Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Bradskii]

I believe the intent of "non-overlapping magisteria" is to say that they speak on different topics, and thus don't interfere with each other.

But as we've seen, they do speak on the same subjects. There's a religious creationist view regarding the age of the planet for example and a scientific view. I'd be quite happy to let those two views go their own way and not interfere with each other. But some on the religious side are intent on interfering and claiming there's an overlap and that the science is wrong.

 

[Astrid]

I think the question of overlap comes down to how one views the fundamental nature of the universe in a philosophical framework.

Science operates in philosophical framework that assumes an objective universe against which ideas are tested. Basically things are assumed to look like what they look like.

Conversely, it's possible for religious beliefs to take a non-objective view of the universe. Such a view doesn't necessarily challenge or supplant science. It just boils down to whatever philosophical view one ultimately adopts.

But religious beliefs aren't going to disprove science any more than science is going to disprove religious beliefs. Science by its nature can't address supernaturalism. And religion can't challenge science within the framework in which science is conducted.

In that sense, I don't think they overlap.

Religion has no capacity to disprove anything about
science, however fatuously the ability may be claimed.

Science is pretty good at disproving all manner
of beliefs. Being a religious belief instead of merely
superstitious, say, doesn't grant immunity to
disproof.

We are aware some cannot ever accept they got
something wrong.

 

[Astrid]

But as we've seen, they do speak on the same subjects. There's a religious creationist view regarding the age of the planet for example and a scientific view. I'd be quite happy to let those two views go their own way and not interfere with each other. But some on the religious side are intent on interfering and claiming there's an overlap and that the science is wrong.

There is a national security issue for the USA
to the extent that the populace is ignorant,
backwards and anti- intellectual.
There's really a lot of smart ambitious Asians
who are not intellectually crippled by such.
How do we expect this to run out?

No overlap between religious beliefs and
hard physical reality?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Can you give me an example of that evidence?

Depends on what was done. Obvious distortions in SpaceTime directly correlated to Christians praying or something. Spontaneous generation of amputated limbs in people under direct observation with no apparent external stimuli also in response to prayers. Globally consistent traces of a flood. There's loads. We would see something.

 

[durangodawood]

But Gould wasn't saying that there cannot be claims of an overlap. He obviously would have agreed with you that there are claims galore......

Then Gould was talking about his preferred notion of religion, and not most of the religions that actually exist.

 

[DamianWarS]

By definition. And if Visnhu exists then overlap is implicit. By definition. I'm looking for something explicit. A specific example. We'd need an example of an overlap where there is a scientific aspect which can be scientifically verified.

why does the OP all of a sudden feel like a trap? If we view the physical as being blinded to outside it, then the physical will only find a physical answer and this will never change. but any boundaries it defines, such as the boundary of the universe, the space time continum, the big bang, etc... implictly draws a negative space around it that although it cannot see is still there. if I were to cut out a shape from a piece of paper I have two parts, the shape and a piece of paper with the shape cut out. to set a boundry of the physical marks a boundry of it's neighbour, something not defined or measured by the physical. These boundries are your overlap points or at the very least touching points. If we keep going back further and further eventually something has to give, and the physical would cease to exist and then in an instance it's there. and that's the point of overlap. but science can only see what's in it's own vacuum and it is blinded to anything else.

 

[Astrid]

Depends on what was done. Obvious distortions in SpaceTime directly correlated to Christians praying or something. Spontaneous generation of amputated limbs in people under direct observation with no apparent external stimuli also in response to prayers. Globally consistent traces of a flood. There's loads. We would see something.

There would be something.
The KT boundary is identifiable around the world,
and we don't know of creationists who say
otherwise.
Big a event as that was, the "flood"
would be far far greater event, much
larger consequences.
Nobody can find the "flood" layer,
for all that some will go on about something
called "muck" with flash frozen mammoths
embedded therein.

 

[DamianWarS]

But as we've seen, they do speak on the same subjects. There's a religious creationist view regarding the age of the planet for example and a scientific view. I'd be quite happy to let those two views go their own way and not interfere with each other. But some on the religious side are intent on interfering and claiming there's an overlap and that the science is wrong.

there are examples indeed of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) in biblical accounts. they don't overlap when their goals don't overlap. although it can be a point of contention among different groups if we view the creation account as an example of NOMA then we don't need to force reconcile it to a scientific view (or reconcile science to a biblical view) because its goal is not a scientific one.

for example, the creation account predates Moses by about 2500 years so it would seem odd to stick to a strictly literal view with such a gap but it can easily fit into a salvation metaphor of light coming into a formless void, filling through a process until completion, and finally rest. it can also be viewed prophetically as foreshadowing the light (Christ) coming into the world, and again the new creation of baptism or the resurrection, or new heaven and new earth. There are strong repeating biblical themes here that can be argued as echoes of the creation account. So if this is the purpose of the account the literal literal view of it becomes a diminishing focus, one that is no longer productive to its goal where if the earth was created in 6 days or 6 billion years these deeper meanings are unchanged so the argument is with these accounts there is a more noble goal, and this is where NOMA fits it.

there are of course some non-negotiables in theistic circles with these accounts such as there is a God and he is the source of all things but if we can extrapolate the noble goals of these accounts then they can be released from their literal views if those goals can be determined as NOMA. however, if the goals require overlap then the aspect of their literalness needs to be preserved. In Christian circles, this would certainly be around the accounts of NT as responsible and accurate narratives of the events that took place. So there was a man named Jesus, he did have disciples, he did have a miraculous birth, performed miracles died on a cross and was resurrected 3 days later and he did ascend to heaven in the witness of 120 people.

perhaps 6 days of creation, half-angel off-spring, and the flood have more aspects of NOMA but the argument from Christians would be that the events and life of Christ would be examples of OMA (overlapping magisteria) that are non-negotiable. I don't think it's quite productive to target these early accounts because some take a counter-scientific view. just like how the literalness of the creation account is not productive to its goal neither is attacking views from a polar end productive to your goal (unless of course, that is your goal). There will always be a fight if you attack Genesis but it's an arbitrary fight and it seems more agenda-driven. Christians have more of a cause with the literal Christ than the literal creation it's just a matter of how you wish to take the conversation.

 

[DamianWarS]

There is a national security issue for the USA
to the extent that the populace is ignorant,
backwards and anti- intellectual.
There's really a lot of smart ambitious Asians
who are not intellectually crippled by such.
How do we expect this to run out?

No overlap between religious beliefs and
hard physical reality?

you forgot to add that the USA populace is also racist and the majority (over the "ambitious Asians") .... so how do you think it will play out when an outsider to this system challenges the system?

 

[Phred]

By definition. And if Visnhu exists then overlap is implicit. By definition. I'm looking for something explicit. A specific example. We'd need an example of an overlap where there is a scientific aspect which can be scientifically verified.

The claim is that "God created the heavens and THE EARTH." There's your overlap. The earth came into being 4.54 billion years ago through natural processes. No magic beings involved. Religionists claim it happened 6,000 years ago. They claim the earth was created in the 7 day creation specified in Genesis. There is some waffling as in how long a day was or whether it was 6 thousand or 10 thousand years ago. All because none of it is in any way measurable or based upon anything but the words in the Bible. So it can't be measured or dated. But what we know is when the universe came to be, when the sun came to be, when the earth came to be and all of this within certain dates plus or minus a given amount of time. None of that conforms to any of the Genesis narrative.

 

[Astrid]

you forgot to add that the USA populace is also racist and the majority (over the "ambitious Asians") .... so how do you think it will play out when an outsider to this system challenges the system?

Every country is "racist".
In several years in the USA, I
encountered very little.

"An" outsider? I'm not talking about one
or a few.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think it's quite productive to target these early accounts because some take a counter-scientific view. just like how the literalness of the creation account is not productive to its goal neither is attacking views from a polar end productive to your goal (unless of course, that is your goal). There will always be a fight if you attack Genesis but it's an arbitrary fight and it seems more agenda-driven. Christians have more of a cause with the literal Christ than the literal creation it's just a matter of how you wish to take the conversation.

The goal is to determine if Gould was correct. Or if he was wrong, in what sense he was wrong.

I'd suggest that depending on one's particular religious beliefs, the answer will be different. For example, if someone is a six day creationist and claims that God made the world in six days as if it was 4 1/2 billion years old then there's no conflict. There's nothing for science to investigate. But if someone says that they were 6 literal day and the planet is 6,000 years old then that is a religious claim which also falls withing the scope of scientific inquiry. So there is then a proposed overlap.

If someone suggests that the soul is simply the essence of Man then no overlap. If they claim that the sould actually interacts with the material body in some way then there is a claim of overlap. And this can be investigated.

 

[dlamberth]

if there is a God, then overlap is implicit.

It depends upon the particular God in question. Which can also effect the type of overlap and how that overlap takes shape if at all.

 

[dlamberth]

T
If someone suggests that the soul is simply the essence of Man then no overlap. If they claim that the sould actually interacts with the material body in some way then there is a claim of overlap. And this can be investigated.

This is the realm of the Mystic. They might be asking questions along the lines of does matter depends on spirit, or does spirit depend on matter? Or are they One.

 

[DamianWarS]

It depends upon the particular God in question. Which can also effect the type of overlap and how that overlap takes shape if at all.

if we say God is the source of all things, there's overlap

 

[DamianWarS]

Every country is "racist".
In several years in the USA, I
encountered very little.

"An" outsider? I'm not talking about one
or a few.

the location of your profile suggests insight or bias (or both). I'm not talking about race either but a unique geographic perspective, one that the US general populace doesn't share. either way, it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Astrid]

the location of your profile suggests insight or bias (or both). I'm not talking about race either but a unique geographic perspective, one that the US general populace doesn't share. either way, it will fall on deaf ears.

You did say the majority of the US population
is "racist". But you wrecnot talking about race...?
What are you talking about, then?

I encountered very little in my years in the USA.
Simple.

I responded to you, pointing out the universality
of racism, especially, btw if you take it
into the microscopic scale where the
SJW hunt when they can't find it elsewhere.
I've lived in three countries and spent
time in others, I am no provincially biased
naif. However you choose to think things seem.

In the event,
If your message is not being understood its
not the fault of a deaf biased audience.

Say something non contradictory and
less cryptic and it will be understood.

I would be interested in what you have to
say.

 

[DamianWarS]

The goal is to determine if Gould was correct. Or if he was wrong, in what sense he was wrong.

I'd suggest that depending on one's particular religious beliefs, the answer will be different. For example, if someone is a six day creationist and claims that God made the world in six days as if it was 4 1/2 billion years old then there's no conflict. There's nothing for science to investigate. But if someone says that they were 6 literal day and the planet is 6,000 years old then that is a religious claim which also falls withing the scope of scientific inquiry. So there is then a proposed overlap.

If someone suggests that the soul is simply the essence of Man then no overlap. If they claim that the sould actually interacts with the material body in some way then there is a claim of overlap. And this can be investigated.

I would table the Genesis accounts as they are literal/non-literal is too varied. either it will be used to affirm Gould or discredit the person but the whole thing misses the point. It would be better to deal with the other half of the bible dealing specifically with the life of Jesus.

 

[Astrid]

I would table the Genesis accounts as they are literal/non-literal is too varied. either it will be used to affirm Gould or discredit the person but the whole thing misses the point. It would be better to deal with the other half of the bible dealing specifically with the life of Jesus.

A yes / no is too varied??


The OT is highly varied, with semi historical accounts,
metaphor, poetry, etc. And things that just are not true.

Nothing can "affirm" god, if by that one means prove.
Anything will affirm God to someone who thinks it does.

I remember an acquaintance pronouncing that an autumn
leaf which fell at our feet was sent by God as a symbol of the trinity.

Proving that many OT accounts are not literally true is a snap.

If someone thinks that discredits the Bible, let them.

How did yiu determine that the OT may be flawed but the NT is not?

 

[DamianWarS]

A yes / no is too varied??

it's more complex than that

The OT is highly varied, with semi historical accounts, metaphor, poetry, etc. And things that just are not true.

so you see why yes/no is insufficient to cover the discussion.

The OP has brought up the counter-science of the literalist view with the creation accont. if that's where he wants to rest his cross-hair then so be it but that seems more agenda-driven and is not really engaging the topic. sure, the creation account is counter-science and is consistent with a NOMA view, now, let's all say that three times and move on. I'm sure there are those who would aggressively object to that but then the argument turns into something else and is no longer productive to the goal. What the overwhelming majority of Christians will defend is the biblical accuracy of Christ and since Christ is the pièce de résistance of Christianity it seems far more appropriate to start with him. For the Hebrews Genesis is pre-history so of course, its literal accuracy is challenged and arguably better fits a NOMA view. so who cares what others say about it but dwelling on these accounts seems more of a red herring.