Non-overlapping magisteria is a sensible, but misapplied, idea.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I often see defenders of religion applying the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria", but they nearly always get it wrong, in several respects. For all that, I think it's a useful and helpful way of thinking about things.

There *are* two valid ways of asking questions, valid for different forms of questions, but they aren't science and religion or science and faith, they are science and philosophy.


The domain of science (1) is questions of fact. I think that one should be fairly dogmatic here: if you're defining science as I do below, then no question of fact can ever be addressed by any means other than science. There are certainly factual questions that science
is unable to answer ("Are we living in the Matrix", "Does Descartes' invisible demon exist&quot , but those are unanswerable questions, not questions we can answer by means other than science (although one *can* philosophise about what the consequences of being unable to answer that question are: it's legitimate to say "we should behave as though this isn't true" on philosophical grounds, but not to say "this isn't true&quot .


The domain of philosophy (2) is just about everything else - understanding, value and interpretation. Science is the only way of answering factual questions, but purely factual questions are the only things science can tell you anything about. This post, for example, is purely philosophical rather than scientific.


I don't think one can sensibly say that either of these is more important than the other, but I do think that there should be a very strict chronological hierarchy: first you gather your facts (science) and then you interpret them (philosophy).



Neither religion nor faith has a domain; they are never useful or valid ways of addressing any question of fact, and very seldom if ever of any use when it comes to addressing questions of understanding (I can't think of any examples where they are, but whereas with questions of fact it's obvious that none can exist, with questions of understanding I can't see a way to rule it out).

Religions straddle the two domains: they make both factual claims - "There is a god, he has these attributes, the person who came up with this religion was his avatar" - and philosophical claims - "These forms of behaviour are ethical, and we should live like this". But their factual claims are, invariably, unscientific and hence worthless, and their philosophical claims are consequently often wrong and at best coincidentally right.

Faith is not a way of understanding or learning about the universe, it's an excuse for not doing so, and should always be avoided.



Importantly, note that "is there a god?" is a question of fact, not of understanding, and hence falls squarely in the magisteria of science; the fact that science can't answer it (although science *can* provide a clear and resounding "no" to the question "is there an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god&quot means that all we can do is resort to philosophical principles like Occam's razor to say "we should act as though there isn't".

But, crucially, religion and faith are *not* valid ways of addressing the question that lies at the heart of them. Non-overlapping magisteria is not an idea that gives religion a role in how we should think about the world, it's an idea that explains why it doesn't have one.





(1) Note that I'm using a very general definition of science (probably too general for almost any other purpose) throughout: not just repeatable experiments, but anything involving ruling out possibilities excluded by the observable evidence. I'm including mathematics, formal logic, observations of Crab Nebula or other one-off non-repeatable phenomenon, and so on.

(2) I'm much less clear about what philosophy is than about what science is - I'm a mathematician, not a philosopher. I think I mean "all other forms of logical thinking", but that's clearly not a very good definition.

[edhopper]

1. Very logically reasoned

I posted a similar reply on another thread about science/religion compatibility, but yours is more succinct.

[Brettongarcia]

2. Seems OK generally

Possibly the major traditional argument that Science and Religion can co-exist, has been yours. The argument has been that they each deal with a different aspect of life; like the 1) material and factual, vs. 2) the spiritual and transcendent.

The idea that gives them separate status sometimes seen as a variety of "compartmentalization." For many centuries, this has been the prevailing model, that allowed both religion and science to co-exist.

Your suggestion that Religion might be better shifted to Philosophy though, seems reasonable.

My own approach, oddly consistent with the Bible itself, is that traditional religion eventually cancels its own earlier history as a "magicians'" "delusion." Abandoning much of its own past, in favor of Science. Or at most science-based Religious Studies.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Are we living in the Matrix - there are people looking into the testability of that hypothesis

It seems that question is not quite as unanswerable as one might think.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I haven't heard of that, but I'm sceptical about it.

The only way we can test things is with our senses; I don't see how the conjecture that the evidence of our senses is being systematically falsified could be tested.

[Brettongarcia]

5. Possibly by observing inconsistencies or sudden changes in empirical laws/reality?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Reducing the actual research to my dim

bulb level: looking for the jagged edges of a digitized simulation. Google simulation hypothesis for the theoretical basis of both the conjecture itself and the research being done.

Heres a start: http://m.slashdot.org/story/176299

[Brettongarcia]

7. There are many converging theories on this - even in religion itself. AND Philosophy

Much of Hindu religion insists that the world we think we see is an "illusion," or a human misperception or oversimplification, lost in mere "appearances" in our transient "world." Hinduism encourages us to see a deeper reality.

Much of spiritual Christianity borrows this notion.

In Philosophy? There was Descartes supposing that the whole visible universe might be an illusion from an "evil demon." Descartes eventually deciding that therefore the only thing we can be sure exists, is our thinking self; the "Cogito" or "I think."

Much of the rest of Philosophy once agreed that we cannot be sure there is an "external world." Though more recent Philosophy seems more accepting of empirical reality; to be consistent with science.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I don't know. I use that term, and I am not an apologist for religion.

There are two things: the actual universe, and a bunch of made-up supernatural bullshit. They are, thus, non-overlapping magisteria by definition.

[Brettongarcia]

9. LOL

Still, Philosophy and Ethics in particular, seem preferable to most of Religion.

Particularly the new Analytic philosophy. Which eschews metaphysics and attempts to be consistent with science and reason.

At various times in fact, I've held the position advocated here. And minored in Philosophy in grad school.

[eomer]

10. Non-overlapping magisteria is just a cop out whenever it's supported by scientists.

Stephen Jay Gould:

Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.

I agree with that up to a point, but not when he launches into the statement about souls. If souls exist then they are of interest to science. If they don't exist in the real world then they don't exist anywhere (due to the definition of "real world&quot and therefore are of no interest to anyone. The question of whether they exist or not is of interest to science.

Similarly, if a god or gods exist then they are of interest to science. If they don't exist in the real world then they don't exist anywhere (due to the definition of "real world&quot and therefore are of no interest to anyone. The question of whether they exist or not is of interest to science.

The other magisterium is nothing more than confused thinking and carelessness with definition - words that sound pretty but have no coherent meaning, in my opinion.

[Brettongarcia]

11. Sounds about right.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. As Gould sets it out, yes, but I think there's a better definition of an alternative magisterium.

Science cannot address anything except questions of pure fact. There is no scientific position on ethics or aesthetics, or on how to interpret or understand things.

That doesn't mean we can't develop understanding of those questions, though, and I think that makes the concept of a magisteria of philosophy (not of faith or religion) a useful one.

I do agree that "do we have souls" is firmly a scientific question, though.

[eomer]

19. I agree with that, with a few quibbles around the edges.

First quibble is that, while I get what you're saying, it's misleading to say that science deals only in pure fact. The primary function of science is to come up with explanations for the facts. The explanations then can be used to predict future facts, the predictions can be tested, the explanations can be refined, and the process repeated. At any time there is no guarantee that the explanations are completely correct. They are always provisional. But even in that state they are still useful for practical purposes.

Second quibble is that "philosophy" may not say exactly what you mean to without qualification. I believe there are parts of philosophy that deal with scientific matters and probably should not be in the other magisterium that you posit. Maybe a better description would be "the meaning of life".

And finally, the term "non-overlapping magisteria" has already been coined with a meaning that does refer to religion rather than to philosophy. Like you I don't agree with its concept as stated and I do agree with your alternative (with some clarifications). But most likely the term will continue to refer to religion. Just saying that future conversations about it will need to make clear (as you've done in this thread) that an alternative version is being proposed.

[el_bryanto]

12. That makes sense from your perspective

But many people who use this term do seem to believe that it is a way for someone to justify believing in both science and religion, as near as I can tell.

I don't see a conflict myself, but I understand that some do believe that you can't believe in both Science and Religion.

Bryant

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Believe in them? I've seen them both done!

Self evidently people can and do believe in both science and religion, but it's irrational to do so.

[el_bryanto]

14. Yes - So like Ken Hamm you would argue that to be consistent you have to make a choice

You can't really believe in both of them. I presume that your preference would be that believers stop believing.

Bryant

[uriel1972]

16. Well yes to both...

You can't have it both ways in the end. Either Deities exist or they don't.
And the lack of evidence for religion is telling from a scientific point of view. Plus the damages caused by turning off enquiry are the philosophical/ethical dangers of religion.

All in all, even if the gods exist, I believe we are better off without them and their religions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I would argue that to be consistent you have to reject religion.

It's better to both try to think scientifically and be religious than it is to be religious and not try to think scientifically.

But if you are religious and trying to think scientifically, then ipse facto you are doing it wrong: you are holding a position not supported by evidence, which is unscientific. In fact, if you believe not merely in a deity but in an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity, as most religious people do, then your position is not merely unsupported by evidence but in direct contradiction of the evidence.

The only scientifically justifiable position on "is there a God?" is "We can't prove there isn't, but there's no evidence for one, and they aren't omnibenevolent if they exist".

[eomer]

20. I would go further. It's not that there's no evidence, it's that there never will be or can be.

Whatever evidence we ever see must be taken as evidence of something that's real, not evidence of something that's supernatural. So there never will be, no matter what, any evidence of something supernatural. This is by definition.

Evidence of gods that are not supernatural, that are some type of highly evolved alien or some such, is a matter for science and not for religion. Hopefully people would not worship highly evolved aliens (although I for one welcome our XXX overlords, of course).

[el_bryanto]

21. Doesn't that really mostly apply if you believe there is scientific evidence for God?

Or, to put it another way, can't a person be a perfectly good geologist and still believe in God? So long as he or she doesn't believe in young earth creationism, I'm not sure I see a conflict.

I would agree that if you are trying to use science to answer religious questions you are doing it wrong, as I would if you are trying to use religion to answer scientific questions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. There's a difference between compatibility and compartmentalization...

Existence is itself a scientific question. If you believe in something for which there is no evidence, that belief is unscientific.

But, as a species, we're pretty good at rationalizing our ideological inconsistencies. While there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, that doesn't mean belief in God is necessarily compatible with the philosophy of science.

[el_bryanto]

23. What are the implications of a belief in god not being compatible with the philosophy of science?

I don't agree with the hypothesis but, assuming I did, how would that change things. Or to but a fine point on it, should there be consequences to a geologist believing in God?

Bryant

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. I'm certainly not suggesting that

I'm coming at this from a purely philosophical point of view; I am making no proscriptions or judgments.

[el_bryanto]

25. Fair enough.

I tend to be interested in how those philosophies translate into action, but I understand that they don't always.

Bryant

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. But there isn't.

If you believe that there is scientific evidence for a god, your analysis of the scientific evidence is faulty.

I don't think your second statement is in full agreement with my position.

I think that if you're trying to use *anything other than* science to answer "religious questions" you're doing it wrong; if you're trying to use science to answer them, you're doing it right, but you may well not be able to answer the question.

If you're trying to use religion to answer any question of any kind, you are doing it wrong - religion has no capacity to arrive at correct answers to questions; all religions start from false presuppositions, and are hence useless for arriving at correct or useful conclusions.

In particular, if you're trying to use religion to answer questions like "is there a god", "what happens after death", "do we have souls" etc then you're doing it very wrong indeed, those are scientific questions to which all religions assume the wrong answers as axioms.

[el_bryanto]

27. OK - i think you missed my point

I gather that you see religion has no value; obviously, being a believer and a religious person, I disagree with you. My question is more about how do we deal with the fact that some people believe in religion and some people don't.

Or, not to put too fine a point on it, but would you employing a competent geologist who was also a church goer?

Bryant

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. As a geologist yes, as a commentator on religious matters no.

Many otherwise intelligent and sensible people are wrong about all sorts of surprising things, including being religious.

[el_bryanto]

29. Then fair enough. nt

[MellowDem]

15. You explained it very well...

And in some ways I'd never thought of before. Thanks.