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

[wynn]

No one can make square circles. You don't even need a math book for that, just look it up in the dictionary.

This, clearly, doesn't stop some atheists from demanding that only things such as the creation of square circles would be proof of God's omnipotence.

And this is where people fall who believe that a creature exists who created himself.

It takes some considerable lint-headedness to opt for idiotic interpretations of what other people say.

In other words, nobody ever said that God created Himself. And yet some (very hateful, and thus lint-headed) atheists like to jump to that interpretation when someone says that "God is defined as having authored this thing called 'existence'."

 

[wellwisher]

Like I said, the two hemispheres of the brain process data differently. God is best viewed through the right brain instead of the left brain. You do not look at stars through a microscope or you will not see anything. Then you will assume it does not exist. A little science common sense you tell you which tools work with which phenomena.

The spatial part of the brain deals in 3-D data processing. This is why God is given the attributes of a spatial concept; omni-(something). The differential processing of the God concept, such as a particular person, was done for left brainers. But right brainers get the real deal, since they have access to the tools needed to explore the phenomena. Once you have data, it does not matter if other who don't have data, can't see it. But you try to explain to them so they are not acting foolish in the name of science.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

are you saying that the illogical doesn't exist?

Yes, but it's hardly my original thought. Science tells us this. One of the fundamental premises that underlies all of science is that the universe is logical. One definition of science might be: The effort to catalog the logic of the universe. As I have pointed out before, the scientific method is recursive, and the premise that the universe is logical has, itself, been tested intensively (and often with great hostility) for half a millennium, without ever coming close to being falsified.

apparently you are dismissing human nature as humans can be very illogical

Only when viewed at the macro level. All the things we do are the logical results of our feelings, experiences, knowledge, body chemistry, etc. Yes this begs the question of free will, which begs the unanswered question of whether randomness exists at the subatomic level. But "random" does not equate to "illogical." Randomness is the absence of logic, not the violation of it.

much less you are assuming that we would know the logic of everything God would do.

So far we've done a masterful job of understanding the logic of the universe, which in the fairytale of the religionists comprises "everything God would do." We haven't gotten it all yet because the last page in the book on physics and cosmology has not been written, but we have no reason to doubt that our descendants will get it all eventually. So yes, I'm confident that this understanding is within our grasp.

do you understand the logic of everything?

That's a little above my pay grade. I've spent the last six years editing and writing government documents, so you'll have to excuse me if understanding logic isn't one of my primary job duties.

I don't know if any one person can understand "the logic of everything," since the universe is rather complicated. It's widely asserted that computer software has more layers of decomposition than any other human artifact, and I'm not sure any of us in that field understands every layer. Some work at the operating system level, others at the presentation level, and although one may work his way up or down from one end of the spectrum to the other, by the time he gets there the other end has changed so much that he no longer understands it.

The universe may or may not be as deep as software. But it has enough layers of decomposition that I'd be surprised if the best microcosmologist (quarks and leptons) understands macrocosmology (expanding space and the Big Bang) well enough to give a lecture.

Humanity may some day understand all the logic of the universe, but that doesn't mean that any one individual will. We'll have to entrust that to our computers.

But, the "creature" in question is held to have created the rules of logic in the first place. God has the power to defy or change the rules of logic, doesn't he?

One plus one equals two? Correlation does not imply causation? How would one go about defying or changing those rules? They exist in the abstract, independent of the physical manifestation of the universe.

If not, then where did the logic come from . . . .

Wait until the next century and then ask a cosmologist.

. . . . and why is God's power subject to it?

Logic is an abstraction that transcends the universe. I don't understand how even God could make one plus one equal three, or rule that all A's are not C's even though all A's are B's and all B's are C's.

That's not omnipotence. At that point, we might as well be talking about an advanced alien race with amazing technology, not the creator of reality.

So you seem to be saying that God is not part of reality. Isn't that equivalent to saying God is not real, which is exactly what we atheists have trying to get you to understand all along?

This works better in the context of the problem of evil, however. The usual answer is that God tolerates the existence of evil because he has to in order to give free will (and so, human morality) meaning. But, where did that constraint come from? Why couldn't God have simply created a universe wherein there is no logical contradiction between free will and the existence of evil?

It does not require a change in the blueprints of the universe. Humans could have free will that allows them to do only good things.

My puppy is like that.

Why is God subject to logic, if he's supposed to be all-powerful?

From where does God get his powers? Powers have a structure, and structure is logical.

This, clearly, doesn't stop some atheists from demanding that only things such as the creation of square circles would be proof of God's omnipotence.

Not all atheists are scientists. If you run across that argument on this website, please notify a Moderator.

It takes some considerable lint-headedness to opt for idiotic interpretations of what other people say. In other words, nobody ever said that God created Himself. And yet some (very hateful, and thus lint-headed) atheists like to jump to that interpretation when someone says that "God is defined as having authored this thing called 'existence'."

Yes at one point one of you--perhaps you yourself--did say something that appeared to imply that God created existence and I responded to that. But in this exchange I'm limiting myself to the religionist's more common (and slightly more understandable) claim that God is the creator of the universe. Since the definition of "the universe" is everything that exists, and since God (in your fanciful model) clearly exists, then God is clearly part of the universe. This leads inexorably to the deduction that God created himself.

Nothing can create itself because in the moment before its creation it does not exist and is therefore unable to perform the act of creation.

If you want to pursue the idea that God created existence, you're going to have to go into a lot more detail about what that statement even means. If there was no existence, then by definition nothing existed. Therefore God did not exist. If God did not exist, how could he have created anything?

Is the belief in free will a religious belief?

I think that depends on the religion. My impression is that the monotheistic religions of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and arguably Baha'i and Rasta) whose followers have been diligently attempting to destroy civilization for the past three millennia, all believe in free will. But I don't know whether they got that idea from the scriptures of their prophets, from accretions such as the Talmud and Papal edicts, or from the preachings of their kind and brilliant leaders such as Jerry Falwell.

 

[wynn]

Not all atheists are scientists. If you run across that argument on this website, please notify a Moderator.

Then I could report half of the omnipotence threads.

Nothing can create itself because in the moment before its creation it does not exist and is therefore unable to perform the act of creation.

And you seriously think that people don't understand that?
Seriously?

If you want to pursue the idea that God created existence, you're going to have to go into a lot more detail about what that statement even means.

The question is, whether you would allow for room for that detail, or whether you would, as usual, jump in with bitter judgmentalism, and threaten with your moderator status in the background.

You have a tendency to caricaturize theistic arguments, and then go on a judmental, hating tirade based on that caricature.
It's a real shame that you do that.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Fraggle..

I will not argue against the concept of the level of knowledge that we have now compared to the level of knowledge we will have..

I will argue that science will/can not know EVERYTHING there is to know..
(maybe not as effectively as others can)

i will agree that anything that can be measured will be found out in time.

but again science is just one tool to describe that which exists.

it is very (egotistical?) to claim that science will find the answers to EVERYTHING..(this also speaks to your belief and faith that this will happen and not a fact that this will happen)

but i digress..

your take lines up with my argument about comparing apples and oranges..
although you can claim that it is possible to apply physic to human nature, i would still disagree..(and will continue to disagree till someone can predict what i will do in any given situation)..

If that were true then i don't think we would need any laws that force ppl to behave to a certain standard,(which i would concede if it meant no more laws)
as long as human nature exist there will be unpredictability and illogic..
and it is that factor that i argue apples and oranges..

 

[kx000]

Knowledge can not be held true without science.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Knowledge can not be held true without science.

Knowledge cannot be held as FACT without science..

Truth is in the eye of the beholder..

 

[gmilam]

Knowledge cannot be held as FACT without science..

Truth is in the eye of the beholder..

We are not entitled to our own facts. Reality is what it is. Are we allowed our own truth?

 

[NMSquirrel]

We are not entitled to our own facts. Reality is what it is.

this is what gets argued with the scientific perspective..
(see my argument about apples and oranges)

Are we allowed our own truth?

this is what i believe..

what works for you won't necessarily work for me..
<edit>
there is a difference between Facts and Truth

 

[gmilam]

If you mean "truth" as in your philosophical reasoning as to why the facts are as they are, then I agree. We may indeed have our own understanding as to "why".

Many times, truth has to be modified when confronted with new facts. This can be a problem in the areas where science and religion overlap. For better or worse, science is not trying to prove or disprove anyone's philosophical outlook. Science is merely trying to uncover the facts.

 

[kx000]

Knowledge cannot be held as FACT without science..

Truth is in the eye of the beholder..

No it isn't, faith is..

 

[Neverfly]

this is what gets argued with the scientific perspective..
(see my argument about apples and oranges)
this is what i believe..

what works for you won't necessarily work for me..
<edit>
there is a difference between Facts and Truth

The scientific method challenges us to examine 'facts,' 'truths' and 'beliefs' just as much as it does hypotheses.
The purpose is to define the most accurate model possible in order to describe reality.
Why need a model to describe reality? It's right in front of us, right?
We cannot see it. Our minds have developed a very particular way. Our vision is restricted, not just by our limited eyes, but out perceptions.
A descriptive model, on the other hand, we can see.

You, squirrel present the appearance of someone who believes that there are things scientifically cannot be measured.
I've heard that claim so many times... and I find the reason something cannot be measured has a very clear reason why: It doesn't exist. But those that believe use this claim to support their Invisible Unicorn that no one can see or prove or disprove exists.

 

[NMSquirrel]

No it isn't, faith is..

there are many things that you hold as truths that are not facts.

how do i know this?
because science does not have all the answers.
at some point everyone has to rely on faith that the truths that they know are truth without any facts to support them...

(dare i step into it again?)
the Big bang is not a fact. (not arguing pro-creation) there are other hypothesis's/theory's out there concerning the beginning of the universe..granted the big bang is the most believable since there is lots of evidence for it..but it still has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..
or if the big bang is a bad example..how about dark energy or dark matter?

how about quantum entanglement?
Is that fact or just a belief that has evidence to support it..

or if the examples i gave are incorrect..

How about Love?
is it a Fact that your boy/girl friend loves you or is it a truth based on your faith that he/she is being honest with him/herself and you..

Is it a fact that you were fired from your last job because of the reasons given? (sorry..this one has a little attitude behind it..)

 

[NMSquirrel]

The scientific method challenges us to examine 'facts,' 'truths' and 'beliefs' just as much as it does hypotheses.

yes i agree with this..
and in that spirit, it is not scientifically accurate to dismiss an idea just because it is a belief and not a fact.(but this is another argument.)

The purpose is to define the most accurate model possible in order to describe reality.
Why need a model to describe reality? It's right in front of us, right?
We cannot see it. Our minds have developed a very particular way. Our vision is restricted, not just by our limited eyes, but out perceptions.
A descriptive model, on the other hand, we can see.

it is because our vision/perspective is restricted that we cling to misconceptions, this goes back to our human nature...our desire to be 'right'
but i think i am getting sidetracked..

You, squirrel present the appearance of someone who believes that there are things scientifically cannot be measured.
I've heard that claim so many times... and I find the reason something cannot be measured has a very clear reason why: It doesn't exist.

not to pick nits, but you yourself have argued another reason..that we do not have the tools yet to measure it..
either way it still requires faith that what you believe as truth is truth..
it is faith that you believe that someday a persons mind/brain will be able to be predicted..not facts..sure you may be able to cite advances in a historical context, but that still does not make it a Fact that the future of science will make these things known..you only have your own faith for that.

But those that believe use this claim to support their Invisible Unicorn that no one can see or prove or disprove exists.

see i can't argue with this because, I know that some do..(with the exception of i would have used the word 'some' instead of 'those' at the beginning..)

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Then I could report half of the omnipotence threads.

This is not my subforum so go ahead.

And you seriously think that people don't understand that? Seriously?

How else could they say with a straight face that God created "everything," "the universe," etc.?

The question is, whether you would allow for room for that detail, or whether you would, as usual, jump in with bitter judgmentalism, and threaten with your moderator status in the background.

My moderator status holds little authority except in Linguistics and Arts & Culture. I suppose the other moderators will listen to my complaints but that doesn't mean they'll agree with me. My question is honest perplexity about what the statement "God created existence" can possibly mean. All I can think of is that this is a superstition-based rewording of the definition of the Big Bang, which is now hypothesized to have brought into existence not only quarks and leptons and bosons (the building blocks of the universe) but also the space-time continuum and the laws of nature. Different words for the same idea, okay why not? I'm the linguistics moderator after all. But no one has suggested that the rules of logic are in force only in our universe and that it would be possible for another one to exist in which the square root of four is not two, or in which both a statement and its refutation can both be true. To say that "existence was invented" goes even a step beyond that. At some point we find ourselves merely digging down into our languages and arguing over words rather than the things they represent.

You have a tendency to caricaturize theistic arguments . . . .

They are so utterly preposterous, it's hard to take them seriously. I'll never understand the degree of cognitive dissonance a person must have in order to graduate from a top-notch university with a degree in science, yet still believe in superstitious nonsense about gods and demons.

. . . . and then go on a judgmental, hating tirade based on that caricature.

No, my judgment and hatred of superstitious nonsense is based on the reality that it has brought the world so much death and other evil. And it isn't directed at all superstitious nonsense, only the monotheistic religions of Abraham, which try to constrain the rich human spirit into a pathetic one-dimensional model in which everything falls on a linear scale between "good" and "evil." This is the evil of religion.

It's a real shame that you do that.

No, it's a shame that the Children of Abraham have come to dominate this poor planet. As we speak they are with great determination trying to find a way to launch a Nuclear Holy War.

I will argue that science will/can not know EVERYTHING there is to know.

It isn't that science itself knows anything. Science is a tool we use to gather knowledge about the natural universe.

it is very (egotistical?) to claim that science will find the answers to EVERYTHING..(this also speaks to your belief and faith that this will happen and not a fact that this will happen)

I have explained the difference between rational faith and irrational faith before. Based upon the accomplishments of science, it is rational to have faith that it will continue to accomplish great things.

Since "everything" is surely infinite (knowledge is recursive: the more we know about stuff, the more knowledge there is about that knowledge) then obviously we will never have the answers to everything.

although you can claim that it is possible to apply physics to human nature, i would still disagree.

I'm fairly certain that I never said that.

and will continue to disagree till someone can predict what i will do in any given situation

This goes back to the question of free will, which then goes back to the question of whether the universe is deterministic or if there is true random motion at the subatomic level. If the universe is indeed deterministic, then in principle we could map out every subatomic particle within a hundred light-years of earth and say with some confidence that all we have to do is solve a jillion equations and we'll know what you're going to say when you see tomorrow's newspaper headline. But the resources necessary to do that would probably be unaffordable.

as long as human nature exist there will be unpredictability and illogic.

As I said before: only at the macro level.

Knowledge cannot be held as FACT without science.

And science only establishes facts as "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

The scientific method challenges us to examine 'facts,' 'truths' and 'beliefs' just as much as it does hypotheses.

Because "fact," "truth," "belief" and "hypothesis" are all different words for the same thing, although each has a slightly different probability of being true, especially depending on the discipline of scholarship in which it's used.

there are many things that you hold as truths that are not facts.

"Fact" and "truth" are not scientific words, although scientists, being notoriously poor communicators, do toss them around. There are "hypotheses," which need to be tested, and there are "theories," which are hypotheses which have been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively and have been found to be only "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

at some point everyone has to rely on faith that the truths that they know are truth without any facts to support them.

This is not the way of science. Scientists have a rational faith that the vast majority of their theories will never be falsified, but they don't know which ones will be.

How about Love? is it a Fact that your boy/girl friend loves you or is it a truth based on your faith that he/she is being honest with him/herself and you.

Rational faith. If she has been loyal and supportive for 34 years, as my wife has, it is rational of me to plan out the rest of my life on the assumption that she will continue to be so.

Out of the tens of millions of human beings who have reached this rational conclusion about their spouses, surely several thousand of them will be proven wrong. That means I have a .01% probability of being wrong about Mrs. Fraggle. I ignore probabilities like that every day, for example the actuarial tables give me only about a 96% probability of living to see my birthday in 2013. There's no point in building my life around the small but real possibility of dying this year, so there's also no point in building it around the even smaller but also real possibility that David Bowie will show up at our front door and whisk my wife away with him. All I need to do is acknowledge those probabilities. My faith that they won't come out that way remains a rational faith.

Well, that and the fact that David isn't quite as hot as he was 34 years ago.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'm fairly certain that I never said that.

no you didn't..i meant you could.

And fraggle for the record i do appreciate the way in which you correct me..
i do like to use words in the right context..and learn new words..
(although in honesty, sometimes it takes a few times to remember..)

and congrats on 34yrs marriage..does she mind being called Mrs. Fraggle?

 

[wynn]

How else could they say with a straight face that God created "everything," "the universe," etc.?

Perhaps if you would allow for an actual conversation to take place, you might actually learn something about their stance.

They are so utterly preposterous, it's hard to take them seriously.

I'm sure that if you would cut off 95% of your statements and consider just the first 5%, you too would find even your own statements "so utterly preposterous, it's hard to take them seriously."

I'll never understand the degree of cognitive dissonance a person must have in order to graduate from a top-notch university with a degree in science, yet still believe in superstitious nonsense about gods and demons.

It's tough being enlightened, huh. All those people you claim to know better than they do, all those people you need to judge ...

No, my judgment and hatred of superstitious nonsense is based on the reality that it has brought the world so much death and other evil.

And does all this judgment and hatred of yours in any way help change things for the better?

And it isn't directed at all superstitious nonsense, only the monotheistic religions of Abraham, which try to constrain the rich human spirit into a pathetic one-dimensional model in which everything falls on a linear scale between "good" and "evil." This is the evil of religion.

If you feel threatened by the Abrahamists, then this suggests that you do not have a life outlook superior to theirs.

Do you realize this?

No, it's a shame that the Children of Abraham have come to dominate this poor planet. As we speak they are with great determination trying to find a way to launch a Nuclear Holy War.

So whatever happened with "survival of the fittest," "the struggle for survival" and all that?? Don't you like those concepts anymore?

 

[Yazata]

No one can make square circles. You don't even need a math book for that, just look it up in the dictionary.

Or more accurately, nobody going to think that making square circles is a possibility, as long as they continue to assume the familiar principles of logical consistency.

This, clearly, doesn't stop some atheists from demanding that only things such as the creation of square circles would be proof of God's omnipotence.

I've posted arguments similar to that. The point wasn't about proving omnipotence. I don't see how that particular proof would even be possible. The point was rather to make trouble for certain kind of arguments about divine omnipotence.

The point was that announcing that God needn't be able to do arguably illogical things seems to make logic prior even to God. It suggests that God isn't ultimate after all, and that there are principles (like logic) that are even higher and more powerful than he is, to which God is subject, just as we humans are.

And that in turn appears to be a serious challenge to the divine omnipotence idea.

And this is where people fall who believe that a creature exists who created himself.

It takes some considerable lint-headedness to opt for idiotic interpretations of what other people say.

In other words, nobody ever said that God created Himself. And yet some (very hateful, and thus lint-headed) atheists like to jump to that interpretation when someone says that "God is defined as having authored this thing called 'existence'."

Christian theology often makes a very strong distinction between creation and creator. All of creation is indeed supposed to be the product of God's creative act. But God himself isn't part of creation and isn't a created being. God is supposed to exist eternally because of his own intrinsic existent nature or something.

(Note to Wynn, who might be one of the small number of people on Sciforums likely to pick up on this: In Indian philosophical terms (Madhyamaka in this case) Christian theology seems to be saying that God is the only being with svabhava, or 'own-being'. God is the only thing that is what it is simply because it's its own intrinsic nature to be that thing. And according to ancient Indian philosophy, anything with own-being (svabhava) is going to necessarily be eternal. All of the rest of phenomenal creation is 'dependently-originated'. It is whatever it is because some outside causal influence determined it to be that. And just as these latter kind of beings come into existence, they go out of existence too. They are inherently temporal and transitory.)

 

[wynn]

I've posted arguments similar to that. The point wasn't about proving omnipotence. I don't see how that particular proof would even be possible. The point was rather to make trouble for certain kind of arguments about divine omnipotence.

The point was that announcing that God needn't be able to do arguably illogical things seems to make logic prior even to God. It suggests that God isn't ultimate after all, and that there are principles (like logic) that are even higher and more powerful than he is, to which God is subject, just as we humans are.

And that in turn appears to be a serious challenge to the divine omnipotence idea.

I've replied to you on this in the other thread.
Logic is for humans.

If it seems that God is beneath logic, then check what definitions of God you are working with, whether you have actually accepted God as the First Being.
Most theological problems seem to derive from the fact that people forget that their very own thinking about God is facilitated by God as well, ie. they do not actually work with the definition that God is the First Being.

Ie. they are not being consistent in their reasoning, this is why they run into problems.

If you define God as the Creator, Controller, Maintainer of the Universe, as The First Being, but then you try to do as if you can independently show this or that about God, then you're simply being inconsistent.

This isn't about piety, it's about consistency.

Christian theology often makes a very strong distinction between creation and creator. All of creation is indeed supposed to be the product of God's creative act. But God himself isn't part of creation and isn't a created being. God is supposed to exist eternally because of his own intrinsic existent nature or something.

(Note to Wynn, who might be one of the small number of people on Sciforums likely to pick up on this: In Indian philosophical terms (Madhyamaka in this case) Christian theology seems to be saying that God is the only being with svabhava, or 'own-being'. God is the only thing that is what it is simply because it's its own intrinsic nature to be that thing. And according to ancient Indian philosophy, anything with own-being (svabhava) is going to necessarily be eternal. All of the rest of phenomenal creation is 'dependently-originated'. It is whatever it is because some outside causal influence determined it to be that. And just as these latter kind of beings come into existence, they go out of existence too. They are inherently temporal and transitory.)

Which should be all the more reason why Christians should be able to explain all the usual theological problems. But strangely, they aren't.

Notably, some Hindu theologies maintain that God and the individual souls are all necessary beings, and that there never was or will be a time when they all wouldn't exist - they always exist.

In Christian theology, beings like you and me are not considered necessary, they are considered beings that can fail to be.
The SEP entry for this.

"Creation" means something else in Christian theology than it does in some Eastern ones.

 

[wellwisher]

Reason or cause and effect is 2-D thought. There is also 3-D thought. The 3-D is processed in the right brain, while 2-D cause and effect is left brain.

As a way of analogy, we can approximate a 3-D ball in 3-d space using a large number of rational planes, with a common center, but at different angles (POV). For example, each orientation of philosophy can be inferred with logic and data. Each represents one plane, while all together will approximates the 3-D ball or type called philosophy. Any orientaton can be 2-D but to get 3-d you need them all, even if they conflict.

If we had all orientations of philosophy (all the rational planes) with the same center (theme) but different angles (POV) we have an approximation for 3-D. At 3-D, you can flex the 3-D ball and cause planes to leave their plane. Picture slow motion hitting a tennis ball. This flex in 3-D is cause, effect, cause and the effect, cause and effect. The result will not seem rational in 2-D but will work in 3-D, since you can't infer leaving a plane for another with only the premises of that plane; effect, cause and effect.

God would not be limited to 2-D or just one rational plane. The concept of God is better approximated through a wide range of orientations (planes) with a common intutition. The right brain can flex this 3-D ball and many rational planes (orientations) become moved out of place into adjacent places. All of a sudden Christianity sounds like Budhha. Logic is left brain but right brain does it differently using a range of left brain orientations. God is better approximated by 3-D than it is by 2-D, since 2-D is too limited.

Let me give another example, say we have two political oritentations, democrat and republican. Both can be reasoned out based on its premises and assumptions. Both express truth but neither express the whole truth. Both deny the truth in the other side, perhaps with logic. At 3-D you need to know both at the same time (common center) and all the data. The left brain can typically do one at a time. The right brain is 3-D and needs both. The 3-D may lead to a bridge between the two but may not logically follow from either plane but will work in 3-D.