Noma

[Lumpen Prole]

Below are selected readings both supporting and refuting NOMA, but here's the idea: NOMA postulates that science and religion occupy mutually exclusive realms; that is, the natural world falls within the domain of science, and the supernatural falls within the domain for religion. The two are "nonoverlapping," hence the name. Gould and Richard Dawkins are probably the two most famous evolutionary biologists (other than Darwin) in history, and the two often disagreed. NOMA is refuted in "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.


"Nonoverlapping Magisteria" by Stephen Jay Gould:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

"Religion and Science: Conflict or Conciliation":
http://www.godless.org/sci/skeptinq/dawkins.html


So, are you for or against NOMA? And the infinitely more important question: why? My participation will be quite minimal, Winter Break is less than a month away, at which time I can become more involved in discussions (and I know you've all been missing me ).

[Izdaari]

I don't even know that I consider it a debatable proposition. I've been accustomed to considering it as one of my premises.

Stephen Jay Gould, quoted from the OP's link:
At lunch, the priests called me over to their table to pose a problem that had been troubling them. What, they wanted to know, was going on in America with all this talk about "scientific creationism"? One asked me: "Is evolution really in some kind of trouble. and if so, what could such trouble be? I have always been taught that no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence for evolution seems both entirely satisfactory and utterly overwhelming. Have I missed something?"

A lively pastiche of French, Italian, and English conversation then ensued for half an hour or so, but the priests all seemed reassured by my general answer: Evolution has encountered no intellectual trouble; no new arguments have been offered. Creationism is a homegrown phenomenon of American sociocultural history—a splinter movement (unfortunately rather more of a beam these days) of Protestant fundamentalists who believe that every word of the Bible must be literally true, whatever such a claim might mean. We all left satisfied, but I certainly felt bemused by the anomaly of my role as a Jewish agnostic, trying to reassure a group of Catholic priests that evolution remained both true and entirely consistent with religious belief.

Another story in the same mold: I am often asked whether I ever encounter creationism as a live issue among my Harvard undergraduate students. I reply that only once, in nearly thirty years of teaching, did I experience such an incident. A very sincere and serious freshman student came to my office hours with the following question that had clearly been troubling him deeply: "I am a devout Christian and have never had any reason to doubt evolution, an idea that seems both exciting and particularly well documented. But my roommate, a proselytizing Evangelical, has been insisting with enormous vigor that I cannot be both a real Christian and an evolutionist. So tell me, can a person believe both in God and evolution?" Again, I gulped hard, did my intellectual duty, and reassured him that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief—a position I hold sincerely, but still an odd situation for a Jewish agnostic.

These two stories illustrate a cardinal point, frequently unrecognized but absolutely central to any understanding of the status and impact of the politically potent, fundamentalist doctrine known by its self-proclaimed oxymoron as "scientitic creationism"—the claim that the Bible is literally true, that all organisms were created during six days of twenty-four hours, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution must therefore be false. Creationism does not pit science against religion (as my opening stories indicate), for no such conflict exists. Creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the history of life. Creationism is a local and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations, and prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to read the Bible as an inerrant document, literally true in every jot and tittle.

I do not doubt that one could find an occasional nun who would prefer to teach creationism in her parochial school biology class or an occasional orthodox rabbi who does the same in his yeshiva, but creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth rather than illuminating literature, based partly on metaphor and allegory (essential components of all good writing) and demanding interpretation for proper understanding. Most Protestant groups, of course, take the same position—the fundamentalist fringe notwithstanding.
I would have to say that I entirely agree with Gould on this one. No surprise I suppose: even though I am a charismatic evangelical, my position on these kinds of issues has always aligned more with Catholicism than with Protestant fundamentalists.

:flowers:

[Izdaari]

Now that I've had a chance to look over Dawkin's counter-argument, it doesn't impress me at all. Not that he isn't logical of course; he always is. But I just can't buy into his premises.

[lawman]

I'm disinclined to accept the NOMA concept, myself; it seems too often to be an excuse for scientists simply to absent themselves from certain arguments that they fear might give rise to controversy or offense. I find Dawkins' argument fairly compelling, although the link provided didn't necessarily summarize it all that well. To quote a bit from The God Delusion (pp 54-61, emphases in the original):
Despite the confident... tone of Gould's assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it? Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific scepticism?...

What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honored guest and science must respectfully slink away?... if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well (I doubt that philosophers would thank Martin Rees for lumping theologians in with them)...

What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?... if science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can?...

Similarly, we can all agree that science's entitlement to advise us on moral values is problematic, to say the least. But does Gould really want to cede to religion the right to tell us what is good and what is bad? The fact that religion has nothing else to contribute to human wisdom is no reason to hand religion a free license to tell us what to do... If we reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus (as all enlightened moderns do), by what criteria do we then decide which of religion's moral values to accept? Or should we pick and choose among the world's religions until we find one whose moral teaching suits us?... And if we have independent criteria for choosing among religious moralities, why not cut out the middle man and go straight for the moral choice without the religion?...

And whatever else they may say, scientists who subscribe to the "separate magisteria" school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without... The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice -- or not yet -- a decided one. So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories that religions rely upon to impress multitudes of the faithful...

To dramatize the point, imagine, by some remarkable set of circumstances, that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence that Jesus really did lack a biological father. Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying... "Who cares? Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions. Wrong magisterium! We're concerned only with ultimate questions and moral values."...

The very idea is a joke. You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any were to turn up, would be trumpeted to the skies. NOMA is only popular because there is no evidence to favor the God Hypothesis...

The whole point of NOMA is that it is a two-way bargain. The moment religion steps on science's turf and starts to meddle in the real world with miracles, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his amicabilis concordia is broken. Note, however, that the miracle-free religion defended by Gould would not be recognized by most practising theists in the pew or on the prayer mat.
IOW, in a nutshell, there's no logical grounds for assuming that theology has any special claims to knowledge that earn it an exemption from ordinary skepticism, and moreover it's a totally one-sided concession if granted since religion certainly doesn't avoid making truth claims. I find that hard to argue with. So, Izdaari, what premises do you have difficulty accepting here?

[Izdaari]

I sorta kinda agree with Dawkins on this much:

And whatever else they may say, scientists who subscribe to the "separate magisteria" school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without...
Dawkins believes in a different kind of universe than I do -- he dogmatically believes in a deterministic materialistic non-supernatural universe, and I wager would reject even the evidence of his own senses should he witness something supernatural. He assumes that theologians can't possibly have anything to contribute to the great cosmic questions because he denies the possibility of their having received genuine divine revelations... but divine revelation is ultimately the only way Man can know God. He is also preoccupied, even fascinated, by something that I am utterly unconcerned with, except perhaps as a parlor game: arguing for or against the existence of God.

[Izdaari]

......

[mataj]

NOMA postulates that science and religion occupy mutually exclusive realms;That was proven by Occam in 14th century. There's no need to repoen that question.

Science is supposed to answer the question how the universe works. Religion is supposed to answer the question why the universe exists, what is its purpose. The question of purpose is primarily a political one. It's all about interests, science has nothing to do with it. The dispute between Dawkins and religion establishment should also be viewed in this way. Basically, its about wheter the morality and ethics can exist outside of religion, or not, whether organized religion can make money promoting it or not.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Gould and Richard Dawkins are probably the two most famous evolutionary biologists (other than Darwin) in history, and the two often disagreed.

Geez, poor Mendel, getting shoved aside by a mere popularizer like Dawkins. I would hope modern musicians wouldn't consider Miss Spears a more famous composer than Mozart, but perhaps biologists haven't reached the same level of professionalism in viewing historical contributions. :eek:

(No wonder Watson is trying to stay in the news with racist statements - he sees Crick getting shoved by the wayside, and figures controversy, not science, is the only way to stay relevant in biology)

[roderic]

I find NOMA to be an odd proposition, I agree with some that both sides say.
Science and religion (the arguments seem to concern themselves with Christianity, a monotheistic revealed religion) are mutually excluding approaches, but the area of 'expertise' clearly overlaps.
Evolution of the cosmos and life on earth are commented on by both. On the surface of it, two contradictory stories and a revealed 'truth', the other one theories arrived at through reasoning and demonstrable evidence of the laws of nature.
But as mentioned already, the two can and have been reconciled, in Catholicism for example, and European protestantism alike.

But anyone who insists on taking the word of the bible literally - and there are people insisting on this being the only 'true' Christianity - will have a conflict, and creationism or Intelligent Design are attempts to rationalise, this is not science.

On the other hand, the attempts to derive ethics and morals from science, and proposing there to be but relative values because the existence of god and absolutes cannot be proven, I find equally unconvincing in establishing 'truth'.

It would be interesting to have a look at Buddhism, though this is not a religion in the narrow sense, since there are some striking similarities in assertions concerning the evolution of the cosmos, and Buddhism proposes the method of reasoning and examination of evidence to discover personal truth.

[lawman]

Dawkins believes in a different kind of universe than I do -- he dogmatically believes in a deterministic materialistic non-supernatural universe...
IOW, he accepts the picture of the universe presented by all the available evidence. What's "dogmatic" about that?

(BTW, the word "deterministic" is very much out of place here. Dawkins hasn't written anything to suggest he accepts any form of determinism, and the same is true for pretty much any other contemporary scientist. Between evolution in the biological sciences and quantum theory in the physical sciences, determinism is squarely in the dustbin. Indeed, it's far more associated with religious thinking.)

Anyhow, if those who argue for a supernatural "magisterium" could actually demonstrate some aspect of existence where the laws of nature don't apply, rather than merely asserting such, they'd have much stronger ground to stand on.

He assumes that theologians can't possibly have anything to contribute to the great cosmic questions because he denies the possibility of their having received genuine divine revelations...
Well, of course he does. There's no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that anyone has "received genuine divine revelations." After all, what sort of credulity would it take for anyone to accept claims of "divine revelation" at face value? We've discussed in other threads, in slightly different contexts, the sort of genuine evidence it would take to make such claims credible -- i.e., "revealed" knowledge not otherwise known at the time of revelation but that can be empirically verified later. What examples would you point to?

Moreover, you're pleading a position that's really beyond the scope of this debate -- the vast majority of actual practicing theologians (and other religious believers) don't claim to have had such "revelations," nor would Gould or other NOMA supporters suggest that they had, nor does the argument rely upon the proposition.

He is also preoccupied, even fascinated, by something that I am utterly unconcerned with, except perhaps as a parlor game: arguing for or against the existence of God.
It is a pretty central question, after all, at least in the context of our culture. It makes no sense to worship, or build social constructs around (or, as with NOMA, cede discursive territory to) something that arguably doesn't exist. Certainly there are those who claim to "know" otherwise based on "faith," but in serious epistemological terms that's just not a credible claim to knowledge.


Science is supposed to answer the question how the universe works. Religion is supposed to answer the question why the universe exists, what is its purpose. The question of purpose is primarily a political one. It's all about interests, science has nothing to do with it...
I think perhaps you're missing Dawkins' point. He's not arguing that science can address every area of human inquiry; rather, while acknowledging areas where science is limited (e.g., "purpose" and "morality"), he argues that religion is no less limited, and thus should not be afforded any special dispensation as opposed to secular philosophy.

The dispute between Dawkins and religion establishment should also be viewed in this way. Basically, its about wheter the morality and ethics can exist outside of religion, or not, whether organized religion can make money promoting it or not.
Well, if you're looking for settled questions, this certainly is one. There's no dispute whatsoever that morality and ethics can and do exist independent of religion. Given that, what special insights does religion have to offer?


Moreover: as roderic points out, this argument seems implicitly limited to Judeo-Christian religion... but the reasoning proffered for it doesn't support that limitation. A humble proposition: if one really accepts the notion of "non-overlapping magisteria," then wouldn't every supernatural belief system that claims to offer special wisdom, from astrology to Zoroastrianism, be equally entitled to an exemption from skeptical inquiry?

[mataj]

I think perhaps you're missing Dawkins' point. He's not arguing that science can address every area of human inquiry; rather, while acknowledging areas where science is limited (e.g., "purpose" and "morality"), he argues that religion is no less limited, and thus should not be afforded any special dispensation as opposed to secular philosophy.This is exactly the heart of the problem between Dawkins and religion.

OK, I'll try to rephrase myself a bit less clumsily.

Producing purpose and morality is pretty lucrative business. Religious industry had enjoyed almost undisturbed de facto monopoly in this field for milleniums. Dawkins argues, that secular philosophy can do this job as well as religion, if not better. By doing this, he's endangering religious industry's profits.

It's similar to Microsoft and Open Source.

[lawman]

Producing purpose and morality is pretty lucrative business. Religious industry had enjoyed almost undisturbed de facto monopoly in this field for milleniums. Dawkins argues, that secular philosophy can do this job as well as religion, if not better. By doing this, he's endangering religious industry's profits.
Ah, okay, I get it -- you're not defending religious prerogatives as such, you're just suggesting a different institutional analysis -- seeing religion's stake here as a business interest rather than a philosophical one. On those grounds, needless to say, it deserves even less protection.

Still, I think the larger discussion here is about ways of searching for truth, in a more idealistic sense; even if mercenary motives may be involved, we need not assume them in order to make a case.

[Lumpen Prole]

Geez, poor Mendel, getting shoved aside by a mere popularizer like Dawkins. I would hope modern musicians wouldn't consider Miss Spears a more famous composer than Mozart, but perhaps biologists haven't reached the same level of professionalism in viewing historical contributions. :eek:

(No wonder Watson is trying to stay in the news with racist statements - he sees Crick getting shoved by the wayside, and figures controversy, not science, is the only way to stay relevant in biology)

Mendel was not an evolutionary biologist. And to say that Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist is not to say that he has made significant contributions within the scientific community (he hasn't).

[whatever]

Moreover: as roderic points out, this argument seems implicitly limited to Judeo-Christian religion... but the reasoning proffered for it doesn't support that limitation. A humble proposition: if one really accepts the notion of "non-overlapping magisteria," then wouldn't every supernatural belief system that claims to offer special wisdom, from astrology to Zoroastrianism, be equally entitled to an exemption from skeptical inquiry?


I don't see NOMA as exempting these branches of thinking from "skeptical enquiry", but as an arguement that science and religion are two different displines providing different approaches that will result in different answers. As such, yes, NOMA should apply to other form of thinking ( e.g. astrology), not just Judeo/Christian religion.

Because the approaches are different, using science to criticise religious thoughts is a bit like fitting a climbing rope into a needle head. The premise in science is that an event will only be taken as fact if there are physical evident to prove it, through repeated experimentations. Religion on the other hand is about personal spiritualism, physical evidence has very little to do with it. From there it's hard to reconcile the two in any arguement because the foundation of each school of thought is completely different. Now you can argue which approach is better and which is right. But it's problematic when you try to use one approach to counter the answer that was derived using the other approach - e.g arguing that God and the physical world is so and so because sceince says so and so to someone religious. Because a scientific approach is fundamentally different from a religious approach, and a person only reach his religious belief through the religious approach. For the same reason, you can't use religion to explain physical events, such as why it rain. At the same time, I don't think there is any conflict in a religious person using science to find out about their physical world while maintaining his moral and spiritual side, or a scientific person using religion to satify his curiousity of how life begins (of course some "scietific people" would condemn this person as not being really scientific), because the physical and the spirtual realm are two completely different entities.

Dawkins, I think, simply cannot accept that. It seems to me, to him, only the physical world matters and everything in the physical world can be answered, if we weren't constrained by our ability. The problem with that premise is that it is not how other people think. Their spirituality (that is, things that exist only in their head to us atheists) matters just as much as the things that we can sense using our five senses.

Another problem with his arguement is that science simply cannot answer everything at present. In fact science is very limited. So using science to attack religious thoughts at the moment is abit like using primary school maths to solve velocity and acceleration. Maybe one day, we will learn the derivatives that is needed solve these questions, but at present we don't have that ability. It's premature to try to use science to disprove things that it does not yet have a grasp of. Science cannot firmly say that there is no god, it can't even yet tell us why atoms act the way they do. We can believe that there was a big bang, and we still can't answer how the big bang came about, and at the end of the day, believing in the big bang theory is still very much a belief at this point in time.

Further to that, I don't think you can use the argument, like Dawkin did, that if religion takes advantage of science when they re-enforce each other, that means we can use science to disprove a person's believe that God gives them signs as to how to live their lives. For one thing, science does not currently have the ability to disprove any such thing, and if there comes a time when it can (and I can't see how it can be done), then you would have already moved that question from the spiritual to the physical world, it means that it's actually a physical phenomenon that were mistaken as spiritual belief, which means that it comes under the domain of science and not religion anymore. You can argue that all religious experience and beliefs that they ever had are really just physical phenomenons (i.e. spiritual thoughts are really just chemical reactions in the brain, nothing more) and as such all will fall into the realm of science, but then you can't prove that either.

To sum it up, the way I see it is: using science to dispute beliefs like, God look after all his creations, and sinning will lead to eternal hell etc, by arguing that there can be no such thing as hell or we would have find it and that there cannot be this all-powerfull entity etc. is like using religion to explain why evolution is not true. They are completely different questions and trying to use scientific or religious approach only to answer them together is very much a wasted attempt.

[lawman]

...Religion on the other hand is about personal spiritualism, physical evidence has very little to do with it. From there it's hard to reconcile the two in any arguement because the foundation of each school of thought is completely different. Now you can argue which approach is better and which is right. But it's problematic when you try to use one approach to counter the answer that was derived using the other approach - e.g arguing that God and the physical world is so and so because sceince says so and so to someone religious...
But what you're arguing here is precisely the opposite of NOMA. If both science and religion are "ways of knowing" that make claims about existence, and you can in fact argue about which is better, then they're not "non-overlapping" and independent of each other, they really are in conflict. On those terms, I think empiricism easily emerges as the more reliable path to useful knowledge.

...only the physical world matter and everything in the physical world can be answered, if we weren't constrained by our ability.
I don't think Dawkins necessarily feels only the physical world "matters," and I know I don't. (Certainly he writes at length about moral discourse; he just rejects the premise that religion has anything uniquely worthwhile to contribute to that discourse.) However, I would stand by notion (as would he, I have no doubt) that the physical world is knowable (even if not completely known) -- indeed, I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that.

Another problem with his arguement is that science simply cannot answer everything at present...
I don't see how that's a problem, since he's never argued that it does. The NOMA argument, however, amounts to the proposition that it shouldn't even try.

[roderic]

The premise in science is that an event will only be taken as fact if there are physical evident to prove it, through repeated experimentations. Religion on the other hand is about personal spiritualism, physical evidence has very little to do with it. From there it's hard to reconcile the two in any arguement because the foundation of each school of thought is completely different.Yes, that's right.
Yet religion (the bible) makes very specific claims about the physical world, some of which have been proven to be false, they contradict observed and examined reality. At the same time, I don't think there is any conflict in a religious person using science to find out about their physical world while maintaining his moral and spiritual side, or a scientific person using religion to satify his curiousity of how life begins (of course some "scietific people" would condemn this person as not being really scientific), because the physical and the spirtual realm are two completely different entities. Yes, the two can complement each other, but then, the separation of the physical and spiritual is a specifically Christian theme not shared by other religions.

Dawkins, I think, simply cannot accept that. It seems to me, to him, only the physical world matter and everything in the physical world can be answered, if we weren't constrained by our ability. The problem with that premise is that it is not how other people think. Their spirituality (that is, things that exist only in their head to us athiests) matters just as much as the things that we can sense using our five senses. Yes, but how other people think is not Dawkins problem, his approach is conclusive in itself and one may agree or not.

Another problem with his arguement is that science simply cannot answer everything at present. In fact science is very limited. So using science to attack religious thoughts at the moment is abit like using primary school maths to solve velocity and acceleration. Maybe one day, we will learn the derivatives that is needed solve these questions, but at present we don't have that ability. It's premature to try to use science to disprove things that it does not yet have a grasp of. Science cannot firmly say that there is no god, it can't even yet tell us why atoms act the way they do. We can believe that there was a big bang, and we still can't answer how big bang came about, and at the end of the day, believing in the big bang theory is still very a belief at this point in time.Yes, science can not, and doesn't attempt to, answer the "why" question, only the how.

Further to that, I don't think you can use the argument, like Dawkin did, that if religion takes advantage of science when they re-enforce each other, that means we can use science to disprove a person's believe that God gives them signs as to how to live their lives.I agree with this aswell
For one thing, science does not currently have the ability to disprove any such thing, and if there comes a time when it can (and I can't see how it can be done), then you would have already moved that question from the spiritual to the physical world, it means that it's actually a physical phenomenon that were mistaken as spiritual belief, which means that it comes under the domain of science and not religion anymore. I don't think there is a strict separation of physical and spiritual, science is venturing into these areas as well, psychology is not physical, yet occurrences can be explained. There is also parapsychology, which is still at the beginning of exploring supposedly 'supernatural' phenomena.You can argue that all religious experience and beliefs that they ever had are really just physical phenomenons (i.e. spiritual thoughts are really just chemical reactions in the brain, nothing more) and as such all will fall into the realm of science, but then you can't prove that either.I would not attempt to argue this, there is too much we don't know, but the sociological and psychological effects of religious believes have been studied extensively.

There are areas where science meets a frontier which questions its premises, Einstein and relativity was one, sub-nuclear science and certain aspects of psychology are others.

[whatever]

But what you're arguing here is precisely the opposite of NOMA. If both science and religion are "ways of knowing" that make claims about existence, and you can in fact argue about which is better, then they're not "non-overlapping" and independent of each other, they really are in conflict. On those terms, I think empiricism easily emerges as the more reliable path to useful knowledge.

We must be seeing things very differently. Although they are ways of knowing things, they give us insights into different areas. Like Biology and Mathematics. You can't use Biology to explain how calculas works, can you?


I don't think Dawkins necessarily feels only the physical world "matters," and I know I don't. (Certainly he writes at length about moral discourse; he just rejects the premise that religion has anything uniquely worthwhile to contribute to that discourse.) However, I would stand by notion (as would he, I have no doubt) that the physical world is knowable (even if not completely known) -- indeed, I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that.

Well, his arguement, at least the way I read it, seems to very much disregard anything that is outside of the physical world. I think the way he thinks is that if it can't be tested for, it isn't worth believing in (in fact that's how we would use science to counter religion), and that effectively disregard spiritual beliefs.



I don't see how that's a problem, since he's never argued that it does. The NOMA argument, however, amounts to the proposition that it shouldn't even try.

It's a big problem. Think of all the religious people who tried to convince you of how real their religion is, but could never do so because of their lack of facts. If you put yourself in a religious person's shoe, the limit of science become an important point in which to refute any scietific arguement you try to put forward to topple a religious arguement.

And I disagree that NOMA proposes that we not try to understand those questions, it's simply that they are so different, when we try to use one approach to attack another, it's like using a butcher knife to cut wood.

[roderic]

The basic difference between science and revealed religion is that science is an open system which continually changes and expands, revealed religion has remained the same, it's just a matter of fine-tuning its application over time, but even this is neither required nor desirable, it's denying or diluting the teachings according to fundamentalists.

[whatever]

Yes, that's right.
Yet religion (the bible) makes very specific claims about the physical world, some of which have been proven to be false, they contradict observed and examined reality.

Yep, that actually enforce the point that they are both seperated. Religion in this case is departing from it's spiritual realm into the physical realm, and science proves that.


Yes, the two can complement each other, but then, the separation of the physical and spiritual is a specifically Christian theme not shared by other religions.

Not really, certain themes are shared through most religion, and I don't think Christianity is that good at seperating the two.

I'm not trying to argue that everything in religion is spiritual, religion can overstep its bound and try to explain things it has no place explaining.


Yes, but how other people think is not Dawkins problem, his approach is conclusive in itself and one may agree or not.

Actually it's only conclusive if you agree to his premise, if you don't then it's not anymore. So whether his arguement is accepted very much depend on how people think.



I don't think there is a strict separation of physical and spiritual, science is venturing into these areas as well, psychology is not physical, yet occurrences can be explained. There is also parapsychology, which is still at the beginning of exploring supposedly 'supernatural' phenomena.I would not attempt to argue this, there is too much we don't know, but the sociological and psychological effects of religious believes have been studied extensively.

There are areas where science meets a frontier which questions its premises, Einstein and relativity was one, sub-nuclear science and certain aspects of psychology are others.


There are scientists who think that psychology and its assorted cousins are not science. :D

Anyway, the point is that at present, science barely begins to answer these question, so using science to counter these arguments is not very conducsive.

[lawman]

We must be seeing things very differently. Although they are ways of knowing things, they give us insights into different areas. Like Biology and Mathematics...
Biology and mathematics are separate disciplines, but both are approached with a similar reliance on evidence and logic. What's being proposed by NOMA is about larger-scale differences.

The essential question is, what exactly is the "magisterium" that is supposed to be reserved to religion and mutually exclusive from secular logic?

Does it cover matters of large-scale cosmology, the origins of life and/or of the universe? Sorry, but there are no principled reasons those questions are beyond scientific inquiry: even if we don't have unequivocal answers just yet, the questions are eminently naturalistic in character.
Does it include alleged "miracles," physical phenomena that supposedly defy physical law? No: those, too, are entirely susceptible to empirical examination and verification, as any number of frauds and shysters down the ages can testify.
Is it about matters of "meaning," of human purpose and morality? Those aren't necessarily scientific subjects, per se, but they're certainly legitimate (indeed fertile) ground for ordinary non-religious philosophy, and religious claims really don't bring anything new to the table... as Plato pointed out 2,500 years ago, and Dawkins merely reiterates.
What's left? That religious beliefs provide comfort, make people feel good, fulfill some sort of subconscious craving for order, authority, and tidy explanations? This may well be true, but that certainly doesn't define any sort of exclusive territory, nor does it make them any different from any number of other demonstrably wrong and/or harmful beliefs and practices.

Well, his arguement, at least the way I read it, seems to very much disregard anything that is outside of the physical world. I think the way he thinks is that if it can't be tested for, it isn't worth believing in (in fact that's how we would use science to counter religion), and that effectively disregard spiritual beliefs.
Perhaps we need to define our terms here. Neither I nor Dawkins would reject belief in, e.g., ethics or love or happiness or any number of abstract concepts that are difficult, or impossible, to "test for." However, the point is that none of these things actually relies upon, or should be reserved for, religious thinking. An additional point is that religion doesn't play fair and stay within the "magisterium" so generously set aside for it, but in reality routinely does make assertions of fact about the world that can be tested and falsified. There are people who claim that God makes it rain on them, you know... or, for that matter, that the 9/11 attacks were divine "punishment" for allegedly "sinful" human behavior.

Think of all the religious people who tried to convince you of how real their religion is, but could never do so because of their lack of facts... And I disagree that NOMA proposes that we not try to understand those questions, it's simply that they are so different...
Consider that even believers use ordinary, logical, fact-based reasoning when assessing the credibility of any belief system other than their own. It's not that they reject the validity of a skeptical, rational approach to reality; it's just that they want a special exemption from it for their own personal irrational beliefs. NOMA grants that exemption -- for no apparent purpose. Once again: unless one wants to argue that astrology should be exempt from skeptical criticism, one isn't really buying into NOMA.

[whatever]

Biology and mathematics are separate disciplines, but both are approached with a similar reliance on evidence and logic. What's being proposed by NOMA is about larger-scale differences.

I think the analogy do work. How I interprete his essay on NOMA is that science and religion are two different disciplines with very different approach, sometimes they can re-enforce each other, but their domains are seperated.

Let me explain it this way, with regards to how life begins a person can ask a few questions, two of which can be:
1. How did human life begin and change to become what we are?
2. What is the implication of evolution for the soul, is it evil or is it good?

At first, because our knowledge is limited, we tend to answer the first question through religious beliefs, as we gain more and more knowledge, we realise that the process of evolution has nothing to do with divine intervention, but is a physical phenomenon governed by natural law. What you see here is religion overstepping its bound in the begining and being proven wrong by science, what we mistakenly thought of as a spiritual question is actually a question that can be answered by empirical evidence.

With regards to the second question, can you honestly argue that it is a question that can be answered by science? You just know that you cannot find the answer for an algebraic equation using biological theories.


The essential question is, what exactly is the "magisterium" that is supposed to be reserved to religion and mutually exclusive from secular logic?

Does it cover matters of large-scale cosmology, the origins of life and/or of the universe? Sorry, but there are no principled reasons those questions are beyond scientific inquiry: even if we don't have unequivocal answers just yet, the questions are eminently naturalistic in character.
Does it include alleged "miracles," physical phenomena that supposedly defy physical law? No: those, too, are entirely susceptible to empirical examination and verification, as any number of frauds and shysters down the ages can testify.
Is it about matters of "meaning," of human purpose and morality? Those aren't necessarily scientific subjects, per se, but they're certainly legitimate (indeed fertile) ground for ordinary non-religious philosophy, and religious claims really don't bring anything new to the table... as Plato pointed out 2,500 years ago, and Dawkins merely reiterates.
What's left? That religious beliefs provide comfort, make people feel good, fulfill some sort of subconscious craving for order, authority, and tidy explanations? This may well be true, but that certainly doesn't define any sort of exclusive territory, nor does it make them any different from any number of other demonstrably wrong and/or harmful beliefs and practices.



Once we can agree that science and religion are differnt disciplines that provide answers to different things, then the next question to ask is of course: what is under the megisterium of science and what is under the megisterium of religion? And that, as I said to in my first post is completely open to debate. What I think you're doing here is trying to argue exactly what I said in the first post: that most (if not all) events come under the physical world and as such are really under the domain of science. By that virtue alone those things cannot be explained properly by religion/spiritualism (e.g. just like evolution were wrongly explained by religion).

I think there are more questions than the limited list you have put up here, how do science answer questions such as - what is a soul? Where do our soul go to when we die? What would sin do to the soul? What is God's love? - when science won't even acknowledge that there are such things as God, sin and soul in the first place? The only answer science can give is: "you people are delusional".

Of course there are gray areas where it could either be a spiritual question with no possible way of finding out through empirical tests (e.g. how do sinning impact my soul?), or it could be a scientific question (e.g. why does it rain?), until recently "how life began and changed" was one of those questions.

Again you can make the arguement that most questions that we think are spiritual are really questions that can answered by science, like "is there a god?", the only problem is: science currently doesn't have the ability to disprove their claim. Science simple cannot prove that god doesn't exist.

The point here is: the moment a question can be answered by science, that question automatically become non-spiritual, there are certain questions we just know cannot be answered by science (how sinning impact the soul), and then there are those that cannot currently be answered by science but may not be a truly spiritual question.

cont.

[whatever]

cont.

On a seperate note, I don't think he's trying to argue that NOMA seperates religion from logic. "secular logic" is simply a logical approach that starts from the premise that there is no supernatural events or beings, and religion starts from the premise that there is god. I don't think religion neccessarily exclude logic at all.

And also, I don't see his arguement as limiting to religion, but to every sort of thinking that doesn't use empirical evidence as a base (unlike science), so yes, alot of these questions are cetainly open to other non-religion philosophy, though I can't agree that religion can't bring anything new to the table.

Perhaps we need to define our terms here. Neither I nor Dawkins would reject belief in, e.g., ethics or love or happiness or any number of abstract concepts that are difficult, or impossible, to "test for." However, the point is that none of these things actually relies upon, or should be reserved for, religious thinking.

Maybe you don't reject those concepts, but you (and Dawkins) seem to not be able to accept an arguement that stem from convictions in God or the supernatural. To both of you, these things are superstition, so believing in them is illogical, irraitonal and so on. Once you're stuck in that mind set, any religious arguements that are advanced will be automatically dismissed as such (as you've done below). And that's why I said that his arguements disregard spiritual beliefs.



An additional point is that religion doesn't play fair and stay within the "magisterium" so generously set aside for it, but in reality routinely does make assertions of fact about the world that can be tested and falsified. There are people who claim that God makes it rain on them, you know... or, for that matter, that the 9/11 attacks were divine "punishment" for allegedly "sinful" human behavior.

That's a seperate arguement. The way I see it, so what if religion doesn't stay where it should be. Science has always held itself to a higher standard, why should it stop now? If science can prove positive that God doesn't exist, or explain how "the sould is created", then that's great, it means that those are not spiritual questions anymore, we can actually explain how it works in the physically world, but since science can't do that right now, people who try to use science to attack religion are commiting the same mistake as those who use religion to explain how the physical world work. Again, back to the "fitting a climbing rope into a needle head" analogy.


Consider that even believers use ordinary, logical, fact-based reasoning when assessing the credibility of any belief system other than their own. It's not that they reject the validity of a skeptical, rational approach to reality; it's just that they want a special exemption from it for their own personal irrational beliefs. NOMA grants that exemption -- for no apparent purpose. Once again: unless one wants to argue that astrology should be exempt from skeptical criticism, one isn't really buying into NOMA.

I'll reinterate again that I don't believe NOMA argues that religion should be exempted from "a skeptical, rational approach". The problem with your arguement is that you have already concluded that religious beliefs are irrational, when in fact that's not a universal truth. Logic build on the assumptions that we made, so different assumptions lead to different conclusions, it doesn't mean that they are less logical.

[lawman]

Let me stipulate first that I think the term "science" it sometimes a bit too restrictive here, and that IMHO it's more appropriate to situate the "magisteria" under discussion as belong respectively to reason and religion.

That said...
...I think there are more questions than the limited list you have put up here, how do science answer questions such as - what is a soul? Where do our soul go to when we die? What would sin do to the soul? What is God's love? - when science won't even acknowledge that there are such things as God, sin and soul in the first place? The only answer science can give is: "you people are delusional".
But it's not just science that rejects these questions -- the point is, these questions have no relevance to human understanding of anything, in any sense at all, unless one is already a believer and accepts a priori the concepts of "soul" and "sin" as having meaning. Such questions are akin to the old cliché about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What, then, would you include in religion's "magisteria" beyond such strictly faith-bounded questions that non-believers can safely ignore?

...On a seperate note, I don't think he's trying to argue that NOMA seperates religion from logic. "secular logic" is simply a logical approach that starts from the premise that there is no supernatural events or beings, and religion starts from the premise that there is god. I don't think religion neccessarily exclude logic at all.
Yes, I've encountered that proposition before... but I can't buy it. For one thing, as I've already mentioned, even believers employ ordinary "secular logic" (otherwise known simply as "logic") in every other area of their lives; it's only with regard to their own specific belief system that they ask acceptance of the sort of premise they would reject as unsound for anyone else.

[Dangerrmouse]

Why should one aspect of philosophy be excused from sceptical critical analysis by being awarded a "special" status? More specifically only the particular flavour of an aspect of philosophy, since the objection is usually applied only to the complainant's belief system, and not that of others.

[whatever]

Let me stipulate first that I think the term "science" it sometimes a bit too restrictive here, and that IMHO it's more appropriate to situate the "magisteria" under discussion as belong respectively to reason and religion.

That's just unacceptable. Religion and reason are not mutually exclusive. In fact, NOMA, as I understand it, is trying to acknowledge that religious conclusions can be arrived at through reason and logic, and therefore are worthy of considerations from the scientific quarter (for questions that are under religion's domain), not just pure derision.

You're actually trying to restrict religion to "non-reason", while trying to expand "science" to cover things it has no place to be e.g. "what is right and wrong?".



That said...

But it's not just science that rejects these questions -- the point is, these questions have no relevance to human understanding of anything, in any sense at all, ...

I respectfully disagree. I think they add to another aspect of human understanding (quite seperate from the emprirical understanding provided by science), and it meets alot of people's spiritual needs. A need that, I think, is very real.


...unless one is already a believer and accepts a priori the concepts of "soul" and "sin" as having meaning.

Which is exactly the premise of religion. :cool:



Such questions are akin to the old cliché about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What, then, would you include in religion's "magisteria" beyond such strictly faith-bounded questions that non-believers can safely ignore?

I wouldn't put "safely" in front of it. You can ignore, and Dawkins essentially do ignore it, and it's just like a priest preaching to an atheist about the infinite goodness of god, completely ignoring said atheist's belief about the non-existence of God. You effectively disengage from those you try to persuade. It's another reason why I don't think highly of Dawkins' arguements.

I would include such questions as "what is the meaning of life?", "what is love?", "what is the purpose of my life?". Those are definitely outside the megisterium of science. You can argue that evolution has answered what is purpose of my life, but I don't think so, and I can never look to science and get that answer for me, as an individual person.



Yes, I've encountered that proposition before... but I can't buy it. For one thing, as I've already mentioned, even believers employ ordinary "secular logic" (otherwise known simply as "logic") in every other area of their lives; it's only with regard to their own specific belief system that they ask acceptance of the sort of premise they would reject as unsound for anyone else.

No, "secular logic" is not equal to "logic", a more general term that need not necessarily be "secular" (i.e. start with the assumption that there is no God or the supernatural).

I think you're making very big assumptions here (without evidence to support them so far). I don't think religious believers are asking for their religion to be exempted from "logic and reason", but not for other religions. Nor do I think that believers are subjecting every area of their life to logic, except when it comes to their religion. In fact, what I tend to see is that religious people tend to think that they are very logical. So do atheists, and other people who are entirely convinced of their non-religious beliefs. They think their logics are so undisputable, their conclusions so undeniable, they don't understand how other people can believe anything different. Often, they neglect to look at the assumptions they made to arrive at those conclusions.

[lawman]

I would include such questions as "what is the meaning of life?", "what is love?", "what is the purpose of my life?". Those are definitely outside the megisterium of science. You can argue that evolution has answered what is purpose of my life, but I don't think so, and I can never look to science and get that answer for me, as an individual person.
Okay, finally some specifics! You're right, I wouldn't assign such questions to "science." I would, however, say that they are eminently addressable by "secular logic," as they don't require acceptance of value-loaded concepts like "sin," so they certainly can't be the exclusive province of religion. Moreover, I'd add that religion has never demonstrated any special insights regarding these questions that cannot be arrived at equally well without religion.

[whatever]

Okay, finally some specifics! You're right, I wouldn't assign such questions to "science." I would, however, say that they are eminently addressable by "secular logic," as they don't require acceptance of value-loaded concepts like "sin," so they certainly can't be the exclusive province of religion. Moreover, I'd add that religion has never demonstrated any special insights regarding these questions that cannot be arrived at equally well without religion.

NOMA doesn't argue that these questions are excluded from "secular logic", only that they are outside the domain of science. As an agnostic, Gould's own value system must have come from a secular belief system. From that, I think a resonable person should understand that his arguement with regards to NOMA covers more than just religion but all the systems of thinking that is not based on physical events and empirical evidence.

[lawman]

NOMA doesn't argue that these questions are excluded from "secular logic", only that they are outside the domain of science. As an agnostic, Gould's own value system must have come from a secular belief system. From that, I think a resonable person should understand that his arguement with regards to NOMA covers more than just religion but all the systems of thinking that is not based on physical events and empirical evidence.
Let's look back at Gould's own words on this. As he laid out the concept (quoting from the link in the OP), The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.
That does define the realm of "science" a bit more narrowly than that of "reason," as I've noted, but what's important is what it says (or doesn't say) about the realm reserved for "religion." Gould doesn't really clarify it. To the extent that it's about "moral meaning and value," I maintain that religion offers no wisdom that is not already accessible through non-religious philosophy. OTOH, to the extent that it's about "how to go to heaven," I maintain that such wisdom as religion may offer is utterly moot to everyone except voluntary believers in a specific faith.

[roderic]

cont.

On a seperate note, I don't think he's trying to argue that NOMA seperates religion from logic. "secular logic" is simply a logical approach that starts from the premise that there is no supernatural events or beings, and religion starts from the premise that there is god. I don't think religion neccessarily exclude logic at all."secular logic" is an odd term, let's not confuse this with a scientific approach.
Science is investigative, its findings are not absolute truth but accepted until proven to be false and its field of expertise is constantly expanding. Revealed religion is static and its claims absolute. No reasoning or evidence are accepted to disprove it, the best one can hope for is an 'updated' application of the absolute truth to specifics of concern.

Science can complement religion in showing exactly how the laws of nature created by god work, and religion can complement science by providing meaning.

[whatever]

Let's look back at Gould's own words on this. As he laid out the concept (quoting from the link in the OP),
That does define the realm of "science" a bit more narrowly than that of "reason," as I've noted, but what's important is what it says (or doesn't say) about the realm reserved for "religion." Gould doesn't really clarify it. To the extent that it's about "moral meaning and value," I maintain that religion offers no wisdom that is not already accessible through non-religious philosophy. OTOH, to the extent that it's about "how to go to heaven," I maintain that such wisdom as religion may offer is utterly moot to everyone except voluntary believers in a specific faith.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But all it is is your opinion. :shrug:

So he didn't draw up a chart to show which is which (afterall he also argue that there are many of them, not just science and religion), I don't think he could, even if he wanted to, and he admitted the complexity of that question in the next paragraph:


This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult. To cite just two broad questions involving both evolutionary facts and moral arguments: Since evolution made us the only earthly creatures with advanced consciousness, what responsibilities are so entailed for our relations with other species? What do our genealogical ties with other organisms imply about the meaning of human life?


and he went on to illustrate how one can step out of bound into another's region:


Pius's major statement on evolution occurs near the end of the encyclical in paragraphs 35 through 37. He accepts the standard model of NOMA and begins by acknowledging that evolution lies in a difficult area where the domains press hard against each other. "It remains for US now to speak about those questions which. although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith." [Interestingly, the main thrust of these paragraphs does not address evolution in general but lies in refuting a doctrine that Pius calls "polygenism," or the notion of human ancestry from multiple parents—for he regards such an idea as incompatible with the doctrine of original sin, "which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." In this one instance, Pius may be transgressing the NOMA principle—but I cannot judge, for I do not understand the details of Catholic theology and therefore do not know how symbolically such a statement may be read. If Pius is arguing that we cannot entertain a theory about derivation of all modern humans from an ancestral population rather than through an ancestral individual (a potential fact) because such an idea would question the doctrine of original sin (a theological construct), then I would declare him out of line for letting the magisterium of religion dictate a conclusion within the magisterium of science.]

Whether you think religion is useful or not is quite beside the point, since the arguement is whether these discipline cover different areas of enquiry. So what if a Mathematician finds that looking into how cells divide is completely useless for his work on Linear Algebra? That just emphasis the difference between the two disciplines. The same can be said here.



Again, the realm of science must by definition be only a part of the realm of reason. Science employ reason, reason is not limited to science. Any attempt to equate reason to science is just absurd.

[whatever]

"secular logic" is an odd term, let's not confuse this with a scientific approach.
Science is investigative, its findings are not absolute truth but accepted until proven to be false and its field of expertise is constantly expanding. Revealed religion is static and its claims absolute. No reasoning or evidence are accepted to disprove it, the best one can hope for is an 'updated' application of the absolute truth to specifics of concern.

Science can complement religion in showing exactly how the laws of nature created by god work, and religion can complement science by providing meaning.

I don't look at it that way. I think the moment sceince can prove that it is a physical event with physical causes and process, religious claims become immateria. It's overstepping it's bound. If we divide every question into its individual parts, you will find that to get to the answer you will have to use different system of thinking (not necessarily just by science or religion), and that's how they work together.

[lawman]

I would agree with those of you who recognize the difference between science and secular philosophy ("secular philosophy" simply meaning those that do not envoke the supernatural to derive their conclusions, and not actively promoting atheism). Speaking strictly in terms of the natural world vs. the supernatural, there is no overlap between science and religion. Science is, by definition, concerned and only able to make claims about the natural world. However, the criticism of NOMA comes from considering secular philosophy after one makes the science/religion distinction. The argument being that if science is our best tool for analyzing the natural world, and secular philosophy can address the question within the magesteria of religion, why do we even talk about religion having a magisteria at all? The argument then becomes whether secular philosophy of religious belief is better equipped to address questions of metaphysics, ethics, etc, and the answer to that question depends on whether or not one is a secularist or holds religious beliefs.

This post was intended to provide clarify, as it is easy to overlook these things. So I think the direction the thread has gone means we should be focusing on a slightly different question (which has been arrived at in the light of the NOMA concept): is religion somehow better equipped to answer non-scientific questions than secular philosophy. If yes, then it makes sense to speak of it having its own magisteria; if not, the idea of talking about a religious magisteria is nonsensical.
This landed in the wrong thread, but it bears repeating here. The bolded part in particular makes an excellent point, helping to clarify a distinction we'd allowed to get rather muddy.

I would maintain, of course, that secular philosophy is self-evidently better equipped to address such questions, since it strives to build on first principles that are actually widely agreed upon and, ideally, verifiable, rather than hamstringing itself with premises based in religious doctrine.

[Lumpen Prole]

That post was intended for this thread. :sorry:

[whatever]

This landed in the wrong thread, but it bears repeating here. The bolded part in particular makes an excellent point, helping to clarify a distinction we'd allowed to get rather muddy.

I would maintain, of course, that secular philosophy is self-evidently better equipped to address such questions, since it strives to build on first principles that are actually widely agreed upon and, ideally, verifiable, rather than hamstringing itself with premises based in religious doctrine.

Again, it's just your opinion. For you, "secular logic" is the best way to go. But for a lot of people, especially religious people, obviously "secular philosophy" does not meet their spiritual needs.

There are such a big gap between athiests and religious believers because the "first pricicple" are not "widely agreed upon" between the two group.

To me, arguing about which is better, "secular philosophy" or religion, is like arguing which subject is better History or Geography. The answer depends on what you are trying to find out.

To you, sin, soul and god has no meaning, but a religious person start from the premise that it does (if you want to try to argue that starting with the premise that they do not exist is somehow more "correct", please go ahead), obviously "secular philosophy" will be very ill equiped to provide them with the answers they want.

So to answer both you and Lumpen Prole, yes, religion is better able to answer "non-secular" questions than "secular philosophy", so it should have it's own magisterium. Can secular philosophy and religion overlap, I think so, but I don't see what's the problem in that - the agnostic and atheist can continue to say their conclusions are better, and the religious will maintain that their is the undeniable truth. The problem arise only when Philosophy (religious or secular) attempts to answer a scietific question without scientific prove, or when people try to use science when the scientific prove is not available or where it clearly has no place to be.

[Ethos]

It may come as a surprise that I disagree with the NOMA assertion, although perhaps in a predictable manner. I believe science can and does explain the supernatural (or more precisely, what is perceived to be supernatural), however the proposition of religion explaining the natural world consistent accuracy is unlikely.

Within the realm of philosophy there is a great deal of overlap. Perhaps it is easier to consider the difference a matter of language. Religion is not well suited to detailing the natural world.

Ethos

[lawman]

Again, it's just your opinion. For you, "secular logic" is the best way to go. But for a lot of people, especially religious people, obviously "secular philosophy" does not meet their spiritual needs.
Yes, it's my opinion. The opinion was also expressed in regard to the specific sort of other-than-science "magisterium" Lumpen Prole was positing -- that is to say, one concerned with "metaphysics, ethics, etc." -- and on those terms I think it's an eminently defensible opinion, given the different character of the underlying premises.

OTOH, if you want it to be about "spiritual needs," then I would concede that in fact those are a matter for religion, and fall back on the position that (A) not everybody actually has "spiritual needs," and (B) what any given religion has to offer in that regard is of relevance only to its believers... so we're talking about a "magisterium" with rather less majesty, as it has no claim to universality.

There are such a big gap between athiests and religious believers because the "first pricicple" are not "widely agreed upon" between the two group.
Yes, precisely. That's what gives secular philosophy the edge: as I already wrote, it strives to build upon universalizable first principles (or at least, as close as it can get) -- e.g., Descartes' famous "cogito, ergo sum." Even with secular philosophy, if you don't buy its premises, then the rest of what it has to say is moot. That's true right from the get-go with religion.

So to answer both you and Lumpen Prole, yes, religion is better able to answer "non-secular" questions than "secular philosophy", so it should have it's own magisterium...
Fine: it can have the realm of questions that have meaning only to its own believers, on the condition that it not attempt to interfere with anything pertaining to nonbelievers. I think I've been okay with that all along. If you insist on calling it a "magisterium," go right ahead... but it winds up being a pretty darn small one.

...the religious will maintain that their is the undeniable truth.
But, see, that's overstepping the bounds of its magisterium -- a very arrogant stance, far more so than one any secularist would adopt. Even where natural science is concerned, truth is always provisional, not "undeniable."

[whatever]

OTOH, if you want it to be about "spiritual needs," then I would concede that in fact those are a matter for religion, and fall back on the position that (A) not everybody actually has "spiritual needs," and (B) what any given religion has to offer in that regard is of relevance only to its believers... so we're talking about a "magisterium" with rather less majesty, as it has no claim to universality.

And NOMA in and of itself doesn't make any such claim to universality for religion.

While not everyone has spiritual needs, a lot of people do, which explain the popularity of religion.


Yes, precisely. That's what gives secular philosophy the edge: as I already wrote, it strives to build upon universalizable first principles (or at least, as close as it can get) -- e.g., Descartes' famous "cogito, ergo sum." Even with secular philosophy, if you don't buy its premises, then the rest of what it has to say is moot. That's true right from the get-go with religion.

You are contradicting yourself. You admit that "Even with secular philosophy, if you don't buy its premises, then the rest of what it has to say is moot.", so it builds on assumptions just like religion, and yet you try to claim that it has "the edge" because it "build upon universalizable first principles". "secular logic"'s first priciple must by definition reject the premise of religion, as such it's no longer "universal". Whether it has an edge or not is really hard to determine. I'm sure you are convinced that it does, but then when you examine how you arrived at that conclusion, you might find a few biases in your thinking.


Fine: it can have the realm of questions that have meaning only to its own believers, on the condition that it not attempt to interfere with anything pertaining to nonbelievers. I think I've been okay with that all along. If you insist on calling it a "magisterium," go right ahead... but it winds up being a pretty darn small one.

I'm sure you think so. It has been your argument from the beginning. :)



But, see, that's overstepping the bounds of its magisterium -- a very arrogant stance, far more so than one any secularist would adopt. Even where natural science is concerned, truth is always provisional, not "undeniable."


Defnitely, at the same time, do you not see the problem with secular people trying to tell religious believers of their "irrationality" as if secularism is the only right way?

[Dangerrmouse]

Spirituality is not necessarily expressed through religion.

[lawman]

..."secular logic"'s first priciple must by definition reject the premise of religion, as such it's no longer "universal".
Wrong on multiple counts. Secular philosophy doesn't start with any particular conclusions; that's one of its virtues. It's supremely agnostic about the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deity; as such it will give all due consideration to evidence for one if and when any emerges, but until then adopts as skeptical stance and refuses to assume one.

Whether it has an edge or not is really hard to determine. I'm sure you are convinced that it does, but then when you examine how you arrived at that conclusion, you might find a few biases in your thinking.
Yes: I'm baised in favor of ratiocination based upon defensible premises, rather than premises that rely upon "faith" (i.e., assertions of knowledge independent of reason). I make no apologies for that.

...do you not see the problem with secular people trying to tell religious believers of their "irrationality" as if secularism is the only right way?
Not if the shoe fits. Do you deny the possibility that a religion could hypothetically be based upon concepts for which there was actual testable evidence? Do you see how that would differ from the kind we're discussing?

[whatever]

Wrong on multiple counts. Secular philosophy doesn't start with any particular conclusions; that's one of its virtues. It's supremely agnostic about the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deity; as such it will give all due consideration to evidence for one if and when any emerges, but until then adopts as skeptical stance and refuses to assume one.

I disagree, by adopting a "skeptical stance", you're basically saying "don't accept it until you can prove it", since most religious premise by its nature cannot be proven, it effectively rejects those premise. While a religious person may ask "what can hurt my soul?" "secular philosophy" must start with "what is a soul? Is there such thing as soul?" since the concept of "soul" differs from person to person and cannot be proven in any meaningful way, the word might as well be meaningless using your "secular logic", a conclusion which you yourself came to. As a gatekeeper, "secular logic" bar most (if not all) religious thinkings, so I maintain my earlier argument, not to mention the fact that by definition "secular" means something not to do with religion:


sec·u·lar /ˈsɛkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-yuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular). .



Yes: I'm baised in favor of ratiocination based upon defensible premises, rather than premises that rely upon "faith" (i.e., assertions of knowledge independent of reason). I make no apologies for that.

If I ask you how do you know that you are real and your surroundings are real, that you are not living in a Matrix world? How would you answer?


Not if the shoe fits. Do you deny the possibility that a religion could hypothetically be based upon concepts for which there was actual testable evidence? Do you see how that would differ from the kind we're discussing?

Not hypothetically, I'm sure there are things that are inherently physical taken up by religion. What does that prove exactly? How is it different?

[whatever]

Spirituality is not necessarily expressed through religion.

No one has argued that it does, though given the number of people who stay faithful to their religion, it seems that it is for alot of people.

[Dangerrmouse]

That is not the same as the specious rationalisation that a lot of people having spiritual needs somehow explains the "popularity" of religion.
Alcoholics need alcohol, but it remains a popular social lubricant for many, who do not need it in the same way.

[Lumpen Prole]

I want to make it clear that "secular philosophy" does not necessarily entail an advocacy of atheism or an active denial of the supernatural, and it often does not. The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant is secular, for example, but Kant himself was a theist. So it is incorrect that assert that secular philosophies are somehow rooted in "assumptions" about the supernatural, when in fact they simply do not invoke the supernatural in their conclusions. That's not to say that there aren't any secular philosophies that actively deny supernatural existence. Atheism is an obvious example. But there is a distinction to be made between non-theistic and anti-theistic.

[whatever]

That is not the same as the specious rationalisation that a lot of people having spiritual needs somehow explains the "popularity" of religion.
Alcoholics need alcohol, but it remains a popular social lubricant for many, who do not need it in the same way.

Well, if you equate religious belief to being an alcoholic, of course, that's specious. :shrug: Except that your comparison is in and of itself unfounded too.

[lawman]

I disagree, by adopting a "skeptical stance", you're basically saying "don't accept it until you can prove it", since most religious premise by its nature cannot be proven...
What really blows my mind here is that you acknowledge "most religious premises cannot be proven" as it that's not a problem. Religion posits numerous untestable hypotheses, often logically incompatible with one another (especially across faiths) and sometimes even with themselves, and yet demands that they be taken at face value. Yet you don't think this puts its credibility at something of a disadvantage?...

While a religious person may ask "what can hurt my soul?" "secular philosophy" must start with "what is a soul? Is there such thing as soul?" since the concept of "soul" differs from person to person and cannot be proven in any meaningful way, the word might as well be meaningless...
If those perfectly reasonable questions seeking to clarify the concept of a "soul" cannot be answered, then yes, the question about what can "hurt" it does stand out as meaningless. But why do you suppose those questions must be set aside as unanswerable?

As Lumpen notes, there's a distinction between nontheistic and anti-theistic. Why shouldn't (or can't) those questions be asked, in a neutral framework?

If I ask you how do you know that you are real and your surroundings are real, that you are not living in a Matrix world? How would you answer?
Philosophers have been dealing with that one for centuries, of course. The entire discipline of epistemology is dedicated to exploring concepts of knowledge. In lieu of a futile attempt to sum all that up, let me simply say that I don't "know" that my surroundings are real, in the sense previously mentioned that all knowledge is provisional and potentially subject to reinterpretation... but I do have long experience of my sensory and cognitive apparatus interacting with (what seem to be) my surroundings in a consistent and patterned way, and so in the absence of conflicting inputs I feel comfortable calling that set of phenomena "reality," even if there's the possibility that (Matrix-like) it might not be so in an ontological sense.

Or, to put it another way, no one has yet come along to offer me the red pill. ;)

[roderic]

It's important to understand, as pointed out already, that secular philosophy does not reject the 'supernatural' nor spirituality, it is the acceptance of 'truth' as an act of faith which is rejected, or rather regarded as insufficient standing on its own.

[whatever]

What really blows my mind here is that you acknowledge "most religious premises cannot be proven" as it that's not a problem. Religion posits numerous untestable hypotheses, often logically incompatible with one another (especially across faiths) and sometimes even with themselves, and yet demands that they be taken at face value. Yet you don't think this puts its credibility at something of a disadvantage?...

That's quite irrelavant to this discussion. As an agnostic, I of course think quite poorly of a lot of religious propositions, however, that doesn't change the fact that a "skeptical stance" or "secular logic" exclude religious prospositions simply because of its nature, and therefore is unsuitable for explaining and correcting religous conclusions (note that "conclusion" and "process" are two different things, you can compare the two processes and think that one is better than the other, but conclusion is the result of the process used, and as such two conclusions from two different process of enquiries are not exactly compatible i.e. you can't exactly claim that "I arrive at a conlusion different from you, so your conclusion must be illogical, for I know I was logical." Both can be logical because the processes and assumptions are different.)


If those perfectly reasonable questions seeking to clarify the concept of a "soul" cannot be answered, then yes, the question about what can "hurt" it does stand out as meaningless. But why do you suppose those questions must be set aside as unanswerable?

It's only unanswerable if you start from "secular logic", which is exactly why "secular logic" is not suitable for answering religious questions. I think from that, it's quite clear that religion and "secular philosophy"'s first principle are not the same, and "secular phisolophy" is not universal as you claimed.


As Lumpen notes, there's a distinction between nontheistic and anti-theistic. Why shouldn't (or can't) those questions be asked, in a neutral framework?

It can be answered in a neutral frame work, "secular philosophy/logic" just isn't that framework because it's not neutral.


Philosophers have been dealing with that one for centuries, of course. The entire discipline of epistemology is dedicated to exploring concepts of knowledge. In lieu of a futile attempt to sum all that up, let me simply say that I don't "know" that my surroundings are real, in the sense previously mentioned that all knowledge is provisional and potentially subject to reinterpretation... but I do have long experience of my sensory and cognitive apparatus interacting with (what seem to be) my surroundings in a consistent and patterned way, and so in the absence of conflicting inputs I feel comfortable calling that set of phenomena "reality," even if there's the possibility that (Matrix-like) it might not be so in an ontological sense.

Or, to put it another way, no one has yet come along to offer me the red pill. ;)

So you don't have proof of it but you believe in it. Can I say that you have faith?

[whatever]

It's important to understand, as pointed out already, that secular philosophy does not reject the 'supernatural' nor spirituality, it is the acceptance of 'truth' as an act of faith which is rejected, or rather regarded as insufficient standing on its own.

If what you say is true, that "secular philosophy" rejects the acceptance of "truth" as an act of faith in every respect of life, no one who claims to employ "secular philosophy" can say that s/he knows anything about anything. For one thing, how could you accept that I'm not just a computer programme instead of a real person sitting half a world away? What proof do you have? Again, how do you even know that your surrounding is real? What proof have you got? Remember, "faith" is not the absence of reason but the absence of proof. You can have "faith" and be quite reasonable/logical.

In other word, if your definition holds true, "secular philosphy" becomes meaningless in the world we live in.

[roderic]

It's only unanswerable if you start from "secular logic", which is exactly why "secular logic" is not suitable for answering religious questions.Sorry to barge in on this, but this seems to be a misunderstanding. "logic" is not either secular or otherwise, it is a principle of reasoning applied universally.
I would think laypeople are interested in what 'soul' is as well, the question is legitimate, and the definition should accomodate individual differences in understanding. It is not proof for a soul's existence which is asked for by "secular logic", but a definition of what it is, which one may then take to examine the validity of the answers given to the question "what can hurt a soul?". It does not require faith to explore this.

[whatever]

Sorry to barge in on this, but this seems to be a misunderstanding. "logic" is not either secular or otherwise, it is a principle of reasoning applied universally.
I would think laypeople are interested in what 'soul' is as well, the question is legitimate, and the definition should accomodate individual differences in understanding. It is not proof for a soul's existence which is asked for by "secular logic", but a definition of what it is, which one may then take to examine the validity of the answers given to the question "what can hurt a soul?". It does not require faith to explore this.

Yes, I agree to that, logic is not equal to "secular logic". It is more inclusive, just as reason is more inclusive than science. To me, when you apply "secular", whose meaning is "nonreligious",to "logic", it's domain than is limited to the nonreligious premises, by virtue of it's meaning alone. But Lumpen Prole, and lawman, seems to be trying to argue using a different meaning for "secular logic". But even if you make "secular logic" something that does not deny the existence of the supernatural from its first principle, because of the nature of religion and how "secular logic" is usually applied, it still effectively pushes religious propositions out.

[roderic]

If what you say is true, that "secular philosophy" rejects the acceptance of "truth" as an act of faith in every respect of life, no one who claims to employ "secular philosophy" can say that s/he knows anything about anything. For one thing, how could you accept that I'm not just a computer programme instead of a real person sitting half a world away? What proof do you have? Again, how do you even know that your surrounding is real? What proof have you got? Remember, "faith" is not the absence of reason but the absence of proof. You can have "faith" and be quite reasonable/logical.

In other word, if your definition holds true, "secular philosphy" becomes meaningless in the world we live in.First, let me say that I am in no way qualified to talk in any depth or detail about any particular philosophy, I am just adding my thoughts from my limited understanding here.

You are correct in that it would require 'faith' to believe my image of reality built upon my senses and mind is mirroring reality accurately and in it's completeness, or, ultimately, in its essence. But, and this is where 'secular' comes in, I regard my image of reality as a relative truth, relative as in until shown to be incorrect, religion requires faith in that to be an absolute truth which I can not verify.
Now if you were to say, that we all indeed are by electromagnetic circuits wired to amoebas, I probably could not establish this to be untrue, but I'd prefer to stick to my image, there is nothing which is incoherent and urges me to explore the possibility you propose further.
In order to believe we are indeed wired amoebas, as the one and only truth behind observable appearances, the faith required is very different.

[whatever]

First, let me say that I am in no way qualified to talk in any depth or detail about any particular philosophy, I am just adding my thoughts from my limited understanding here.

Neither do I. :)


You are correct in that it would require 'faith' to believe my image of reality built upon my senses and mind is mirroring reality accurately and in it's completeness, or, ultimately, in its essence. But, and this is where 'secular' comes in, I regard my image of reality as a relative truth, relative as in until shown to be incorrect,...

Right there you are violating your own rule. Look at these two statements:

1. Rejecting the acceptance of truth as an act of faith
2. Rejecting what was accepted as truth when it's proven to be false

They are worlds apart. So which is "secular philosophy/logic"?

This leads to very important question: when do you accept a negative and positive "truth" i.e. that somthing "isn't" and "is". Personally, I think that secular-logic/philosophy tend to have a bias where it accepts the existence of a natural event even if not yet proven (e.g. someone must have typed in these words), but rejects the existence of the supernatural unless it can be proven.


...religion requires faith in that to be an absolute truth which I can not verify.

Actually, I disagree. I think alot of religious people do question themselves, but ultimately decide that their version of truth (that there is god) is more real than one where there isn't God, just like you believe that your reality is more real than one where you are an amoeba.


Now if you were to say, that we all indeed are by electromagnetic circuits wired to amoebas, I probably could not establish this to be untrue, but I'd prefer to stick to my image, there is nothing which is incoherent and urges me to explore the possibility you propose further.

Why not? Atheists ask religious people to forgo their own instinct and question their own "truth" all the time.


In order to believe we are indeed wired amoebas, as the one and only truth behind observable appearances, the faith required is very different.

How are they different?

[roderic]

Right there you are violating your own rule. Look at these two statements:

1. Rejecting the acceptance of truth as an act of faith
2. Rejecting what was accepted as truth when it's proven to be false

They are worlds apart. So which is "secular philosophy/logic"?The first was a comment on how truth is not established in the first place, the second one relates to invalidating an established truth.

Also, the understanding of "truth" is different:
The first comment referred to an absolute, as stated by religion. In Christianity god is one, a believer accepts this to be true. Whatever one may arrive at through any method of inquiry, confirming or not confirming, that's what it is. The Christian god will not be found to consist of a pantheon of forces better described as 12 gods - one would not be a Christian any longer if one were to arrive at this.

The second referred to a relative truth, an image of reality arrived at primarily based on perception, reasoning based on observation and empirical inquiry, it does not claim to be absolute nor complete. Newton's universe did not collapse when Einstein discovered relativity, it remains valid.

This leads to very important question: when do you accept a negative and positive "truth" i.e. that somthing "isn't" and "is". Personally, I think that secular-logic/philosophy tend to have a bias where it accepts the existence of a natural event even if not yet proven (e.g. someone must have typed in these words), but rejects the existence of the supernatural unless it can be proven. Based on what we know, the probability that a person was responsible for it when we see words in 'typed' form, is very high. When it is a complete sentence, chances are almost 100%. The possibility of some software can not immediately be excluded, if we look at the computer screen, but chances that an antilope or the ghost of George Washington are responsible, are negligible.

Actually, I disagree. I think alot of religious people do question themselves, but ultimately decide that their version of truth (that there is god) is more real than one where there isn't God, just like you believe that your reality is more real than one where you are an amoeba.Yes, sure, I didn't say religious people don't have doubts or don't seek confirmation of their beliefs, I regard this is an integral part of it and spirituality in general.
Now this is interesting to look at more specifically. What is it that is doubted? The existence of god, part of the doctrine, or what? How is it being examined and reaffirmed or rejected? This could extent beyond religion.

Why not? Atheists ask religious people to forgo their own instinct and question their own "truth" all the time.Sure, why not. If there was a sizable number of people believing we are wired amoebas in my neighbourhood, I might be more intrigued and question the validity, specially if they'd want to fly their banners in public at my (taxpayer's) expense. :D

Sorry, I am not sure if this still relates to "secular philosophy".

[lawman]

...As an agnostic, I of course think quite poorly of a lot of religious propositions, however, that doesn't change the fact that a "skeptical stance" or "secular logic" exclude religious prospositions simply because of its nature...

It can be answered in a neutral frame work, "secular philosophy/logic" just isn't that framework because it's not neutral.
As Lumpen and Roderic have already posted, there's really no particular reason to insist that this is so. Obviously you disagree, but it's not clear why. I think this goes to my point about the "magisteria" all along, actually -- that ordinary real-world logic, without any "special" premises, is perfectly adequate to address almost all the questions that religion wants to keep to itself.

So you don't have proof of it but you believe in it. Can I say that you have faith?
No, you can't. What I have is evidence. "Proof" is a meaningless concept outside of mathematics. Another key distinction, of course, is that I'm open to changing my mind based on new evidence, a possibility foreclosed by religious premises based on "faith."

[whatever]

As Lumpen and Roderic have already posted, there's really no particular reason to insist that this is so.

So what if they posted it? It doesn't make it true. I don't even think roderic is trying to argue anything quite like what you are trying to argue. Instead of telling me what they wrote, wouldn't it be better to counter my arguements using your own words? :confused:

Obviously you disagree, but it's not clear why. I think this goes to my point about the "magisteria" all along, actually -- that ordinary real-world logic, without any "special" premises, is perfectly adequate to address almost all the questions that religion wants to keep to itself.

I have been demonstrating why posts after posts, with example after example but only roderic had taken up any arguement directly with what I posted. You have picked and choose which part of my post you want to answer and a lot of what you choose to answer often take the discussion away from the main point and some had no relevance to what is being discussed.

It first started with religion and science (the only two of the possible enquiries NOMA is concerned with) - does anybody here still think that science can answer religious questions with regards to soul and god, when it effectively rejects the existence of such thing, or that religion can answer questions about the physical world such as "why it rain" with any accuracy?



No, you can't. What I have is evidence. "Proof" is a meaningless concept outside of mathematics. Another key distinction, of course, is that I'm open to changing my mind based on new evidence, a possibility foreclosed by religious premises based on "faith."

The evidence itself is in question, so what have you got? Basically you made a choice, you could believe that your reality is real, or that it's not, and you choose to believe that it's real (how you rationalise that belief is quite beside the point).

I disagree with your view of what religious "faith" means. I think religious believers can be persuaded to change their mind about what they believe if the arguement is persuasive enough, the problem is that from the believers' point of view, the argument often aren't.

[Lumpen Prole]

It might be useful to point out that logic is by definition secular. There's no sense in calling it "secular logic," however. That would be akin to describing mathematics as secular. It is, but my point is that the use of the word "secular" seems to have been used to imply that such things actively seek to deny the existence of the supernatural. One could of course use logical arguments in a debate about God, but that's beside the point. Logic is in itself secular; it is simply a tool we use to determine whether or not an argument or idea is coherent.

[whatever]

The first was a comment on how truth is not established in the first place, the second one relates to invalidating an established truth.

Also, the understanding of "truth" is different:
The first comment referred to an absolute, as stated by religion. In Christianity god is one, a believer accepts this to be true. Whatever one may arrive at through any method of inquiry, confirming or not confirming, that's what it is. The Christian god will not be found to consist of a pantheon of forces better described as 12 gods - one would not be a Christian any longer if one were to arrive at this.

The second referred to a relative truth, an image of reality arrived at primarily based on perception, reasoning based on observation and empirical inquiry, it does not claim to be absolute nor complete. Newton's universe did not collapse when Einstein discovered relativity, it remains valid.

So which then would you say "secular philosophy" falls under?


Based on what we know, the probability that a person was responsible for it when we see words in 'typed' form, is very high. When it is a complete sentence, chances are almost 100%. The possibility of some software can not immediately be excluded, if we look at the computer screen, but chances that an antilope or the ghost of George Washington are responsible, are negligible.

Are you so sure that the chances of a computer or a ghost writing this is nill (i.e. that a real person is writing this 100%)? What method did you use to compute that probability? Are you then argueing that "truth" is established by probability?

Once you have answered those questions, then you will still have to answer whether these methods have any embeded bias.


Yes, sure, I didn't say religious people don't have doubts or don't seek confirmation of their beliefs, I regard this is an integral part of it and spirituality in general.
Now this is interesting to look at more specifically. What is it that is doubted? The existence of god, part of the doctrine, or what? How is it being examined and reaffirmed or rejected? This could extent beyond religion.

Those are great questions to ask, and the answer, at least from my personal observations, is that God's existence itself is questioned and often reaffirmed.


Sure, why not. If there was a sizable number of people believing we are wired amoebas in my neighbourhood, I might be more intrigued and question the validity, specially if they'd want to fly their banners in public at my (taxpayer's) expense. :D

That's right. I hope other atheists (not sure if you're actually an atheist) keep that in mind when using the flying spaghetti monster as a proxy arguement.


Sorry, I am not sure if this still relates to "secular philosophy".

Not much I guess, only that it re-enforces the point I made above that by rejecting all thing you can't prove you can never be sure of anything.

[whatever]

It might be useful to point out that logic is by definition secular. There's no sense in calling it "secular logic," however. That would be akin to describing mathematics as secular. It is, but my point is that the use of the word "secular" seems to have been used to imply that such things actively seek to deny the existence of the supernatural. One could of course use logical arguments in a debate about God, but that's beside the point. Logic is in itself secular; it is simply a tool we use to determine whether or not an argument or idea is coherent.

That is the definition of "secular" from the dictionary (if we can agree that supernatural = religion), as I have posted. :cool:

I have no arguement with the statement that logic is a tool used to determine the coherence of an arguement, however it is neither secular nor religious, it is entirely neutral. Please don't confuse "secular" with "neutral".

[roderic]

Secular means, in the context here, not specifically relating to religion, universal. It doesn't mean anti-religion. Religion asserts itself amongst other things through the language and reasoning used to discuss it - rightly so or not, I am not to judge.
So which then would you say "secular philosophy" falls under?The approach which expands and emphasises critical inquiry into the supernatural, I would say. It does not accept revealed religion as the truth, but does not dismiss it outright, either. There are 'post-modern' thinkers working to elaborate on this.
But really, I don't know ****.:p

Are you so sure that the chances of a computer or a ghost writing this is nill (i.e. that a real person is writing this 100%)? What method did you use to compute that probability? Are you then argueing that "truth" is established by probability? The chances are not nil, they are very small, as for the ghost option almost negligible, but these almost negligible possibilities are not to be dismissed, this is what challenges established views. I am not choosing 'truth' by picking the most likely - I have no reason to doubt my assumption of communicating with a person. But I would not claim that I know "whatever" to be a person.

(not sure if you're actually an atheist) In the wider sense, yes. Non-theist fits better.

Not much I guess, only that it re-enforces the point I made above that by rejecting all thing you can't prove you can never be sure of anything.I hope you didn't get to this from anything I posted. While I enjoy this discussion, none of this challenges my spirituality. "rejecting", well yes, if you have not seen any compelling evidence or 'special' experience to pull you towards any religion, focus on what's close to your heart. :)

[lawman]

...You have picked and choose which part of my post you want to answer and a lot of what you choose to answer often take the discussion away from the main point and some had no relevance to what is being discussed.
Look, I'm sorry you feel that way. I promise, I'm not trying to be obfuscatory or pointlessly argumentative here. I could as easily complain that some of what you've posted seems ambiguous or tangential, but I've tried to address, honestly, what seemed to be the most relevant points. Perhaps for some reason we're just failing to communicate.

It first started with religion and science (the only two of the possible enquiries NOMA is concerned with) - does anybody here still think that science can answer religious questions with regards to soul and god...?
Part of the problem, obviously, is that the whole NOMA concept was not spelled out at the start in a way we could all agree upon (even provisionally for purposes of debate). Neither Lumpen's summary nor the links provided really clarified things, and much of what I've been posting is an attempt to sort out those ambiguities. For instance, as I've said, if religion strictly limited itself to the "magisterium" of questions about "the soul and god" (and sin and other theological terms), I'd be more than happy to let it have that realm, which IMHO is about as relevant as (to repeat myself) astrology. However, it doesn't -- and when a supposedly nonoverlapping magisterium keeps trying to make statements that do, in fact, overlap aspects of life, the universe, and everything that are perfectly fine on their own, then I'm going to take exception to that. I'd take just as much exception if it were astrologers trying to horn in on nature, ethics, or politics.

One source of our conflict: you seem to have some problem with the idea of doubt, instead of certainty, as the starting point for the pursuit of knowledge. (Which is odd, since you've said you're agnostic.) I honestly don't understand what that problem is, though. No meaningful knowledge can be either arrived at or trusted unless it's built up from a foundation of doubt.

Trying to assert a foundation of certainty, or faith, as a basis for further knowledge, is an inherently illogical approach. You can't proceed to critically examine anything if you start from a position of uncritical acceptance. It's all akin to a "skyhook," to borrow Daniel Dennet's term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea) for a pseudoscientific workaround that explains complexity in the universe without building it up from simpler levels. Whatever "truths" you may arrive at that way are ultimately hanging in the air, supported by nothing.


... Logic is in itself secular; it is simply a tool we use to determine whether or not an argument or idea is coherent.
Thanks, I quite agree. "Whatever" seems to want me to restate your argument on this in my own terms, but I think you've laid it out perfectly clearly.

If someone wants to put forth logical evidence for supernatural phenomena, it's easy to imagine what might suffice; e.g., a detailed, accurate, and verifiable prophecy of empirical future events. It's akin to the old saw about how to disprove Darwinism at one stroke (and greatly bolster the arguments for a creator): all it would take would be "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." There's nothing about "secular" logic that would rule out fair consideration of such things.

[Izdaari]

It may come as a surprise that I disagree with the NOMA assertion, although perhaps in a predictable manner. I believe science can and does explain the supernatural (or more precisely, what is perceived to be supernatural), however the proposition of religion explaining the natural world consistent accuracy is unlikely.

Within the realm of philosophy there is a great deal of overlap. Perhaps it is easier to consider the difference a matter of language. Religion is not well suited to detailing the natural world.

Ethos
I have a quibble with this but it's an important one, at least from my PoV: Though science can explain things that are perceived as supernatural but aren't really, it cannot explain things that actually are supernatural. In the absence of evidence, it's fair to doubt that anything genuinely supernatural happens, but it's not fair to a priori deny the possibility that anything genuinely supernatural could ever happen. That would be dogmatic materialism, which is just as much a matter of faith as any religion... and having such a faith would not be consistent from anyone who claims to be a fair-minded skeptic.

[whatever]

Look, I'm sorry you feel that way. I promise, I'm not trying to be obfuscatory or pointlessly argumentative here. I could as easily complain that some of what you've posted seems ambiguous or tangential, but I've tried to address, honestly, what seemed to be the most relevant points. Perhaps for some reason we're just failing to communicate.


Part of the problem, obviously, is that the whole NOMA concept was not spelled out at the start in a way we could all agree upon (even provisionally for purposes of debate). Neither Lumpen's summary nor the links provided really clarified things, and much of what I've been posting is an attempt to sort out those ambiguities. For instance, as I've said, if religion strictly limited itself to the "magisterium" of questions about "the soul and god" (and sin and other theological terms), I'd be more than happy to let it have that realm, which IMHO is about as relevant as (to repeat myself) astrology. However, it doesn't -- and when a supposedly nonoverlapping magisterium keeps trying to make statements that do, in fact, overlap aspects of life, the universe, and everything that are perfectly fine on their own, then I'm going to take exception to that. I'd take just as much exception if it were astrologers trying to horn in on nature, ethics, or politics.


If you read back, I think you would find that I have tried to answered all of these charges. But you're right there is a confusion as to the concept of NOMA which I thought I have answered, but appearantly it wasn't very clear.

Examine these two statements:

1. Science and Religion try to answer the same question all the time
2. For any one question (when striped down to its very essence) only science or religion can answer it accurately

The second is what NOMA is trying to argue. The first is what you are trying to argue. Even if the first is true (which it is, both Gould and I accept it, as I noted a few times before), that doesn't affect the truthfulness of the second statement.



One source of our conflict: you seem to have some problem with the idea of doubt, instead of certainty, as the starting point for the pursuit of knowledge. (Which is odd, since you've said you're agnostic.) I honestly don't understand what that problem is, though. No meaningful knowledge can be either arrived at or trusted unless it's built up from a foundation of doubt.

Trying to assert a foundation of certainty, or faith, as a basis for further knowledge, is an inherently illogical approach. You can't proceed to critically examine anything if you start from a position of uncritical acceptance. It's all akin to a "skyhook," to borrow Daniel Dennet's term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea) for a pseudoscientific workaround that explains complexity in the universe without building it up from simpler levels. Whatever "truths" you may arrive at that way are ultimately hanging in the air, supported by nothing.

I have no problem with doubt, I think doubt is a wonderful thing in intellectual enquiries, what I wanted to show is that whatever mode of enquiry you choose, you have to make an assumption as a starting point.

I think you and I have very different idea of what "Faith" means. To me when you choose to believe in event A over event B, though there is doubt that A is the truth, then you are putting faith in A. That's what I think religious believers do, they choose A (god exists) over B even though they can't prove A (in an empirical world), so they have Faith that A is true (god exist). You are doing the exact same thing: You choose A (your reality is real) over B (that your reality is a computer prgramme) even though you can't prove it and will never have any evidence to prove it since the empirical world itself is being questioned, so you have faith that your reality is real.

You both make an assumption A in order to get to other questions with regards to God (for the religious believer) and reality (for you).

[whatever]

Thanks, I quite agree. "Whatever" seems to want me to restate your argument on this in my own terms, but I think you've laid it out perfectly clearly.

If someone wants to put forth logical evidence for supernatural phenomena, it's easy to imagine what might suffice; e.g., a detailed, accurate, and verifiable prophecy of empirical future events. It's akin to the old saw about how to disprove Darwinism at one stroke (and greatly bolster the arguments for a creator): all it would take would be "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." There's nothing about "secular" logic that would rule out fair consideration of such things.

I think you are being too lax with regards to "neutrality". As I said before, even if "secular philosophy" do not reject the supernatural from the start, it doesn't mean that it's not bias.

Why don't we try defining "secular philosophy"? Which of these would you say come closest to "secular philosophy"?

1. Reject all claims to existence (physical and superatural) unless it has been proven to be true i.e. no event can be said to exist unless it has been proven that it does exist - there is no god, no flying spaghetti monster, no computer, no reality

2. Accept all claims to existence (physical and supernatural) unless it has been proven to not exist - god exits, flying spaghetti moster exists, this computer exists, individual with the handle "lawman" and "whatever" exist, soul exists

3. Accept all claims to existence of physical events on its face (i.e. when sensed, and can be tested through emipirical evidence) unless proven otherwise with empirical evidence, reject all claims to existence of supernatural event unless it can prove its existence through empirical evidence - god does not exist, this computer exists, individual with the handle "lawman" and "whatever" exist, soul does not exist