Talk:Non-Overlapping Magisteria

	This religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Is NOMA just a fancy way to say

God of the gaps? - Frankie (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what's the difference? Both NOMA and GotG are founded on the basic premise of "Religion explains the things that Science doesn't". Same idea, different clothes. - Frankie (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the articles again; they're completely separate ideas & basically incompatible. "God of the gaps" is the practice of using God as an explanation for gaps in our understanding of the material world that science hasn't explained yet (e.g. the origin of the universe, life, etc). If science later explains some of these things adequately, then there will be a few less gaps in our knowledge & hence a few less things attributed to God. NOMA is the theory that science and religion inherently deal with different kinds of understanding; i.e. that religion isn't really about the material world at all but about internalised concepts like redemption, morality, spirituality. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NOMA could perhaps be considered as a way of preserving or enshrining a gap.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on your interpretation of a "gap". The basic premise of NOMA is that there are things that belong outside the domain of science. Obviously this is disputed by materialists, but if we accept that premise we can't really talk about religion filling in the gaps: something entirely outside science isn't the same as a mere gap in scientific knowledge. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is useful at all, but there are certain things about me being human that I have come to realize that I can only work out in terms of thinking them through in terms of religion/faith. That has nothing to do with explaining or understanding the physical world/universe/whatever in which that all happens. No scientist will ever be able to tell me what the morally right thing to do is, or where to find a measure of peace when a baby dies, or how to live in harmony with people that piss me off. And they don't try to do that. My pastor doesn't have a lot to say about the expanding universe, or black holes, or subatomic particles, or curing cancer. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As a scholar of religion, I see a world of issues that are, appropriately, dealt with under the rubrick "spirituality", including things like "Who am I", "what is humanity's role for itself, and interaction with others", "what are our obligations to the so-called natural world", "is acting by mind or emotion more important - and are they even different. But the atheist in me says "gosh, those sound a lot like secular philosophy, too". so i think NOMA should/would include such philosophical journeys within and without a religion. But those questions are things that science can never address. It can say why we reach the conclusions we do, or even where the questions come from. but not what answer we should have.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The basic premise of NOMA is that there are things that belong outside the domain of science. Obviously this is disputed by materialists..." Gould was a materialist. His whole point was that morality is the domain of religion, but, of course, this just reduces religion to moral philosophy, which is the problem with NOMA. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But religions tend to make statements which are testable. For example "God exists." The rationalist will say "OK, what's the evidence for that?" Presumably each of them will feel that they are acting well within their magisteria.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"But religions tend to make statements which are testable." Exactly, but they also make non-testable, non-scientific claims (e.g., ones about meta-ethics). The idea of magisteria in general is flawed -- Goodenough's "semipermeable membrane" is more accurate. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if NOMA is flawed (and all I know of it comes from this talk page) can we acronym out a way to say: "I believe in God, but it really has nothing to do with you, so I'd rather you didn't get all up in my face asking me to justify it, especially since my belief asks nothing from you, not even your tolerance since I don't care what you think in the first place, and it ain't like I'm asking for my belief to be taught to your kid in schools, or even for a day off from work or something. It just helps me understand and deal with the painful parts of my life, and really there is no reason for you to waste your precious time forming an opinion on my religious life." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we call that the First Amendment. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the world which prevents you believing whatever you want to believe.

But once you express that belief there is also nothing which prevents another person saying: "Really? Why do you believe that then?"--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 10:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's always the thing that prevents people from asking other types of questions: basic good manners. And just because someone asks, doesn't mean that I have to answer; especially when the question can pretty easily be read not so much as a request for information as an attempt to force someone to justify something. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll excuse us if this is in all practical occurrence indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill theological weaseling in an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine; like I said, I don't really care what you think. I've come to believe in God; I read the Bible and other holy texts as I try to figure out elements of what it means for me to be a person in the world, and it works for me. I don't think you need to, I don't think your kids need to, I don't ask anything of anyone because of that belief, and, relevant to this article, that belief does nothing to shape how I think the physical world works/came to be or how those topics should be taught. You want to start a conversation on my talk page about the whys and wherefores of all that, I might have more to say--but at the end of the day, I'm sure a smart guy like you has better things to worry about than how Paul understands some of the big questions. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's all very well but the problem with NOMA is the disagreement over where the boundaries are. It's easy when it's your personal religious views practiced in private but when those views start to influence, for example, the legal system, then it's a very different thing. Which magesterium does the ethics of abortion land in, for example? Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Which magesterium does the ethics of abortion land in, for example?" Er, ethics? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both science and religion have things to say about personhood. Ethics in general can be formulated mathematically, as a collection of game theory optimization problems to maximize happiness &/or minimize harm, globally &/or locally. - Frankie (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's based on the assumption that you accept some form of utilitarianism or consequentialism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not a Pseudoscience Magisteria?

I mean if science is one Magisteria and religion is another and putting certain ideas in one or the other means they are safe from investigation or criticism from the "other side" then a "Pseudoscience Magisteria" would make a lot of sense.

People could happily believe in the secret power of crystals, pyramids, magnets or whatever but be immune from scientific investigation. This would allow people to say: "I believe in crystals, but it really has nothing to do with you, so I'd rather you didn't get all up in my face asking me to justify it, especially since my belief asks nothing from you and it's outside your Magisteria so I don't care."--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just give everything its own magisterium and declare it true if it follows its own internally consistent logic. Oh wait... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Because advocates of pseudoscience like homeopathy, crystals, etc. necessarily make claims that are scientific in nature (it cures X) and thus can be verified, or better, refuted, by scientific methodology. If a faith-healer or some prayer advocate wants to argue that they can cure disease, that's a claim that can be squared against scientific evidence. If I want to claim that religion makes it easier for me to make sense of the world and makes me feel like/act like a better person, that's a different kind of claim. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I deconverted at age 15 so I don't know what I would have been like if I'd remained a Christian. Despite this I think not believing in God has made me a better person. I view moral issues in terms of what does good and what does harm. I don't ask questions like, "Does God want an abused wife to stay with her husband? Remember Jesus didn't like divorce. What does the Bible say? Does God want a rape victim to avoid killing the rapist's unborn child? Remember many right wing Christians care a great deal about saving the lives of the unborn but reject Universal Health Care. UHC can save the lives of born children and adults but proponents of Christian economics and American right wing Christians generally still reject it. The list of moral issues where I and other moral humanists look to what helps people, what avoids harm rather than to sacred texts and homilies from influential believers can probably be extended without limit. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you!!!! Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I have human weakness but imagine what I'd be like if the harsh side of my personality lead me to lecture people about Hell and pontificate about what (the Bible/some influential Christian moralist) says. When I try to imagine I don't like what that leads to. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm lucky, I don't really know anyone who behaves that way. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it all comes down to exactly that. People say "X does Y". That's not merely a "belief" or an "opinion" or a "worldview", it's a predictive statement. It's hiding a fact - or at least the testability associated with fact - by dressing it up as an opinion. This is the opposite of how most people are trained to spot bullshit, which involves spotting when people hide an opinion by dressing it up as a fact. ^narchist 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience magisterium appears to exist in practice - c.f. crank magnetism or New Age, where it's all good as long as the oppressive scienceists are confounded - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole meaning of pseudoscience is stuff that's pretending to be science. & It's a term applied to things only by people who don't support them, not by the people who believe in them. So putting it in a separate magesterium from science is a complete non-starter. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The "naturalistic/holostic magistratrium." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Magistratrium.

But from some of the comments above anything can have it's own magistratrium a long a it doesn't deal with things which are testable. Because science then has first dibs? So when it wants to Science can reach into any other magistratrium and overrule it where appropriate. Which is kinda cool - but it makes the whole idea a bit silly.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah. At that level, science gets down to the philosophy level, as a way of thinking about thinking and what constitutes knowledge. Which proponents of competing epistemologies argue ferociously with, but then science fans pull out "it works, bitches" - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

One would expect that no matter what your epistemological view of the world is, when you say "this alternative medicine works", the most meaningful way (in fact, the only meaningful way) of proving this is to, you know, prove it. Show it. Demonstrate it. Put your money where your mouth is and show it working if you're going to say that it works. Which is, of course, what we call science. In that respect the magisterium idea is truly silly. ^postate 13:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough

So long as you don't try to push your nonsense onto reality, you can have any "magisteria" you want. For example, some idiot thinks the Earth was created 6000 years ago in seven days by an omnipotent being? Fine. Whatever. That same idiot wants to stake homosexuals because he thinks the aforementioned omnipotent being told him to? Nope. No way.

There's a nice neat line for all of us skeptics: "If there's nothing to lose, believe what you will."--"Shut up, Brx." 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not really skepticism. We can judge beliefs on whether they reflect reality as well as whether they harm people. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Expressing blatant stupidity, especially if sincere, is advocating said stupidity. It may well be your social duty to be uncouth and mean - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to think that being mean to people is never the best choice. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's the only choice.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's less than ideal in many ways, but frankly, the target is the person least suited to deciding that in practice. If you publicly espouse epistemological brokenness of a variety closely associated with dangerous fuckwittery, you've just become everyone else's problem - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"So long as you don't try to push your nonsense onto reality, you can have any "magisteria" you want." The problem here is that you've now declared all "fringe" claims to be nonsense a priori and prevented any attempt to test if they are actually true by cordoning it off into its own epistemological ghetto. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. If you want your magisteria to be seen as true, you need to put to the scientific method. Otherwise, you can live in lala land with unicorns farting rainbows as long as you want. Note that I'm not personally a subscriber to this idea (though I can appreciate it). I just think it's incredibly stupid and rude to go around picking on harmless, decent people: people who aren't homophobes, who don't burn witches, stone rape victims, or prevent their children from getting treatment. I see people on this site and throughout the skeptic movement act like total assholes just because somebody has a different idea of things than they do, and it makes me sick. Thankfully, the conflict is limited to the margins of society. Only anti-theists and lifeless fundies spend their time trolling each other. But it's still a pointless conflict, and it does occasionally spill over into the real world. You know, I can't even call myself an atheist, when someone asks my religion. At least not without qualifying it heavily with a speech about how I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs if they don't affect others. That's because when people hear atheist, they think "Richard Dawkins!" They think "fat ginger shithead." I'm sick of the anti-theist bullshit. That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you give some examples? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did that. Examples of what? I'm tired and slightly irritated. If I do provide examples, you'll have to tell me what you're looking for and you'll have to wait until I get my shit together for the evening--"Shut up, Brx." 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear who your rant above is directed at, but I actually really don't care, so just forget about the examples. Stick to your stance or whatever. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why does this article seem to frown so heavily upon Non-overlapping Magisteria? Moreover, why does it seem to think that those who believe in it ascribe to a particular belief in God or ignore the fact that some points made by science seem to have just as many holes in their logic as does something like the Bible? The Rational Theist (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because religion, by and large, is really rather silly? Scream!! (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I modified your edit to the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Science is a self-correcting system which analyses itself and tests its ideas and tries to improve them. So any logical holes should be identified and removed.

The bible cannot be subject to such a process. Its contradictions and errors are there for all time.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand the Bible is flawed (I am not a subscriber to any particular religion), but that doesn't man that belief in a higher power is outright flawed. Moreover, while science is self-correcting, it is still limited to the human experience. It's only 3-dimensional. It can only see a small part of the infrared spectrum, it can only hear at certain frequencies, etc. The Rational Theist (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Science has developed tools to examine things beyond normal human perception. We can see both infrared and ultraviolet with the correct equipment. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Deism and Theism are more rational than any specific religion but both are faith based as there is no evidence for deities. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

But, once again, that doesn't mean that such evidence doesn't or can't exist. Like I said, we humans are limited to what human evolution has allowed us to experience. We don't see the colors a bee sees or hear what a dog can hear. The Rational Theist (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As Prox implies: show your evidence for a deity and then we'll talk. Scream!! (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you draw conclusions about things which - by definition - you cannot test or experience?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Curious you should ask that. Science itself has flaws which cannot be tested or experience. Let's start with the first flaw I always run into with science: Big Bang. Yes, we all know that the expansion of the universe is explained by it, but something existed before Big Bang. Yet nobody, to my knowledge, has ever been able to explain clearly what that something was and, more importantly, how it got there and what existed before it. Also, since we know the universe has a diameter (estimated at 27 billion light years, if I remember correctly), what exists beyond the known universe? I'm going into hyperbole here, but is the universe flat? If you reach the edge of it, do you fall into the mouth of a monster? The Rational Theist (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (ECx2) This is more a philosophy problem than anything else. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're posing the question as to whether science can adequately look at anything that seems to go beyond "human experience" (meaning what we can perceive through our limited sensory organs, I presume). This gets to the problem of a grand unified theory or a theory of everything that would not be falsifiable, or to the even more basic question that the early philosophers dealt with over whether we can actually trust our senses at all. And I suppose the best answer I can think of is, courtesy of XKCD, that science works. I mean, you can philosophize all you want and introduce something like Descartes' evil demon that confounds every conclusion we draw or Roko's basilisk that makes its own rules about the world it's simulating, but in both cases, the relevance of any such possibility is questionable given that science works. The scientific method works. It's literally the only way to gain knowledge about the world unless you actually are a deity or a singleton AI who can deduce all of reality from first principles—and even then, if I understand it correctly, Godel's incompleteness theorem suggests such a thing is simply impossible. Blue (is useful) 10:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Before" the big bang is meaningless: time didn't exist for there to be a "before" in. The universe's diameter is the observable universe's diameter. It presumably carries on beyond that in some form or other. The universe has no "edge". Scream!! (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many things that science doesn't know. But the fact that science has no answer to something, or even that science is wrong about something, does not mean that the answer is "magic". That's pure God of the gaps.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This thread doesn't seem much to do with NOMA. RationalTheist, if you are arguing that evidence for God could & might exist, but we haven't uncovered it because of own limitations, you are not arguing in favour of NOMA, since that would put God in the same magisterium as all other scientifically testable hypotheses. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. Good point Weaseloid.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of Order

I would just like to point out, in the context of NOMA, that no-one here has observed, and perhaps people are unaware, that the Mormon Church--that is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and /or any belief system descended from the teachings of Joseph Smith--has a very unique perspective on this, in a religious sense. The church does not teach that there is such a thing as scientific truth vs. religious truth. In the contexct of their scripture Doctrine & Covenants 118:18, they have a saying (easily searchable on their website) that "all truth may be circumscribed in one great whole." The idea being, that IF religious and scientific, or even religious and religious, knowledge appears contradictory, it is only because, in the words of their leader Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "What may seem contradictory now may be perfectly understandable as we [continue to] search for and [one day] receive more trustworthy information." I wonder how this compares to other religious or scientific leaders/thinkers of today, and what anyone else's thoughts are? 71.145.192.52 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So, If I understand it correctly, they claim that even when their religion is in conflict with science it isn't really because in the future science will be shown to be wrong. Have I got that right?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, Bob, you can also read what the Mormons are supposedly saying the other way around. Namely, that religion may change to match science instead of the other way around. Or how about this, what if one day by examining neural activity (through science) we eventually come to understand that religious statements are an expression of ways to deal with cluelessness and therefore just express the greater truth that one or more people were at one time clueless about something. That would be science and religion coming together to reveal one great whole truth, right? In other words, something about religion that seemed contradictory before now seems perfectly understandable, because science. Nullahnung (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But if they acknowledge that their teachings are contrary to science now and they feel that their religion should not be in conflict with science then they should change their teachings now.

The only real reason for not changing them is the hope that science may one day change. In practice they can perpetually remain in conflict with science as they can always maintain they are waiting for science to change.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, now that I read that quote again, it seems they're not acknowledging that their teachings teach differently to what science tells us. They're merely saying "They seem to contradict each other now, but maybe they actually don't! Given time I'm sure it will be revealed that the teachings from the two sides are not contradicting each other at all!" So yeah, merely acknowledgment that it seems to be contradictory, "seems" being the key word here. I'm not sure if that belongs in this article. Nullahnung (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - so for person X "This is a contradiction it needs to be addressed" for person Y "This seems to be a contradiction - but if we wait 200 years (or an infinite period of time) I might be right so I don't need to correct anything now or perhaps ever". I understand it, but doesn't it look like an obvious cop-out?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate header?

Given the article title 'An editor believes this article contains duplicate material.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)