Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Astrid]

it's more complex than that



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.

There are things in the OT that are of no
importance, so it doesnt matter if
means this that or the other.

The Genesis account of 6 day creation and
flood, Exodus, babel etc are felt by many
to be important.

To sidestep the literal or lie q as too varied
and of no importance is to say it's too
unreliable to be of any use. And dismiss the
concerns of those who take it seriously
as being red herring issues.

I do of course recognize the agenda driven
and totally non objective defense of NT as literal
Truth.

You declined to say how you figure its
more reliable than the OT.

I have btw picked two examples of flagrant bias
one of them of a racist nature, all aside from
from what relates strictly to religion.

These things dig into credibility the same way
that Bible "errors" do.

NOMA= New Orleans Museum of Art?

 

[DamianWarS]

NOMA= New Orleans Museum of Art?

Non-overlapping magisteria

You declined to say how you figure its
more reliable than the OT.

Christians view the NT or the biblical accounts of Christ as literal where Genesis accounts or generally OT are more broadly challenged to various degrees by various Christians.

My appeal to use NT accounts over the OT is its more productive to the goal of the OP. The OP is perfectly free to discuss these points of interests with someone who views creation as 6 literal days but the goal to how this fits with NOMA seems lost and turns more into exposing a flawed view. That's the agenda driven red herring-ness I'm feeling. If that's the OPs purpose then say so otherwise I would think it would be more advantageous to discuss accounts more widely accepted as literal by Christians.

I don't think it's anything remarkable that a 6-day creation/young earth view can't be reconciled with science so why keep forcing the question? Move on to an account that can be more widely championed by the Christian community. That discussion seems more sincere to accomplishing the goal otherwise go ahead and camp at creation and expose all the flaws of a literal view.

 

[Astrid]

Non-overlapping magisteria



Christians view the NT or the biblical accounts of Christ as literal where Genesis accounts or generally OT are more broadly challenged to various degrees by various Christians.

My appeal to use NT accounts over the OT is its more productive to the goal of the OP. The OP is perfectly free to discuss these points of interests with someone who views creation as 6 literal days but the goal to how this fits with NOMA seems lost and turns more into exposing a flawed view. That's the agenda driven red herring-ness I'm feeling. If that's the OPs purpose then say so otherwise I would think it would be more advantageous to discuss accounts more widely accepted as literal by Christians.

I don't think it's anything remarkable that a 6-day creation/young earth view can't be reconciled with science so why keep forcing the question? Move on to an account that can be more widely championed by the Christian community. That discussion seems more sincere to accomplishing the goal otherwise go ahead and camp at creation and expose all the flaws of a literal view.

The Nt is more reliable because Christians consider
it more reliable.
I guess I knew that.

The literal reading of Genesis is probably
a lot more common than is accepting
that it is riddled errors of fact.

Literal or lie; did not Jesus
purportedly affirm Noah's ark and was he
not purportedly predicted in passages
of ye OT?

Pick n choose what to believe.
In the NT, everything is literal? Pick n choose?
Paul's fishy snake story no, verbatim
speeches recorded decades later, yes?

Flawed accounts don't fit any scheme any better
than a 4 letter acronym fits a three word phrase.


In the event, the reality of the ot
account is hardly moot to the majority
of Bible believers.

Oh, and criticizing others' motives
when you only have how it seems to
you, makes for poor rhetoric.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Of course Gould read as fact is wrong. Its plain as day that religion gets all up in science's magisterium.

Therefore I think Gould was expressing his preference for how religion and science should carve out their boundaries.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Nt is more reliable because Christians consider
it more reliable.
I guess I knew that.

that's not my point. my point is a discussion with NT accounts are more productive because more Christians consider the NT reliable.

The literal reading of Genesis is probably
a lot more common than is accepting
that it is riddled errors of fact.

sure, but you've still missed the point. let's all agree Genesis is riddled with errors of fact thus any truth in it operates in its own NOMA. Now that we've established that let's move on.

Literal or lie; did not Jesus
purportedly affirm Noah's ark and was he
not purportedly predicted in passages
of ye OT?

if we say Noah's ark operates with its own NOMA then Jesus was affirming the truth unique to that NOMA. (he was affirming prophetic and spirital values not scientific)

Pick n choose what to believe.
In the NT, everything is literal? Pick n choose?
Paul's fishy snake story no, verbatim
speeches recorded decades later, yes?

the accounts in the NT are not verbatim dictation and I don't think anyone is saying that. but Christians will generally affirm however they are literal in the sense of them being responsible to the actual events in question. But sure, eastern/western and ancient/modern systems value information differently, and the information in that context may need to be unpacked but generally speaking, Christians will affirm any NT as events that actually took place. this is why it is more productive to discuss the NT

Flawed accounts don't fit any scheme any better
than a 4 letter acronym fits a three word phrase.

neither does beating a dead horse make it less/more dead. so let's move on from creation.

In the event, the reality of the ot
account is hardly moot to the majority
of Bible believers.

which reality are we speaking of here? a reality operating in a NOMA? the OT provides the framework of Christianity and literal or not that framework is still established. it is that framework that is fundamental for Christianity and the literalness of the OT is less important. But this can't be said for the events in the NT and Christians will look at their meanings and accuracy as both fundemtal. For Christians, if Christ didn't literally die on the cross and resurrect 3 days later its meaning is powerless.

Oh, and criticizing others' motives
when you only have how it seems to
you, makes for poor rhetoric.

I'm not accusing the OP of being agenda-driven only that it appears that way when the focus is kept at creation.

 

[Astrid]

that's not my point. my point is a discussion with NT accounts are more productive because more Christians consider the NT reliable.



sure, but you've still missed the point. let's all agree Genesis is riddled with errors of fact thus any truth in it operates in its own NOMA. Now that we've established that let's move on.



if we say Noah's ark operates with its own NOMA then Jesus was affirming the truth unique to that NOMA. (he was affirming prophetic and spirital values not scientific)



the accounts in the NT are not verbatim dictation and I don't think anyone is saying that. but Christians will generally affirm however they are literal in the sense of them being responsible to the actual events in question. But sure, eastern/western and ancient/modern systems value information differently, and the information in that context may need to be unpacked but generally speaking, Christians will affirm any NT as events that actually took place. this is why it is more productive to discuss the NT



neither does beating a dead horse make it less/more dead. so let's move on from creation.



which reality are we speaking of here? a reality operating in a NOMA? the OT provides the framework of Christianity and literal or not that framework is still established. it is that framework that is fundamental for Christianity and the literalness of the OT is less important. But this can't be said for the events in the NT and Christians will look at their meanings and accuracy as both fundemtal. For Christians, if Christ didn't literally die on the cross and resurrect 3 days later its meaning is powerless.



I'm not accusing the OP of being agenda-driven only that it appears that way when the focus is kept at creation.

Again the " its more reliable and productive coz
some say it is`.
I didn't say "dictation". As a widespread Xian belief
has God help people "remember" , you tell me what
term is better than verbatim.

Just how you know what Jesus was
affirming is highly dubious. In those days
people didn't know any better than to think
the OT was telling the truth.

There's plenty in the NT to flag as, to be
generous, "unreliable".
Daemons sent to swine, say.
The marvelously detailed sayings
recorded so much later.
Such as transcript of encounter wit Pilate
tho nobody knows when or where.
Paul's absurd snake story. Unpack that one,
or I will for you if you never noticed how
phony it is.
But there it is, "gospel".

Once perjury is detected, all from
that source is tainted. Ex ept for those
with agenda.
For lo, unto them is accuracy and meaning fundamental.

 

[Bradskii]

sure, but you've still missed the point. let's all agree Genesis is riddled with errors of fact thus any truth in it operates in its own NOMA. Now that we've established that let's move on.

I'd agree. As would Estrid. So we'd say there is no overlap. We have a metaphorical description of how God created everything which doesn't concern itself with science in any way. So say the three of us. But we aren't just talking amongst ourselves. There are plenty on this forum who would say that the stories are factual. Which makes them ammenable to scientific inquiry. Hence there is a claimed overlap as far as creationists are concerned. And they actually use (or try to use) science to prove their claim. So we can instigate to see if that overlap exists in actuality.

And we don't have to limit claims the ot. There are plenty who would say that such and such a miracle happened. That is, the natural laws were overidden in some manner. So an overlap is claimed. And there are those who would claim that the soul interacts with the material body in some way. In effect claiming an overlap between the religious view and science. And again, we can investigate this to see if there actually is an overlap.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'd agree. As would Estrid. So we'd say there is no overlap. We have a metaphorical description of how God created everything which doesn't concern itself with science in any way. So say the three of us. But we aren't just talking amongst ourselves. There are plenty on this forum who would say that the stories are factual. Which makes them ammenable to scientific inquiry. Hence there is a claimed overlap as far as creationists are concerned. And they actually use (or try to use) science to prove their claim. So we can instigate to see if that overlap exists in actuality.

And we don't have to limit claims the ot. There are plenty who would say that such and such a miracle happened. That is, the natural laws were overidden in some manner. So an overlap is claimed. And there are those who would claim that the soul interacts with the material body in some way. In effect claiming an overlap between the religious view and science. And again, we can investigate this to see if there actually is an overlap.

this part feels targeted luring in 6-day creationists to then be subsequently destroyed in scientific logic. Why not create a secret NOMA where 6-day creationists are right, then everyone is happy. NOMA is another way of creating vacuums with specific rules that govern them. In science, the supernatural is rejected and only the natural (within its vacuum) is allowed.

even if we put a miracle on the table the cause from God cannot be observed within science and all science sees is the effect and then subsequently describes the effect by what it can see, and rejects what it cannot see. in terms of magisteria it's not a simple as separating values and fact as Gould suggests and if we look at these magisterium as sets then each set describes a unique collection as determined by the rules of the set. In set theory there is an infinite amount of sets and they can overlap with each other or be completely unique but there are also sets that are a collection of other sets and no matter how many sets there are, there is always one that occupies them all. magisterium should be no different. If we describe NOMA then implicitly there is a parent magisteria that occupies them both (which sort of defeats Gould's theory). values and facts can be their own NOMA but there is a parent magisteria that's action can be described in it's children magisterium and it's in that magisteria where God would be better placed.

 

[Bradskii]

this part feels targeted luring in 6-day creationists to then be subsequently destroyed in scientific logic. Why not create a secret NOMA where 6-day creationists are right, then everyone is happy. NOMA is another way of creating vacuums with specific rules that govern them. In science, the supernatural is rejected and only the natural (with its vacuum) is allowed.

No one aspect of religion is being targeted. I'm not the slightest bit interested in putting forward an argument that says YEC is wrong or that there's no thing as a soul or proving a miracle has occurred (which is impossible anyway). I just want to see what people's opinions are on this matter and whether they think Gould is right or wrong. Preferably with a reason for their position.

If we describe NOMA then implicitly there is a parent magisteria that occupies them both (which sort of defeats Gould's theory). values and facts can be their own NOMA but there is a parent magisteria that's action can be described in it's children magisterium and it's in that magisteria where God would be better placed.

This makes no sense to me at all. There are two circles. Religion and science. Gould says they don't overlap. I agree with him. And that's the only matter under discussion. These two circles do not exist within another larger one where God lives. He's in the one marked 'Religion'.

 

[DamianWarS]

This makes no sense to me at all. There are two circles. Religion and science. Gould says they don't overlap. I agree with him. And that's the only matter under discussion. These two circles do not exist within another larger one where God lives. He's in the one marked 'Religion'.

in set theory, there is always a circle that covers it all. if there is a God described as the source of all things then there is no circle parallel to God. all circles from the source are through inheritance and act as children nodes. if you're looking for overlap and these abstract values don't overlap with science you can draw 2 parallel circles and be happy but this doesn't really answer the question of their origins it just puts them into their own corners. either one caused the other or if they are truly parallel/separate something else caused them both. Gould just presents a theory where everyone can be happy but it's only superficial and the core questions are still there. Such as where did the values come from if not from science?`

 

[Bradskii]

in set theory, there is always a circle that covers it all. if there is a God described as the source of all things then there is no circle parallel to God. all circles from the source are through inheritance and act as children nodes. if you're looking for overlap and these abstract values don't overlap with science you can draw 2 parallel circles and be happy but this doesn't really answer the question of their origins it just puts them into their own corners. either one caused the other or if they are truly parallel/separate something else caused them both. Gould just presents a theory where everyone can be happy but it's only superficial and the core questions are still there. Such as where did the values come from if not from science?`

What set theory? We're not discussing set theory. And there are only two authories we are talking about. Religious and scientific. Forget circles (especially parallel ones...). We are investigating whether religion and science interact in a meaningful way that we can determine. And again, and I'm astonished that I have to repeat this, God is part of the religious aspect. God is 'described as the source of all things' in a specific religion. God is part of the supernatural world. He isn't to be considered a special case in this matter (although there's obviously a Christian position that He controls the natural world, but that would constitute an overlap - not that he encompasses both 'magisteriums'). And science deals with the natural world. And as far as I'm concerned, never the twain shall meet.

If you think otherwise then an example or two would be handy.

 

[Astrid]

this part feels targeted luring in 6-day creationists to then be subsequently destroyed in scientific logic. Why not create a secret NOMA where 6-day creationists are right, then everyone is happy. NOMA is another way of creating vacuums with specific rules that govern them. In science, the supernatural is rejected and only the natural (within its vacuum) is allowed.

even if we put a miracle on the table the cause from God cannot be observed within science and all science sees is the effect and then subsequently describes the effect by what it can see, and rejects what it cannot see. in terms of magisteria it's not a simple as separating values and fact as Gould suggests and if we look at these magisterium as sets then each set describes a unique collection as determined by the rules of the set. In set theory there is an infinite amount of sets and they can overlap with each other or be completely unique but there are also sets that are a collection of other sets and no matter how many sets there are, there is always one that occupies them all. magisterium should be no different. If we describe NOMA then implicitly there is a parent magisteria that occupies them both (which sort of defeats Gould's theory). values and facts can be their own NOMA but there is a parent magisteria that's action can be described in it's children magisterium and it's in that magisteria where God would be better placed.

It's not that magic "isn't allowed"
Science works with data.
You might as well say cars are not allowed
to work without fuel

 

[DamianWarS]

What set theory? We're not discussing set theory. And there are only two authories we are talking about. Religious and scientific. Forget circles (especially parallel ones...). We are investigating whether religion and science interact in a meaningful way that we can determine. And again, and I'm astonished that I have to repeat this, God is part of the religious aspect. God is 'described as the source of all things' in a specific religion. God is part of the supernatural world. He isn't to be considered a special case in this matter (although there's obviously a Christian position that He controls the natural world, but that would constitute an overlap - not that he encompasses both 'magisteriums'). And science deals with the natural world. And as far as I'm concerned, never the twain shall meet.

If you think otherwise then an example or two would be handy.

religion would at the very least describe the purpose of the natural and that is a meeting point. if you reject the idea of them meeting then you're using NOMA as another way to say religion isn't real but we will let you pretend it's real. any concept of a deity has interaction with the physical so if true, they are implicitly connected, if false then it's a pseudo-authority that never really existed. since science can only describe science God is not provable (within science) and all science can describe is the effect but not the cause (as it relates to any overlap). So an example your asking for is impossible so long as it's in a science vacuum. something like the big bang is an effect but where is the cause? science says there is no cause and there's your example of how science reconciles overlap. I think more broadly speaking we can't define 2 opposing authorities and pretend this isn't a problem. it's not a problem if one is a pseudo-authority of course because that means there really is only 1 authority. but if we are to affirm 2 unique authorities then implicitly this should mean there is something that governs them, otherwise you're just saying there really is only one magisteria that matters.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's not that magic "isn't allowed"
Science works with data.
You might as well say cars are not allowed
to work without fuel

Can you rephrase that without the insult.

 

[Astrid]

religion would at the very least describe the purpose of the natural and that is a meeting point. if you reject the idea of them meeting then you're using NOMA as another way to say religion isn't real but we will let you pretend it's real. any concept of a deity has interaction with the physical so if true, they are implicitly connected, if false then it's a pseudo-authority that never really existed. since science can only describe science God is not provable (within science) and all science can describe is the effect but not the cause (as it relates to any overlap). So an example your asking for is impossible so long as it's in a science vacuum. something like the big bang is an effect but where is the cause? science says there is no cause and there's your example of how science reconciles overlap. I think more broadly speaking we can't define 2 opposing authorities and pretend this isn't a problem. it's not a problem if one is a pseudo-authority of course because that means there really is only 1 authority. but if we are to affirm 2 unique authorities then implicitly this should mean there is something that governs them, otherwise you're just saying there really is only one magisteria that matters.

"Purpose" for the universe is purely imaginary, however described.

Everyone knows religion is real. It's all those
gods spirits demons etc that are imaginary.

Science never has or will proven anything.
Implying that some method can prove God is absurd.

Science is terrif at causes.

When did science ever say " no cause"?

Two opposing "authorities "? Something about some religion is authoritative?

You might try shorter sentences, helps prevent the
grammar and hence meaning getting scrambled.

 

[DamianWarS]

"Purpose" for the universe is purely imaginary, however described.

Everyone knows religion is real. It's all those
gods spirits demons etc that are imaginary.

Science never has or will proven anything.
Implying that some method can prove God is absurd.

Then this discussion is arbitrary. Either we're talking about psudeo-magisteria or about something that can never be proven so overlap can't be measured in any way science will accept.

 

[Astrid]

Can you rephrase that without the insult.

There is no insult involved,
Is my metaphor unclear?
Your use of the word "allowed" is such an echo
of the common common creationist attempt
to denigrate science and scientists.
See "no intelligence allowed".
Now, you may not have such intent but
the factual nature of your statement is
still the issue.

It's not at all a case of what science "allows".
You got it completely backwards.

It's a limitation imposed from outside of
science, being that magic is nonexistent.

Can't run science on zero data any more than a
car on empty.

Again, zero insult intended.

 

[Astrid]

Then this discussion is arbitrary. Either the we're talking about psudeo-magisteria or about something that can never be proven so overlap can't be measured in any way science will accept.

Again, science does not do proof.
And, it's not about what science will accept
any more than a stalled car is about not accepting
any empty tank.

Now, ifn a god did something detectable like
" the flood", why, "proof in science" or not,
there would be plenty and more to investigate.

As it is, there was no flood, the claims have all
been shown bogus.
"God" never seems to do anything.

Is there data to investigate for anything supernatural
in the OT Nt or anywhere?

 

[Bradskii]

religion would at the very least describe the purpose of the natural and that is a meeting point.

It's not even a meeting point because science doesn't concern itself with purpose. It exists within the religious magisterium and not the scientific. The sun's not there to keep you warm and it doesn't rain to keep your plants watered. So no overlap.

any concept of a deity has interaction with the physical so if true, they are implicitly connected, if false then it's a pseudo-authority that never really existed.

If a deity (religion) actually interacts with the natural world (science) then there'd be an overlap. Some examples will allow us to check this.

since science can only describe science God is not provable (within science) and all science can describe is the effect but not the cause (as it relates to any overlap). So an example your asking for is impossible so long as it's in a science vacuum. something like the big bang is an effect but where is the cause? science says there is no cause and there's your example of how science reconciles overlap.

It reconciles it by saying that there is no connection between the two. Or at least, some religious beliefs are untestable. So...no overlap. Unless you have some examples.

I think more broadly speaking we can't define 2 opposing authorities and pretend this isn't a problem. it's not a problem if one is a pseudo-authority of course because that means there really is only 1 authority. but if we are to affirm 2 unique authorities then implicitly this should mean there is something that governs them, otherwise you're just saying there really is only one magisteria that matters.

Nope. There's nothin that implies anything that controls both magisteriums. God stays in the religious magisterium.

 

[Bradskii]

Then this discussion is arbitrary. Either we're talking about psudeo-magisteria or about something that can never be proven so overlap can't be measured in any way science will accept.

So any claimed overlap might not be able to be measured. If you are saying that there is nothing in religion that can be scientifically measured then you are saying that there is no overlap.