On Non-Overlapping Magisteria

[UndercoverElephant]

EDIT: please don't derail this thread by attacking Gould's version of NOMA instead of the one presented, or by making some sort of generalised argument as to why NOMA can't work before you've bothered to try to work out whether this one works.

Stephen Jay Gould tried to make peace between science and religion by claiming they were non-overlapping magisteria ("teaching authorities.") I think he had the right idea but implemented it wrongly. He basically assigned ethics and "meaning" to religion and factual claims about reality to science. There are several fatal problems with this scheme. The first is that ethics needs to be consensual (we have to make laws about things like abortion) and secular people won't accept that ethics be left in the hands of religion. Surely it would be better placed in the hands of philosophers... The second is that Gould's version of religion is materialistic - it is religion stripped of all mysticism and miracles - and therefore effectively unrecognisable to either side. Thirdly, when you take into account the problems in philosophy of science raised by Hume's arguments about induction and Kuhn's paradigms and the problems raised by people like Wittgenstein and Rorty about subjects like metaphysics and language then you are forced to accept a Popperian account of scientific truth as "justified belief" rather than "Truth."

So Gould's NOMA doesn't work. I'm trying to develop a different version. Same basic idea, different means of demarcation.

Whatever else we might think science, religion and philosophy are, they can be considered as forms of communication which operate in the context of certain sets of assumptions and rules - families of what Wittgenstein called “language games”.

In terms of this redefinition of NOMA, the key distinction is not what the statements are about but the means by which they justify, or attempt to justify, beliefs.

For example:

Geologist: “The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.”

Young-Earth Creationist: “The Earth is about 6000 years old.”

These are both examples what Dawkins calls “existence claims”, in this case claims about the history of a specific physical object. Both of them, for different reasons, ought to be qualified with “I believe that…” This is not supposed to imply that they are equal – that geology is “just another belief system” which is no better than young earth creationism. When I say “belief” I do not mean faith. “Faith” is a specific sort of belief – belief in something despite the absence of any scientific or rational justification for doing so, as epitomised by Abraham. Beliefs which are justified by a scientific discovery don’t stop being beliefs simply because they are justified by more than blind faith or intuition. The scientist always justifies his belief about the age of the Earth in terms of observation-based scientific evidence, whereas the primary justification for the YEC claim is not science, but an analysis of the Old Testament made under the assumption that that text is an infallible account of the history of the world. Because of this difference in means of justification – because the geologist is playing the language game of science and not that of young earth creationism - the geologist is implying considerably more than just “I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.” She is also implying “…and if you understand the relevant scientific evidence then you ought to believe it too.” Saying “I believe the Earth is 6000 years old because that’s what is implied by the Bible, and I believe the Bible is literally true” is one thing. Saying “I believe the Earth is 6000 years old and if you understand the relevant scientific evidence then you ought to be believe it too” is something else entirely.

In the first case, if you do not happen to believe the Bible is an infallible history of the Earth then there is no obligation that you to accept the claim. The believer can always warn you of the threat of damnation for your refusal to accept the word of God, but you are free to ignore that too. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that you ought to be free to ignore it because you have a solid ethical case for being free to ignore it, but that there are places in the world, especially the Islamic world, where you are not free to ignore religiously-justified beliefs of this sort. In the western world we have fought for and won this freedom after a living through a dark millennium during which the Catholic Church did everything in its considerable power to deprive us of it. The ruling of the Inquisition against Galileo may only have been repealed in 1992, but it ceased to have anything but symbolic meaning at least two centuries ago. Everybody knew that the Catholic Church had got it wrong, including the Catholic Church.

In the second case, you are obliged to accept the “existence claim.” We are free to arbitrarily ignore scientifically-justified claims only if we are prepared to abandon our own rationality. There is no rational obligation to justify a personal rejection of claims which are themselves justified by dogma, scripture, faith or revelation and there is no rational means at all of justifying a rejection of claims which are themselves justified by observation-based science.

What matters is here not what the belief is about (the Earth), but how that belief is justified and whether or not the believer expects others to share their belief.

Which language game is being played by the YEC? The answer depends on the reasons given by that YEC as to why he believes what he believes. Most YECs would happily agree that their belief system is founded on the Bible, not science, and that this includes their belief about the age of the Earth. Regardless of this, the creationist movement has a long history of trying shoehorn its pseudoscientific religious claims into science classes. It does this because it is aware of the supremacy of scientifically-justified claims over biblically-justified claims and fears the power of science to undermine the interpretation of religion it defends. This is the essence of the ethical case that scientists and all free-thinking human beings have against the creationist agenda. In plain English it means “you have no ethical right to impose your religiously-justified beliefs upon me, because you have no means of demonstrating to me why I should accept them.” It is unethical to deprive people of access to accurate scientifically-justified information. It is also unethical to claim scientific justification for beliefs which have no legitimate scientific justification.

However, this cuts both ways. If it is unethical for a creationist to attempt to impose non-scientifically-justified beliefs on others then it is also unethical for scientists, atheists and skeptics to attempt to impose their non-scientifically-justified beliefs on people who don’t happen to share them. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is not scientifically-justified. Therefore Gould has no justification for demanding or expecting that religious people share his commitment, meaning his conception of religion is likely to be useless as far at they are concerned.

No observation-based scientific experiment can support the claim that science is the only possible means of gaining knowledge about reality (accurate or inaccurate) or support or undermine physicalism or determinism. Neither can we use science to establish whether or not is possible for something to affect the universe in a way which is itself theoretically undetectable to science. All of these questions are epistemological or metaphysical, not scientific.

We have the beginning of a redefined NOMA:

The magisteria are to be distinguished on the grounds of how beliefs/claims are justified.

Scientific beliefs are those which are solely or primarily justified with scientific evidence - by the analysis of observation and experimentation.

Examples of scientific beliefs/claims:

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Human activity is affecting the Earth’s climate.
At least most of the time, natural selection is key factor driving evolutionary change.
X’s DNA was present in the sample sent to the forensic laboratory.

Religious beliefs are those which are solely or primarily justified in terms of scripture, faith and religious dogma. It is not legitimate to expect anybody-else but yourself to accept these beliefs/claims. It must be a free personal choice.

Examples of religious beliefs/claims:

The Earth is about 6000 years old. (scripture)
It is immoral/illegal to consume blood. (scripture (Leviticus 7:26))
I know it seems awful, but it must all be part of God’s plan. (faith)
God hates America. (dogma (see: Westboro Baptist church))

Philosophy is to be considered as a tool, and a reference library of historical philosophical mistakes. The tool is to be used to ensure consistency within personal belief systems.

Examples of philosophical beliefs/claims:

Ethical: I believe abortion is wrong because I accept Peter Singer’s argument.
Metaphysical: I believe that there has never been a state of absolute nothingness, because nothing can come from nothing and something definitely exists.

Ethical beliefs fall into two categories. Some ethical claims have to be communal and consensual. How the community arrives at ethical conclusions has not been specified. Personal ethics can be derived from anywhere you like, including scripture, provided you understand and accept that ethical claims of this sort cannot be imposed on other people: in the social environment of the modern world we have to strive to find common ethical ground.

Metaphysics, aesthetics and all the other branches of argument-based philosophy can remain personal; there is no pressing need to get community agreement because an individual person’s metaphysical or aesthetical beliefs do not generally affect the lives of other people. If you think a metaphysical belief is actually harmful then you’ll have to offer a philosophical argument as to why it is ethically unacceptable to allow people to believe such things.

How does the above scheme compare to Gould’s? As it stands, most of the contentious issues remain untouched.

The reason most of the contentious issues remain untouched in the above version of NOMA is that I have left out the most philosophically-problematic category of claims/beliefs. Claims like these:

(1) “I know what red looks like to me.”
(2) “My splitting headache caused me to take a load of painkillers.”
(3) “I know what consciousness is because I am aware of my own consciousness.”
(4) “I know what mystical experiences are because I have experienced them myself.”

These claims are not based on scripture, faith or religious dogma. Neither are they based on science, since each one of them can be made without any reference to scientific evidence. They aren’t usually the results of philosophical arguments either. On the contrary, these are the sorts of beliefs that are more likely to be fed in to philosophical arguments as self-evidently-true premises. They are subjectively-justified beliefs. Their subjective nature means that, like religiously-justified beliefs, the believer has no reason to expect anybody-else to accept them. However, they differ from religiously-justified beliefs insomuch as the person who believes them is considerably more justified in doing so than a person who is depending on dogma, scripture or faith. Scripture and dogma come from external sources like the Bible or Westboro Baptist Church. Faith is not justified by anything at all (that’s what makes it faith). I don’t have faith that I’m conscious. I believe I am conscious because I am directly aware that I am.

All claims of this sort are philosophically problematic.

(1) is the crucial statement which is either uttered or not uttered by Mary the colour-blind scientist in Frank Jackson's “knowledge argument” against materialism.

(2) is denied by eliminative materialists and cognitive scientists who view “folk psychology” as a “bad theory”.

Statements like (3) are the kind of statements Wittgenstein’s “private language argument” is designed to undermine. “Consciousness” is a beetle in a box.

(4) is arguably the most problematic of all, since it combines problems which apply to the previous three with the additional complication of having profound religious significance to the person who believes it.

What is the point in this NOMA?

Once we accept that neither science nor religion is capable of delivering absolute, untainted truth then we can see that all knowledge claims are different sorts of belief and that science and religion cannot cause any sort of conflict which matters provided they don't get their means of justification mixed up. If religious people recognise that their religiously-justified beliefs can't compete with scientific beliefs on scientific turf and aren't acceptable as ethical beliefs that can be imposed on others then most of the problems percieved to be caused by religion cease to be problems. As their half of the bargain the scientific community has to make sure it isn't making claims in the name of science which actually depend on metaphysics. If both these things happen then there is no need for any great conflict between science and religion because all that is left to discuss is the status of the subjectively-justified claims I've seperated into a category of their own. And in resolving, or attempting to resolve (for it is impossible, I think), the status of those claims, both the scientific and religious community have no choice but to defer to philosophy, since neither science nor religion can compete with modern philosophy in terms of having addressed (or tried to) this problem. In other words, the point of this NOMA is to stop the pointless conflict between science and religion by forcing the extremists on both sides to accept that the only genuine point of contention is philosophical and not resolvable by science and religion having a war. No scientific or religious text can tell you how to interpret Wittgenstein or Rorty - you have to try to work it out for yourself by thinking very, very hard. No scientific or religious text can tell you what Mary will say when she finally sees red for the first time, nor whether "folk psychology" is a theory. And no scientific or religious text will ever conclusively and objectively prove or disprove the existence of genuine (as opposed to delusional) mystical experiences. Science should be the business of making accurate predictions about future observations and justified claims about what we would observe if we could travel back in time. Religion should be a necessarily subjective and personal business to do with an individual's relationship to the Divine (or lack of, as the case may be). Sciences loses nothing if scientific people cease to make metaphysical claims without realising it. Religion loses nothing by ditching fundamentalism and literalism. On the contrary, I think that an accurate understanding of where science stops and metaphysics starts actually enhances one's understanding of what science really is and that fundamentalism and literalism actually get in the way of a proper understanding of what religion is really about.

Of course, there will be those who actually want the conflict to continue, because they won't be happy until the they have destroyed their percieved opponents. I am trying to demonstrate to those persons that this can't ever happen. It is not within the power of science to destroy religion, or vice versa, because neither side can conclusively win the real battle, which is about philosophy. The closest thing you can ever get to a victory is something like this version of NOMA: something which keeps science and religion in their proper places and prevents either of them from trying to grab bits of philosophy, or worse, trying to directly grab bits of scientific territory for religion or religious territory for science. Scientists trying to use science to make decisions about ethics or meaning end up looking stupid, as do religious people who try to decide how old the earth is by analysing the Old Testament.

[HansMustermann]

You almost had me nodding through until I got to the "What is the point in this NOMA?" part.

The fact is: Science is based on actually having some evidence, _and_ it produces usable predictions too. The other is not just a fairy tale, it's freaking useless too.

As a simple example: the computer you wrote that on, was possible because _science_ made some exact predictions about how those electrons and atoms will behave. The GPS you use in your car is because science can produce some very exact predictions about the positions of those orbiting things at any given moment. Your car, your telephone, the electricity you get at the socket, even the economy that allows you such luxuries, etc, are all based science. And not just as in "belief", but as in having a scientific method that makes them possible at all. Etc.

Handwaving about god's will and divine plan, which is all that religion does, can produce nothing of the kind. You can't punch some numbers into the divine plan and get your coordinates. You can't write a prayer (starting only from religious sources) that gives you a working turbine. Etc.

Do you understand that distinction? Good.

I don't need any deeper philosophy there, nor any attempt to reconcile it with a fairy tale. It just works as it is. That's enough for me.

Yes, you can do word-games like calling both "belief" or using vague irrelevant things like "both aren't absolute", but it seems to be at best a "Chewbacca defense". It spews plenty of such irrelevant things, but doesn't even touch the meat of the matter and why we have that demarcation in the first place.

How about this NOMA, briefly:

1. If you want a _method_ that works, has solid evidence, and produces useful stuff, that's that-a-way, through the door called science.

2. If you just want a vague and non-useful fairy tale to believe in, in fact one of a few hundreds of conflicting and mutually-incompatible fairy tales, that's the other way, through the door called religion.

Handwaving about the semantics of "belief" or about both not being "absolute", doesn't negate that basic point: one has evidence and works, the other is just a useless fairy tale.

Should I try to reconcile the too? Why? It would only taint #1 with some useless baggage that don't add any useful thing, and in fact it just diminishes its usefulness. Ditto the other way around. Whoever wants/needs the fairy tale, just needs the BS reassurance in it. Reconciling some scientific ideas into it, would at most diminish its usefulness in that role. You don't want to hear about burden of proof or Occam's Razor when you just need some "I'll live after death" reassurance.

Basically: A chocolate cake and a steaming turd aren't absolutes either, and we could make an equal case of both being just translated into arbitrary neural signals in the end, plus they both are brown, etc. But I'll take the former over the latter anyway. And I don't want to make a mixture of the two, thank you very much.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

please don't derail this thread by attacking Gould's version of NOMA instead of the one presented, or by making some sort of generalised argument as to why NOMA can't work before you've bothered to try to work out whether this one works.

Why? Can you suggest a better way to derail this thread?

[Soapy Sam]

The distinction between reality and non reality seems clear cut enough that mice and beetles have few problems recognising it. In fact the only creatures who do have difficulty with the difference are some humans.
Anything that does not overlap with reality is unreal.

[paximperium]

Well, modern pseudo-philosophers, especially theistic ones, are always attempting to give some relevance to their "craft" and special plead their way to relevance. Their lack of utility or relevance to society or science must be galling.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

You almost had me nodding through until I got to the "What is the point in this NOMA?" part.

The fact is: Science is based on actually having some evidence, _and_ it produces usable predictions too. The other is not just a fairy tale, it's freaking useless too.

As a simple example: the computer you wrote that on, was possible because _science_ made some exact predictions about how those electrons and atoms will behave. The GPS you use in your car is because science can produce some very exact predictions about the positions of those orbiting things at any given moment. Your car, your telephone, the electricity you get at the socket, even the economy that allows you such luxuries, etc, are all based science. And not just as in "belief", but as in having a scientific method that makes them possible at all. Etc.

Handwaving about god's will and divine plan, which is all that religion does, can produce nothing of the kind. You can't punch some numbers into the divine plan and get your coordinates. You can't write a prayer (starting only from religious sources) that gives you a working turbine. Etc.

Do you understand that distinction? Good.

Religion isn't supposed to be "useful" in the way science is. Any notion that it was useful in that way had already been blown out of the water during the period in Europe where the Black Death wiped out half the population and it became clear that the Clergy had no answers and that God was as angry with them as He was with the peasants. One of the main purposes of justifying beliefs with science is that those beliefs are useful in this sort of a way. However, for all their practical applications, scientifically-justified beliefs are of no use at all when it comes to making difficult ethical choices or trying to find meaning in the world. If some people find religion useful for these things then, as scientists, we aren't in a position to tell them they are wrong. We can resist them imposing their religious ethics and meaning on us, but we can't turn into the oppressor and start trying to impose materialistism, determinism and atheism on them.

Quote:

I don't need any deeper philosophy there, nor any attempt to reconcile it with a fairy tale. It just works as it is. That's enough for me.

Yes, you can do word-games like calling both "belief" or using vague irrelevant things like "both aren't absolute", but it seems to be at best a "Chewbacca defense".

Nothing could be further from the truth. The philosophical arguments about the status of subjectively-justified claims is anything but irrelevant. Anyone who thinks it is does so because they haven't tried hard enough to understand those arguments and why they matter. They aren't word games - they are the first step towards a much deeper understanding of the philosophical problems which make the war between science and religion unresolvable.

Quote:

It spews plenty of such irrelevant things, but doesn't even touch the meat of the matter and why we have that demarcation in the first place.

How about this NOMA, briefly:

1. If you want a _method_ that works, has solid evidence, and produces useful stuff, that's that-a-way, through the door called science.

2. If you just want a vague and non-useful fairy tale to believe in, in fact one of a few hundreds of conflicting and mutually-incompatible fairy tales, that's the other way, through the door called religion.

That's not NOMA. That's somebody trying to say "Science is the way and all religion is ********!!!", whilst totally failing to acknowledge the philosphical problems inherent in making such a claim.

If you want a method which produces useful practical beliefs about reality, science is indeed the way. But if you think that means there is no place left for religion then I think you are mistaken.

Quote:

Handwaving about the semantics of "belief" or about both not being "absolute", doesn't negate that basic point: one has evidence and works, the other is just a useless fairy tale.

Fairy tales were never supposed to be useful, apart from as metaphors and tales about morality.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Why? Can you suggest a better way to derail this thread?

Please go away and scribble somewhere-else.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

The distinction between reality and non reality seems clear cut enough that mice and beetles have few problems recognising it. In fact the only creatures who do have difficulty with the difference are some humans.
Anything that does not overlap with reality is unreal.

As soon as you start making claims about what reality is and what overlaps with it then you are deep in the metaphysical doo-doo. Science makes justified claims about probable future observations. It doesn't tell us what reality is or what observers are.

Science and religion both make claims about reality. They just happen to be different sorts of claims which are justified in very different ways.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Science and religion both make claims about reality. They just happen to be different sorts of claims which are justified in very different ways.

True. One is justified by empirical evidence and is useful and the other is justified by semantics, fantasy and is useless.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Well, modern pseudo-philosophers, especially theistic ones, are always attempting to give some relevance to their "craft" and special plead their way to relevance. Their lack of utility or relevance to society or science must be galling.

Irrelevant to science, yes. Irrelevant to society? I don't think so, somehow.

Science is a tool for making accurate predictions about future observation. From a strictly scientific point of view, "society" is something you'd have to ask socio-biologists about. All explanations would end up being given in terms of science. For ethical guidance, we'd end up turning to the behaviour of vampire bats and claiming that this is what altruism evolved from. This is "the naturalistic fallacy" writ large - the attempt to derive an ethical "ought" from a scientific "is." Society in general takes a dim view of scientists who make this mistake, and rightly so.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

True. One is justified by empirical evidence and is useful and the other is justified by semantics, fantasy and is useless.

That is your point of view - part of your own belief system. That's all well and good provided you don't think you have sufficient justification to impose those beliefs on anybody else. You believe that alll religion is useless fantasy. If you actually try to claim this is absolute truth - that you know that this is the case - then you are being as bad as the religious people you so despise, because you're doing exactly the same thing: trying to impose your non-scientifically-justified belief system on other people as if it was justified by science.

It is a two-way process. If you want religion to stop trying to steal scientific territory then you must also accept that you can't ram your own metaphysical beliefs down the throats of non-materialists and religious believers. If you can't use science to prove them wrong then you've no right to tell people that what they believe is necessarily nonsense.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Science and religion both make claims about reality. They just happen to be different sorts of claims which are justified in very different ways.

I agree with HansMustermann and disagree with your conclusion (actually, I disagree with a large part of your premise).

The biggest difference between science and religion isn't the justification, but the reliance on causality. This is what gives science the predictive power religion lacks (or at least, has historically been shown to lack). You definitions of philosophy and metaphysics seems to be an attempt to set and straddle a gray area between causality and acausality. As Hans noted, a lack of causality basically does make something useless when it comes to learning about the nature of the universe in which people find themselves.

If X=4, then puppies!

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Irrelevant to science, yes. Irrelevant to society? I don't think so, somehow.

I disagree here.

Quote:

Science is a tool for making accurate predictions about future observation. From a strictly scientific point of view, "society" is something you'd have to ask socio-biologists about. All explanations would end up being given in terms of science. For ethical guidance, we'd end up turning to the behaviour of vampire bats and claiming that this is what altruism evolved from. This is "the naturalistic fallacy" writ large - the attempt to derive an ethical "ought" from a scientific "is." Society in general takes a dim view of scientists who make this mistake, and rightly so.

Something we can actually agree with.

Science is great at answering the "is" questions. However, it is rarely useful for answering the "ought" questions. However, you falsely assume that because that science is not good at answering this questions that "religion" or philosophy automatically has "magisteria" over this area. I completely disagree here.

Religion's claim to ethics, morality etc. is no more justified or
"true"(often way less so) than anything a scientists could claim based on vampire bats.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I disagree here.
Something we can actually agree with.

Science is great at answering the "is" questions. However, it is rarely useful for answering the "ought" questions. However, you falsely assume that because that science is not good at answering this questions that "religion" or philosophy automatically has "magisteria" over this area.

If you read the opening post carefully then you'll find that I didn't actually say that.

Quote:

I completely disagree here.

Religion's claim to ethics, morality etc. is no more justified or
"true"(often way less so) than anything a scientists could claim based on vampire bats.

Neither approach is any use in terms of consensual ethics. Nothing scientists say about vampire bats is relevant and no religiously-justified ethical claim is any use in a secular discussion of ethics. And if science and religion can't do ethics then we have no choice but to turn to philosophy, even though it can't provide firm answers either. The opening post leaves many questions about ethics unanswered, not least because I don't have the answers.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

That is your point of view - part of your own belief system. That's all well and good provided you don't think you have sufficient justification to impose those beliefs on anybody else. You believe that alll religion is useless fantasy.

I don't believe it is entirely useless. I believe it is good at making people feel good and part of a society. However it does so by making up a fantasy. It does nothing a secular alternative could not.

Quote:

If you actually try to claim this is absolute truth - that you know that this is the case - then you are being as bad as the religious people you so despise, because you're doing exactly the same thing: trying to impose your non-scientifically-justified belief system on other people as if it was justified by science.

You are projecting. I want religion out of secular government and education. I have no interest in imposing anything on religion. I have no wish to restrict religion.

My ultimate wish is for religion to be taken as seriously as Santa Clause, a quaint childhood fantasy that everyone grows out of and people are embarassed to openly believe.

Quote:

It is a two-way process. If you want religion to stop trying to steal scientific territory then you must also accept that you can't ram your own metaphysical beliefs down the throats of non-materialists and religious believers.

Who are you arguing with?

Quote:

If you can't use science to prove them wrong then you've no right to tell people that what they believe is necessarily nonsense.

The moment religions stop making ANY claims about reality is when science will stop proving them wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I agree with HansMustermann and disagree with your conclusion (actually, I disagree with a large part of your premise).

The biggest difference between science and religion isn't the justification, but the reliance on causality.

You'll have to expand that, because it could mean various different things.

Quote:

This is what gives science the predictive power religion lacks (or at least, has historically been shown to lack). You definitions of philosophy and metaphysics seems to be an attempt to set and straddle a gray area between causality and acausality.

Yes. I'm trying to seperate that "grey area" off into the magisterium of philosophy so science and religion can't have a pointless, unresolvable fight about it.

Quote:

As Hans noted, a lack of causality basically does make something useless when it comes to learning about the nature of the universe in which people find themselves.

The definitions of science and religion I have given do not explicitly say anything about causality. They do not, for example, rule out some form of teleology in evolution. But then neither does neo-Darwinism...

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I don't believe it is entirely useless. I believe it is good at making people feel good and part of a society. However it does so by making up a fantasy. It does nothing a secular alternative could not.

Again...this is what you believe and your belief is not entirely justified by science. I don't accept your view because I don't accept your metaphysics. You have no scientific justification for telling me that I ought to accept your metaphysical beliefs.

Quote:

You are projecting. I want religion out of secular government and education. I have no interest in imposing anything on religion. I have no wish to restrict religion.

My ultimate wish is for religion to be taken as seriously as Santa Clause, a quaint childhood fantasy that everyone grows out of and people are embarassed to openly believe.

Who are you arguing with?

Anyone who doesn't know where science stops or where religion stops.

Quote:

The moment religions stop making ANY claims about reality is when science will stop proving them wrong.

You are trying to grab too much territory for science. If I claim that there may be a teleological component to evolution then it is a claim about reality - a claim that science can't ever prove wrong. And this is just one example...another one would be the claim that humans have free will. Humans are quite definately part of reality, but science can't pass judgement on whether or not free will is possible.

[Ron_Tomkins]

UE:
Regardless your intelligence and interesting arguments, it is really hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this:

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is not scientifically-justified.

This claim is 100% absolutely wrong (It is the antithesis of what Materialism is). The only thing Materialism is based on is precisely Scientific Evidence and the principle that there is nothing else except the material

Materialism is based on reliable predictions that can be repeated anytime and that are independent of our beliefs. For example: Water will boil at a specific temperature. This is ALWAYS true, not because some random scientist believes so, but because all the evidence points to that and absolutely nothing else

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

No observation-based scientific experiment can support the claim that science is the only possible means of gaining knowledge about reality (accurate or inaccurate)

So according to you, all the major advances and discoveries in science which have given us knowledge about the round-shaped nature of the earth, the solar system, gravity, quantum electrodynamics, electromagentism.... none of those things revealed anything about reality that we were ignorant about before? None of those proved to be useful? (Have you stopped to wonder how the computer you're using to read my words came about? Do you think maybe science played any kind of role in its making?)

It seems to me, the only thing that has opened the window to the true nature of the universe, has been disciplined scientific study of nature (as opposed to perpetuating myths and urban legends)

...Or do you still find the theory of the world sitting on an infinite amount of turtles more revealing of the true reality of the universe?

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

It is not within the power of science to destroy religion,

That was never the purpose of science anyway. Again, you seem to have an erroneous idea of what science is, and what it is about

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Again...this is what you believe and your belief is not entirely justified by science. I don't accept your view because I don't accept your metaphysics.

True, using your belief system that is not based on much of anything except what you want, there is nothing that can ever change your mind.

Quote:

You have no scientific justification for telling me that I ought to accept your metaphysical beliefs.

Except for its success, yeah none at all.

Quote:

Humans are quite definately part of reality, but science can't pass judgement on whether or not free will is possible.

Actually it can. It depends how you define "free will" just like any philosophical arguments that rely on semantics. Are you talking about Contra-causal free will or causal "free will"?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

UE:
Regardless your intelligence and interesting arguments, it is really hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this:

This claim is 100% absolutely wrong (It is the antithesis of what Materialism is).

It's 100% absolutely right. Materialism, in all its guises, is a metaphysical belief. It's either the claim that only material things exist (ontology) or it is a claim about causality (determinism, basically.)

Quote:

The only thing Materialism is based on is precisely Scientific Evidence and the principle that there is nothing else except the material

That is precisely the sort of claim I want to prevent scientific people from making. Materialism is not based on scientific evidence. Idealism could be true and yet the results of every conceivable scientific experiment turn out exactly as they do today. Saying "there is nothing else except the material" just opens up a philosophical can of worms. What do you mean by "material"? What do you mean by "there is nothing else"? How do you know? Now...you may be able to provide some sort of justification for why you believe materialism is true but there is no way you'll be able to provide scientific justification for it.

Quote:

Materialism is based on reliable predictions that can be repeated anytime and that are independent of our beliefs.

No it isn't. It is a metaphysical position based on nothing at all.

Science is based on repeatable observations and accurate predictions.

Also, science is not independent of our beliefs, as demonstrated by Thomas Kuhn and others.

Quote:

For example: Water will boil at a specific temperature...

Except for when it doesn't....

Quote:

So according to you, all the major advances and discoveries in science which have given us knowledge about the round-shaped nature of the earth, the solar system, gravity, quantum electrodynamics, electromagentism.... none of those things revealed anything about reality that we were ignorant about before?

No, I certainly did not say that.

Quote:

None of those proved to be useful?

Or that.

Quote:

(Have you stopped to wonder how the computer you're using to read my words came about? Do you think maybe science played any kind of role in its making?)

You're attacking a strawman. I didn't say the things you are claiming I said and don't believe the beliefs you are attacking.

Quote:

It seems to me, the only thing that has opened the window to the true nature of the universe, has been disciplined scientific study of nature (as opposed to perpetuating myths and urban legends)

...Or do you still find the theory of the world sitting on an infinite amount of turtles more revealing of the true reality of the universe?

I find many aspects of both philosophy and religion to be revealing in ways science couldn't ever match. Science is science. The very same things which make it useful for the things it is useful for make it useless for the things it isn't useful for.

Quote:

That was never the purpose of science anyway. Again, you seem to have an erroneous idea of what science is, and what it is about

I have a crystal clear idea of what science is:

Science is a means of justifying practically-useful, probabilistic beliefs about future observations of reality and about what we would observe if we could travel back in time. If you think it is anything more then you are mistaken.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

True, using your belief system that is not based on much of anything except what you want, there is nothing that can ever change your mind.

You have no right to try to change my mind, because you have no way of knowing you are right and I am wrong - no way of verifying whether or not I am justified in believing what I believe, because it is dependent on subjective factors about which you have no knowledge. By saying "you believe whatever you want", you are attacking my belief system without having any justification for doing so. I would say I have a higher standard of coherency within my belief system than you do and that I am taking more evidence into account than you. Unlike yourself, I don't go around rubbishing every sort of belief which doesn't happen to agree with my own.

Quote:

Actually it can. It depends how you define "free will" just like any philosophical arguments that rely on semantics. Are you talking about Contra-causal free will or causal "free will"?

I'm not talking about compatibilism, if that's what you mean. I am talking about libertarian or "co-creational" free will - something which is causal but not in a way which contradicts normal causality, the possibility of which was established by Kant.

[Fiona]

I found the OP very interesting. It is possible I have not understood it, however, because some of the responses do not seem to me to be addressing what is being said.

As I took the OP the argument is that there are different realms of discourse: in particular religion and science. There is a tendency for them to find themselves in opposition to each other. This opposition is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits of each position. That misunderstanding leads to a number of consequences, but most importantly to a tendency to overextend the scope of each approach. At the same time this results (though I am not sure if the idea is that that there is a causal relationship here) in both sides attempting to get rid of the other by muscling in on the territory.

The OP suggests that this is flawed and that the only possible way through is to recognise that neither can deal with the field which is proper to the other: and that we need a different discipline to resolve some of these issues: and that discipline is philosophy.

If that is what is being said then I think I agree with it.

But I will be interested to hear from the OP as to whether I am on the right lines

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

I would say I have a higher standard of coherency within my belief system than you do and that I am taking more evidence into account than you.

Sorry but I'm a Utilitarian, I don't much care about useless beliefs.

Quote:

Unlike yourself, I don't go around rubbishing every sort of belief which doesn't happen to agree with my own.

And that's a bad thing how? I attack harmful beliefs. I attack beliefs that retard human progress. I don't consider it alright for people to believe that gays don't deserve equal rights or that magic will cure their kid's diabetes or cancer. Sorry but I actually care about my fellow human beings.

Quote:

I'm not talking about compatibilism, if that's what you mean. I am talking about libertarian or "co-creational" free will - something which is causal but not in a way which contradicts normal causality, the possibility of which was established by Kant.

No. There is no such thing.

If reality is causal, there is no free-will. Unless a neuron or "brain process" can fire contra-causally(via whatever process you can claim), every neuron and brain chemical reaction in your brain will fire in an exact pathway alreadt determined by physics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I found the OP very interesting. It is possible I have not understood it, however, because some of the responses do not seem to me to be addressing what is being said.

That may mean you understood it better than those respondents...

Quote:

As I took the OP the argument is that there are different realms of discourse: in particular religion and science. There is a tendency for them to find themselves in opposition to each other. This opposition is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits of each position. That misunderstanding leads to a number of consequences, but most importantly to a tendency to overextend the scope of each approach. At the same time this results (though I am not sure if the idea is that that there is a causal relationship here) in both sides attempting to get rid of the other by muscling in on the territory.

Yes. The main proponents of the conflict, on both sides, are so busy attacking the other side that they tend to lose sight of the limitations of their own.

Quote:

The OP suggests that this is flawed and that the only possible way through is to recognise that neither can deal with the field which is proper to the other: and that we need a different discipline to resolve some of these issues: and that discipline is philosophy.

If that is what is being said then I think I agree with it.

Yes, that is what is being said, although philosophy can't ever conclusively answer those key questions either. What it can do is help an individual person to think more coherently about them. It is no use approaching these philosophical issues from the point of view of a scientific or religious person who already thinks they know the answers. No religious or scientistic dogmatist can seriously confront the ideas of people like Hume, Kuhn, Wittgenstein or Rorty and come out with their dogma intact. Instead, they should come away with a whole load of new questions....better questions.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Sorry but I'm a Utilitarian, I don't much care about useless beliefs.

They aren't useless to me.

Quote:

And that's a bad thing how? I attack harmful beliefs. I attack beliefs that retard human progress.

Well, that is a big claim. I have religious beliefs which are neither harmful nor retarded. They do not contradict science and are not harmful to me or to society.

Quote:

I don't consider it alright for people to believe that gays don't deserve equal rights or that magic will cure their kid's diabetes or cancer. Sorry but I actually care about my fellow human beings.

So do I, which is why I rejected Gould's version of NOMA.

Quote:

No. There is no such thing.

If reality is causal, there is no free-will.

Kant proved that the existence of normal causality does not preclude the existence of libertarian free will. You do not know that free will does not exist. Science can't prove such a thing and philosophy has already proved that such a thing is possible. Strictly speaking (according to Kant) we can never objectively know whether it exists or doesn't exist.

Quote:

Unless a neuron or "brain process" can fire contra-causally(via whatever process you can claim), every neuron and brain chemical reaction in your brain will fire in an exact pathway alreadt determined by physics.

I don't know what "contra-causal" means. Libertarian free will is another type of causality, not "contra-causality."

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

They aren't useless to me.

Good point. Many beliefs are useful or hold value to those who believe in them.

Quote:

Well, that is a big claim. I have religious beliefs which are neither harmful nor retarded. They do not contradict science and are not harmful to me or to society.

And so I don't attack those. However, many benign religious beliefs are mixed in with so much BS that it is impossible to not criticize even the less harmful belies.

Quote:

Kant proved that the existence of normal causality does not preclude the existence of libertarian free will. You do not know that free will does not exist. Science can't prove such a thing and philosophy has already proved that such a thing is possible. Strictly speaking (according to Kant) we can never objectively know whether it exists or doesn't exist.

That is a different discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Kant's version to discuss this at this point.

Quote:

I don't know what "contra-causal" means. Libertarian free will is another type of causality, not "contra-causality."

This is another discussion but contra-causal is anything that contradicts causality.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

(1) “I know what red looks like to me.”

What work is the word " know" doing there?

You might not have mastered the use of the word " red". Or you might be fibbing when you say " That looks red to me. "

But it makes no sense to say: You might have got it wrong if you hadn't checked carefully how it looked to you ( but in fact you guarded carefully against this possible error).

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

For example: Water will boil at a specific temperature...

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Except for when it doesn't....

Huh? And when exactly is that?

Have you found a particular case in which water doesn't boil at more than 100 degrees? Or a case in which it boils at minus 10 degrees?

If so, you may have a case against materialism

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Huh? And when exactly is that?

Have you found a particular case in which water doesn't boil at more than 100 degrees? Or a case in which it boils at minus 10 degrees?

If so, you may have a case against materialism

Uh...psst...air pressure.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Saying "there is nothing else except the material" just opens up a philosophical can of worms. What do you mean by "material"? What do you mean by "there is nothing else"? How do you know?

UE, we've been through this annoying silly argument infinite times (not just with you)

No, of course to this day we don't know that there is anything else beyond the material. But we have no reason to believe, given the absolute lack of evidence that there is anything else but matter

Do you know with absolute certainty that there isn't an invisible flying dragon? Have you looked all over the Universe? Of course you haven't. Would it be reasonable to believe there is one, given the fact that you don't have 100% certainty that there isn't one? No
It's the same principle we're operating under

Until there is new evidence, this (the material) is all we have

[Apathia]

There's a lot I haven't digested in the OP yet, especially how your NOMA is different from Gould"s.

But two things to start:

"Magisteria"
There's the connotation of each having its own imperial territory.
But then we want to go off a conquering and bring all under a single Authority.
(Yes, I understand the concept of scientific authority is not the same as religious, but is is about the whole land measured by the same "ruler.")

It seems from my initial reading that you'd like to see Philosophy in some kind of UN capacity, keeping the ambitious in their own borders.
Your new NOMA is again an attempt to tell them to stay in some kind of sovereignty of their own. (Like they're ever going to.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't care for a territorial Science or a territorial religion.
I'd really rather have all the land united without boarders and without a mere tolerance of conflicting claims.

The scientific method doesn't calculate answers to questions of morality and meaning. But it does answer questions of what is healthy. And that does have moral implications. It's not the be all end all, but it's not an imperial kingdom.

Religion doesn't have to be an imperial kingdom either.
I quote the Dalai Lama in my sig as an example that religion can respect empirical evidence and not claim a trump over it.

I hope that one day we'll be able to be just the physical/mental/spiritual/social beings that we are without divisions of rival institutions denigrating each other.

NOMA reminds me of PETA. "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
In the very name people and animals are still in sharp contrast, and animals are the objects of people's actions. In NOMA there's still a high wall of separation.

But then again, perhaps they still need fences to be good neighbors.

[Fiona]

Ok, thank you UE.

If that is the case then I would take issue with you at the same point as HansMustermann, but not necessarily for the same reasons, nor to the same extent.

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Once we accept that neither science nor religion is capable of delivering absolute, untainted truth then we can see that all knowledge claims are different sorts of belief and that science and religion cannot cause any sort of conflict which matters provided they don't get their means of justification mixed up.

I think this is too strong and perhaps misrepresents what you are arguing. As I understand it you have a good case in saying that neither science nor religion can produce absolute truth: and I doubt that any in the sceptical camp would seriously dispute those: though there are people in both the scientific and the religious communities who would, perhaps.

But to say that all knowledge claims are different sorts of belief is only true for a particular meaning of the words "knowledge claims" and "belief", and I think this is one source of confusion arising from what you have written.

Quote:

the key distinction is not what the statements are about but the means by which they justify, or attempt to justify, beliefs.

As I see it the "ideal" scientist does not really make "knowledge claims" in the strong sense. It is fundamental to the enterprise that conclusions are provisional;and that what we seem to know can be overturned. For me the essential part of the scientific approach is not the conclusions, but the method by which they are reached. That method has been wonderfully successful in very many areas: far wider than could have been envisaged in the past. It is both natural and desirable that we should use it wherever we can, because good results have come out of such use even where it was not obvious that they would. I do not think we are in a position to say where the limits might lie.

I do not think that the religious use the term "belief" in the same way: and nor do I think the "knowledge claims" are comparable. You acknowledge that just after the bit I quoted, so I am not disagreeing with you at all here: but given you have recognised the importance of the language game it cannot be surprising that your decision to characterise these two things using the same terms has led to some hostility. Indeed I think you got a bit lost in your own argument when you came to your conclusion: or perhaps I did - that is quite likely .

Quote:

If religious people recognise that their religiously-justified beliefs can't compete with scientific beliefs on scientific turf

The problem here, as I see it, is that religious people are just as caught up in our culture as anybody else: and they are just as rational. The very success of the scientific method has led to a widespread presumption that it can properly apply to all problems. While I do not think we have any certainty about where the limits of the scientific method might lie, I personally take the view that there are such limits. In our eagerness to make best use of the tool we have somehow come to a place where other "language games" are not taken seriously. That places the religious in an impossible position: they are facing the societal equivalent of Jowett.

"First come I. My name is Jowett.
There's no knowledge but I know it.
I am the Master of this College,
What I don't know isn't knowledge."
(sorry I cannot attribute that, mods: it comes from somewhere other than the inside of my head: but I do not know where)

It is unwise to try to justify something wholly outside the realm of science within the terms of science: but in this climate it is understandable that they should do so, for they are also impressed by the success of science: and they find it hard to be heard if they talk in more appropriate terms. It seems that way to me, anyway

Quote:

and aren't acceptable as ethical beliefs that can be imposed on others then most of the problems percieved to be caused by religion cease to be problems.

Yes to this part: and many religious people do recognise that they have no locus to impose their ethics: there are others, but they are not really a problem in my country though I understand that is not true everywhere. But I will add that there are many who are not religious but who yet try to impose their ethical beliefs on others: this is not a problem confined to religious people and to that extent I think your outline of the problem is not adequate though your analysis is interesting

Quote:

As their half of the bargain the scientific community has to make sure it isn't making claims in the name of science which actually depend on metaphysics.

Again, yes. And, again, I think most do behave in that way: but I cannot deny that there are some who do not; just as is also true for the religious. And as with the preceding paragraph there are many who are not in any meaningful sense part of the "scientific community" who yet make such claims and justify them with what has been called "scientism".

Quote:

If both these things happen then there is no need for any great conflict between science and religion because all that is left to discuss is the status of the subjectively-justified claims I've seperated into a category of their own. And in resolving, or attempting to resolve (for it is impossible, I think), the status of those claims, both the scientific and religious community have no choice but to defer to philosophy, since neither science nor religion can compete with modern philosophy in terms of having addressed (or tried to) this problem. In other words, the point of this NOMA is to stop the pointless conflict between science and religion by forcing the extremists on both sides to accept that the only genuine point of contention is philosophical and not resolvable by science and religion having a war. No scientific or religious text can tell you how to interpret Wittgenstein or Rorty - you have to try to work it out for yourself by thinking very, very hard. No scientific or religious text can tell you what Mary will say when she finally sees red for the first time, nor whether "folk psychology" is a theory. And no scientific or religious text will ever conclusively and objectively prove or disprove the existence of genuine (as opposed to delusional) mystical experiences. Science should be the business of making accurate predictions about future observations and justified claims about what we would observe if we could travel back in time. Religion should be a necessarily subjective and personal business to do with an individual's relationship to the Divine (or lack of, as the case may be). Sciences loses nothing if scientific people cease to make metaphysical claims without realising it. Religion loses nothing by ditching fundamentalism and literalism. On the contrary, I think that an accurate understanding of where science stops and metaphysics starts actually enhances one's understanding of what science really is and that fundamentalism and literalism actually get in the way of a proper understanding of what religion is really about.

I broadly agree with this but I would make one point which occurs to me: I have absolutely no locus. I am not within the community of science nor of religion, so I cannot say if they lose anything by taking your proposal or not. This seems to me to be an important point. There are religious people who visit this board and I suspect that some of them would take the view that, far from losing nothing, they would lose it all if they ditched fundamentalism and literalism. They are by no means typical of religious people I have met but I do not think I am in a position to judge what is essential to any religious person. That is not so true for science (though it is for many of our more "fundamentalist" sceptics, I think) and the fact that I can say that points up a difference which is not addressed in your characterisation. I think it is fatal to your attempted reconciliation, however, not because

Quote:

Of course, there will be those who actually want the conflict to continue, because they won't be happy until the they have destroyed their percieved opponents.

but rather because I am not convinced you are seeing the essentials from within. I think your perfectly reasonable analysis falls for this reason. But it is a pity.

[Kopji]

Ok, I just don't see 'Philosophy' as being the end all battleground. Philosophy provides us with tools, but I see us all as essentially problem solvers. Tools to solve problems come from many sources.

Ethical behavior or answers arise from our meeting problems - and working out solutions. When I use the word 'problems' it is not in a bad sense, more like the sense that as humans we struggle with how to live, and that's part of being human.

I don't see the need for NOMA walls. Science, philosophy, and art/religion are part of the same human stuff.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I agree with HansMustermann and disagree with your conclusion (actually, I disagree with a large part of your premise).

The biggest difference between science and religion isn't the justification, but the reliance on causality.

...snip...

I'd say there is one much bigger difference - one works (as far as we can tell) and one doesn't (as far as we can tell).

To date the only "language game" that does what it says it does is the language game we call "science". All the other "language games" we have come up with, so far, whether that be religion or metaphysics simply do not do what they say they do.

[ImaginalDisc]

There's a response to your essay here.

[PixyMisa]

Science is the study of what is real, philosophy the study of knowledge, and religion is whatever worthless nonsense you care to make up.

There's no "non-overlapping magesteria" when it comes to understanding the natural world. There's science, and there's crap.

Oh, and this just in: Frank Jackson's "Mary's room" argument is still logically invalid.

[paximperium]

The basic premise is pretty simple.

Science is used to study anything within reality that it can until it can no longer do so based limited technology or knowledge at that time so religion/philosphy automatically lays claims hold over that area.

Religion/philosophy then retreats as science starts to further expands into their once sacred areas such as conciousness, free will and ethics; complaining all the way as their "magisteria" shrinks.

Basically philosphy and religion lives in the realm of science's ignorance.

[PixyMisa]

That's a little unfair to some parts of philosophy.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

That's a little unfair to some parts of philosophy.

True, I am being a bit unfair. Certain aspects of it especially epistomology, logic etc. seems to have good utility and reasoning behind it.

However, huge chunks of what was once philosophy is being swallowed up by scientific enquiry. I find the anti-science nonsense spewed by certain philosophers to be exceedingly silly and nothing more than attempt to defend this shrinking little world and to give some relevance to their field.

[PixyMisa]

Agreed. I list Chalmers, Searle and Jackson as my personal Axis of Facepalm.