![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about a Polish philosopher (professor of philosophy and Catholic priest) Michal Heller? He is one of those who discussed the overlapping or non-overlapping of _The Magisteria_ (ie. Science and Religion). His work has been awarded with the Templeton Prize. A wiki page about him is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Heller Is there anybody well-read in his works to take on his philosophy? Critto ( talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv ( talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-Overlapping Magisteria → Non-overlapping magisteria — MOS:CAPS, google books suggests that both are acceptable but the latter is in keeping with the manual of style — WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not able to find any reference for Dawkins claiming that "if DNA evidence proved that Jesus had no earthly father, Dawkins claims that the argument of non-overlapping magisteria would be quickly dropped", this looks like 'original research' to me - i.e. somebody is paraphrasing Dawkinses general position to put words into his mouth. Paraphrases don't bother me, but there is a quite idiosyncratic logic to this argument that does not actually sound like Dawkinsian philosophy to me at all (Would Dawkins really claim that finding that Jesus didn't have a father would convince him that religion had been proven correct? I don't think he would). But I could be wrong - people who are more avid readers of Dawkins might know where it is that he says this exact thing. Thoughts?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.160.4 ( talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This argument is Dawkins' and is from The God Delusion. Dawkins' argument is that religious claims for NOMA would be dropped were scientific evidence supporting religious claims to be found.
It's on page 59: --quote-- To dramatize the point, imagine, by some remarkable set of circumstances, that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence to show that Jesus really did lack a biological father. Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying anything remotely like the following? 'Who cares? Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions. Wrong magisterium! We're concerned only with ultimate questions and with moral values. Neither DNA nor any other scientific evidence could ever have any bearing on the matter, one way or the other.' --quote-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.7.7 ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
i cleaned up the article on Rocks of Ages, which is very much a companion article to this one. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
--this article should reference Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape, which claims that science can address issues of morality normally assigned to the religious realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.190.56 ( talk) 06:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Er... am I doing this right?
A few paragraphs in the Criticism section are sloppy and use biased language.
Jacoby cites Sam Harris who shows science can frequently demonstrate whether particular beliefs increase or decrease suffering and Harris derives moral values from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.168.13 ( talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The Criticism-section is blown up to more than 50 % of the article. However, it does not address the most relevant questions of Gould's NOMA concept.
One important question seems to be, whether texts of Abrahamitic religions have to be understood in a literal sense only or rather in an allegorical sense. While the allegory is traditionally dominant in the Jewish and Christian hermeneutics (and afaik also Islam), both religious fundamentalists and new atheists only take the literal sense seriously. Natural scientists seem to have a culture of clarity and certainty and often seem to be threatened by ambiguous religious texts. One easy way to resolve the disturbing ambiguity is to declare them as unscientific rubbish, without considering what could be their value, beyond making factual statements.
It is also argued that natural sciences could adress moral questions, which is a rather questionable idea, as scientists can aptly describe human behaviour, but hardly develop criteria to evaluate it ethically.-- Olag ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
These sentences use heavily biased language.
-Religion has too frequently made us feel guilty about enjoying harmless pleasures and reduced happiness. -People want a separate province for their specific religion and exclude other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.148.203 ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
-- ROO BOOKAROO ( talk) 17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The external link to http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.29.16.23 ( talk) 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Much of what is written in the bloated criticism section of this article seems to be criticizing something that is not NOM. Other statements, in addition to being off topic, violate NPOV.
I could go on, but will stop for now. Suffice it to say, these are the most egregious examples. Deleting them will lead to a greatly improved article.
Rwflammang ( talk) 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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 context 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 one of their leaders, 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? Also, would this point be sufficient, with (easily obtainable) references, to place on the main page, perhaps in the criticism section? Though this position has been held by the Mormon Church by some 180 years, making it more a philosophy in line with Enlightenment thinkers than in opposition to today's NOMA ones. Playerpage ( talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The quote by Professor Dawkins recently added to the article seems to bear only on God's existence, and does not contain any direct criticisms of NOMA. As such it appears off topic and would best be deleted. Rwflammang ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added God of the gaps as a see-also for this article, as NOMA is frequently cited as a counter-argument to this. -- The Anome ( talk) 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tempered the lead which had only Gould proclaiming consensus since the reception area seems nothing but criticisms or limitations. I'm wondering if there are RS giving a general view of its standing and the issues, rather than this item by item part of several folks (picked from no presented basis) that has no summary of what the overall result is ? My impression is that NOMA is in disrepute, although it's a prominent viewpoint for discussions.
As best I can see, it seems that for ordinary daily work there is usually not interactions, but that NOMA feels like a denialism or doge, but more importantly it just doesn't work, that it's where things DO conect that needs help and that interactions are both factual and unavoidable plus there are stances that oppose trying to have separation. e.g. Dawkins feels religion is not beyond the purview of science, that it should not be regarded as somehow immune or exempt from rational analysis. And ironically, both Gould and Dawkins *are* weighing in here on something outside of science and into the philosophy of religion as well as that of science. From the outside of science side, there is a meme of doing science without considering the values is a 'mad' scientist and bad things result (e.g. Frankenstein, Nuclear bombs, Dr. Moreau). One flavor is even that there are Things Man Was Not Meant to Know. It seems factual that scientist do not refrain om making moral statements or sticking an oar into religion, and vice-versa, and I read that these are simply not NOM - not only did they not stay away, the fields simply are not seperable. More calmly said that science has real-world impacts on people so should consider the consequences and follow ethical guides, and that spiritual leaders must help the concerns of people which often come from recent discovery or use of scientific items. Markbassett ( talk) 00:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Gould's non-overlapping magisteria seems very closely related to David Hume's is-ought gap. I am surprised to find no contrast between them, or even references to suggest that they are related topics. In my mind, Gould's "facts" and "values" seem to correspond quite obviously with Hume's discussion of "is" and "ought". Am I misunderstanding one or both of these? As far as I can tell, the biggest difference seems to be that Gould pivots to moving his gap to fall somewhere between natural and supernatural, thus dividing the domain of "facts", whereas Hume seems to keep his gap steadily between "facts" and "values". 170.199.177.99 ( talk) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about a Polish philosopher (professor of philosophy and Catholic priest) Michal Heller? He is one of those who discussed the overlapping or non-overlapping of _The Magisteria_ (ie. Science and Religion). His work has been awarded with the Templeton Prize. A wiki page about him is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Heller Is there anybody well-read in his works to take on his philosophy? Critto ( talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv ( talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-Overlapping Magisteria → Non-overlapping magisteria — MOS:CAPS, google books suggests that both are acceptable but the latter is in keeping with the manual of style — WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not able to find any reference for Dawkins claiming that "if DNA evidence proved that Jesus had no earthly father, Dawkins claims that the argument of non-overlapping magisteria would be quickly dropped", this looks like 'original research' to me - i.e. somebody is paraphrasing Dawkinses general position to put words into his mouth. Paraphrases don't bother me, but there is a quite idiosyncratic logic to this argument that does not actually sound like Dawkinsian philosophy to me at all (Would Dawkins really claim that finding that Jesus didn't have a father would convince him that religion had been proven correct? I don't think he would). But I could be wrong - people who are more avid readers of Dawkins might know where it is that he says this exact thing. Thoughts?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.160.4 ( talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This argument is Dawkins' and is from The God Delusion. Dawkins' argument is that religious claims for NOMA would be dropped were scientific evidence supporting religious claims to be found.
It's on page 59: --quote-- To dramatize the point, imagine, by some remarkable set of circumstances, that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence to show that Jesus really did lack a biological father. Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying anything remotely like the following? 'Who cares? Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions. Wrong magisterium! We're concerned only with ultimate questions and with moral values. Neither DNA nor any other scientific evidence could ever have any bearing on the matter, one way or the other.' --quote-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.7.7 ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
i cleaned up the article on Rocks of Ages, which is very much a companion article to this one. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
--this article should reference Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape, which claims that science can address issues of morality normally assigned to the religious realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.190.56 ( talk) 06:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Er... am I doing this right?
A few paragraphs in the Criticism section are sloppy and use biased language.
Jacoby cites Sam Harris who shows science can frequently demonstrate whether particular beliefs increase or decrease suffering and Harris derives moral values from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.168.13 ( talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The Criticism-section is blown up to more than 50 % of the article. However, it does not address the most relevant questions of Gould's NOMA concept.
One important question seems to be, whether texts of Abrahamitic religions have to be understood in a literal sense only or rather in an allegorical sense. While the allegory is traditionally dominant in the Jewish and Christian hermeneutics (and afaik also Islam), both religious fundamentalists and new atheists only take the literal sense seriously. Natural scientists seem to have a culture of clarity and certainty and often seem to be threatened by ambiguous religious texts. One easy way to resolve the disturbing ambiguity is to declare them as unscientific rubbish, without considering what could be their value, beyond making factual statements.
It is also argued that natural sciences could adress moral questions, which is a rather questionable idea, as scientists can aptly describe human behaviour, but hardly develop criteria to evaluate it ethically.-- Olag ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
These sentences use heavily biased language.
-Religion has too frequently made us feel guilty about enjoying harmless pleasures and reduced happiness. -People want a separate province for their specific religion and exclude other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.148.203 ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
-- ROO BOOKAROO ( talk) 17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The external link to http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.29.16.23 ( talk) 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Much of what is written in the bloated criticism section of this article seems to be criticizing something that is not NOM. Other statements, in addition to being off topic, violate NPOV.
I could go on, but will stop for now. Suffice it to say, these are the most egregious examples. Deleting them will lead to a greatly improved article.
Rwflammang ( talk) 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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 context 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 one of their leaders, 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? Also, would this point be sufficient, with (easily obtainable) references, to place on the main page, perhaps in the criticism section? Though this position has been held by the Mormon Church by some 180 years, making it more a philosophy in line with Enlightenment thinkers than in opposition to today's NOMA ones. Playerpage ( talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The quote by Professor Dawkins recently added to the article seems to bear only on God's existence, and does not contain any direct criticisms of NOMA. As such it appears off topic and would best be deleted. Rwflammang ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added God of the gaps as a see-also for this article, as NOMA is frequently cited as a counter-argument to this. -- The Anome ( talk) 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tempered the lead which had only Gould proclaiming consensus since the reception area seems nothing but criticisms or limitations. I'm wondering if there are RS giving a general view of its standing and the issues, rather than this item by item part of several folks (picked from no presented basis) that has no summary of what the overall result is ? My impression is that NOMA is in disrepute, although it's a prominent viewpoint for discussions.
As best I can see, it seems that for ordinary daily work there is usually not interactions, but that NOMA feels like a denialism or doge, but more importantly it just doesn't work, that it's where things DO conect that needs help and that interactions are both factual and unavoidable plus there are stances that oppose trying to have separation. e.g. Dawkins feels religion is not beyond the purview of science, that it should not be regarded as somehow immune or exempt from rational analysis. And ironically, both Gould and Dawkins *are* weighing in here on something outside of science and into the philosophy of religion as well as that of science. From the outside of science side, there is a meme of doing science without considering the values is a 'mad' scientist and bad things result (e.g. Frankenstein, Nuclear bombs, Dr. Moreau). One flavor is even that there are Things Man Was Not Meant to Know. It seems factual that scientist do not refrain om making moral statements or sticking an oar into religion, and vice-versa, and I read that these are simply not NOM - not only did they not stay away, the fields simply are not seperable. More calmly said that science has real-world impacts on people so should consider the consequences and follow ethical guides, and that spiritual leaders must help the concerns of people which often come from recent discovery or use of scientific items. Markbassett ( talk) 00:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Gould's non-overlapping magisteria seems very closely related to David Hume's is-ought gap. I am surprised to find no contrast between them, or even references to suggest that they are related topics. In my mind, Gould's "facts" and "values" seem to correspond quite obviously with Hume's discussion of "is" and "ought". Am I misunderstanding one or both of these? As far as I can tell, the biggest difference seems to be that Gould pivots to moving his gap to fall somewhere between natural and supernatural, thus dividing the domain of "facts", whereas Hume seems to keep his gap steadily between "facts" and "values". 170.199.177.99 ( talk) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)