The Couch

An endless feud?

Comments on An endless feud?

kowalskil
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Fort Lee, New Jeresy, USA

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 13
Posted 12/30/11 - 2:08 PM:
Subject: An endless feud?
God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Such a position, put forward by the evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould, is known as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). Many theologians who are also scientists, and many scientists who are also theologians, accept NOMA. Such experts are usually tolerant and respectful toward each other. Feuds about God's existence would probably disappear if NOMA became a norm among all educators.

But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?

===================================
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html


henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 12/30/11 - 4:03 PM:

"But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?"

You don't.

Let 'scientists' and 'theologians' war: you (me, him, her, etc.), cultivate indifference.

And: carry 'a big friggin' stick' on the off-chance either side takes to recruiting by force... wink
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 12/30/11 - 4:30 PM:

It will be interesting to see if this thread fares any better than on 'ff', at least here you may get a more civil response.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 12/30/11 - 10:15 PM:

i'm with henry on this one. there's no stopping the elitist attitude, one can only ignore it as best as possible. participating encourages it.
kowalskil
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Fort Lee, New Jeresy, USA

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 13
Posted 12/31/11 - 7:44 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?"

You don't.

Let 'scientists' and 'theologians' war: you (me, him, her, etc.), cultivate indifference.

And: carry 'a big friggin' stick' on the off-chance either side takes to recruiting by force... wink


\But the wars of that kind would be unnecessary if the idea of NOMA became a norm for all involved in education.
===============================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 01/01/12 - 12:10 AM:

kowalskil wrote:


\But the wars of that kind would be unnecessary if the idea of NOMA became a norm for all involved in education.
===============================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html



You should join forces with Peacegirl, maybe between the two of you, you could come up with something useful.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 01/01/12 - 12:52 PM:

kowalskil wrote:


\But the wars of that kind would be unnecessary if the idea of NOMA became a norm for all involved in education.
===============================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

NOMA sounds great to me. i've been trying to describe the concept to people for years without finding anyone who agrees with it. have once been accused of trolling, in fact, for trying to suggest such an idea. you are the first person i've spoken to who supports it. then again, i happen to be the only pantheist i know, and i do know there are others, just not anyone i converse with regularly.

either NOMA is too difficult for people to grasp, or else too many folks just like to fight for the sake of fighting. they see such a concept as an unacceptable compromise. i'm at least glad to know now there's a word for it, and that at least some people understand and agree with it.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 01/01/12 - 12:57 PM:

the wikipedia article quotes richard dawkins as having said "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without." wow, i seriously have to disagree on that point. but it does shed much light on why people have trouble with this. what do you guys think? belief in god or not, would a supernatural presence qualitatively change the universe? and if so, how so?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 01/01/12 - 2:49 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

NOMA sounds great to me. i've been trying to describe the concept to people for years without finding anyone who agrees with it.


I hope that it was prior to my joining The Couch. smiling face


have once been accused of trolling, in fact, for trying to suggest such an idea. you are the first person i've spoken to who supports it. then again, i happen to be the only pantheist i know, and i do know there are others, just not anyone i converse with regularly.


sticking out tongue


either NOMA is too difficult for people to grasp, or else too many folks just like to fight for the sake of fighting. they see such a concept as an unacceptable compromise. i'm at least glad to know now there's a word for it, and that at least some people understand and agree with it.


NOMA is too simple for me to grasp; so simple that I internalized it when I was just a kid. I indeed did not use to call it NOMA, but I knew it for sure.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/01/12 - 2:57 PM:

If you do not use elements like 'Chi', which are spiritual, to think through the concepts which help in better living, when you are using most of the scientific techniques: the risk is to lose something valuable. This seems to be the only contention I have against NOMA. I can do without GOD but cannot do without 'Chi' at times and that too when I mix Chi with various scientific elements to facilitate my thought process.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/02/12 - 1:23 AM:

kowalskil wrote:
God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book.


I agree.

Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books).



How does 'logic' differ in the two cases? Just curious.


Such a position, put forward by the evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould, is known as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). Many theologians who are also scientists, and many scientists who are also theologians, accept NOMA. Such experts are usually tolerant and respectful toward each other. Feuds about God's existence would probably disappear if NOMA became a norm among all educators.



Without having given name NOMA to such an acceptance, I have been most tolerant of different views. I do not practice any religion or ritual whatsoever. I consider GOD to be an invention of huamn mind. I do not think that existence(or non-existence) of GOD is a problem for me or it would ever be. It is so without having gotten educated by educators with NOMA. I am not suggesting that NOMA is not good but it's no panacea. People come up with many things to fight for. You remove GOD from the equation and there would be language or region or something else. These are power games and I am nobody with a claim that I have a panacea to end it all.

But how to stop arrogant "wee are better than you" arguments?


I do not know. I cannot control what others think. I for one believe that witnessing my thoughts helps me become less arrogant than I already am and this 'witnessing' is not a ritual for it leaves me and comes back on its own.



Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/02/12 - 1:29 AM:

thedoc wrote:
It will be interesting to see if this thread fares any better than on 'ff', at least here you may get a more civil response.



I suppose my responses have all been civil.sticking out tongue I would be most willing to write an apology post otherwise.smiling face
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/02/12 - 8:45 AM:

God save us if science turns political. Let alone theological. sticking out tongue
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/02/12 - 10:55 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:
God save us if science turns political. Let alone theological. sticking out tongue



True. What do you think of the influence politics has wielded over Science? Be it execution of pioneers like Galileo or atom bomb or other armaments-I see it everywhere.

What then would be apolitical Scientific advancement? Science which is used to advance the human species as a whole? Science which keeps all of us healthy and so on?

Curious to know your views!
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/03/12 - 10:21 AM:

"But the wars of that kind would be unnecessary if the idea of NOMA became a norm for all involved in education."

No doubt.

How, then, to make such a thing 'the norm'.

Beats me...*shrug*

Not my war anyway...me: as referenced above, I got a 'big stick' to secure my indifference.

##

"God save us if science turns political. Let alone theological."

Too late!

The most public of the atheists (Dawkins, for one) come across as evangelical as any Holy Roller you might find on cable television.

The whole 'global warming/climate change' mess is driven by nothing but politics on both sides, as is anything and everything to do with AIDS.

It is what it is... whatever
kowalskil
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Fort Lee, New Jeresy, USA

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 13
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/03/12 - 9:37 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

NOMA sounds great to me. i've been trying to describe the concept to people for years without finding anyone who agrees with it. have once been accused of trolling, in fact, for trying to suggest such an idea. you are the first person i've spoken to who supports it. then again, i happen to be the only pantheist i know, and i do know there are others, just not anyone i converse with regularly.

either NOMA is too difficult for people to grasp, or else too many folks just like to fight for the sake of fighting. they see such a concept as an unacceptable compromise. i'm at least glad to know now there's a word for it, and that at least some people understand and agree with it.


I think that first scientists and theologians should formally accept NOMA. The ordinary people will also accept it.
=======================================
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
kowalskil
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Fort Lee, New Jeresy, USA

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 13
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/03/12 - 9:43 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:



True. What do you think of the influence politics has wielded over Science? Be it execution of pioneers like Galileo or atom bomb or other armaments-I see it everywhere.

What then would be apolitical Scientific advancement? Science which is used to advance the human species as a whole? Science which keeps all of us healthy and so on?

Curious to know your views!


That is a good description of practical results of scientific development.

=====================================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/04/12 - 9:32 AM:

"I think that first scientists and theologians should formally accept NOMA."

Okay: so, how is this formal acceptance to happen?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 1:00 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"I think that first scientists and theologians should formally accept NOMA."

Okay: so, how is this formal acceptance to happen?

or, to approach it another way, kowalski, why do you suppose they don't?

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 1:11 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
I hope that it was prior to my joining The Couch. smiling face


i haven't had a formal discussion about it here at the couch, since to my knowledge most of the regulars here are atheist. smiling face NOMA presupposes a belief in god, doesn't it?

i've touched on the topic from another direction, though, when i started the topic on religious "orientation" (in which i likened it to sexual orientation in the way that certain theistic concepts appeal naturally to a person). it is my general thinking that the universe contains pieces which support all belief sets - including theistic and atheistic ones. in other words, theism may be both valid and not valid at the same time.

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 1:21 PM:

libertygrl wrote:


i haven't had a formal discussion about it here at the couch, since to my knowledge most of the regulars here are atheist. smiling face NOMA presupposes a belief in god, doesn't it?

i've touched on the topic from another direction, though, when i started the topic on religious "orientation" (in which i likened it to sexual orientation in the way that certain theistic concepts appeal naturally to a person). it is my general thinking that the universe contains pieces which support all belief sets - including theistic and atheistic ones. in other words, theism may be both valid and not valid at the same time.



I do not think that in order to understand NOMA, you need to believe in GOD. Moreover, I have never asserted that I am an atheist or otherwise.

The idea suggesting that "The universe contains pieces which support all belief sets", is indeed a very exalted one and in spite of my contention against an 'objective universe', I find it very appealing!
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 1:36 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
I do not think that in order to understand NOMA, you need to believe in GOD.

i don't think belief in god is necessary to understand it. but to agree with it, i do think belief in god is called for? yes? no?

Moreover, I have never asserted that I am an atheist or otherwise.

do you believe in god?

The idea suggesting that "The universe contains pieces which support all belief sets", is indeed a very exalted one and in spite of my contention against an 'objective universe', I find it very appealing!

awesome thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 2:00 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i don't think belief in god is necessary to understand it. but to agree with it, i do think belief in god is called for? yes? no?


Yes and No. I do not have any problem with various scientific theories. If NOMA is another theory, I must not be having any problem with it. Theories are bundles of logical opinions used to test and apply until better ones come into the picture and replace them. But if you assert that NOMA is more than say 'The Special Theory Of Relativity' or 'Mayavad'; I would contend against it.



do you believe in god?


awesome thumb up



Again: God as seen in the history, heard from the mouth of various people, seems to be an invention of human mind. Now, is there anything as 'belief in an invention'? Then, what is there with invention? Inventions show effects. So does GOD. Entire humanity has a history affected by this idea, by this superb invention.


None of the definitions of GOD has ever convinced me. I prefer people creating their own GOD and following them, if at all they feel need of having one. smiling face
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 2:17 PM:

what you are describing sounds like atheism to me. how does your belief differ from atheism?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/05/12 - 3:00 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
what you are describing sounds like atheism to me. how does your belief differ from atheism?



Hmm.This is the excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists, and with agnosticism, which leaves the matter of existence open.



I do find myself near to Atheism but not exactly espousing it. I do not see opposing an idea which is not very important to me. I can do without the idea. The idea is like many other great ideas for me. My position has no real contention with either Theism or Atheism. I feel that it's beyond both of them. I do not get my feeling of belonging by becoming a member of 'Atheism Club', as simple as that. I am more open than Atheists and Theists both. [ Do I sound too much of a nutcase here?]
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.