It seems to me that the separation between them has come from the efficacy of the scientific process, which is constantly building upon itself. But religion is ontological and won't relinquish its few claims upon its knowledge of nature regardless of any demands from science, though it may alter their view of those claims based upon the information science provides. Truth is background independent (thread mixing; someday I'll grow up, Ken ) and it is in the hands of religion, at least from their perspective. Wise religion will certainly allow itself to be informed by science, unicorn faith or another, especially since science has proven its worth.

Perhaps an analogy might be similar to the time the Air Force became a new branch of the military after flight had developed to a certain level of maturity from within the Army. It is also interesting that the Army still retains a limited measure of air power. Similarly, I am confident that most religion sees itself in a much more limited capacity when addressing nature, but religion will still claim superiority whenever they are confident they have access to the truth, often via scripture. Again, the wise religions will wait upon enrichment from science whenever nature needs to be addressed.

Gould’s NOMA certainly makes sense given that most of the issues have already been dealt with to allow science to have their magisteria. The Geocentric overlapping conflict is long over, but there are problems with some claims within evolutionary theory that reveal an overlap. Some segments of the religious community are convinced they have the truth and so others are deemed subservient to this.
In the rare cases when both magisteria teach mutually exclusive claims, it appears to me that an overlap exists as opposed to the view (Gould’s) that it is just these two realms that are touching each other. If religion is found to be wrong, it will lose this territory.

Western culture has changed significantly and it is instability that is now a concern for certain religions. Just consider how many astronomers were strong believers a few centuries ago, as compared to today.

Why is that? I would bet at least a partial reason would be seen in the poor way religion has addressed creation and nature given the significance of astronomical and other scientific discoveries. Religions won’t claim to represent the Truth that includes a small number of falsehoods. It would be like offering our friends some fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies and telling them that we had discovered that a small amount dog poop accidentally got into them; a little bad poop goes a long way to make things less palatable. Some may not mind a tiny fraction of a problem, but others, after haven swallowed willingly and faithfully, have been known to.... loose their cookies.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I don't think Gould is saying they don't overlap in practice, I think he is saying the shouldn't overlap in principle. In other words, overlap is a mistake, a miscalculation by one or the other, an over-extrapolation. That's my view as well.

From a pedagogical view, it has important merit. His NOMA view helps distinguish both realms in broad and in important terms.

But from his work, he states, "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...". He is redefining religion here because he ignores the encompasing view religion holds. Objectively measurable claims from religon are not handed over to science, though religion has come to respect how science can inform religion on these matters. In my opinion, this respect for science better reflects the message the Pope was delivering in '96 regarding evolution, contrary to what Gould claimed the Pope was stating.

Religion can not find itself holding any buckets with holes in them, so it can not cut-out religious passages that fail to find acceptance from science. They can ammend their interpretation of those limited number of literal passages that seem to conflict with science (there are many more that are clearly allegorical), but that requires justification else their revision will look ad hoc or worse.

If greater volcanic activity takes place and connects all the Hawiian islands (science) together, it will not form a continent. Of course, the surrounding sea (religion) will become a hotter place. I still like this analogy, obviously. To suggest both realms are adjoining continents does not accurately reflect what is happening, and shouldn't reflect either view. Yet, since religion doesn't itself overlap science, I can see how Gould, a scientist, might assume no overlap exists. But science can and does overlap certain segments of certain faiths, which is disturbing to the religious views (and those who hold them) that are in this overlap.

Admitedly, I can still see how NOMA is a useful tool, nevertheless. Great paintings starts with broad brushes.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I like to think of it this way, which uses terminology a bit different from that of Gould.

Science explains HOW nature works. WHY it works that way is a question for theology. They are distinct questions, with no overlap.

(Note: You can use different shades of meaning to distort this distinction, but if you don't do that things hang together.)

I think that it is good to sometimes apply scientific thinking to religion.
It might clarify some aspects of religion, but can also lead to realising, well for me, that some of the answers may be beyond my, or human, comprehension, which can be humbling.

If one doesn't seek answers, then at some level, one might think one has the answers.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRocket Science explains HOW nature works. WHY it works that way is a question for theology. They are distinct questions, with no overlap.

That's a nice one and it is similar to an epigram by Cardinal Baronio in the 17th century, where religion (Holy Ghost) "is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes".

That almost works nice, especially from the point of view of the scientist. Science may be mute on the “whys” but religion is not void of “hows”, so what happens when the respective "hows" conflict. Religion will be happy to tell you "why" the "how" of science has it wrong.

Consider how Ptolemy developed a remarkable "how" to the planetary motions, and the "why" from religion was easy enough with attention gained for mankind with Geocentricity. But as soon as science advanced and discovered the phases of Venus, the new "how" became in direct conflict with the old "how", but worse, it was in conflict with the entrenched "why". Science has great advantage in its ability to quickly discard the old "hows", but religion is limited on changing any "whys". Nevertheless, the religious requirement given to Galileo called for "necessary demonstrations" to prove religion had an erroneous view, and he did so with the phases of Venus and Mercury.

Since, from the point of view of religion, religion's "why" trumps the "how" of science, the Church adopted the Tychonic model and the conflicting overlap vanished, at least temporarily. Galileo and others, however, did not surrender their view of the superiority of the Copernican model, so, once again, the overlap returned. Unfortunately for Galileo, he thought his tidal model was "necessary demonstration", along with the favorable reasons presented by Copernicus, to justify the heliocentric model, though lack of stellar parallax was no secret.

Today, the overlap is found in other areas. The 6000 year age of the universe is certainly an overlap. We can say another epigram like "religion has the Rock of Ages, and science has the ages of rocks", but that won't separate the magisteria for anyone but the scientist. Either the universe is 6000 years old or its not. In the eyes of this YECist, science needs to get its "hows" corrected because the “why” of religion is well established (ie genealogy with individual ages). We can explain to him the modus operandi of science, and attempt to establish separate magisteria, but a much older Earth will still be just as much a burden to the young Earth holder as before; the overlap will remain and the NOMA pacifier will have little affect.

The NOMA approach still has merit in clearing the air about how each operates, but an additional approach must be included for those few exceptions to the NOMA concept. Ultimately, if science can offer “necessary demonstrations” then the solution rests with those within religion to take these facts and incorporate them into the context of the conflicting passages. In the days of Galileo, that is what the Church eventually did, though they were not accustomed to doing so. It will be more difficult today for some because the overlap is more extensive and afflicts a more valued portion of religious text, but so too is the demonstrations science provides. Another problem is the lack of knowledge of science, by those religious under the overlap, to fully appreciation the merits of those demonstrations, thus the problem has lingered.

Quote:

(Note: You can use different shades of meaning to distort this distinction, but if you don't do that things hang together.)

I’m open to see how science does not overlap in the religious area of a 6000 year universe, especially as seen from those in the religious magisteria.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

You are invoking examples from an era in which virtually all intellectual activity was tied to religion and to one or another church. The lines amont science, philosophy and religion were more than a bit blurry, not to mentin the lines between the church and government. The distinction is a bit more clear now, and the old comparisons and paradigms simply don't apply any longer.

It appears to me that atheists have taken on the characteristics of a religion in using pseudo-scientific arguments to attack religion. It is no more appropriate to use pseudo-science to attack religion than it is to use pseudo-science to support religion. It it quite easy to keep the two separate -- IF one is inclined to do so.

Not all faith is this way and faith, in general, has seemed to follow its own evolution over the millenia. It can seem easy to talk about "religion" as a monolithic entity, but that's an overly narrow view. Even my mention of evolution in spirituality/religion is ethnocentric to a degree as there exist forms of spirituality that are (if I can say this without offence) more primitive. Indeed, more than one instance of a faith claiming to be the proper "evolution" of a previous faith. This doesn't need to imply a newer-and-better v. older-and-bad, anymore than saying that one species of animal is better because it evolved into it's form a million years ago compared to another species that is almost the same after tens of millions of years.

I think part of the issue is that some religionists get caught up in these debates, forgetting that the real question isn't about how accurate their religion *is* but how accurate they hope it *will be* (e.g. afterlife).

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRocket You are invoking examples from an era in which virtually all intellectual activity was tied to religion and to one or another church.

Yes, and that is one reason I like to use them. Where religion and science have been in the past has some influence on where it is now. Some religions are quite strong and their influence today is not unlike the past. The 6000 year universe is, of course, a contemporary example.

Quote:

The lines amont science, philosophy and religion were more than a bit blurry, not to mentin the lines between the church and government.

Yes, they were integrated, though it was difficult to accomplish this, at least for Christianity.

Quote:

The distinction is a bit more clear now, and the old comparisons and paradigms simply don't apply any longer.

That is true for some religions, no doubt, but I am not disagreeing with the cases that have no overlap, only trying to show that some do, which likely includes the major religions. The paradigm shift articulated by NOMA [is a gear shift that] will not help get it up certain hills of some religious landscapes; it will have to back down.

Quote:

It appears to me that atheists have taken on the characteristics of a religion in using pseudo-scientific arguments to attack religion.

Yes, and I see it as a religious group arguing with another religious group. The use, or misuse, of science is a weapon that can be effective in the battle. The key to damaging any faith is to sew doubt, and the overlap is an ideal spot to take advantage of this because religion has no offensive weapons to use here, only defensive. It is a bit like the government being in a position (also limited) to acquire private property by declaring eminent domain. Science has the upper hand, but only in the overlap. Of course, pseudo-science is a misrepresentation of science and it has no overlap with religion, but as long as doubt is sewn, it can still have its intended negative effect on religion. This is an example where NOMA can serve as an introduction to addressing the problem, but the “devil is in the details” and in the exceptions.

Quote:

It is no more appropriate to use pseudo-science to attack religion than it is to use pseudo-science to support religion. It it quite easy to keep the two separate -- IF one is inclined to do so.

Agreed, pseudo-science does seem to be non-overlapping magisteria, at least with religion.

But this raises an interesting question? Is it accurate to say that pseudo-science is a NOMA with science? Perhaps there is much similarity in that science would overlap much of pseudo-science but pseudo-science would not overlap science. Is this a fair assessment?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Just a couple nitpicks. It's sow and sown, not "sew" and "sewn". Also, do you mean to quote "God is in the details", or the variant with "devil" that suggests a "catch"?

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

[I meant to respond to your earlier post, but forgot.]

Yes, that is a fair point. I would, however, expect that the major religions would agree with my statement, if both parts of my sentence are emphasized. The point is that the choice is theirs, for better or for worse. They are in the subjective realm and can incorporate unicorns or angels if they wish to tweak variances with science. But, anything that casts a shadow on the truth that is inherent in any religious passage, regardless of religion, casts a shadow of doubt, small or large, on the entire faith. Religion must be believable; science must be demonstrable. This is why, from the religious magisteria point of view, that conflicting scientific claims will often be seen as an overlapping problem that must be addressed, though many will simply choose to ignore it and stay focused on the main work of the faith. The Creation Museum was built for this reason, no doubt.

Although this is from the past, a glaring example of this comes from Caeser Cremonoli, an Aristotelian professor and colleague of Galileo, whose a priori philosophical stance trumps, at least in the minds of many Aristotelians and religious leaders, anything Galileo might produce. He said. “I do not wish to approve of claims about which I do not have any knowledge and about things which I have not seen... And then to observe through those glasses gives me a headache. Enough! I do not want to hear anything more about this.”

On a more humorous note, when Libri, another Aristotelian, died in late 1610, apparently, Galileo commented, “…never having wanted to see [the moons of Jupiter] on Earth, perhaps he'll see them on the way to heaven?”.

But you raise an interesting view of today’s religion that may be quite accurate, more than I care to admit, perhaps. There seems to be more and more (younger folks especially) that are non-traditional and are electing to go with more of a cafeteria plan for their spiritual nourishment, picking things from here and there that seem suitable for their own lives. If so, your view seems on the mark, and the scientific debate has much less impact, at least I would think this would be the case for most of them.

I do appreciate all the grammatical help I can get (no sarcasm here); please continue to do so. I have gotten better due to this forum, but I am still clumsy in expressing my thoughts. Much sowing and sewing is required if I am to gain literary skills.

[I’ll try to reciprocate, though its only spelling. Millennia is not with one “n”.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

But that's a point of confusion and contention, religions don't always consider themselves subjective and the assortment of ideas into different magisteria doesn't require it. They can be objective, even if they are not bound by empiricism.

More to my point, however, is that religions can evolve in a manner analogous to animals. That doesn't necessarily mean changing beliefs organically during its lifetime, as that may not be possible or plausible. What it can mean is that old beliefs die with those who hold them and new beliefs come in with new adherents who were never bound by the old perceptions. This would seem to be the ecumenical equivalent of speciation: The offspring is different from the parent.

Following on what I wrote above, I referred to organizations, not individuals. An individual may change beliefs many times over a life, or not, and that may be due to many factors. However, as people move into and out of religious groups, they bring with them their own ideas and while it's conceivable that enough movement could see an organization change it's beliefs, it's just as easy to claim that the new organization really isn't the old organization except in name. Group dynamics is more chaotic than many people realize, and the concept that they act as a unitary actor is often an incomplete or simplistic understanding.

Another point important in this discussion are the forms of religiosity that individuals desire. Some people want to be at a higher tension with their surroundings and some do not. Those who do not desire higher tension will tend to moderate or incorporate new ideas into their beliefs. Those who do, will often seek out social groups (e.g. cults) that provide that desired tension, often through social circumstances backstopped by what is perceived as more extreme dogma.

This often does become similar to the thought patterns and behavior of HB/CT types. However, I suspect that many HB/CT types desire personal attention or aggrandizement, while religious groups are usually more about community, with the possible exception of cult leaders who may care more about their individual aggrandizement.

Thus, we see that more mainstream religions may be open to eventual change, if not at top levels of dogma, then through the marketplace of religious ideas. But, there will be some individuals who will want to be contrarian for the purposes of self-promotion and there will be those people who will join them and defend them for purposes of emotional fulfillment and validation.

Perhaps if we look at the debate not as just the overlapping magisteria of two methods of inquiry, but of a ordered discipline versus a sea of chaotic social movements, then the promulgators of science will take a new tack. Then again, maybe recognition of the state of humanity is what lead them to take such a tack, hoping that the invoking of a social movement is what they need to get their message across, while providing for their personal aggrandizement, as is the drive for the leaders of their rival social movements. At that point the debate stops being about what is right and becomes an argument over who is right.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis But that's a point of confusion and contention, religions don't always consider themselves subjective and the assortment of ideas into different magisteria doesn't require it. They can be objective, even if they are not bound by empiricism.

Sure, but they are not objective-based but faith-based. For many religions, objective elements are present within the overarching faith, which is a belief system. Archeology is rich with objective evidence that supports, or discredits, the reasons for accepting, or rejecting, the subjective claims of faith.

Quote:

More to my point, however, is that religions can evolve in a manner analogous to animals. That doesn't necessarily mean changing beliefs organically during its lifetime, as that may not be possible or plausible.

The evolutionary model makes a reasonable analogy for micro evolutionary change within the religious species. But the analogy fails in the macro evolutionary model, I think, because their DNA is self-correcting due to the scriptures. Heretics are not that hard to spot when the written documents spell it out for them. On the other hand, religions that rely primarily on tradition will, however, fit your view surprisingly well, I'd bet.

Quote:

Another point important in this discussion are the forms of religiosity that individuals desire. Some people want to be at a higher tension with their surroundings and some do not.

I suspect we are observing an effect more than a cause in most of these cases. They want those often wonderful emotional ties that come from a personal relationship with their God, or other creator, and want to serve honorably, which can lead to a more charged, and shocking, life. In more rare cases, perhaps, some see a way to get attention or other benefits from this life style, which reflects very poorly on that community of faith, unfortunately; wolves in sheep's clothing.

Quote:

Thus, we see that more mainstream religions may be open to eventual change, if not at top levels of dogma, then through the marketplace of religious ideas.

Agreed, and we already have. It is interesting how the hard shells were favorable to Darwin because his theory introduced more of a judgmental tone, perhaps, than the more sweet Lamarckian view of evolution. Today, we do not see the fire and brimstone sermons due to our cultural change. Recently more changes have been discovered to have already taken place long before the Church has recognized them. But, the tenets of the faith, when tested, will regenerate from the cloning ability of the written word. [There are other spiritual factors involved, of course, but I don’t wish to get all that close to the forum’s lines.]

Quote:

But, there will be some individuals who will want to be contrarian for the purposes of self-promotion and there will be those people who will join them and defend them for purposes of emotional fulfillment and validation.

Yep, and don’t forget power, money, or any of the vices that give pleasure for a while, but only “for a season”. Fortunately, some are now in jail.

Quote:

Perhaps if we look at the debate not as just the overlapping magisteria of two methods of inquiry, but of a ordered discipline versus a sea of chaotic social movements, then the promulgators of science will take a new tack.

That would be nice, and I think NOMA is helpful here, but it has never been science attacking religion, but religion attacking religion. It is certain people using science as a weapon or finger pointing device to undermine those who oppose their own religious views. They may even be right, but it isn’t science.

The overlap I see is a region where religion will be accidentally burdened by the conflicting claims it brings, assuming a conflict exists. But, if scientific discoveries produce an overlapping region concordant to a given segment of religion, then this religion benefits. Thus, any overlap should be taken seriously and the merits of the scientific claims considered. If their religious views represents truth, concordance is inevitable, and, if they look close enough, they may not have to foolishly wait for science to change in order to match their claims. Using Galileo again, the Church did finally reinterpret their scripture as Galileo tried to get them to do, though it came too late for him. [This needs to happen today, too.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

It sounds like you think they are mutually exclusive, but I don't assume that is the case. The difference is empiricism, and the lack of it. Religion also accepts narrative and revelation and such, which may not be empirical but might be examined from an objective viewpoint before considered as evidence for some article of faith. Some religions have methodologies for investigating such claims. You might say that it is a matter of faith in the sense that they are taking a claimed observation by the word of the observer, whereas science would not if it could not be substantiated, but that's a slightly different use of the word "faith". Of course, some religions or manners of spirituality may not be objective or claim to be.

I disagree. Scriptures are like a genetic code, you can have a very close similarity in the DNA between two animals and have a completely different animal. It is all about how the code is expressed, or in the case of holy writings, how it is interpreted.

Possibly, but research by religious sociologists, such as Rodney Stark, suggest otherwise. He explained this in his studies on cults and sects, some of which were referrenced in his book, The Rise of Christianity. Research suggests that people join those groups for social reasons and only later come to accept the articles of faith.

That tends to be a matter of perspective.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Quote:

It sounds like you think they are mutually exclusive,…

No. They are different magisteria as NOMA suggests, but my contention is that in some religions, and in some cases within these certain religions (eg. Christianity), there are overlaps that cause festering due to the unintentional impact science has on religion when the overlap develops.

Quote:

The difference is empiricism, and the lack of it. Religion also accepts narrative and revelation and such, which may not be empirical but might be examined from an objective viewpoint before considered as evidence for some article of faith.

Objective evidence requires no faith, but trusting the claims of another who is clearly relaying objective information is understandable. The listeners have the option of doing the observations themselves, unlike non-objective evidence, which requires a much higher degree of trust from the start.

Quote:

…, but that's a slightly different use of the word "faith".

That is an astute point. As stated above, some trust can be objectively based but people can simply choose not to conduct the measurements themselves. The difference is not minor. Some would say you are exercising faith whenever you sit in a chair, but this is not the same as exercising faith in something that has no availability for measurement.

Quote:

Of course, some religions or manners of spirituality may not be objective or claim to be.

Yes, and this constitutes the bulk of any given religion, especially regarding their tenets. Too much objective detail can be both superfluous to the faith and problematic. The more objective elements that are within a religion, the greater risk it runs of failing the objective tests. However, if the objective elements are all eventually tested and found to agree with science, the more sound the religion becomes. This is the crux of the problem because of the importance of both these circumstances, and it is why the NOMA view falls short of the mark, though it is helpful in revealing that both religion and science are different magisteria. Since at least some overlap can exist, the NOMA acronym is a… misNOMA.

Quote:

I disagree. Scriptures are like a genetic code, you can have a very close similarity in the DNA between two animals and have a completely different animal. It is all about how the code is expressed, or in the case of holy writings, how it is interpreted.

Certainly religions and their interpretations are not immutable – indeed, my argument [with them] is that reinterpretation is now required for the overlap areas -- but they do have the advantage of referring to their prior genetic code to approve or disapprove of any changes, especially the ones that would allow new species. Thus, religion is an active process of selection unlike the passive selective process of bio evolution. Both processes will favor the “fittest”, but this difference greatly restricts mutability for certain religions, especially ones that have the “best” code. [Of course, the supernatural involvement is highly unlikely to be passive, assuming the supernatural is actually there. But we won’t go there.]

Quote:

Research suggests that people join those groups for social reasons and only later come to accept the articles of faith.

That is bound to be true, but I would be surprised if there were many who did not also have some spiritual interest or curiosities at heart.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Perhaps the disagreement here is in what regards the different magisteria actually differ. It's not just what they look at, but how. I think you may be conflating empiricism and objectivity, or perhaps we are using different meanings for the words. Let me explain it this way. Science makes an assumption that it can describe all things via empiricism, and that if a thing is non-empirical, then it cannot be described in science. Scientists tend to go a little farther and take it as an article of faith that if it cannot be described by science, by empiricism, then not only can it not be described, but it cannot exist. Religion and spirituality, so far as I know, do not place that level of limitation on its ability to describe reality. And insofar as their methods may differ, their inquiry might, under those circumstances, be considered to be objective. It's not just the idea of taking something on faith, but allowing other information to come into the debate due to different evidentiary requirements.

But do they? It occasionally happens that a religion will change a major article of faith at the top level. But I think that my description of individual motivations often plays a more important role.

Only insofar as they are like every other human being in that regard. Having questions about the nature of the universe does not predispose people to join cults.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis I think you may be conflating empiricism and objectivity, or perhaps we are using different meanings for the words.

Yes, I am using them synonymously.

Quote:

Let me explain it this way. Science makes an assumption that it can describe all things via empiricism, and that if a thing is non-empirical, then it cannot be described in science. Scientists tend to go a little farther and take it as an article of faith that if it cannot be described by science, by empiricism, then not only can it not be described, but it cannot exist.

This surely can not be prevalent with most scientists. Such a view is illogical. How can something that can not be described, be shown to not exist, which requires an ability to describe it, which is an ability they claim they don’t have? Perhaps they mean it can not be described “in theory”?

It does make sense, however, to say the indescribeable deserves no attention as if it didn’t exist. This would make more sense because they would be demonstrating that it is outside the purview of science and not useful for science.

A flock of unicorns (they do fly, right? ), may exist or may not; either way chasing them would be… "too much squeeze for the juice", and would be pseudo-science until the day credible evidence is found. Until then, it’s just… horse feathers.

Quote:

It's not just the idea of taking something on faith, but allowing other information to come into the debate due to different evidentiary requirements.

Yes, all reliable evidence must be part of the exegesis. When science produces new evidence, then this may or may not impact any prior interpretation. If the scientific evidence is contrary to a specific religious claim, then an overlap exists. This impact is not insignificant in a few certain areas. A 6000 year old universe is a religious claim that is currently being heavily impacted by science. Some surgery is needed in this specific area due to the extensive merits of the scientific evidence. Such an infliction does not come from a magisteria that only leans against another. I assume that others are reluctant to see this because they are limiting their view as seen from the magisteria of science, which is not affected by religion. But, putting on both shoes, areas of religion are impacted by the overlaps that are produced by science. Of course, the impacts can also be beneficial to religion, such as found in many archeological finds.

Quote:

But do they? It occasionally happens that a religion will change a major article of faith at the top level.

Sure, and new religions, like Christianity from Judaism, can form. But why? Besides the motivational influences, how much direct impact can science have on a religious view, which affects the whole religious view, like a thorn or an ice cream cone depending on the negative or positive influence science has? If it can have significant impact, is this not an exception to the NOMA paradigm?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

BTW, the whole color and font coding thing is getting tedious and annoying for separating quotes.

Therein lies the disagreement of our perspectives.

That's my gripe as well.

This is the defining aspect of different magisteria, in my opinion. If science can't talk about it, then it shouldn't even try. Another way of differentiating the magisteria is one of topic instead of methodology. I think some argue that that which is "holy" is, by the original meaning of the word, held to be separate.

First, it still depends on what you mean by "reliable evidence". The different magisteria have different ways of judging evidence as reliable. The religious might abrogate the distinction between the magisteria by attempting to use rules of science to support their claim, but the scientific would also err by trying to argue there is no God if empirical evidence contradicts religious claims.

It's not the claim of a 6000 year old earth on it's face, but the manner in which debaters try to support their idea. There are several non-empirical ways of finding harmony between them. One way to explain it is the "Omphalos" argument, that creation was made with signs of aging such that empirical science is not capable of distinguishing the difference. This is a non-argument in the sense that it's not even detectable or debatable, but the concept does resolve the issue. Another explanation is good ol'e supernaturalism, where any convenient fact is explained away via individual acts of deity that resolve any particular disagreement. Indeed, both Omphalos and supernaturality might as well be examples of the "universe as simulation" concept. As we know from our own simulated worlds, such creative acts could be indistinguishable from natural reality to any witnesses of and within that simulated world.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Christianity was not a top-down movement from Judaism. If you mean that there were components of the movement that were not just emotional fulfillment of social hopes, then I agree. The religion in Judea was more than just a social network, but also a constituent part of society, commerce, law, and government as well. In the locations farther away from Jerusalem, the social model comes back into play and it is seen that the more moderate requirements on adherents of Christianity compared to Jewish orthodoxy made the diaspora Jews who became Christian more at ease with Roman/pagan society. In other words, they could be more sociable because they might eat with them instead of observing kosher food laws.

Now, there is evidence of a long history of people moving back and forth from church to synogogue within the surrounding pagan world, debating the merits of either sect to the other group. This would be a debate about theology and less of a social driver based on emotion. However, it should be noted that the people in these debates were already a kin, and the social issue was not really an issue amongst themselves (although it should be noted that they were at an increased tension with the surrounding pagan world). This is not really considered a change in religion/cult so much as a change in sect, which is a different issue. Yes, I know that people consider Christianity to be a different religion from Judaism, but at the time, it was seen as just another sect of Judaism, as were many other growths from Judaism. This might seem to accomodate the idea that differences in persptective, such as that generated by science and new evidence, can alter theology. However, Judaism as an organization didn't change to adopt Christianity or its ideas, even if the individuals constituting a mass of the organization did change from one group to another.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Oops, my apologies. I am using Word to help my grammar and it throws those in. Thanks for pointing that out. [Odd, when I pasted this post, there was no redundant codes. Perhaps the font makes a difference? Added: Well, they're back. How can I use Word and avoid the problem?]

How do you use the objective term?[/quote] That's my gripe as well.[/quote] Is this centered around folks like Dawkins, and primarily in the biological sciences?

Well, in a sense science speaks rather loudly and it says things that may or may not want to be heard by religion. If you mean certain scientists shouldn't harp on these things, I would agree. If we say that they shouldn't argue on the basis of what NOMA claims, I would agree as well. There is a recognizable difference in magisteria between them.

Given an area of conflict, it can be argued, of course, that religion can counter the influence science has in the overlap with either silence or hand-waving because their magisteria, essentially, allows belief to operate in this manner. My argument, though maybe not with you, is that it simply doesn’t work that way. If science makes a claim about nature that is in conflict with any given religious view, it will either hurt or help that religious view. That creates an overlap and neither silence nor hand-waving will resolve the issue, which demands resolution to have robust health for the religious whole of that faith.

Silence is the more common approach because if the science is more of a whisper, then there is a chance it will go away if it changes what it was saying (ie. revised theory). But if the voice of science becomes clear and strong, then the religion could do things like build a museum or something to get the hand waving going. The louder the voice, the harder the impact, the greater the effort must be given to counter the view. Any festering sores are harmful to religion and they need resolution.

Evidence alone is insufficient to do damage. Yet, regarding the degree science has on impacting a religious view, one factor is the qualitative differences between scientific claims. Steady State theory was a conflict for certain religions, though supportive of others, but the evidence was lacking, so religion could wait it out. BBT is quite different due to the quality and quantity of the evidence. Silence will not work. Evolution is another problem, and I think the Catholics know that hand waving won't work now, and too much silence can be deafening. [I still think there is a better way.]

It already does this and without conflict or need of abrogation. It welcomes supportive empiricism, which certainly helps the faith-based views it holds. Yet, unlike science, it will never restrict itself like sience does; else it would no longer be a religion, or even a philosophy.

Religion can, however, overreact to science as was the case with the early years of Big Bang Theory. The Church saw it as a possible explanation for “Let there be light”, but Lemaitre wisely warned the Pope about this.

Agreed. The contradiction only impacts certain religious claims within their religion (i.e. the overlap). Science can be wounding but never annihilating, though subsequent infections could be lethal for some unhealthy ones. Religion has the right to adjust interpretations based on new knowledge regardless of the source, if it is reliable knowledge.

True, but it does create a new problem. As we stated earlier, I think, science explains “how” and religion “why”. Religion is still teleological and there are few that would see a beautiful purpose in something that would seem so down-right deceitful on the part of any creator that would allow such a view to be required.

Do you see the 6000 year universe example one that demonstrates an overlap?

The “why” is still necessary to the faith.

Though I agree with what you say, I wasn’t trying to get too deep with this. My point was religions come from somewhere and Christianity initially came from Judaism, as opposed to Hindu or other religion. I was supporting your evolutionary analogy, though I don’t care to push analogies, well, there is one of mine I like (in case Ken is reading this ).

Agreed, Christianity is more of a new variety, but not an incipient species, right?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

From the perspective of science, there is no overlap. Religion can throw in causal explanations that are untestable all they wish, but they have no impact upon science. If science can alter how one sees the actions of the Notion, then science may have an impact upon the religion and a conditional overlap will exist, as you said.

There is no proof of this, as science is not about proofs, but about model making for that which is observed and that which should be observed if we look. What looks indeterminate now, may not be so indeterminate later. There is some probability to all of this, too. (pun intended

Causal speculations from scientists are not necessarily within the magisteria of science. What looks like science may not be science.

Only when a religion makes a claim that includes empirical exposure, will science have a chance of making an impact upon that claim.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

To make this claim, you must first define "natural". If you do that, I will seek to identify your definition as falling into one of two possible camps. One camp is the "all-inclusive" type of definition, which, being all-inclusive, will be tautological language, so will say nothing of importance. The other camp will have clear restrictions placed on what is allowed to qualify as "natural", and the initial statement will have to be shoe-horned into fitting those same restrictions. Either way, the result will be rigged from the start, and so the above claim is not actually meaningful from a logical perspective.

Thanks, Ken G. The approach would go like this:

We would show that humanity itself was the source of values, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BCE0 being a significantly historical step in the development of laws of justice, containing 282 detailed values. Another good set would be the laws of Solon.

Literature exists on the natural (biological, cultural, evolutionary) origins of morality. Darwin saw the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and altruism. Modern thinkers have elaborated on this observation, showing in detail how our moral sense can have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity.

We can even see signs of moral, or proto-moral behavior in animals. Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm's way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families.

In these examples we glimpse the beginnings of the morality that advanced to higher levels with human evolution. One may call animal morality instinctive, built into the genes of animals by biological evolution, but when we include cultural evolution as well, we have a plausible mechanism for the development of human morality—by Darwinian selection.

We would also compare the morality of believers vs. non-believers. If it’s the same, then it’s of the natural. If the believers come out behind, then, yikes, but that’s not a good extended discussion subject for BAUT as it touches on the benefits or not of religion.

There is no evidence that nonbelievers commit crimes or other antisocial acts in greater proportion than believers. Indeed, some studies indicate the opposite. Six of the seven states with the highest crime rates are in the Bible Belt. 80% of the prison population are Christians. Nontheists comprise about 0.2 percent. So, it is not the godless that fill prisons. (Stenger) [We’d have to check the normalized numbers]

In short, Human and societal behaviors would then seem to look just as they can be expected to look if there is only the natural.

So, I’m thinking that this kind of study could cross over into the nonscientific magesterium.

What looks like a flying saucer may just be a frisbee. Science is limited in these subjecive views. Who gets to define which act is a moral one and which is not? Helping the poor may not be an appropriate act in accord with natural selection, but maybe it is. Darwin didn't know becasue it could be argued either way.

How do you define "believer"? In the case for Christians, then you must judge the morality of the one whom they are to follow.

Again, how do you define "Christian"? How many were active in their Church in doing community service during the time they engaged in criminal acts? What percent of those 80% feel it would help them to claim a religious affiliation prior to their parole review? If being a Christian reflects so badly upon them, why not claim atheism? Statistics like these are easily abused.

It never left that magesterium because of the subjective nature of the evidence.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Note the importance of the words "can have" in the above, and how much different that is from what you said before. This is "version two" of what I talked about above, and the presence of the advertised "shoehorning" is clear when the key words "can have" are omitted.
What is missing here is a clear definition of what is "the natural". Your examples are all about human study into these phenomena, and these studies define a "natural" perspective. Hence, all you show are the benefits we accrue in our studies by adopting a natural perspective. Again, you have only defined the nature of the studies, not what "natural" means in regard to the phenomena themselves. If you try to define what "natural" means in regard to the phenomena, you will again be between the rock and the hard place of the above two "camps".
I would say it is all in the scientific magisterium, as science can be applied to other things (say, art) without turning those things into science.

Your homage to science has much merit, and in principle I agree with what you say. I am however rather concerned that you overstate its value, not only in involvement in humanities (I see no science whatsoever in Greek historiography for example), but also everyday life and interaction with other humans. Human nature is fixed, you say, but science is inadequate to deal with human interaction, which is mostly on an emotional level. But perhaps I am taking your post out of context, and misreading what I see to be an overstatement.

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Some (but not I) would respond with the declaration that all this relates to the external physical world, which is peripheral to what is going on in the mind, and thus not so important with respect to what it means to be human. It depends on your perspective and your priorities, surely?

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

That's "camp 2", and suffers from the circularity problem. You define natural by what science can explain, and then cite as evidence all the things science explains. But this leaves out what science does not explain-- like why science works at all. Does science explain that, or is that not natural?
But you implicitly assume your definitions of "natural" and "supernatural" account for all the possibilities. You have no category "not natural".
"Involvement" of science is a very different issue than "explanation" by science. Science provides an angle for attacking these questions, that is all.

It reminds me of a joke. Sherlock Holmes and Watson are camping out, and they wake up in the middle of the night. They look up and see a star-filled sky, and Holmes says, "What do those stars say to you?" Watson responds, "That's hard to say, speaking astronomically, they say the universe is sparsely filled over an infinitude of space with balls of hot gas. Speaking metaphorically, they create patterns we interpret as constellations, and inspire us to create mythological tales to represent those patterns. Speaking poetically, they point to the beauty and majesty of the universe, that puts to shame humanity's illusions of grandeur." Holmes shakes his head. "Watson, you fool, they say that someone has stolen our tent!"

Truth depends on the questions you ask, and science is a system for asking, and answering, certain types of questions.
There is no question that science makes great contributions to humanity, and to our knowledge.

Revisiting the OP for a moment:
Camp Quest UK ran this week. Dawkins' association with it seems to have been grossly exaggerated. His charity donated £495 to the UK camp, he said some approving things when asked for comments by The Times, and presumably he signed the "prize" tenner at the request of the camp organizer.
The Times converted this marginal association into "grooming" by Dawkins. Given the unpleasant associations of that word when applied to children nowadays, I can understand why Dawkins is annoyed about the whole thing.

Grant Hutchison