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-02-2012, 10:32 PM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-02-2012, 10:53 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Our two worlds

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-03-2012, 06:41 AM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMMMC
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Our two worlds

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
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.
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.
Quote:

ZENIT - Papal Address at University of Regensburg

Quote:
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.
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. :tmgrin:
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-03-2012, 06:47 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Our two worlds

Go bait someone else beyelzu.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-03-2012, 07:01 AM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMMMC
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Our two worlds

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

and I am the one trolling?
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.98298 seconds with 15 queries