Essay talk:Potential For NOMA

Sometimes I wonder if the magisteria are really non-overlapping. We can see how philosophers of yesterday have so easily been toppled by the more widespread understanding of science. What would Sartre say about free will, knowing that there's zero evidence of it to date? Who's to say that tomorrow's science won't encroach further on the very idea of the metaphysical? Don't get me wrong, I'm largely a supporter of "not being an asshole towards religious people" and "not discounting an idea just because it didn't come out of a double-blind study," particularly if said idea isn't meant to have an impact on reality. I just wonder about the future, is all.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you give an example of valid NOMA-friendly religious statement?

As we know science makes a vast number of testable predictions about the real world. "Water boils at 100 degrees" or whatever. Sometimes these predictions are proved to be wrong when new information comes along and the appropriate theory is updated. However, until such time as they are thrown out they are part of the generally accepted body of science and accepted my the majority of scientists. (OK - that's pretty oversimplified but it gets the point across.)

But what kind of statement would we expect to be made by a NOMA friendly religion? I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm just wondering what they would be. What kind of testable, more-or-less universally acceptable, NOMA- friendly religious insights are there?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of NOMA was that "testable" only applied to science, and that philosophy/religion only applied to the untestable, unfalsifiable claims?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. So religion is unable to make any testable claim - whether it's inspired by NOMA or not. I also believe this to be the case. But then why should we believe any religious claims in that case? NOMA doesn't really seem to make any difference.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

NOMA doesn't tell us (atheists) to believe anything. It's more about resolving any conflicts between science and religion so that people aren't bickering over it. Is it successful? Not insofar as some people are unwilling to accept the existence of untestable claims (certain atheists); and that some people either refuse to have a religion that has untestable claims (non-omphalos creationists, for example), or refuse to not force their untestable religion upon others.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of my essay is that religions can't and shouldn't try to make statements about what is at all, let alone universally acceptable statements. NOMA, if it were given teeth, would not be about avoiding conflict but about assertively kicking religion off of science's turf and, at the same time, about defining religion's turf. The untestable statement stuff is crap. An untestable statement of fact is garbage and should be thrown out with Occam's razor deciding the issue until such time as it becomes testable. If a religion defines the word "God" in such a way as to make his/her/its existence untestable then Occam's razor says throw the concept out. But here is a non-universal statement that one religion might make: "Life is more important than freedom." Another religion might say "Freedom is more important that life." These are not universal statements but statements by a community about what they see as important to them. Science can't comment on such statements without defining important in such a way that it predjudices the question. One could say, "Oh science can determine which of those statements is right by determining whether people who follow one or the other are happier." But that is really just defining "important" as "that which makes people happy". Defining what is important is exactly what I am saying is the turf of religion. Once you drop the untestable statement stuff from NOMA and leave just the value statement stuff (what is important), then virtually every religion in the world becomes invalid under NOMA. But we are still left with important questions for religion to answer, namely "What is important" and the potential for a lot of religions building a lot of communities with various answers to those questions. Bluetetrahedron (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I don't see why you need to use the word "religion" at all. Just say "philosophy" and drop all the supernatural baggage which religions carry.

Furthermore, NOMA is only significant in the context some vague attempt to allow science and religion to coexist But if, as you maintain "virtually every religion in the world becomes invalid under NOMA" then NOMA is not very fit for this purpose.

Which leaves me thinking that you are either talking about philosophy (as I suggested above) or proposing a new religion and calling it "NOMA". As your version of "NOMA" seems to have very little to do with the way the word is usually used.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)