Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Job 33:6]

Quite often people that have been managing fine without paternal colonialism and potential damage to social structures.



It's interesting that more secular communities generally score higher than religious communities on objective measures of well-being, including crime, so religiosity is not a panacea for 'problematic' activities. I suspect the reason is not that religion fosters low levels of well-being, but that it helps those living with low levels of well-being feel better about life - without improving it otherwise.


That's a very big 'IF'; sadly, it rarely seems to work out that way, and often quite the opposite.

Not all religions are equal. If you see a religion leading people to rape and steal or commit other crimes, this doesn't equate to the idea that all religion is bad or to the idea that there aren't any religions that are good.

If you could point out Jesus commiting these crimes, you could potentially argue that Jesus were a bad influence. That's an option if you would like to take a stab at it. Often that's what critiques of the old testament do (the Father killing newborns as an example). Then followers of Jesus might conclude that Jesus were not worth following.

Next thought, there is no doubt in my mind that religion has improved my community. It's fair to say this isn't the case for all communities, but just because a community is religious, it doesn't mean that their religion is necessarily good either, nor does religion make people perfect sinless beings (quite obviously, ask those catholic priests tied up in scandals).

Nobody ever said religiosity somehow equated to a solution for humanities issues. In actuality, it is the unfixable broken nature of mankind, in which nothing can fix, that is the reason people can benefit through following Christ. I would say that following Christ absolutely can result in the development of a beneficial moral framework for someone's life, despite all of us being broken

I'm comfortable with my personal observations of benefits that religion (or more specifically, worship of Christ) has given my community, and that's good enough for me to accept it as a good thing.

It doesn't have to be universally true for all people of all time of all religions to come out in a "morally better" place upon becoming religious. Nor would you, or I or anyone else ever suggest that it was. Unless of course it were the perfect religion with perfect people. But that's not realistic.

And I agree, quite often we hear of cases of religious people commiting crimes. Unfortunate. Thus is the nature of mankind. Reminding me of the broken nature of mankind doesn't suggest to me that following Jesus is a bad thing. Nor does it suggest that it's not a good thing either. No more would an atheist commiting a crime suggest that atheism were a bad thing or not a good thing.

 

[Job 33:6]

So many supernatural claims, no evidence for any...

As noted before, you don't have to believe. It is a faith based choice after all. And if you need evidence to believe, it's understandable if you would choose not to.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

On that logic all murders are supernatural. Good to know.

Wow, I guess the understanding of the matter completely escaped you. Doesn’t speak well for your team if you can’t get that one. It wasn’t rocket science.

But I will lay it out because there are likely more of your limitations. Some in science have eliminated a plausible answer indicated by the evidence, that is an intelligent agent and not “an accident” that led to complex life. The OP starts with eliminating that one possible answer. This is poor science and does the thing he thinks people of faith do. He insists there is a divide that cannot be allowed to be breached. Scientists of faith can be more open minded.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some in science have eliminated a plausible answer indicated by the evidence, that is an intelligent agent and not “an accident” that led to complex life.

Which evidence do you think indicates an intelligence behind complex life? Why complex life and not simple life? Why do you think that is plausible?

The OP starts with eliminating that one possible answer. This is poor science and does the thing he thinks people of faith do. He insists there is a divide that cannot be allowed to be breached. Scientists of faith can be more open minded.

The OP doesn't eliminate anything, it simply asks the question whether there is an overlap between the realms of science and religion by presenting a quote that says they don't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As noted before, you don't have to believe. It is a faith based choice after all. And if you need evidence to believe, it's understandable if you would choose not to.

Without evidence, why believe one unsupported claim rather than another?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Which evidence do you think indicates an intelligence behind complex life? Why complex life and not simple life? Why do you think that is plausible?

The list is quite long. How much do you know of the matter?

The OP doesn't eliminate anything, it simply asks the question whether there is an overlap between the realms of science and religion by presenting a quote that says they don't.

Definitely not an open dialogue but already set the conclusion. When the answer is already given, there is no openness to consider the matter in the mind of the one presenting.

 

[Bradskii]

The list is quite long. How much do you know of the matter?
Definitely not an open dialogue but already set the conclusion. When the answer is already given, there is no openness to consider the matter in the mind of the one presenting.

I think the op was pointing out that we have two 'magisteriums' (and I should know because I was that op). Of that there is no argument. There was no statement from me in the op (still me) that they do not overlap. Although I quoted Gould as an example of someone who thought they didn't. The question was then asked 'Hands up all who disagree with SJG'.

I can't recall you giving an answer one way or the other. Please feel free to agree with Gould or point out an area where you think that they do overlap.

As you said, it's not rocket surgery.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think the op was pointing out that we have two 'magisteriums' (and I should know because I was that op). Of that there is no argument. There was no statement from me in the op (still me) that they do not overlap. Although I quoted Gould as an example of someone who thought they didn't. The question was then asked 'Hands up all who disagree with SJG'.

I can't recall you giving an answer one way or the other. Please feel free to agree with Gould or point out an area where you think that they do overlap.

As you said, it's not rocket surgery.

Well, you quote only one side so it seems the question is at least slanted to one view and the other view starts at a deep disadvantage at the get go, the one view has the only voice.

Gould does not understand that the difficulty is dividing the subjects arbitaritly based on a personal position. Newton, Farady and Boyle would not have had that division. There are scientists today who do not see that division. It is personal one or at least one of philiosophy, not science. So we are not arguing science. We are arguing philosophy or world view.

 

[SelfSim]

My take:

Overlaps:
i) Both go about adding meaning to the term 'reality'. (Ie: they both make claims on 'what reality is');
ii) Both visualise dissimilar conceptions of the origin of the universe (and life's functions within it).

Commonality:
iii) Both require human minds to express the concepts in, and meanings for, (i) and (ii) above.

Distinctions between the two:
iv) There are two distinct ways, (or processes/modes of thinking), for coming up with the concepts in, and meanings for, (i) and (ii) above.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My take:

Overlaps:
i) Both go about adding meaning to the term 'reality'. (Ie: they both make claims on 'what reality is');
ii) Both visualise dissimilar conceptions of the origin of the universe (and life's functions within it).

Commonality:
iii) Both require human minds to express the concepts in, and meanings for, (i) and (ii) above.

Distinctions between the two:
iv) There are two distinct ways, (or processes/modes of thinking), for coming up with the concepts in, and meanings for, (i) and (ii) above.

This is a really good answer. It doesn't go into detail on the particulars but the process is pretty well described here. Good job!!

 

[SelfSim]

.. We are arguing philosophy or world view.

.. and science has a minimalist philosophical position which merely aims at permitting it to exist .. and which facilitates consistency amongst its descriptions of reality.

Religions' descriptions of reality vary widely .. and tend to promote singular, individually held ideologies, to the exclusion of all others .. (which I'm pretty sure will be a contentious statement ..)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

.. and science has a minimalist philosophical position which merely aims at permitting it to exist .. and which facilitates consistency amongst its descriptions of reality.

OH, this is the best way to ignorance, not acknowledging a field has a major impact on how one thinks. All those who do science are human beings. All human beings have a life philosophy. The wise man is aware of this and CHOOSES his philosophy based upon his looking into these matters. The foolish man pretends there is no such thing as philosophy and then swept into a kind of thinking that he is totally unaware of having influence over his perception of what he sees. That is, he is wearing colored glasses and it totally unaware of this but thinks the colored items he sees are really that color apart from his glasses. No scientist is working outside of his own world view. No one. The point is whether the world view matches the world outside of his thinking or is it off such that he fails to see elements that are blinded by the color of the lenses in his particular glasses.

Religions' descriptions of reality vary widely .. and tend to promote singular, individually held ideologies, to the exclusion of all others .. (which I'm pretty sure will be a contentious statement ..)

Well, I would say that atheist's view of reality vary widely and they also tend to promoste their singular, individally held ideologies to the exclusion of others. I mean the OP in its presentation included ONLY the view held by the author. This is a very typical example of atheists excluding other people's view. IT was an extremely biased OP in favor of the author's viewpoint. I do not repeat your words in mocking but that is the exact description of the atheist and their "tolerance" or historically recorded lack thereof.

It is people who can be very intolerant of other people. Some are intolerant of poorly educated people. Some are intolerant of people of certain races (like one here who referred to the "nordic" race in not complimentary terms.) Some are intolerant of people who are from a different country regardless of education or race. The list is long. People can be very intolerant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The list is quite long. How much do you know of the matter?

I'm familiar with the more common Christian arguments, particularly as described in this forum. If the list is too long to briefly set out, perhaps just give the main categories of evidence.

Why complex life and not simple life? Why do you think that is plausible?

Definitely not an open dialogue but already set the conclusion. When the answer is already given, there is no openness to consider the matter in the mind of the one presenting.

OK; I guess we're reading it very differently. It seems to me that the OP asking what people think of a contentious quote doesn't mean the OP agrees with the quote.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm familiar with the more common Christian arguments, particularly as described in this forum. If the list is too long to briefly set out, perhaps just give the main categories of evidence.

Why complex life and not simple life? Why do you think that is plausible?

Complex life with its interdependent working organisms and microorganisms have no parellel in observable science that occurs by chance (add all the time you want.) Even with experiments designed from start to finish be highly intelligent sources under extremely controlled conditions that cannot possible occur in the natural, it cannot be demonstrated.

OK; I guess we're reading it very differently. It seems to me that the OP asking what people think of a contentious quote doesn't mean the OP agrees with the quote.

Why doesn't the author of the OP stand up and admit he agrees with it as it is obvious he does. That is the only quote he put out, one side. Of course that is his side. If he were asking a real question both sides would be equally represented.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Complex life with its interdependent working organisms and microorganisms have no parellel in observable science that occurs by chance (add all the time you want.) Even with experiments designed from start to finish be highly intelligent sources under extremely controlled conditions that cannot possible occur in the natural, it cannot be demonstrated.

Ah, OK; that's an argument from incredulity. There are plenty of things we can't replicate but nevertheless have good explanations for. But being unable to replicate something and not having a fully detailed explanation for it isn't evidence for an intelligence- that's a false dichotomy. We have multiple lines of evidence that complex life evolved from simpler life, and we know the mechanism which explains how that could happen.

Why doesn't the author of the OP stand up and admit he agrees with it as it is obvious he does. That is the only quote he put out, one side. Of course that is his side. If he were asking a real question both sides would be equally represented.

That's a major assumption. I suggest it would be better to ask the OP what he thinks rather than assume it.

 

[SelfSim]

OH, this is the best way to ignorance, not acknowledging a field has a major impact on how one thinks. All those who do science are human beings. All human beings have a life philosophy. The wise man is aware of this and CHOOSES his philosophy based upon his looking into these matters. The foolish man pretends there is no such thing as philosophy and then swept into a kind of thinking that he is totally unaware of having influence over his perception of what he sees. That is, he is wearing colored glasses and it totally unaware of this but thinks the colored items he sees are really that color apart from his glasses. No scientist is working outside of his own world view. No one. The point is whether the world view matches the world outside of his thinking or is it off such that he fails to see elements that are blinded by the color of the lenses in his particular glasses.

Which is why thinking like a scientist, calls upon its willing practitioner, to check in their preferred (or default) philosophical worldview before 'doing' (or' thinking') science.

Knowing that science has its own philosophy, makes available the contrast which leads to a heightened awareness the impact other philosophical worldviews have on the reality science is addressing (IMHO).
(I'm not saying every scientific thinker appreciates this, mind you).

Well, I would say that atheist's view of reality vary widely and they also tend to promoste their singular, individally held ideologies to the exclusion of others. I mean the OP in its presentation included ONLY the view held by the author. This is a very typical example of atheists excluding other people's view. IT was an extremely biased OP in favor of the author's viewpoint. I do not repeat your words in mocking but that is the exact description of the atheist and their "tolerance" or historically recorded lack thereof.

I'm not totally convinced that Atheism is not a religion .. (Many Atheists have tried to assure me it isn't). Atheism certainly has nothing to do with science, though.

It is people who can be very intolerant of other people. Some are intolerant of poorly educated people. Some are intolerant of people of certain races (like one here who referred to the "nordic" race in not complimentary terms.) Some are intolerant of people who are from a different country regardless of education or race. The list is long. People can be very intolerant.

Sure .. I'm a person too .. I try to restrain (and distinguish) my own intolerances when they surface ... they're usually just unquestioned beliefs, I find.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Ah, OK; that's an argument from incredulity. There are plenty of things we can't replicate but nevertheless have good explanations for. But being unable to replicate something and not having a fully detailed explanation for it isn't evidence for an intelligence- that's a false dichotomy. We have multiple lines of evidence that complex life evolved from simpler life, and we know the mechanism which explains how that could happen.

Ihave never heard of any besides "little green men" which begs the question as to where they came from. So do you have any short credible answers for complex life to preceed from chance? Everytime I asked an atheist that, they always have said that they do not ask that question.

That's a major assumption. I suggest it would be better to ask the OP what he thinks rather than assume it.

I have engaged with him before. And it is a logical conclusion.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Which is why thinking like a scientist, calls upon its willing practitioner, to check in their preferred (or default) philosophical worldview before 'doing' (or' thinking') science.

This is not possible. I work with professors in science and their world view comes out. They cannot help it. No one can. The differences in world view is also clear when you hear them talk long enough. To pretend a scientist has no world view is like saying they have no education to influence their understanding. It is impossible. No one comes to research with a blank slate.

Knowing that science has its own philosophy, makes available the contrast which leads to a heightened awareness the impact other philosophical worldviews have on the reality science is addressing (IMHO).
(I'm not saying every scientific thinker appreciates this, mind you).

Science does not have its own philosophy. I have worked with men who are world experts in their field and their world views are not at all like. It depends upon their choices as people. But you position could be tested. We could ask those who are in research on higher levels, if there are any here, to describe the philosophical world views out there. How much are they really aware of any can formulate other philosophical world views. I doubt many can do even their own, but that is only my assumption.

I'm not totally convinced that Atheism is not a religion .. (Many Atheists have tried to assure me it isn't). Atheism certainly has nothing to do with science, though.
Sure .. I'm a person too .. I try to restrain (and distinguish) my own intolerances when they surface ... they're usually just unquestioned beliefs, I find.

A scientist who is not an atheist will find it harder to get ahead in science. You can see the popularity of Dawkins among scientists. Whether they will accept their faith in there being no God or no reason for them to pursue the question as a "religion" is not significant. They believe what they think is the truth. That is faith. They cannot establish it through reason or their science. We cannot establish there being a God through science either. But neither of us can establish there being love or hate or courage or generousity or kindness. Science cannot tell us these things and it cannot establish they do not exist.

Hawkins said "what science cannot tell us mankind cannot know" which is a clear contradiction that he did not see. It is not a statment of science. Since it is not a statment of science, by his own definition, we cannot know it is true. THis is what I mean by scientists having a clear philosophy but being unaware of its influence on their thinking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ihave never heard of any besides "little green men" which begs the question as to where they came from.

I don't know what 'little green men' have to do with this - unless it's the idea that aliens somehow triggered simple life to become complex? that both begs the question of complex life and is unnecessary - we have a good explanation.

So do you have any short credible answers for complex life to preceed from chance? Everytime I asked an atheist that, they always have said that they do not ask that question.

Evolution by natural selection can produce complex life from simple life by a well-described process and mechanism, with abundant evidence for both, and there are multiple independent lines of evidence that complex life on Earth is a result of that process.

On a more general note, given suitable conditions and a relatively constant source of free energy, the development of order and complexity is thermodynamically favourable.

I have engaged with him before. And it is a logical conclusion.

OK, so it was more than just the content of the post. The logical conclusion from the post alone is that the poster wants opinions on a contentious quote.

 

[Job 33:6]

Without evidence, why believe one unsupported claim rather than another?

If you see a tree bearing fruit, sometimes it's good to stand by that tree, even if you can't confirm the specifics of why it yields fruit.

People trust in Christ not because they've found scientific evidence for the trinity, but because his teachings have transformed their lives for the better (at least in their opinions).

An example: Some people could argue that these things could be achieved without religion, or could even argue that these things may not help people, but at least in some cases, missionaries travel to some location, build a house for the homeless, feed the homeless or otherwise construct work opportunities for them. This activity is inspired by the grace, love and giving that Jesus gave to us. The homeless feel inspired, then when they begin thriving, they convert to the faith and then begin joining to help others in similar ways.

We could say that secular government programs have similar programs. Well, sometimes at least for locals. Like a food pantry or homeless shelter. Though these practices don't necessarily make an effort to teach those benefiting to join the cause.

Maybe there could be ways to replicate this in a purely secular world, but Christianity I would say has mastered it.

Another example:
Jesus could be said to offer a moral "father figure" for many. Imagine an orphan, who has no parents, grows up, never learns how to really treat others. Maybe they become thieves or disrespect others. This happens, many of us have seen it. But imagine that figure going to church, reads scripture, is inspired by the love of Christ, and that person begins giving or loving rather than taking or disrespecting.

We could argue that these cases are circumstantial, that people could learn to love others by other secular means. But for many, it's easy to give credit to the source which taught them, which is Jesus. And where Jesus himself acquired these ideas would then stem, according to scripture, from God the father (or Himself depending on your views of the trinity).

So it would be believed because of the fruits it bears.