Talk:Non-Overlapping Magisteria/Archive1
Few changes[edit]
Made a few changes to this - but I suspect it could be a fertile battle ground. --Bob_M (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
As far as I understand it, NOMA is, on both sides, a get out of jail free card.
For scientists it avoids upsetting colleagues and people whom they otherwise respect by telling them that their beliefs are an absolute load of ridiculous tripe.
For deists, theists, godbotherers or whatever they are called, it avoids having to justify their "faith" or untestable assertions against rational discourse.
The true definition of NOMA would be "A dishonest method of avoiding confrontation". 82.132.136.200 11:24, 18 February 2008 (EST)
What NOMA is, is saying: "I think this and you're not allowed to talk about it because you don't agree with me". It's a load of crap! (IMHO :) ) SusanG 13:26, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Tables[edit]
| NOMA | |
|---|---|
| Science | Religion |
| What | Who (God) |
| When | Why |
| How | |
| Where |
| GODDIDIT | |
|---|---|
| Science | Religion |
| What | Who |
| When | Why |
| Where | How |
Just stealing these from the discussion of Essay:My beliefs. They could probably do with some refinement before going into the article but I think this could do with an expansion. But if it's going into an article, we need to agree whether NOMA does get abused. ArmondikoVpathetic 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
- While Mr (?) T seems to be giving us a break on this, I'm afraid to say that I don't actually understand those tables. How are they supposed to be read? And however they are supposed to be read, shouldn't here be science non-NOMA as well?--Bobbing up 13:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
- It's an attempt to show what questions you can ask under the respective frameworks.
- Basically, under NOMA, there are two question off the table: Who (is not a question because everyone knows it's their god) and why. God killed everyone but Noah et al in the flood. You cannot be expected to understand the moral implications, reasons, rationalizations and what have you because we are mere mortals.
- In the 'goddidit' framework, you are not even supposed to make rational inquiries into how things are purported to have happened. There was flood water, it is now gone. Don't ask how because you cannot be expected to understand. Neveruse513 14:09, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
- But "goddidit" isn't a framework - it's just an expression applied pejoratively to some theistic schools of thought, or usually to theist interpretations of specific events. Trying to rationalise goddidit as a fixed set of principles is just setting up a pointless strawman. As these are, I don't find the tables very helpful at all. A table for NOMA might be useful if it had more information in it about what things are understood or explained by science & religion, rather than just "what", "how", etc. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
- But "goddidit" isn't a framework - it's just an expression applied pejoratively to some theistic schools of thought, or usually to theist interpretations of specific events. Trying to rationalise goddidit as a fixed set of principles is just setting up a pointless strawman. As these are, I don't find the tables very helpful at all. A table for NOMA might be useful if it had more information in it about what things are understood or explained by science & religion, rather than just "what", "how", etc. Щєазєюіδ
Tolerance!!![edit]
Moved to: essay talk page per Weaseloid's suggestion. 
and marmite 09:02, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
"Problems with ethics"[edit]
Scientific ethics are not part of science, nor are they scientific. Ethics does not belong to the proper domain of science. Science is subject to ethics (not inherently, but because the human beings who do it choose to be ethical), science provides data which can be used by ethics, but the basic principles of ethics are independent of science. (((Zack Martin)))™ 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Biblical literalist vs. Fundamentalist[edit]
I get the sense that people might gladly say they take the Bible as literal, but would not self-identify as fundies, and we should reflect that. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone self-identifies as fundamentalist. It seems to be a label applied to them, not by them. If you are fundamentalist, then you self-identify as "right".
gnostic 02:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fundimentalims, cap F is an actual religious movement, and some people do self identify as such. not sure how many of what we call "fundies" are Fundimentalists.--
GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Probably very few considering that "fundy" thrown around with such abandon. d hominem 23:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Probably very few considering that "fundy" thrown around with such abandon.
- Fundimentalims, cap F is an actual religious movement, and some people do self identify as such. not sure how many of what we call "fundies" are Fundimentalists.--
