Should religion and science be regarded as NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)?

[GeoffP]

GeoffP:

Don't you think the "axis of NOMA" is a bit of a cop out? It's just a way of nicely partitioning off religion into a "no go" area for reason.

Is there a scientific way to test the existence of a being operating outside of naturalistic parameters? What distribution should I use for that? Binary? Essentially any scientific probe of God can be reduced to "because He wants it that way" at some point. "Reason", in that context, is "human reason", and this is a well that theists can visit at any point. Yazata points to the "in His image" line, and that's a good point: but in what image of Him? We aren't all born of virgins either.

Now, to an atheist, all that's a cop-out. But atheists are meant, as I understand it, to operate outside God anyway; there are numerous testimonies on SF about how atheists are not points on a scale of theological credulity or acceptance. If that's so, why the interest in penetrating that partition? Why are atheists looking backwards? Simple: because the existence of the dichotomy generates friction and the desire for exchange, or attack, or counter-attack against the religious biases of that part of the population that pushes God into the public sphere. It would be better to just separate them altogether. Otherwise we have the ongoing dogfight. That fight was started by religious reactionaries, of course.

Still, I'll admit that I sometimes want to probe theology with science myself. And I even have a philosophical bias: I would love to be the guy that finds the existence of God, because that's exciting. (And terrifying.) But no God? Well, that's boring. And it makes people sad. Fuck that.

Let's go at this from the other vantage point: why violate NOMA? To what end? Science, as anyone familiar with it knows, is not about the objective search for truth, but about the often biased search for support in ongoing and often one-sided arguments and philosophical bases. (Those believing otherwise should get out, as soon as possible.) It is an economic phenomenon. Is there a reason to hack at a nice, conventional boundary with a decent philosophical basis meant to keep people from hating each other?

 

[Yazata]

Is there a scientific way to test the existence of a being operating outside of naturalistic parameters?

Certainly not with natural science, which seems to be the only kind of science that human beings have at the moment.

(Maybe logic is a different kind of non-naturalistic science, I don't know.)

But it does seem to be a fool's errand to try to address hypothetical transcendental or supernatural matters with the tools of natural science, tools that seem totally inappropriate to the task.

Now, to an atheist, all that's a cop-out.

I'm an atheist myself when it comes to the deities of religious mythology, like Yahweh, Allah, Krishna and that crew. But when it comes to the big questions, I'm an agnostic. My atheism consists in my belief that the world's traditional religious mythologies don't provide satisfactory answers to the big questions. But it doesn't suggest any assurance on my part that I know what the answers to those questions are. (Provided that the questions make sense.)

The way I address this stuff is epistemologically, in terms of the theory of knowledge. This approach starts with human beings here on this planet, and then inquires into what kind of things we can know in our situation, and how we can come to know those things.

Still, I'll admit that I sometimes want to probe theology with science myself.

I think that natural science is relevant to studying the purported natural effects that tradition associates with divine action. The Biblical flood is an obvious example of that. The age of the earth, the sequence of creation and so on.

And I even have a philosophical bias: I would love to be the guy that finds the existence of God, because that's exciting. (And terrifying.) But no God? Well, that's boring. And it makes people sad. Fuck that.

But if we turn our attention away from God's purported effects down here on Earth, to the idea of probing God directly and investigating "his" nature with the tools and methods of our natural science, we aren't likely to have very much success. Natural science seems to lack the necessary epistemological access to whatever non-natural dimensions of reality might hypothetically exist.

 

[Cyperium]

But if we turn our attention away from God's purported effects down here on Earth, to the idea of probing God directly and investigating "his" nature with the tools and methods of our natural science, we aren't likely to have very much success. Natural science seems to lack the necessary epistemological access to whatever non-natural dimensions of reality might hypothetically exist.

Investigating consciousness could provide some tools of probing into such things though. I find many similarities to the difficulty of understanding how consciousness works with the difficulty of knowing how God can exist. The only real difference is that we know subjectively that we are conscious but we don't know if God exists. Discovering how the brain can generate consciousness might give hints as to how a god could exist.

I'm just toying with some ideas here:
Might be that all religions are correct in some way, obviously we can't have two creations happening differently, but perhaps the creation of the world happens through the interpretation of the gods? That there are realities where a god thinks he created the world because it fits with his act of creating it, similarly to how "free will" makes us think we made an action while in fact a lot of things happened before that action that influenced us, but because the action fits with our intention we think that we actively made that decision based on that intention while in fact there was other reasons for it as well.

Similarly the ideas of angels and demons could have their representative in other religions as well - but interpreted into a multitude of gods and other creatures. Religion appeals to people, and the appeal is often felt as a recognition of something that they already knew - this too might be because of interpretations of the underlying truth.

Either way, I think it's wrong to just wave religion away, just as awareness, love and free will and other such subjective feelings are impossible to objectively show as they are, so can religious ideas be equally true but impossible to objectively show.

 

[James R]

GeoffP:

Is there a scientific way to test the existence of a being operating outside of naturalistic parameters?

I'm not exactly sure how that is supposed to work, exactly - this operating outside of naturalistic parameters thing. It seems to me that if God is to affect the world, he must interact with its naturalistic physical parameters. And if so, then there should be evidence of such interaction that is accessible to scientific investigation.

To take one example, if you believe that God answers prayers, that is amenable to scientific testing. In fact, it has been tested. And guess what?

But atheists are meant, as I understand it, to operate outside God anyway; there are numerous testimonies on SF about how atheists are not points on a scale of theological credulity or acceptance. If that's so, why the interest in penetrating that partition? Why are atheists looking backwards? Simple: because the existence of the dichotomy generates friction and the desire for exchange, or attack, or counter-attack against the religious biases of that part of the population that pushes God into the public sphere. It would be better to just separate them altogether.

Don't you think that a commitment to what is true is important?

You can argue that people ought to be allowed to believe what they want to believe, evidence or no, and I won't have much argument with that. But beliefs impact on how we live our lives, how we interact with one another, and on the time and energy we devote to various activities. If religion is to impact on important decisions that we make regarding our society, then we'd better make sure that our religious beliefs are justifiable, don't you think?

Still, I'll admit that I sometimes want to probe theology with science myself. And I even have a philosophical bias: I would love to be the guy that finds the existence of God, because that's exciting. (And terrifying.) But no God? Well, that's boring. And it makes people sad. Fuck that.

So you'd rather be happy than know the truth? Or you think that it's better for other people to be happy than to know the truth?

Sure, stories of gods may be entertaining or comforting for you, but what if you're wasting time and energy that could be better spent on other things? Also, there could be a down side to the excitement of God - fear of Hell is one that comes to mind. If that fear is unfounded because Hell doesn't exist, then what?

Let's go at this from the other vantage point: why violate NOMA?

Note that NOMA isn't a law. It is the claim that science and faith are "non-overlapping magisteria" - that neither has any business invading the other's turf.

Disagreeing with NOMA is not a "violation" of a fundamental law or principle. I personally disagree with the premise of NOMA. I'm not being a naughty boy and violating an agreed principle. I don't agree that the principle itself is valid. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Science, as anyone familiar with it knows, is not about the objective search for truth, but about the often biased search for support in ongoing and often one-sided arguments and philosophical bases.

I wouldn't claim that the practice of science is perfect, but I would venture that scientific investigation has proven to be a very reliable way to get to the truth, despite the human biases that different people have. I'm not sure that the same thing can be said about religious faith.

Is there a reason to hack at a nice, conventional boundary with a decent philosophical basis meant to keep people from hating each other?

I don't see why hate is necessary. And I might also mention that NOMA doesn't seem to be very successful in stopping religious fundamentalists from going out of their way to tell homosexuals, believers in evolution, atheists and the like that they will be going to Hell to burn for eternity. Such attitudes don't seem very reasonable to me.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP:

I'm not exactly sure how that is supposed to work, exactly - this operating outside of naturalistic parameters thing. It seems to me that if God is to affect the world, he must interact with its naturalistic physical parameters. And if so, then there should be evidence of such interaction that is accessible to scientific investigation.

But why do you suppose such interaction is accessible to scientific investigation? I alluded to this before without being specific enough: at what level is God operating that I can detect His influence? Which system definitely contains such evidence? Let's step back slightly here: if I search, say, for a gene responsible for body weight, should I not have some appreciation of the scale over which a gene involved in such variation should operate? If I select instead an animal model, should I not choose two rat strains with heritable differences in phenotype? So what scale are we working with, here? Over what range does God operate?

I'll accede to this one so far as we can define such a population and have an unambiguous liturgical expectation of result. What's our power, here? Unfortunately, even that runs into the below:

To take one example, if you believe that God answers prayers, that is amenable to scientific testing. In fact, it has been tested. And guess what?

I guess that the testing thereof is a little bogus, because one can refer to the idea that "God can decide what prayers he takes." Why? Well, He's a supernatural being, frankly. The choosing of scale or factorial differentiation above presupposes a biological basis for differences in weight either as a binary contrast or along a distribution. What scale underlies the decision of a fickle, divine being in the response to prayer? Do you have to be a very nice person? Do you have to really need it?

From an explicitly statistical perspective, you might argue that those being prayed for should expect some statistically greater result - without getting into issues of power; and what is our a priori expectation of power, again? - but, power aside and without any understanding of scale, it's always possible to resort to the perception of the whim of a fickle deity. Islam states this a little more explicitly; I'm not sure about Judaism but in Christianity also "the Lord moves in mysterious ways", which means that God does as He likes. There's no scale at which to test it, even keeping means within a random or mixed model with random effects of prayer on result (to account for the unpredictability of selection for the more or less religiously 'worthy'). We have no real field of expectation and even less so if we take a hands-off version of God, or a version in which reaction evades perception. I do note this one: "do not put your God to the test" used to be a pretty popular saying. If we're meant to use the Judeo-Christian god as a model, this suggests bias from the start. Why should I think that this God chooses to involve himself in these cases particularly? He just flooded out a couple hundred thousand Indonesians, presumably. Ockham suggests then that such a God cannot be real, or cannot be good. But the alternative is that there's no expectation on the power of prayer. How does one guess what prayers are to be answered and which are not?

Now, if you want to construe the above as a reason not to believe in the naturalistic output of a divine being... :shrug: OK. But one has to reiterate that such a being could function entirely outside expectation. I think it a bad idea.

Don't you think that a commitment to what is true is important?

Oh, I used to, but reality is subjective at this level. Does it particularly matter?

You can argue that people ought to be allowed to believe what they want to believe, evidence or no, and I won't have much argument with that. But beliefs impact on how we live our lives, how we interact with one another, and on the time and energy we devote to various activities. If religion is to impact on important decisions that we make regarding our society, then we'd better make sure that our religious beliefs are justifiable, don't you think?

And if the support for such beliefs were testable, I'd be the first to agree with you. "Justifiable" raises the issue of threshold: where shall we call our nominal significance for the rejection of the null? 5%? 10%? On what rigorous statistical basis are these thresholds founded?

Frankly, I'll settle for "innocuous". Where a belief meets with this essential moral goalpost, I have no objection. Where it doesn't, it requires societal correction - or smothering.

So you'd rather be happy than know the truth? Or you think that it's better for other people to be happy than to know the truth?

Sure, stories of gods may be entertaining or comforting for you, but what if you're wasting time and energy that could be better spent on other things? Also, there could be a down side to the excitement of God - fear of Hell is one that comes to mind. If that fear is unfounded because Hell doesn't exist, then what?

I see plenty of truth every day. I don't consider my outlay of time and energy relative to religiosity or not religiosity as egregious, particularly in comparison to every other source of wastage or consumption. I just ate a banana split, and I didn't even need one. Now, you might have a more solid point for the regular churchgoer; but if she spent her time parasailing or mismanaging a small eastern Asian country into the ground instead, would it be time any less well wasted? Where religiosity cuts into the basic responsibilities of life, I could see it as a waste, naturally. Are you arguing for a general increase of efficiency? If so, on what basis religion and not the parasailing? Hell, there are many much more afunctional behaviours, in the best case. What are the relative debits and gains in terms of psyche, personality and sociality? It's not such a clear wastage.

As for Hell, the popular concept actually appears to be founded on a massively misunderstood geographical issue in Judaism. But let's consider it: if it promotes social support and altruistic behaviour, where's the problem? If you're arguing that pathologically religious behaviour could do with restriction, I don't think any sensible person could disagree with you.

Note that NOMA isn't a law. It is the claim that science and faith are "non-overlapping magisteria" - that neither has any business invading the other's turf.

Disagreeing with NOMA is not a "violation" of a fundamental law or principle. I personally disagree with the premise of NOMA. I'm not being a naughty boy and violating an agreed principle. I don't agree that the principle itself is valid. I'm sure you can see the difference.

(I don't recall accusing you of being particularly naughty or not. Is there anything you're looking to confess?) "Violation" was meant as a colloquialism. I should have said "violate poor NOMA". I understand how it raised your hackles.

I wouldn't claim that the practice of science is perfect, but I would venture that scientific investigation has proven to be a very reliable way to get to the truth, despite the human biases that different people have. I'm not sure that the same thing can be said about religious faith.

James, I would love to agree with you wholeheartedly here, but unfortunately result is coloured by prejudice and presupposition, as I think you should know full well. If you want to speak of gross generalities - such as evolution - then there could be no disagreement. But the testing of God is going to come down to specifics, if we use tests such as the prayer example you gave above. Let's put it this way: I'd be happy to change my opinion here and support the idea that such a test could be done, but how would you do it? What test is required? Or in the larger scale, what philosophical distinction can be made that overrides the fundamental supposition of supernaturalism? What's the point?

I don't see why hate is necessary. And I might also mention that NOMA doesn't seem to be very successful in stopping religious fundamentalists from going out of their way to tell homosexuals, believers in evolution, atheists and the like that they will be going to Hell to burn for eternity. Such attitudes don't seem very reasonable to me.

Well, I don't see why hate is necessary either, but it seems a pretty likely outcome on both sides. Such issues can be dealt with socially without the need to go after anyone's fundamental belief system, which generates the hate. Or: why would I need to do the latter? Is it necessary to "win" a war against religiousness? Is it conversely necessary that the religious of the world 'should' win a war against science? I appreciate the feeling about pushing back - a response as purely biological and human as anything - but it's the kind of victor thinking that got us into this mess. What advantage do you think is gained - and for who - by pressing the attack against religion here?

Edit: regarding testing - one could verge into the philosophical as opposed to the empirical, but one probably runs into the same issues of contrast and expectation.

 

[Balerion]

Yes, it would be a wonderful world if everyone prayed in their closets, and faith was considered a private matter, but that's not the world we live in. The War on Terror is in all practical senses a war on Wahabbism; the "Evolution Debate" is an Evangelical Christian construct; and the abortion/contraception "controversy" is largely a debate with the Catholic church. So why are some of us pretending that religion and science are not vying for the same real estate?

It is not necessary to disprove a supreme being, but scientific enlightenment has pushed the boundary back that far: We are long past having to say we can only be skeptical in regards to the Judeo-Christian God. It should no longer be taboo to assert that it in fact does not exist, and with all the same confidence that we assert pixies and fairies do not exist. The stamp of human origin is on them all.

How does one argue in favor of equality for homosexuals without insulting another's fundamental beliefs? How does one put an end to genital mutilation without spitting on millenia of tradition? Thankfully, in the US, we have the Constitution to shield us from some of the more evil injunctions of religion, but it is of little consequence to the public school students whose teachers refuse to teach evolution for fear of offending someone's beliefs. Nor does it help you, any male who is reading this without the company of your foreskin, which was taken from you without your consent. I ask again: How else do we combat these injustices without striking at the very heart of faith?

 

[Epictetus]

As science is not a religion, I think this thread should be moved from Comparative Religion to the Philosophy section.
Should religion and science be regarded as NOMA?
Of course they should as science is the search for truth and religion is mere fairy tales that the adherents feel mighty touchy about, not willing to even consider their truthfulness.

 

[Rav]

Still, I'll admit that I sometimes want to probe theology with science myself. And I even have a philosophical bias: I would love to be the guy that finds the existence of God, because that's exciting. (And terrifying.) But no God? Well, that's boring. And it makes people sad. Fuck that.

Historically, science has, to some extent, dictated the outer form that theism must take in order to maintain it's status as a separate domain. In other words, many of the outgrowths that have illegitimately intruded into the domain of science have been trimmed off (although while many religious people have accepted this, some are still in denial). It's likely that this will continue. I do agree however that regardless of whether God exists or not, there is certainly a point at which science can probe religious claims no further, especially those that are said to be beyond science in principle. That is, that no matter how far science advances, whatever it is able to detect or quantify, even if it is indirectly, and no matter how profound that discovery is, will not qualify as a component of a transcendent reality simply because it can be detected or quantified.

So I guess it really boils down to how God is being defined. Within our empirical reach, or in principle forever beyond it. Personally, I don't see any reason why an actually existing God is necessarily beyond our empirical reach. But if he is, or if he doesn't even exist at all, it is indeed true that science can't make a definitive determination either way.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I think there always has been and always will be some overlap between science and religion. Here I'm limiting my scope to the common experience in the US, assuming only the local influence of Western culture and predominance of Christianity within this frame of reference.

The first thing to note is the historical connection, that science is the child of religion, if we trace events from the Golden Age of Greece. Throughout that history there has been all kinds of overlap. The stories of Bruno, Copernicus and Galileo seem to me to form a kind of climax, both in the way scientists began to cut the umbilical cord from Mother Church, and the way She lashed back. Today it's the other way around, with fundamentalists putting out their treatises of heresy against Nature, the almost-sacred object of scientific attentions. So that element of overlap hasn't disappeared, the tables have just been turned.

As for ontology it has several dimensions that you might try to coax into right angles in order to minimize the overlap. But religion and science are both built around ontology, so it's hard to do without putting blinders on. This leads to JamesR's point about the way scientists can confirm that God does not overturn the laws of nature.

My own view is that science offers religious folks a fair and honest appraisal of nature and the way things work. After all it isn't just religion that comes into the discussion. Very often it's superstition, myth, legend and fable. I can say that because I view it as a simple classification of the main elements presented. Some religious folks will agree. Then there are the core group who see no such distinction. For the same reason that you would run to a street corner to stop a blind man from stepping off into traffic, science-oriented folks engage religious folks who appear to be getting run over by the peer pressure coming down from their church, family or friends.

As for the question of proving or disproving God through science, I would simply downgrade this to an exercise in history, archaeology, anthropology and language which science-oriented folks can normally handle well enough to pursue. I suppose, if pressed, a science-oriented person could treat every premise as a hypothetical and engage this discussion with an objective eye on the "common fallacies" post in the "rules" section of the site. That gives the interesting overlap between faith and a scientific view that involves "best evidence and methods". Of course that's purely analytical, too, which may not be what you're looking for.

The rest of the overlap that boils down to proof/disproof that God does or does not exist only comes up because the preceding effort fails. Science would contribute here in terms of adding structure to the way proof is done, and then of course by addressing the evidence.

 

[Balerion]

I would contest the idea that science is the child of religion. I believe science is the child of doubt. Science and reason was doing just fine prior to Christianity's rise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

GeoffP,

Is there a scientific way to test the existence of a being operating outside of naturalistic parameters?

Not directly, for obvious reasons.
At some point each individual has to a make a choice based on his/her life
experience.

What distribution should I use for that? Binary? Essentially any scientific probe of God can be reduced to "because He wants it that way" at some point. "Reason", in that context, is "human reason", and this is a well that theists can visit at any point. Yazata points to the "in His image" line, and that's a good point: but in what image of Him? We aren't all born of virgins either.

You have to use your intelligence, it's the only thing you have, when dealing
with deep, personal, life-altering decisions.

Now, to an atheist, all that's a cop-out. But atheists are meant, as I understand it, to operate outside God anyway;

How would they know that, less they accept God?


Either way, there is no scientific, meat and potatoes, method of knowing that.
Either you believe, or you don't, and your choice is evidenced by your actions.

Why are atheists looking backwards?

Most of us are programmed.
For example if you think homo sex is not right for whatever reason, it immediately evokes a response within anyone who has an opinion on it. And this can be used to demonize, and/or create popularity by the media. Some types of atheists are programmed to respond negitively to anything that has to do with God.

Otherwise we have the ongoing dogfight. That fight was started by religious reactionaries, of course.

The fights are between a certain brand of atheism (I call in modern atheism), christians, islamists. Supremecy is what they have in common. The rest of us can get along just fine.

Still, I'll admit that I sometimes want to probe theology with science myself. And I even have a philosophical bias: I would love to be the guy that finds the existence of God, because that's exciting. (And terrifying.) But no God? Well, that's boring. And it makes people sad. Fuck that.

The idea of ''finding the existence of God'' makes no sense, unless you have some idea of what God is.



jan.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . there are numerous testimonies on SF about how atheists are not points on a scale of theological credulity or acceptance.

Which doesn't make sense to me, since I find it obvious that we are the zero point on that scale.

Science, as anyone familiar with it knows, is not about the objective search for truth, but about the often biased search for support in ongoing and often one-sided arguments and philosophical bases.

Perhaps that's the way it works in corporate laboratories, but it's not supposed to be like that. "Corporate science" violates the definition of "science" in an important way. A true scientist tests hypotheses to see if they are true, discarding them until he finds the true one. A corporate scientist tests one hypothesis to prove that it is true, discarding all evidence to the contrary.

In other words, the only difference between a corporate scientist and a crackpot is their budget.

Those believing otherwise should get out, as soon as possible.

No, they should organize and fight.

It is an economic phenomenon.

This phenomenon is one of the many aberrations that characterize the death throes of the Industrial Era, as giant corporations find themselves obsolete, die, and scavenge each other's rotting carcasses. The Post-Industrial Era (Information Age, Electronic Era, whatever you want to call it) will not have room for so many behemoths since the huge concentrations of surplus wealth (or "capital") needed for the projects that launched industrialization are no longer necessary. As I've often said in these pages, perhaps we should stop worrying about the sins of the corporations since they'll be gone in a couple of generations, and instead worry about what new institution governments will create to take the place of the old forms of aristocracy, whose colorful and well-journalized shenanigans distract our attention from the crazier and more opaque shenanigans of the government itself.

Is there a reason to hack at a nice, conventional boundary with a decent philosophical basis meant to keep people from hating each other?

Yeah, how about the fact that it's not working? Monotheism, in particular, has arguably generated more inter-tribal hatred than any other single motif.

Similarly the ideas of angels and demons could have their representative in other religions as well - but interpreted into a multitude of gods and other creatures. Religion appeals to people, and the appeal is often felt as a recognition of something that they already knew - this too might be because of interpretations of the underlying truth.

Jung calls these archetypes after discovering that they recur in all societies in all eras. He died before the science of genetics matured; today we would call them instincts: ideas pre-programmed into our brains by evolution. Most instincts have been passed down because they are obviously survival advantages: an animal who does not automatically flee from a larger animal with both eyes in front of its face will not live long enough to reproduce and propagate its genes.

But other instincts don't appear to have a basis in natural selection. They may be random mutations passed down through genetic drift or a genetic bottleneck, although as I just finished pointing out on another thread, we can't discount the possibility that they actually were survival advantages in an era long ago whose dangers we can't imagine.

It seems to me that if God is to affect the world, he must interact with its naturalistic physical parameters. And if so, then there should be evidence of such interaction that is accessible to scientific investigation.

Indeed. The basic premise of supernaturalism is that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and other forces emerge at random intervals to perturb the behavior of the natural universe. Since science has spent half a millennium discovering the laws that govern the behavior of the natural universe, one would suppose that any inexplicable perturbations of that behavior which have violated those laws would be well documented.

As I have oft stated, after 500 years without a shred of evidence, the assertion of the existence of such a supernatural universe, and specifically its alleged interaction with the natural universe, has become the most extraordinary of all assertions. At this point the Rule of Laplace must be invoked: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.

In other words, we are under no obligation to pay attention to these claims or to the people who make them.

So you'd rather be happy than know the truth?

Many people would. That's hardly controversial.

Or you think that it's better for other people to be happy than to know the truth?

As Xena, the Warrior Princess, once wisely said: "Sanity is a veil the gods pull over our eyes to prevent us from seeing the truth."

The contrapositive of that would be, "If you see the truth it might make you so unhappy that you'll go insane." Perhaps to a greater or lesser extent we all operate on that principle.

Historically, science has, to some extent, dictated the outer form that theism must take in order to maintain its status as a separate domain. In other words, many of the outgrowths that have illegitimately intruded into the domain of science have been trimmed off. . . .

Indeed. Throughout the developed world, religious leaders are making peace with the concept of metaphor.

 

[kx000]

In the Roman Catholic Church the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church - wiki

Ok. No.

 

[wellwisher]

There are two hemispheres of the brain. Science is more left brain, while religion is more right brain. The right brain is more spatial or integral, while the left brain is more differential. If you only use half a brain, you will not be able to connect both orientations.

Religion deals in symbols, which are different from literal signs. A sign is a very specific thing or data point and is differential or left brain. A symbol is an integrated concept that means more that what it appears on the surface. This is assessed via the right brain.

For example, Jesus spoke in parables; the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. If you take this literally or differential (sign) using the left brain, that would suggest the entire kingdom of God would be the size of a tiny seed. This makes no sense to the left brain.

If you use the right brain, this is a symbol and has an integral meaning that is different from a differential assessment. It is about something that starts small and grows large, until it is the largest thing in the garden.

If you can consciously use both side of the brain, you can see how both orientations are speaking to different sides of the brain. If you are conscious of one side of the brain but unconscious of the other, you may not see this.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I would contest the idea that science is the child of religion. I believe science is the child of doubt. Science and reason was doing just fine prior to Christianity's rise.

Hi, JDawg. That's for sure. Here I was just referring to the way science arose out of religion in ancient Greece. (e.g., Thales is thought to have been the first to apply reason to explain phenomena attributed to the gods.)

 

[Balerion]

Hi, JDawg. That's for sure. Here I was just referring to the way science arose out of religion in ancient Greece. (e.g., Thales is thought to have been the first to apply reason to explain phenomena attributed to the gods.)

I see. My mistake!

 

[river]

I think digging deeper than the bible , would be a tremendous help here

the bible just condenses Ancient History

science is about knowledge , Ancient History , OUR Ancient History ( Sumer ) and the knowledge of , would bring a different perspective , about god

 

[Yazata]

But if we turn our attention away from God's purported effects down here on Earth, to the idea of probing God directly and investigating "his" nature with the tools and methods of our natural science, we aren't likely to have very much success. Natural science seems to lack the necessary epistemological access to whatever non-natural dimensions of reality might hypothetically exist.

Investigating consciousness could provide some tools of probing into such things though.

Yeah, conceivably. Religious mystics, and Indian philosophy in particular, certainly seem to think so. I can't say that I believe that meditative experience provides epistemological access to transcendental realms, but I can't totally deny it either.

But the thing is, it wouldn't be natural science.

I don't expect that natural science's sort of consciousness studies, such as cognitive science, is likely to reveal a gateway to transcendental realms.

I find many similarities to the difficulty of understanding how consciousness works with the difficulty of knowing how God can exist. The only real difference is that we know subjectively that we are conscious but we don't know if God exists. Discovering how the brain can generate consciousness might give hints as to how a god could exist.

More likely, it would show us how our ideas of gods arise. In other words, I think that a naturalistic and physicalistic approach to brain science is going to produce a naturalistic information processing model of some sort.

But there are different approaches to consciousness studies, such as practicing Hindu sorts of meditative yoga. These will eventually land practitioners in altered states of consciousness, but whether those states provide epistemological access to anything real that isn't accessable in more conventional ways is debatable. There are those who will reject the suggestion that they do simply on principle, but they aren't the ones performing the practices either.

I'm just toying with some ideas here:
Might be that all religions are correct in some way

I'm attracted to that kind of general idea myself.

I kind of suspect that everyone, or most people at least, have occasional transcendental intuitions. Some people have very strong ones. I can't speak to what kind of information they provide, if any.

But whatever they are, people react to them and have historically generated religious mythologies, at least partly in reaction to them. I'm not convinced that the religious myths possess much literal truth though. It's more that they are reactions to something a lot less cognitive and a lot more emotional, a non-verbalized feeling.

Either way, I think it's wrong to just wave religion away

I agree very strongly with you about that. It's one of the places where I often collide with the atheists. (Despite my being an atheist myself.)

just as awareness, love and free will and other such subjective feelings are impossible to objectively show as they are, so can religious ideas be equally true but impossible to objectively show.

Yes. Even when we aren't talking about hypothetical transcendental realms, even when we are directing our attention right here to our actual lives in this place, there are still going to be whole areas of subjective experience (such as art) that are best addressed in ways other than science. I'm definitely not an advocate of the kind of hard-scientism that insists that all other forms of human awareness are atavisms that must give way to science, which is destined to replace them all.

 

[wynn]

Yeah, conceivably. Religious mystics, and Indian philosophy in particular, certainly seem to think so. I can't say that I believe that meditative experience provides epistemological access to transcendental realms, but I can't totally deny it either.

But the thing is, it wouldn't be natural science.

It depends on what is meant by "transcendence."

Many people seem to think that "transcendence" is something extraordinary, something totally disjointed from our ordinary experience and senses, basically magic or woo.

On the other hand, I tend to think that "transcend(ence)" basically refers to 'more' or as Merriam-Webster states:

Definition of TRANSCEND
transitive verb
1
a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
2
: to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power

intransitive verb
: to rise above or extend notably beyond ordinary limits

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcend


It's not clear why some people seem to focus only on the meaning under 1c, while ignoring the others, as if the others wouldn't be connected with it.

 

[wellwisher]

But there are different approaches to consciousness studies, such as practicing Hindu sorts of meditative yoga. These will eventually land practitioners in altered states of consciousness, but whether those states provide epistemological access to anything real that isn't accessable in more conventional ways is debatable. There are those who will reject the suggestion that they do simply on principle, but they aren't the ones performing the practices either.

A good analogy that can answer this question is having a dream. There is no replacment for a direct dream experience, since second hand account can never substitute for the nuances of first hand observation. With second hand information, the nuance blanks are filled in by the filter of the imagination. This means second hand data science is not up to the task.

A better aproach would be trained scientists, who learn to how to induce these states, via a Yogi. They wil then generare first hand data, to analysze directly, rather than use the weaker second hand data. You don't explore the ocean deep by asking natives what they saw. You put on the gear and dive in to explore first hand.

One of the problems faced by science, if the goal is truth, is the Yogi will use the right brain to help induce the affects. The spatial nature of the right brain interfaces the personality firmware, from which the affect will eminate. Because the Yogi is more right brain, his explanations will often be esoteric or symbolic and may not make sense to the left brained looking for a differential explanation. Looking from the outside in may not show the details he is seeing since why should it? You need first hand data.

When I mention right,left and personality firmware, I realize the state of the art has not yet reached the level of first hand data. The Yogi have the best right brain data, science has the most rational left brain analysis, but the two never really know how to interface..