NOMA
by MikeGeneTelic Thoughts member, Thought Provoker, made the following point in the comments section of my posting that shows science does not address the existence of God:
The artificial separation of religion and science may be something that just doesn't hold up any longer. However, I am also a little concerned that this might not be a good thing. But facing the hard questions is what it critical thinking takes.
Mike, what do you think? Can you defend the practice of NOMA based on reason and logic? Something beyond saying this is what we, and scientists, have always done?
But what is NOMA?
Thought Provoker provides the following description from Wikipedia:
In his book Rocks of Ages, Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion."[38] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[39] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
Let me first say that I have never had reason to give NOMA much thought. As I ponder and explore ID, I understand that an ID investigation does not a) depend on assuming God nor b) mandate a conclusion of God. That alone is sufficient to meet the demands of NOMA. What’s more, I have always been upfront in acknowledging that ID is not science.
However, these positions are not an attempt to satisfy the demands of NOMA. It is the logic of the design inference that teaches God is neither necessarily assumed or concluded in an ID investigation. And I do not think ID is science because it is not addressed in the scientific literature (the same reason the New Atheists are all wet trying to shroud their metaphysics in the White Lab Coat).
Yet, even as an amateur, can I defend the practice of NOMA based on reason and logic? It would seem easy. Is science the source of moral value? Does science prescribe a moral system? Does science study ultimate meaning? Does science teach us about values?
Let's thus start with these.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:51 am |
Mike wrote:
Mike,
All you've done is to name some things outside of science's purview. For NOMA to fly, you have to show a complete non-overlap between the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.
It's trivial to see that in practice, there is a large overlap between the two magisteria. To cite my favorite example, Young-Earth Creationism tramples all over the magisterium of science.
When YECers claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that the Grand Canyon was formed by a single, 40-day flood, conflict with science is absolutely unavoidable.
NOMA was Gould's utopian vision, not a description of present realities.
Comment by keiths — May 4, 2007 @ 8:51 am
May 4th, 2007 at 9:04 am |
Hi Keith,
Which is sufficient, as it demonstrates science as a limited mode of inquiry. Thus, we humans must invoke other modes as we go through life. I do agree that NOMA was "Gould's utopian vision, not a description of present realities." In fact, all that lofty "magisterium" talk is probably more confusing than it is worth (I brought it up because TP wanted me to).
Better than NOMA is the simple realization that science comes with many limitations. In fact, one could argue that the strength of science is inversely related to its limitations. If you tear down the limitations, you weaken the science.
I have to run off to work, so I’ll check in this evening/night.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2007 @ 9:04 am
May 4th, 2007 at 9:50 am |
then:
Keiths, you're confusing me with your request.
Comment by Doug — May 4, 2007 @ 9:50 am
May 4th, 2007 at 10:01 am |
Comment by neddy — May 4, 2007 @ 10:01 am
May 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am |
Doug,
NOMA holds that everything in religion's scope is outside of science's scope, and vice-versa. If you drew it as a Venn diagram you'd have two separate circles that don't touch or overlap.
If, contrary to NOMA, they do overlap, as I maintain, then some things within religion's scope will fall within science's scope, and others will not. Similarly, some things within science's scope will fall within religion's scope, and others will not. This can be illustrated as two intersecting circles.
My point to Mike was that his examples simply show that there are some things outside of science's scope. But that is compatible with both alternatives above, and it therefore does not provide logical support for NOMA, contrary to his claim.
Comment by keiths — May 4, 2007 @ 10:06 am
May 4th, 2007 at 10:24 am |
Is there yet a definition of either the word 'science' or the word 'religion' which is neither arbitrary nor question-begging? I contend that both "NOMA" and statements like 'ID is/is not science' mistake sloppy labels we use for practical reasons for well-defined terms.
As far as I can tell, the American definition of 'science' is 'That which children have no right not to learn in public schools' and 'religion' is 'That which children have no right to learn in public schools'; that is, both are purely political labels.
Comment by BenK — May 4, 2007 @ 10:24 am
May 4th, 2007 at 10:31 am |
Hi MikeGene,
Exactly right, Mike. Scientists measurably add to our understanding of the universe because it is a discipline which demands repeatable observations. Even string theory has to make predictions which are at least potentially testable in supercolliders or observations of the cosmos, and is only tenable because there is a mathematical basis for it; strings aren't hypothesized to exist for no good reason.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 4, 2007 @ 10:31 am
May 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am |
Hi Mike,
I appreciate this NOMA thread and am impressed with your honest and balanced opening post. I am proud of you.
I will try to return the favor.
First of all, it matters little what Gould thinks NOMA is, even if he coined the term. There is a concept here that isn't new and certainly wasn't invented by Gould. I think it will be helpful for us to understand each other if we explain our different understandings of this "NOMA" concept.
I have some deeply held "faiths" that can be illustrated by two statements…
I believe the sun will rise from the East tomorrow morning.
I believe there has been no philosopher wiser than Socrates and there never will be.
This is a cute way of trying to explain my firm expectation that the universe is empirically consistent and predictable. However, there is also the opposing concept that no one knows the Ultimate Truth. Therefore, for practical purposes, there is no absolute right or wrong answers.
I do not know for certain how others deal with the disconnect of these opposing views, but I suspect this is a prime motivator for religious thought. A belief in God quiets the cognitive dissonances that would result from constantly being unsure of what reality is.
I also suspect this has a lot to do with the general habit of respecting other people’s beliefs by separating religion from day-to-day realities. This habit has been codified into things like the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. Like I said, Gould’s NOMA concept isn’t new.
Hopefully, what I have said so far isn’t too controversial although I won’t be surprised if some people think I have overly trivialized the reason for believing in God.
This is where I am coming from. I suspect other Atheists have similar philosophies. By “Atheist”, I mean someone who does not expect God to be revealed as an empirical reality. With the dual thought process of NOMA, I also think God is just as real as many other philosophical truths. Removing NOMA makes for an interesting challenge. One I am willing to undertake.
I suggest that people of faith inherently believe they “know” some kind Ultimate Truth and have some expectation that God can be revealed empirically. Depending on the particular religion, the empirical revelation has already occurred, is occurring and/or will occur in the future.
This is why I have been pushing the OMA/NOMA issue. Arguing that a belief in God/Creator/Ultimate Observer/Intelligent Designer might provide the “best explanation” for some scientific phenomena while simultaneously preventing a critical analysis of the initial belief is an argument that will continue to go in circles.
Many ID proponents make an implide request setting aside our faith with references to “materialism” and other things. I am willing to set aside my faiths in an exploration for a mutual, OMA truth. I am, respectfully, asking for a quid pro quo so we can discuss the possibility of a mutual, OMA truth rather than just something that might support religious faith protected by an artificial NOMA wall.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: I am dispensing with the TT disclaimer for the duration of this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 11:02 am
May 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am |
BenK:
Sure; I'll give it a shot. Go ahead and poke holes in this; it's why I'm posting it here.
Religion uses authority, tradition and revelation to make claims about the nonmaterial world as well as (optionally) the material world. It also prescribes rules for behavior.
Science is a method of using reason and experiment to describe the material world, and also the body of knowledge derived from the method's use.
Given current science standards, I'd say that the first half is wishful thinking, and the second half is just weird–are you saying that children are prohibited from learning about religion? I was under the impression that schools, as agents of the state, are prohibited from acting as advocates in religious matters, but what does it even mean to say that one "learns religion"?
Comment by grendelkhan — May 4, 2007 @ 11:28 am
May 4th, 2007 at 11:36 am |
Why does the religious magisterium has any authority whatsoever on the matters on which it claims to? (I'd also ask what the boundaries of this magisterium are, in any case.) I'm looking for reasons other than authority (he's the Pope, darn it!), tradition (this has always been their sphere of influence) or revelation (I believe it, so there).
The science magisterium draws its authority to make statements describing the material world based on its usefulness in doing just that; science gets its respect from the fact that it works–so much respect, in fact, that we get people dressing things that aren't science in science-like hats, to get some of the cachet that comes from having mighty descriptive powers; this is pseudoscience.
So, for instance, when someone draws conclusions about prescriptive action (from "pass the Kyoto treaty" to "create a needle exchange program") from scientific results (respectively, "global warming will fry us all" and "needle exchange programs save lives"), that in and of itself isn't science, but it makes use of science… if that makes any sense. It doesn't make sense to say that a course of action is dictated by science; science informs, rather than dictates, our actions.
Comment by grendelkhan — May 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am
May 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am |
Hi MikeGene and Aagcobb,
MikeGene wrote…
Aagcobb wrote…
First, I will admit to a whole lot of practical problems with actually trying to eliminate NOMA, starting with the constitution of the United States. What I am suggesting is a little more modest than that. I suggest we temporarily suspend NOMA just for our academic discussions in Telic Thoughts.
Yes, one of the first issues is that without limitations science becomes meaningless. Hopefully, we can all agree that in our search for a mutual, OMA truth we can borrow the good things from science. Like the idea there needs to be a rational basis for a hypothesis beyond a desire or faith.
I would also suggest an extra special limitation on consideration of things outside of the empirical realm, that is, it be kept to an absolute minimum. While we allow consideration that a scientific observation might demand a non-empirical explanation, such explanation shall be limited to the minimum required to meet the demand and no more.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 11:40 am
May 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am |
Hi Grendelkhan,
Excuse me if I get a little possessive of this thread. We can all spin off into arguments of which side is engaging in "wishful thinking". And while I might even agree with some of the things you said, I think the first point is to communicate our different "NOMA" concepts and, maybe, get around to whether this helps or hinders discussions.
I think you are providing good examples of why NOMA hinders discussion. Now, would you be willing to forgo NOMA and agree to consider the mutual, OMA truth even if it might include something you would think of as religious?
For example, would you consider the possibility that an Ultimate Observer is required for the existence of the universe?
The alternative is to hide behind the NOMA wall and say things like that are outside the scope of scientific study.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: I am dispensing with the TT disclaimer for the duration of this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 11:51 am
May 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm |
Thought Provoker: You're right; I got off topic on the last part of that.
As for your "Ultimate Observer" question: would the presence or absence of such a nonmaterial entity affect the material world? If it does, it's pokes into the domain of science. If it doesn't, it's not. (I don't know by what reason religion claims its magisterium, but I assume it would claim this question.)
I don't think it's fair to characterize a response of "science is silent on this subject" as "hid[ing] behind the NOMA wall", especially since we're just seen a number of threads where MikeGene accuses scientists of overreaching and grabbing at things outside of their magisterium. Given my previous definition of science (up for revision!), some things are outside the scope of science, and it's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Comment by grendelkhan — May 4, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pm |
Hi Grendelkhan,
You wrote…
LOL
Are you uncomfortable finding yourself agreeing with MikeGene?
I can't dictate both sides give up their NOMA security blankets. In the end, I might have to be satisfied with only pointing out both sides are hanging on them and aren't ready to them give up yet.
You asked…
In the search for a single, mutual OMA truth, what would it matter?
Your question reveals a desire to hold on to that secure feeling NOMA provides. If it can't be empirically detected, we can just ignore it. However, there are quite a few people who feel something like an Ultimate Observe is a requirement. ID science is fundamentally about trying to find empirical evidence for such a requirement. Do you feel that tug on your NOMA security blanket, yet?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm |
Any limitation, either expressed or implied, on the “magestria” of science is unacceptable. The scientific community should quite emphatically and in no uncertain terms express its rejection of all such “NOMA” arguments. All questions are open to scientific investigation and no answers are a priori excluded on any scientific grounds.
It is simply a recognition of reality, of a matter of fact. These NOMA arguments have been repeated for at least 2500 years and the scientific community generally (and many prominent scientists, such as Galileo, Newton,… Darwin) rejects them. As it must, because such arguments don’t just attempt to establish artificial barriers to science, they draw into question the very integrity of science. If science is to have any integrity at all (any consistency) than it must unflinchingly address any and all questions (and answers) that occur.
And after all, if the scientific community did accept the NOMA argument what the hell would you Telic-Thinkers have to argue over? LOL Where to set the boundaries of course! As Mike Gene says, “Which is sufficient, as it demonstrates science as a limited mode of inquiry.” Uh uh. Ain’t buying that “limited mode of inquiry” boundary. Science knows no other limits than the limits of human inquisitiveness and ingenuity. Care to further define those boundaries, Mike Gene?
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm |
Hi Rock,
You asked…
Once again, please excuse my rudeness in being overly active with this thread, but frankly I am excited with how well this discussion is going (and I happen to be off work today).
I am sure Mike will correct me if I mis-speak, but Mike makes a valid point when he says "Better than NOMA is the simple realization that science comes with many limitations. In fact, one could argue that the strength of science is inversely related to its limitations. If you tear down the limitations, you weaken the science."
Rock, so even though we mostly agree, there still needs to be limitations placed on scientific inquiry. A logical consistency requirement would be an easy limitation to name. Also, I suspect you would agree that the "limits of human inquisitiveness and ingenuity" of creation scientists could be pretty far reaching if left totally unconstrained. Under OMA, everything becomes a double-edged sword.
Provoking Thought
P.S. Maybe I will go do some dishes to give this a rest for a couple of minutes.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm |
NOMA is, as far as I can tell, a self-refuting statement. Is NOMA a statement of science or religion or neither? If it is a statement of either science or religion, then the principle of NOMA is already violated in the very definition of NOMA. If it is neither a statement of religion or science, then what magesterium does NOMA itself fall under and why does that magesterium get to dictate to both science and religion where the boundaries are?
NOMA doesn't work any way you want to look at it.
Comment by DonaldM — May 4, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm |
Thought Provoker:
No more than I was when I found myself agreeing with him that ID isn't science.
What exactly do you want to happen when this "security blanket" you're ranting about goes away? Science isn't withheld from questions outside its magisterium by some fear that they're going to fall down and all start proclaiming the divinity of Jesus; science is withheld from questions outside its magisterium by the fact that it's useless there.
You have yet to describe what you want to accomplish with all this, what you expect science to do once it throws off the bonds of its magisterium, and you've yet to provide a reason why religion deserves its own sphere of influence in the first place.
Comment by grendelkhan — May 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm |
Rock:
That all sounds quite nice, but as I've pointed out, science is a tool used for certain things. As in Gould's original example, you can't use it to find beauty, or other subjective things. (I suppose you could use it to describe what people describe as beautiful, which is kind of close.) You certainly can't use it to set policy; you can only use it to inform policy. Science must remain mute on questions such as "should we raise the minimum wage", or "should we send rockets to Mars"; it can only describe reasons to do or not to do these things.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the religious asking science to step off their toes when the religious have made the mistake of talking about the material world, but to say that science is the answer to everything is both wrong and irrelevant to the discussion.
Comment by grendelkhan — May 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pm |
Hi DonaldM,
Welcome to my side of an argument. The OMA/NOMA issue makes strange bedfellows doesn't it? IMO, you make a good argument against NOMA. If forced, I would have to say the definition of NOMA is philosophical.
So, at best, NOMA is a philosophical argument that can't be an "appropriate [tool] for meaningful discourse and resolution" of science or we have overlapping magesteria.
An interesting paradox…
I like it.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
To me the first thing to ask is what is purpose of the demarcation? And who is proposing it? From most indications the purpose is to stake out some territory to be defended against intruders or to claim some epistemic high ground. But why? Is the concern that if the endeavor we loosely call science entertains, addresses, and explores religious questions it will be tainted and thus lose its lofty status? If so it does not deserve an honored place at the table of human inquiry. Surely philosophy of science has shown that there is no formal criterion for a demarcation of the terms "science" and "non-science". I can see no reason for trying to maintain a NOMA stance other than for political, worldview, or ego sensibilities.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 4, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm |
Thought Provoker Says: Rock, so even though we mostly agree, there still needs to be limitations placed on scientific inquiry.
No, I think we mostly disagree. Indeed, there is an absolutely fundamental difference of opinion between us—because it seems to me that you are asking me to accept some “needful” limitations to be imposed upon the human mind! I think exactly the opposite is needful. I feel no need to limit scientific inquiry. I think we need to continue to broaden science and allow it to develop quite naturally without limits imposed upon it.
grendelkhan Says: That all sounds quite nice, but as I've pointed out, science is a tool used for certain things. As in Gould's original example, you can't use it to find beauty, or other subjective things.
“Science is a tool.” I’ve said so myself. It is, of course, more than just a tool. It’s part of our nature. I would never “use” science to find beauty, as it never seemed to be a problem for me. Even when I’m not looking for it, beauty finds me! LOL Nor do I accept the idea that beauty is a “subjective thing,” because scientists asking questions about beauty have found, you may be interested to learn, that there are some nearly-universally shared (amongst humans) and unconscious evaluations of what is/not beautiful. How does that fit into the whole “subjective thing” thing? Even the “subjective” experiences of humans are objectifiable upon scientific investigation. Modern neuroscience is largely predicated on the rejection of that whole false “subjective/objective” dichotomy, which is itself a version of NOMA. I hate to break it to ya, but all those spooky “subjective” experiences, like the experience of beauty, you thought were having and that are immune to scientific investigation?—scientists are investigating them. Exactly because, even though it took some time, scientists rejected the very idea that there were certain questions they couldn’t (or shouldn’t) ask.
“You certainly can't use it to set policy; you can only use it to inform policy. Science must remain mute on questions such as "should we raise the minimum wage", or "should we send rockets to Mars"; it can only describe reasons to do or not to do these things.”
Sorry, but I certainly can do exactly what you said I can’t and for exactly the reason you stated—science can “describe reasons to do or not to do these things.” I think more policy should be informed with reasons from science for doing this or that.
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pm |
TP
And so the big question is from which philosophy does NOMA stem? I've asked this question several times over past few years in different forums, and so far no one can tell me, which says a lot right there. Some have gone the route of saying something like "its just common sense" or close to that. But going that route just makes NOMA a brute fact of the way things are. Somehow I don't see NOMA fitting into the first principles of reasoning either.
The real issue with NOMA, as far as I can tell, is that it is an attempt by philosophical naturalists to tell theists where the boundaries are and not the other way round, which not only violates the core principle of NOMA, but places science above religion (or anything else, for that matter). I really think that was one of the main motivations for Gould in developing the concept in the first place. (but that's another subject and debate, I suppose!)
Comment by DonaldM — May 4, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm |
Hi Grendelkhan,
You wrote…
You make good points. And I don't want to belittle Gould's NOMA argument too much, because it is obvious Gould wasn't stupid.
As to what I want to accomplish…
My first goal of this discussion is to help people think about what arguments are being made and why.
I have noticed a great deal of energy is expended in people arguing past each other in the Culture War. Most of time, miscommunications result from a misunderstanding of various NOMA positions.
An example of this is when an ID proponent complains that ID critics unjustly conflate terms "Intelligent Designer" and "God". To some, the NOMA wall is porous with the Intelligent Designer on the religious side manipulating things on the material side.
In a separate comment you wrote…
But the Intelligent Designer might not be in "the material world". NOMA protects them from that line a inquiry. As to the "answer to everything", science is careening towards answering the origin of life, universe and, well, everything with maybe the exception of beauty and morality. IMO even ethics is subject to scientific study but, I differentiate between ethics and morality (a NOMA habit I have acquired).
A second goal I wish to accomplish is to actually have a conversation and develop a mutually acceptable OMA model that explains ID “observations”. My hope and expectation is that it would be something more substantial than GodDidIt.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
Hi Rock,
I wrote…"Rock, so even though we mostly agree, there still needs to be limitations placed on scientific inquiry. A logical consistency requirement would be an easy limitation to name."
You quoted the first statement without the followup one and then said…
My original wording may have been sloppy. The "limitation" I was suggesting is that arguments need to be logical and consistent. Without these basics, we might as well all believe in a God that transcends logic or a Universe that totally recreates itself (with complete memories) minute by minute.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 4:00 pm |
Hi Steve Petermann and DonaldM,
Thank you for your comments. There isn't much to add to what you said with the following exception.
To me, Gould's definitions all but demand the combination of religion and philosophies into a single magisterium that is separate from science. So, yes, this would mean the philosophy of science isn't science.
I didn't see it as a problem as long as no one was making claims of a single, OMA Truth.
However, it is becoming difficult for me to continue pretending the obvious isn't so. People on both sides are making OMA claims even if they are pretending not to.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
Sam harris would have us believe that religion and science are seperate because religion is irrational and dogmatic, and science is always rational and nondogmatic. though im still waiting to find out why anything irrational and dogmatic is bad, and why science views itself, either as a traditional authority, or as a method, to always be rational, or why it views itself, with its question asking, as nondogmatic. if anyone could provide me an answer, youd be doing me a great service.
perhaps science will say "its reality that is dogmatic, and we are just following reality", whatever the hell that means in our media and propaganda filled world. here, though i hate the postmoderns, i will find myself agreeing, we are in a point of history, where everything is socially produced, and the reality that science goes after is merely a simulacrum, and a dogmatic one at that.
sam harris also believes, as far as i can tell, that all is science, so religion must answer to science and its nondogmatic rationality, but science must never answer to religion's call for irrationality and dogma.
Comment by dantedanti — May 4, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm |
Thought Provoker, “logical” consistency is hardly a limitation upon science. But that depends upon what you mean by logical consistency. If by logical consistency you mean consistency with some a priori humanly devised system of logic that is also just another version of NOMA. There is a certain “logic” to the facts as they are ascertainable by us and that is all that is required of science—that it be consistent with the facts. But that’s not truly a limitation of science. Self-consistency is not exactly a limitation upon science as much as it is one of science’s greatest discoveries. The universe has a logic of its own, which is not our “logic,” but is discoverable by us. The universe that we investigate is consistent with itself. Therefore we should expect that our scientific understanding of it reflects that consistency. The recognition of the fact is in itself a landmark in human cognitive development, in the development of a consistently rational and scientific perspective.
And it is not the failure of irrational and unscientific perspectives that they are neither self-consistent, nor even inconsistent with empirically determinable facts (!). Because those aren’t even standards that they recognize! (Of course they don’t, because otherwise they wouldn’t be “irrational” and “unscientific”!) From these perspectives inconsistency is exactly what is expected and therefore, exactly what they see! The universe is not a self-consistent whole from this perspective (so it is not virtue from this perspective either), but is filled with all sorts of “miraculous” inconsistencies.
That is really what these NOMA arguments are about, aren’t they? For whatever reason some people want to preserve a place, privileged from scientific inquiry, where they can freely indulge their irrational and unscientific “inclinations.” Wonderful! Knock yourself out! But don’t think I’m not going to scientifically investigate you while you’re doing exactly that. I’ll try to be unobtrusive. Hide behind a duck blind while I observe you strange ducks. Because I find this kind of human thought and behavior scientifically fascinating.
Science didn’t open human minds, just to disabuse the New Atheists and all their post-Enlightenment fellow-travelers. We are born with open minds. It takes some effort to close them. And to me that is what all you pro-NOMA people are arguing for—the closing of minds.
Sorry for being repetitive, but I get a bit passionate about limits being placed upon inquiry. I'm not a big believer in the slavatory powers of science, which is just to say I'm a bit skeptical of our ability to save ourselves. But we ain't helping ourselves by suggesting (or accepting) such limits. We are only limiting what we can do for ourselves.
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 4:56 pm |
LOL I think that should be "salvatory." Could be "slavatory"? Depends on one's perspective I suppose. LOL
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
what would an "open mind" look like? ive only met a few, and they could hardly function, and were hardly scientific.
inquiry itself is a form of limit, because it is limited by anything labeled as noninquiry.
Comment by dantedanti — May 4, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 6:03 pm |
Hi Rock,
That doesn’t matter. Science is not limited as a function of people artificially putting limits on it. It is inherently limited by its own methodology and, more importantly, its dependence on the human brain. There are countless questions that science can never truly answer (unless we are to count opinions and guesses as answers)
Which is quite a significant limitation! Science is something humans do and since we can’t do science without scientists, it is limited by its human-ness.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 7:01 pm |
Hi Dantedanti,
You wrote….
For those who aren't sure of the word "simulacrum" here is a dictionary link but I think the Wikipedia link is more on target to what was meant.
I was wondering if anyone was going to question the implied rational or reality-based criteria at the foundation of this thread. It looks like you hit them both. Congratulations and thanks (Although Rock was already hinting at the rationality question).
As you are no doubt aware, I can't present a rational argument for rationality without presuming my conclusion to make the argument. All I can do is hope you will agree to a stipulation of the ground rules for any mutual discussion.
The same goes for the limited and "dogmatic" presumption of reality-based thinking. If we can't agree, we are forced back to NOMA. Once again, proving the Oracle of Delphi was right and no one is wiser than Socrates.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 7:04 pm |
Steve Peterman,
Completely agreed. There is no consistent demarcation between 'science' and 'non-science'. In practice, the value of the term is a political one: label something 'science' and it is afforded a certain amount of prestige and is much more likely to receive funding. Similarly, there is no consistent demarcation between 'religion' and 'non-religion'; the value of that term is that if it can be successfully applied to a body of thought, those ideas can be excluded from the public sphere (at least in America) on constitutional grounds. Fundamentally both terms are about power, not truth.
To be clear here, I'm not arguing that science itself isn't about truth, but that kerfuffle over the application of the label "science" isn't about truth, but power.
Comment by BenK — May 4, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 7:22 pm |
Mike Gene has a job!
What do you mean it doesn’t matter? As you say, “Science is not limited as a function of people artificially putting limits on it.”
So we agree? LOL It matters to both of us.
Science is not limited by any "NOMA" arguments.
I asked if you know what are those limits?
You did not answer my question.
Answer my question. Don’t tell me there is a “significant limitation” on human inquiry w/o telling what is that limit?
And do so w/o making an argument that requires me to accept NOMA.
I see no such limit!
That's science (until someone disabuses me of the notion): unlimited inquiry.
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 7:41 pm |
Hi Rock,
You wrote…
You and I might call it "one of science’s greatest discoveries" but others call it dogmatic faith in Physicalism or, more commonly, Materialism.
LOL
This is great. I have to admit it is an honest argument for keeping the NOMA wall intact. Although I doubt it will help promote open discussions with the inmates you wish to isolate and insolate.
Of course, I take exception to this. I want to open a dialog to see if there is anything of scientific value in the "other" magisterium. While I have a high opinion of my ability to think for myself, I am open to off-the-wall ideas. Is there an argument to be made for irrationality in physics similar to the one Hippasus made for the Pythagoreans' "rational" mathematics.
There is also the practical aspect of this. Regardless of what you may think, there are very intelligent people in the "other" magisterium and they see the writing on the wall. I suggest there will be a clash, the NOMA wall will come down. We can start easing the transition.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 4, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 8:44 pm |
Hi Rock,
You wrote:
Let’s start with something simple. What was I doing last night at 9 PM EST? I am part of physical reality and what I was doing last night was likewise part of physical reality. I could tell you, but that’s not science. You could ask around and trust what others say, but that is not science. Instead, use the Full Might of Science to describe what I was doing. My Hypothesis of Limitations predicts science will fail you.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
It is not apparent to me that you yet acknowledge the reality that some who draw the ID inference defend the position that the intelligence is natural. Yet that is a fact, even though it contradicts your claim that "ID science is fundamentally about trying to find empirical evidence for [an Ultimate Observer]." For example, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were doing this at least a decade before The Mystery of Life's Origin came out in 1983.
In the God and Science thread I asked you about the fact that a proposition A that is compatible with two others, B and C, cannot be used to distinguish between them. A is true, then what? Either B or C could still be true.
The ID inference itself would be satisfied by a natural intelligence as well as a supernatural intelligence. Consequently, there is no "Hobson choice for ID". The choice of ID is to discern when and where an inference to an intelligent cause is the better inference based on evidence available to science.
Since that inference is potentially satisfied by a natural intelligence, it follows that acceptance of the ID inference cannot compel one position or another with regard to religion or NOMA.
As individuals we can and do go beyond the ID inference (and beyond science itself) to other considerations. For some like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, those other considerations favor a natural intelligence. Others may find that independent considerations point toward a supernatural interpretation. The ID inference itself is predictably and inherently neutral on considerations outside the scope of the inference.
Whether I accept or reject NOMA, the ID inference doesn't "mix philosophical concepts with scientific ones" in any sense that necessarily violates NOMA.
If you think otherwise, please explain clearly how inference to an intelligence that could be natural would still necessarily violate NOMA.
Note also that the development of the ID inference includes cases where the intelligence is fully expected not to be supernatural. The consistent scientific issue is this: When and how is science justified in scientifically inferring intelligent agency as the best explanation, as contrasted with unguided natural processes?
How does answering this question that I have just given require either accepting or rejecting NOMA?
Comment by eric — May 4, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 10:53 pm |
dantedanti said,
Dogmatic is an important concept which has become so distorted in popular speech that, at present, it means hardly anything different from 'bad'. But we are constantly appealing to the concept of dogma, whether we realize it or not. How do we know that someone is a conservative, for example? We can generally agree that there are views which, if held by a person, would rule him out as being a conservative, and other views which seem to be necessary before we can apply the label 'conservative' to a person. Those would be dogmas. Dogmatic philosophy begins with some presuppositions and continues with that. There is nothing irrational in this, per se.
Where you do find irrationality, and lots of it, is in so-called non-dogmatic philosophy, such as Hume's, and that of other sceptics, such as Pyrrho, who was basically an irrational fool, albeit a non-dogmatic one.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 4, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 10:58 pm |
When I read these, I couldn't help wondering how keithS feels about agreeing with Phillip Johnson about also rejecting NOMA!
Gee, do we have any actual defenders of standard NOMA, per se, here?
Comment by eric — May 4, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 10:58 pm |
Are you kidding me, Mike Gene? Because I don’t know what you were doing at 9PM EST therefore NOMA?
NOMA must be accepted because scientists don't know what color pajamas Mike Gene wears.
(I'm not a pajama person myself.)
I don't know why that didn't occur to me before!
Sorry, but I already stated (suggested) a non-NOMA hypothesis about about the limitations–those limitations are given quite naturally to science, and don't, naturally, include any limitations about questions about religion.
What difference does it make to you or anyone else if I ask such questions and attempt to answer them scientifically?
Could it be that the answers I find?
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 12:37 am |
rock:
your idea of science as unlimited inquiry is impossible, for not only will you grow old (and dogmatic, as it seems many of the crotchy old people i know are), and maybe stop inquirying, or, heaven forbid, you are to die, and then your inquiry becomes very limited indeed. dont give me any shit about science after you….that is faith in all its etymological sense. science is limited, and cannot account for everything.
Thought Provoker:
my previous post is one that has concerned me for some time, and as far as i can tell i really cant get a straight answer from anyone. this has lead me to email harris himself to see if i can get any sort of answer from him. i believe, however that at this point in history, after postmodernism, we no longer have the luxury of anything but noma: our own respective communities in which we choose to belong to and submit to. personally i find that most people accept evolution because of the authority of science in western culture (cool, you mean i get an ipod! hurray science and unlimited inquiry!) and reject religion because it places moral demands on them. "its all relative until it comes to science, which is objective" or at least this seems to be what i come across a lot. this of course is a gross oversimplifcation. honestly, at this point in my life, im taking a breather from unlimited inquiry. we all will take a breather one day, even if it means we are not breathing. im rambeling.
i find it odd that at a blog like this, some people may not be familiar with the term simulcrum. as a scholar of literature and philosophy, i just in shock sometimes….such an important term in from the postmodern scene. though, this speaks nothing against you guys, as many times when i read mike gene's posts, i seriously have no idea what hes talking about because the science is just very above me.
Comment by dantedanti — May 5, 2007 @ 12:37 am
May 5th, 2007 at 12:39 am |
Hi Rock,
You ask:
I said nothing about “therefore NOMA” or “NOMA must be accepted.” I simply said that science is a limited mode of inquiry. You can ask what I was doing, and use all the science in the world to inquire if you want. Science will fail you.
As for religion, you can ask and use science to attempt to answer any question you want (just make sure it is science and not philosophy that sounds and looks like science). We just need to remember that you’d be using a mode of inquiry that cannot even tell you what I was doing last night. What’s more, in a few days, I will probably forget and even I will not be able to answer that question. A teeny tiny piece of reality forever lost in the myriad cracks of reality.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 12:39 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:00 am |
Hi Eric,
You wrote…
You mean like me with my ID proposal? link
Then, as individuals, you are rejecting NOMA as I define it. Time to play fill-in-the-blank.
NOMA means that the scientific toolset _____________ be used for meaningful discourse and resolution of philosophical subjects.
Possible answers.
a.) can not
b.) should not
c.) may or may not
You asked…
Gee, are you a defender of standard NOMA or not?
Maybe it is time for some bluntness. Here is the deal; I am willing to consider discussing a single, mutual OMA truth if you are. I am also willing to bow to NOMA and leave you with your truth and me with mine.
Choose
You and I have already started a discussion of a possible mutual, OMA proposal. Do you recall what happened? You immediately started pushing for the source of life to come from outside the empirical realm. Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways. Either you agree to drop NOMA or you don’t.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:00 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:01 am |
Hi Eric,
You wrote:
Nicely stated. What's funny is that while ID has nothing to do with NOMA, NOMA has been used by numerous people to oppose ID. Yet when Dawkins and the New Atheists argue that science can address (and incorporate) supernatural causes, NOMA ceases to be important and its previously vocal defenders are missing.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 1:01 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:06 am |
Hi TP,
You write, “I am willing to consider discussing a single, mutual OMA truth if you are.” Is “a single, mutual OMA truth” the same as The Truth? Are we talking certainty?
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 1:06 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:14 am |
Hi Dantedanti,
You wrote…
I am really glad you took the time to comment. I think you and I could have some fun arguing philosophy. Even so, I would be afraid you would get the best of me and I don't scare easily.
That being said, if you want to e-mail me at dfcord at hotmail.com I would enjoy chatting with you. If you would like to start a thread, I will take your e-mail and post it on my personal blog at link.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:14 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:19 am |
oma truth: accounting for stimuli.
Comment by dantedanti — May 5, 2007 @ 1:19 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:33 am |
DonaldM said,
Gould and others point to a picture on a wall and say 'that is what NOMA is'. But in reality NOMA refers to this phenomenon: someone who claims to be a scientist can form a polemic supposedly drawn from 'Science', which puts forth conclusions like 'there is no free will', 'there is no God', etc. NOMA gives him the right to immunity from criticism or challenges by theologians etc. We see this operating in debates about life issues. In some instances, someone who is a Catholic is immediately disqualified with an appeal to NOMA. This is how NOMA actually works, as opposed to the picture Gould and others point to.
The issue of NOMA came up in the 13th century. Back in those days, philosophy and speculative science enjoyed the prestige and authority that physical science enjoys today. A statement like 'philosophers say there is but one soul' would draw approving nods in medieval taverns and watering-holes, in the same way that 'scientists say there is no mind' would today.
Aquinas's opinion was that philosophers and scientists can basically do what they want as long as they don't make inferences unwarranted by evidence or reason. When they do, they should expect opposition from theologians (and everyone else with a brain, including other scientists). Scientists enjoy no particular immunity from the criticism of non-scientists. Therefore it seems safe to say that Aquinas would have considered NOMA to be absurd.
Aquinas was a humble sort of fellow who was known to be charitable toward his opponents - as Chesterton points out, "the very dullness" of Aquinas's diction "is convincing" in this regard. But Aquinas did reserve one major flame-fest, and that was toward the theory that there are two non-overlapping spheres of truth. I.e, the notion that "through reason I conclude" that some philosophical-scientific proposition is true, "but I firmly hold the opposite by faith." NOMA implies this, because if it did not, there would be no need for NOMA. Nobody, for example, speaks of non-overlapping magisteria between, say, bricklaying and gardening, or between astronomy and bread-baking.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 5, 2007 @ 1:33 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am |
Hi Mike,
I wrote…"I am willing to consider discussing a single, mutual OMA truth if you are. I am also willing to bow to NOMA and leave you with your truth and me with mine. Choose"
You asked…
We are talking about having an academic discussion on a level playing field where the boundaries and obstacles are identified in advance.
I doubt that even if we got everyone in Telic Thoughts to agree to a mutual OMA proposal it would raise to the level of "certainty". It would still be amazing if this blog could accomplish it.
I think we can all learn a lot in the attempt. Therefore, I pushing for the attempt.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:36 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:41 am |
Hi Dantedanti,
You wrote…
Exactly!
Thank you once again. The mutual, OMA Truth I am proposing is one that accounts for all the "observations" (stimuli) from multiple sides of the question.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:41 am
May 5th, 2007 at 2:52 am |
Hi All,
It looks like people are taking a breather (or going to bed) so I will try to push this to the next level. As much as everyone (including me) hates to be labeled, I think it might help highlight some things. For example,
Dawkins = OMA-Atheist
And for the sake of politeness, I will go first and label myself as…
Thought Provoker = OMA-Atheist
Did anyone notice I defined "Atheist" as "someone who does not expect God to be revealed as an empirical reality"? By this definition, Ken Miller could be considered an Atheist. NOMA makes two partitions that allows for two semi-independent religious status points. Therefore, NOMA needs a double religious status indicator.
Ken Miller = NOMA-Atheist/Religious
Generally, religious ID proponents believe there probably is empirical evidence supporting their religious opinions. Therefore…
Stunney = NOMA-Religious/Religious
I am being a little provocative here since Stunney hasn't chosen to contribute to this thread, but I am sure he (she?) won't hesitate to let me know if there is an objection to this label. Like I said, no one likes being tied down with labels, including myself. I would rather think of myself as NOMA-Atheist/Agnostic but for simplification I will stick with OMA-Atheist.
Here are my guesses so far…
MikeGene = NOMA-?/?
)
Thought Provoker = OMA-Atheist
Stunney = NOMA-Religious/Religious
Keiths = OMA-Atheist
Doug = NOMA-Religious/Religious
Neddy = OMA-?
BenK = OMA-?
Aagcobb = ? (not sure if comment was sarcasm or not)
grendelkhan = NOMA-Atheist/Atheist
Steve Petermann = OMA - ?
Rock = OMA-Atheist
Eric = ?
Dantedanti = ?
Joy = ? (I REALLY would like to know
Krauze = ?
Bradford = ?
Bilbo = ?
Macht = ?
It would be nice to fill in the question marks so we can know were everyone is coming from. I know I am asking a lot. However, I suspect, by now, few should be surprised that I would be provocative enough to ask. Feel free to comment (politely or not) on my choice of labels.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 2:52 am
May 5th, 2007 at 8:36 am |
Hi TP,
You write, “As much as everyone (including me) hates to be labeled, I think it might help highlight some things.”
Over the years, I have found that labels tend to cause more confusion than clarity. For example, critics have a reputation of applying misleading and nasty labels to their opponents. Labels usually work by taking a complex reality and simplifying it such that significant aspects of reality are then shielded from sight. One might say that labeling is a form of myopia with a bad track-record. Perhaps you should first explain what makes your labels different and what they are supposed to help highlight.
To make matters worse, your labels don’t seem to be nailed down. You define Atheist as "someone who does not expect God to be revealed as an empirical reality." Yet most theists believe God is spirit, not flesh and bones. Thus, most theists do not believe God is an empirical reality in the first place.
Furthermore, it’s not clear what you mean by “reveal.” You apparently define ‘religious’ as those who “believe there probably is empirical evidence supporting their religious opinions.” Is “probably there is supporting empirical evidence” the same as reveal? The history of science is filled with examples of false ideas being supported by empirical evidence, thus nothing is really revealed by having supporting evidence.
As for NOMA, I wrote, “I do agree that NOMA was "Gould's utopian vision, not a description of present realities." In fact, all that lofty "magisterium" talk is probably more confusing than it is worth (I brought it up because TP wanted me to). Better than NOMA is the simple realization that science comes with many limitations.” Yet the NOMA label was just attached to me. A better label to attach to me is “Correct.”
Do you really think you can take all human beings and put them into four, neat little boxes?
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 8:36 am
May 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am |
postmodern philosophy says that you will not be able to pose an account with which to encompass all observations.
the new philosophy, in my opinion, though it is indirectly stated, is that because our socially constructed tools are just that "socially constructed to explain whatever", people are going at it for culture war so that their view will win out as the best (whatever the hell that means) way of accounting for all stimuli. do all people experience the same stimuli, or can we find a good junk of stimuli that all people experience? despite what mike gene may say, i would say that, because of the internet, most people are specifically just stereotypes. there is a growing awareness of our own inability to be anything but a stereotype (im sure someone will argue against that statement, and mike gene, you are a stereotype, and only deviate in specific minor regards, from what i can tell), so people are returning to their respective communities and taking up those communities stereotypes in order to have a "gang" for which to protect them when all the shit goes down. mike gene may be an exception to this, because he was raised during the hippie movement (i may be wrong).
because of these reasons, i find noma is a good thing….not for "getting at reality", but because everyone is grabbing their guns in this political and cultural war to see who will "win out".
harris and dawkins call religion irrational: not founded on evidence. the problem is that the issues that harris and dawkins are trying to account for (can virgins have babies?), are not necessarily the issues that a religious person must account for. point being, religious people are accounting for their evidences, evidences that dawkins and harris may think they have access to, but which they do not. a good example of this is my own depression. yes, just chemicals that can be "fixed". but i needed to account for my feelings, religion did a decent job of that, and even gave me the tool of dogma to allow me from killing myself. despite what dawkins and harris may say, the depressed person is fully sane and is rationally accounting for evidence and stimuli when they use religion and religion works for that person. am i saying we should hand out religion as the cure to depression? no i am not saying that at all…im saying it allowed me personally to account for the stimuli that i needed to account for. though its possible that some of you are scientificly able to account for depression, as harris and dawkins have done before (though it was rather unscientific and more inaccurately stereotypical), it is far different to have to account for it when you experience it. im rambling again arent i?
oma: one group, with its handed-down tool, will win the war while saying "we are accounting for the most stimuli in the most accurate way, ours is the best tool", though the war will really not have been about accounting for stimuli at all, but merely preservation of the winning group in the face of its fear of annhilation (harris writes so violently because he is afraid science may not win. thus from the beginning, harris and dawkins are dogmatic about winning, not about really accountng for anything.
TP: i believe in a physical and historic god: jesus christ. i know this god through the spirit: the interaction between language and "my" stimuli (and accounting for it).
Comment by dantedanti — May 5, 2007 @ 10:14 am
May 5th, 2007 at 10:23 am |
mike gene provides a good example of what i mean when i say the precieved notion of a threat (which in turn creates a counter-threat) when he posts this from dawkins:
Comment by dantedanti — May 5, 2007 @ 10:23 am
May 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am |
Hi Dantedanti,
Yet you are wise. Since there are so many comments to our blog, I must confess that I don’t read them all. I just discovered your pearls. So feel free to ramble away.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 10:46 am
May 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm |
Hi Dantedanti,
I really do enjoy seeing evidence of independent thinking at work.
You wrote…
I agree that my search for a single, mutual, OMA truth is doomed for failure. However, I think there is value in making the attempt. And the more earnest the attempt, the more valuable it would be.
I am having problems reducing your thoughts into compact sound bites so I am ending up overly quoting you (please take that as a compliment).
I find it sad that human nature is such that in a library that contains practically all the human knowledge the tendency is to cluster into groups (blogs) and reread from the same shelves over and over.
It is more than sad, it is scary. Unfortunately, it reinforces the desire "…to have a "gang" for which to protect them when all the shit goes down."
You would not be wrong to assume I was influenced by the hippie movement. Twenty-seven years and one day ago I was sitting in a classroom 5 miles from where Kent State students were being shot at and killed.
"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"
This undoubtedly influences my perceptions of things. I want to provoke people to think independently. To resist the tendency to form gangs. That is my response, my plea, based on the fear I feel.
NOMA would be a very good thing if people respected it. But it has now become a weapon in the Culture War. A very effective shield bashing weapon. Taking the shield away would force people to, once again, understand why it is needed. It would be kind of nice if my children and grandchildren wouldn't have to suffer another dark age while humanity rediscovered this fact.
Thank You and I respect that. To me, this is what the concept of NOMA is supposed to be about.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm |
I find that your question blurs a critical distinction. In that sense, it is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of request. I would prefer an accurate answer over a short one.
I believe that information and insights gained from scientific investigation (i.e. the fruits of using the scientific toolset) can, of course, be included beneficially within a meaningful philosophical discourse concerning philosophical subjects.
I also believe that the operation of the scientific toolset cannot itself arrive at those philosophical conclusions because science, properly done, cannot incorporate terms in its conclusions that are not present in its premises. It can only reason from observations and evidence and premises that are accessible to it.
EXAMPLE #1:
A philosophical discussion about morality and what we ought to do would, of course, do well to take into account valid scientific information about the consequences of various actions.
OTOH, the exercise of the scientific toolkit can never draw a conclusion of "ought" because it cannot incorporate terms in a conclusion that are absent from its premises. You cannot derive an "ought" from any number of "is" premises.
EXAMPLE #2:
Science can draw conclusions about the distinction between intelligent causes and unguided causes because it can observe that intelligent causes have effects that unguided causes do not have. This doesn't enable a supernatural intelligence/natural intelligence inference because science doesn't have observations to base that distinction on, as far as I can see. Lacking premises limits the conclusion.
Nevertheless, individuals can consider sources of information that are not accessible to the scientific toolset. Consequently, individuals can have philosophical discussions that take up those topics, such as what they think about God. When they step beyond the ID inference, they should simply be clear and careful to realize that they are operating beyond the reach of that inference.
For instance, Dawkins is free to rant against God, but we should all be able to distinguish his rants from the results of science.
Key point: Scientific inferences are limited by the premises, evidence, observations that are accessible to the scientific method.
Comment by eric — May 5, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm |
Hi Eric,
At least it looks like you took a moment or two to think about what I said. Thank you for that. However, while your attempt to avoid the first opportunity for clarity was somewhat laudable (your Example1 is an attempt to say oil and water do mix if you shake well, example2 is just a restatement of the ID Movement's rationalization on the subject) you totally ignored my second offer.
That is…Here is the deal; I am willing to consider discussing a single, mutual OMA truth if you are. I am also willing to bow to NOMA and leave you with your truth and me with mine. Choose
What is your choice? Hint, I am not willing to let you play hide and seek with your faith while you demand I give up mine.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm |
Would you care to clarify where you think I was pushing for the source of life to come "from outside the empirical realm"? That doesn't ring a bell with me. What I do push for is that language-based life requires an intelligent cause. If that turned out to be a natural intelligence, my claim would still be true.
About your proposal, I observed problems with the inadequacy of appealing to retrocausality. As anyone can examine, my actual still-unanswered questions to you were (and are) these:
In other words, I am asking if your proposal has a causal connection to cross the Language Barrier from a universe that has no language-life to one that does. Or does it "just happen" that some universes that are physically like ours might not have language-life while others do? (original post here)
Comment by eric — May 5, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pm |
Hi Eric,
I believe you have answered your own question in your previous comment.
I will gladly continue our conversation about the single, mutual OMA truth once you agree that is what we are doing. I suggest we do that in a difference thread as to not get too off-topic here.
However, if you insist upon hiding behind a NOMA wall, my simple response is to leave you with your beliefs and I with mine. No one person's belief is more valid than another's.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm |
First, in what sense does the ID inference "demand" that you give up your faith? If you want to be an atheist and still acknowledge intelligent causality, the natural intelligence option remains available to you. You can be sure that you will not be the only atheist who chooses it. There seems to be a disconnect in your implied dilemma.
Second, I just gave you my choice regarding the abilities, reach, and limits of science. You dismissed it and then responded as though I hadn't chosen. Yet I did choose, albeit not necessarily one of the options you might have wanted to limit me to. If some part of my choice is not clear, please explain what you don't follow and I will try to clarify.
Third, I'm not sure what you intend by your dismissal of example 1 with an oil and water analogy.
Fourth, rather than just dismiss a reasoned distinction as just a rationalization, you would do better to respond with more substance than that. Supposing you really want serious dialogue and to be taken seriously, dismissive insults don't do the job and they don't put your sincerity in a good light. If you can make a point, do so.
Comment by eric — May 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pm |
Hi Mike
You asked…
Actually, there are seven, neat little boxes.
(Although the NOMA-religious/atheist box is pretty empty).
It is easy to make any concept more complicated. The trick is in making a concept simplier to understand without making it too simple.
I have no illusions my explainations will suddenly end all hositilities in the Culture War, but I felt ethically bound to at least try. You know, "…to provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation. "
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm |
Thought Provoker Says:
I'm not sure I understand what point you are getting at with all the labels. Maybe it would help to get down to a specific case. How would science study "ethics". Indeed, what do you mean by "ethics"? Is it just morality w/o the belief in the FSM?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pm |
Hi Eric,
You do like to take advantage of selective quoting, don't you. Here is what I said in context…
You asked…
I suspect you don't understand my faith. I suspect this since I don't understand my faith. For example, am I really an Atheist? One of the many NOMA beliefs I hold as "truth" is that a supernatural kid with a chemistry set created the universe. I also have faith in NOMA in that no one knows the Truth. I have faith the Sun will rise in the morning tomorrow. Some call that particular faith "Materialism" and, yes, some ID proponents are asking people give up this faith in order to consider ID alternatives.
I am sorry that you feel insulted. However, I feel you have been very helpful in allowing me to make a point. Thank You.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pm |
from the point of view of my generation: the gang comes before the individual. the brain is colonized by a particular group through whatever type of communication, either by choice or by drastic force (this is why i would say raising your child without religion is no different than raising them with religion: neither view discovers anything about "reality", but only about our social situation: we are at war for our future (sam harris believes religion will impede our survival, as if anyone had to give a shit about human survival. i often wonder if hes thought about individuals who dont give two shits. oh they must irrational)
i suppose to get at an oma, wed have to somehow go about (who knows how because again it would be tangled with our ideology as adorno found out) finding out what stimuli everyone shares and, if there is a best tool for accounting for this universal stimuli, why is it the best? harris believes it is reason (hes just vague enough with this word for it to serve his propaganda), and dawkins believes it is science (again just vague enough).
harris would disagree with you and i think that perhaps i would find myself doing the same (simply because i was raised by hippie parents, and jesus christ, it was like being raised by wolves, pragmatically and utilitarianly speaking). harris' idea of "follow the evidence of reality" is silly after postmodernism (one wonders if he has read derrida or focault, which i asked when i emailed him, his dismissal of rorty is so philosophically ignorant as to be embarassing.). if we are accuratly trying to account for a universal evidence, there is a more valid belief, again pragmatically speaking.
religion does not ignore evidence, but often addresses either different evidence or the same evidence in a similiar way. science tells me the chemicals in my brain are "off", which is why i am obsessive and want to kill myself (the desire to survive is not a universal, nor anymore rational than depression). religion says that i am justifed in feeling guilty, and that i should repent my sins. science claims to "cure" me, though i feel its more just getting me in line with social standards. religion allows me to account for and deal with my evidence, while respecting my "personality", if you will. same evidence i suppose, different goals to account for. something like that. i hope im getting to the oma issue here.
Comment by dantedanti — May 5, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm |
Hi RogerRabbit,
You asked…
I am attempting to use words and labels to communicate thoughts and ideas.
"Ethics" verses "Morality" is a very good example. More than one person has indicated that they are the same thing, no difference. While it could be my ignorance of the English language, I think there are two very distinct concepts that could use two separate labels.
At the risk of straying way off topic. In the second Aliens movie Ripley stumbled upon the Queen's lair. In this scene, Ripley and the Queen had a moment of non-verbal communication. Ripley let it be known that if the Queen's guards attacked her, she would use the flame-thrower on the Queen's eggs. The Queen told the guards to back off. Ripley used the flame-thrower anyway.
Agreeing for the moment with the movie's premise that the Aliens embodied pure evil, Ripley's actions were moral. Even so, I would say they were unethical (and probably stupid).
I can accept the concept that morality must come from a religious sense of good and evil. Therefore, I can understand why people question the ability of Atheists to be moral. However, by my definitions, Atheists are quite capable of being ethical. Even more so, because without a belief in a source of Good, all they can do is try to be ethically consistent.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pm |
Thought Provoker: I given you my sincere answer about what I believe regarding the limits of science. I'm still interested to hear your answers to my questions, if you are willing to provide them. Here are some that I'm interested in and am still waiting for an answer:
1. How does an ID inference "demand" that you give up your faith? While I don't doubt that I do not know your faith, what I'm asking for is why you suppose that the ID inference "demands" that you give it up. You are obviously concerned and even objecting. For what cause?
2. If a proposition A is compatible with either B or C, how can the truth of A be used to distinguish between B or C. A is true, therefore what? Either B or C could be true. A=ID inference; B and C are natural vs. supernatural intelligence views
3. Although I didn't originally phrase this one as a question, I'll do so now. You've dismissed my distinctions and examples concerning the limitations of science to inferences from data it can access. You particularly referred to Example #2 as just a rationalization. Would you care to show why an ID inference position (as distinct from inference to the supernatural) is necessarily just a rationalization? How do you establish that it could not be a sincere and warranted distinction? Again, if you can make your point, please make it. Without support, it simply looks like prejudice or sterotyping, not serious reflection.
You seem quick to talk about others "hiding" behind a "NOMA wall" but you seem not so quick to support your position with an analysis that actually deals with the above related issues. If you are willing, I woud appreciate it if you didn't hide from serious treatment of these questions.
[4. (Optional bonus question) Any time you want to answer my questions about your retrocausality proposal, I'm still interested. I believe the answer need not be supernatural causation, but it does need to be better than a "just because" or "for no specific reason/cause" kind of answer.]
Comment by eric — May 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 3:49 pm |
Just to be clear, that would mistate the issue. The question is not whether atheists can act according to their chosen morality (e.g. pay their taxes, help others, etc.). The question is whether atheists have any basis for calling any behavior objectively wrong, as distinct from just "contrary to my code or preference".
IOW, does the atheist have any basis for the belief that there is objectively a way that humans ought to behave? Or is it just one evolved preference compared to many others?
Comment by eric — May 5, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pm |
Thought Provoker Says:
Sorry, I guess I was too subtle there. Yes, I got that. But why the labels, instead of using words to explore the thoughts and ideas themselves. Simple labels rarely work for complex issues, especially those with a history of conflict.
Again, I'll suggest the example I did before:
How would science study "ethics"? What do you mean by "ethics"?
And maybe even add a new one:
Why? Can't they also be ethically inconsistent? Or unethically consistent? Scientifically, what difference does it make?
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the movie scene you describe. Maybe another simple scenario, after you define ethics, could help us progress.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 5, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
Hi Dantedanti,
You wrote…
Again, my suggestion is more modest than that because I am more interested in promoting individual thought. I don't want anyone trying to defend Harris' opinions any more than I want anyone trying to defend Dembski's. I want to encourage people to think for themselves. Or at least attempt to explain and defend an embraced opinion without simply relying on Group think. Again, nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
I wrote… "No one person's belief is more valid than another's."
I would also disagree with the statement I wrote. Please be understanding on how difficult it is to be debating with the wide range of audience in Telic Thoughts. If you want a taste, try posting to Panda's Thumb for a period of time. My comment was addressed to Eric. Hopefully it is not too much of a dismissive insult to admit that I was being lazy and allowed this loose thread to dangle to see if he would pick it up.
But since you did instead…
Let me see if I can provide an example. A belief that the sky is being held up by a God named Atlas isn't as good as a belief that a supernatural being created a self-sufficient universe because the belief in Atlas is inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Good so far?
Yes, no and/or maybe.
I see two distinct things here. The first one might be called "empirical" (Atlas does or does not exist). The second one deals with the philosophical "framing" of the "empirical" model. Both terms, "empirical" and "framing" are hot topics in this debate, IMO.
One attitude is that the empirical model can and shall only include materialistic answers by fiat. Everything else will be considered