NOMA - Is this the answer?

I have recently begun to read a book that is entitled Rock of Ages by Stephan Gould. It advocates NOMA - or Non-Overlapping Magesteria. Has anyone read this book or know anything about this? Does anyone agree or disagree with the proposal he set forth in this book? And can this not be the answer or a good way to now base our debates on, NON-OVERLAPPING MAGESTERIA?I am interested in what you guys have to say about what you think.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-14-2002]

Hi Quetzal,I know about getting to posts, this is a huge website with so much going on. I have not been able to reply to my topic that I have started.You did not mistate the case. That is an accurate case statement. I would agree with that."I don't completely disagree with him. However, I don't completely agree with him, either."I am glad I am not the only one who believes this way. And yes the examples you gave coincided with mine. You cannot scientifically evualte emotions but you can evualte the effects of them.I have not heard of socibiology. The hard sciences do not as of yet accept religion yet.When you say two sects do not agree with each other in a religious setting. I agree. But I believe that all relgions - any belief system that deals with the supernatural or why we are here, should be put in the Magesterium of Religion. Science cannot and will no even have the "Deity" in mind while it is pursuing truth. That is just not the way that science is set up.The soft sciences are not considered to be real "science" even though they may take some things from the established science. Would you agree with this? Professor told me this. He considers the hard sciences to be real science and the others cheap imitations of them. I do not know much about the soft sciences, so I defer judgement until I find out more about them.You said that religioin has no exclusive province. Christains today claim that it is the one true way, based off of Jesus saying "I am the Way.....," This sounds pretty exclusive to me. Either believe or go to hell. Not much of a choice here."To assume otherwise allows religion to ascribe to itself powers and abilities it doesn't justifiably have. It allows it to define such things as "morals" and "right and wrong" which are totally subjective cultural values. "Do not all religions define morals and values anyway. No matter how conservative or liberal they may be. Even Wicca which is an accept all, has its morals and values. NO religion does not define morals or values. The religions say you have to do something in order to communicate with the supernatural - "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling[not sure of the last part of the quote] - Christainity, Buddhist work for enlightment, Wiccan works to become one with divine. Any religion states how you should act or be in order to reach the "heaven", "enlightment", or "becoming one with the divine.""some moral positions are non-adaptive."
So can you come up with some examples for me?Your reply was thought provoking and one of the best that I have seen in this entire forum. Thanks, and anxiously awaiting your answers.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Good post, but I disagree with some points that you made."Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,".First of all, the church was the one who put man in the center of the Universe. It was considered heretical to believe that anything other than the earth was the center of the Universe. No where in the Bible does it say that Man is the center of the Universe. If Man was the center of the Universe, the bible would be mostly about men, but it is not it is about God and his Son Jesus, not man. All Galileo did was to open the door to astromical science. And he also opened the door for humankind to begin to think and explore for themselves rather than have someone tell them their version of the truth. This gave man the power to test the validity of things and the right to accept it if it is true and the right to refute it if it was false."Newton made God unnecessary" - How can discovering the laws of physics which the world operates by today be such a detrimental thing to making God unncecessary? [I know that many of his laws have been revised due to several theories]. All Newton did was to question to make sense of the Universe [how it worked]. He also was a co-inventor of Calculus - I LOVE CALCULUS. If God did exist would God allow anything to happen in "his creation" to make him uncessary? If a God existed I believe that he would not allow anything to happen to make him unecessary unless WE CHOSE TO MAKE HIM THAT WAY. Every human being has a choice, noone else makes it for them. Newton did not make God uncessary, the people who looked at Newton's work may have been. If Newton made God unnecessary then let's dimiss all of science, becuase that basically can be argued that it dismissed God, becuase we understand by sight and not by faith. How logical is that?"Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom" Where in the world did you get this. First of, I need to explain the classification system. Man is classified as an animal, becuase he is not a plant, protist, fungi, or any other things. Man is a mammal becuase he shares the same charactersitc as those. It is all based on evolutionary descent and characteristics which are similar to other organisms. I agree with the classification system. Dare I think we are above the littlest ameoba, when we might have orginiated from such a creature? Do I dare call myself above everything else when we have the basic same genetic structure. Read the first chapter of "Genome." To me this is the best way to classify man, there is no other way unless one is egotistical about his species and classifies him above all things, Thank goodness science is not egotistical."Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious."First of all, the subconscious was there before Freud put it into words. I do believe that men were dreawming and having thoughts that they did not know where it came from. Freud just gave it a name. Is naming something puttin man to the mercy what was identified? We better stop naming things or we are going to be in trouble,'"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes."I do not think that one little philosophy could change an entire world of men's concept of the universe. I believe that it would be an accumlulation of all the philosophies of the world. Hold on, no the last sentence is a factor. It is MAN WHO DECIDES IN WHAT HE WILL BELIEVE, it is nothing that makes the deicision for him. Christains who are being tempted to leave the faith blame the world, or anything else rather than take the responsibility for their own actions and decisions."The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...", I would like the reference for this quote. It is quite interesting, thought it is very untrue for many reasons I will not explain as it will make the post long.Thanks for posting, Look forward to your reply.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I would agree with this. If science does anything it makes man's hopes and dreams to survive. It allows man to become more knowledgable [mispelled] and as new discoveries are made, all it does it make it better for men. It does not encourage self-contempt. I do not know where he got this quote from.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Please do tell more of the Pope's postion on NOMA. I am doing a thesis for my undergraduate degree that will address NOMA.All of you have been a great help. If you could list references, I would be mostly appreciative.The reason I began this topic, becuase it interested me very much and I knew that this was the topic to base my thesis on.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I would agree. For it is LIFE to make my own ideas and have the freedom to make them.I have read your thread, and I have not had the chance to post on it yet, becuase I am still following the argument and also there are so many boards, one cannot get to them all in one day.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Wow,
"Irrelevant. Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do. This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard."Have you known atheism or agnosticism personally? I am an ATHEIST, and yet I have common beliefs with other ahteists. We do have a doctrine which is simply put - We do not Believe that God exists. Sounds like a doctrine to me. Not all religions have rituals to my knowledge, but I would have to do some reaserach.Anyways, see you later------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Interesting acticle,But do you not have any opnions of your own, or do you have to reply solely on your Grandfather's paper[if it someone's elses, let me know]?I could argue with this paper, becuase there is much circular reasoning in it, but not to waste my time nor yours I will withdraw. As to reading the rest of the paper, very interested in reading the rest of it.You are more than welcome to post the rest of the paper,To the rest of the guys what do you think of this paper? Or the extracts of the paper he has posted.?Thanks for posting.As to the words in bold, I will get to those later.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

RELIGION:religion, piety, conscientiousness, scrupulousness,1. belief in a dicing or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe2. expression in this belief in conduct or ritual - DOES NOT SAY BOTH, ATHEIST CAN ACT OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVEAs long as we act out what we believe we are acting out our own religion. We make our own religions. There is no one way. There are many ways. Of course this answer is in the Magesterium of Religion.Thanks.Oh by the way the definition was taken out of Webster's unabridged dictionary.See you later.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Hmmmmm,
Will have to read this message another time.I am sorry I misunderstood your point about religions not being exclusive or whatever [I am tired].You raised a question [partially], should religion be granted the authority or exclusive mandate to define morality or anything. I would say no in my opinion becuase of the conflicting moral systems, values, and means of enlightenement, salvation, nirvana, ect. If they did, you would conflict so many belief systems just in order to uphold one system. Sounds like a great topic. I am going to start it.I will try and focus on the definition that Gould defines the Magesterium of Religion. You have been most helpful.As, to asking this professors, becuase the soft sciences has taken much from the hard sciences, he will not change his mind. He is very stubborn and set in his ways. And woe, is the person who tries to get him to consider other possibilities.Thanks.Will reply to the rest of your message later.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Hi,A few questions."It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc."Am I reading it correctly that some in the church think that the dicipline of biology is NOT a part of chemistry or physics? What was meant by this statement? What do you think? I am sorry, I lost where this is going. But is that not why we have lumped all the "hard" sciences into one magesterium, to avoid biology not being chemistry and physics, or do we do so becuase there are some overalapping there?"This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics. "Molecular mechanics is my focus and interest, but one has to look at the large picture. That is why I consider all when I look at evolution of life or of the earth. Yes molecular mechanics is where I want to spend the rest of life in, but it will only give me a limited view. It think, this is what the creationist are hung up on, they do not consider the "big" picture outside their beliefs. I believe that anything may be considered science regardless of where it comes from, if it is accepted by the consensous. I believe that this was made in the Magesterium of Religion, but it does have some impact on the Magesterium of Science.As I go on, in reading Gould's book, I am wondering how he thought it would have been possible to keep the different Magesterium from affecting eachother.And no, I am compleltly open to the other side. If most of the other side would have cited their sources and logically stated their views then yes. I am glad you have done both. I will probably be asking a lot more questions of you in the area of "creation science" as time goes by.
Thanks for the post.
Look forward to your reply.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,

​

what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.

​

This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

---

Brad,I am so sorry it turned out that way. I did not want to bring up the judicial system in America, but that is one area I think that NOMA would be beneficial to. There is so many questionable processes that I see becuase of the lack of ablility to verify them. This would be an instance.I would agree with the last statement. Is there any examples of this?It is a shame the rest of the world can not run by academic rigour. It would be a better place, I think. Yet, I think it would be imposible. Religion has been given too prominent of a place in today's society, that is why I am glad to see more and more things happening in the university setting to take some of the ground gained by "religious circles" back to the ground of academics.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-20-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:That dictionary also once defined atheists as being evil as well. BTW, #2 is refering to #1.[/B][/QUOTE]My bad, did not read the definition that closely. I am sorry.I did look up the definition of atheism. It states one who believes that there is no God.belief - in theology, FAITH, or a FIRM PERSUATION of the truths of a religion.I have a question, can I see some sources that state that atheism and agnosticsm are not religions? All my life, I was told these are religious beliefs. Never have researched it that much.When did the Webster's dictionary define an atheist as being evil? Very interested in finding that one out.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I would agree with atheist and agnostics in being more honest about where they get their morals from. I am an atheist, but to give the other side a fair consideration, are there not others from the other side who are honest about where their morals come from?Or was this statement more of a generalization sweeping across the boards of religions?What is your opinion on atheism/agnostiscm [boy I really need to learn how to spell these words] as being classified as religions?Very interested in what you have to say.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

It is really amazing how childish SOME not all of religious activists can be.So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods. It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-23-2002]