Dawkins, NOMA, and You: Inchoate musings on things I don't really grok.

[guacamole]

I want to first let people know that I haven't abandoned my reading of Dawkins, thought I have had to put it off a bit, and, for today's discussion at least, it will be less "off the cuff" due to some of my necessary background reading. I'm a bit frustrated by my laziness lately--I've wanted to read an explanation of NOMA in Stephen Jay Gould's own words, especially given, what is in my opinion, the indecent and scurrilous assertion by Dawkins, in chapter 2 that:

I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages [regarding NOMA].

Sadly for my reading project, Milo Yiannopoulos, on account of hamartia (in both the Aristotelean sense of 'miscalculation' and the Christian sense of 'sin') and hubris, decided to make his life resemble the art of a Greek tragedy, and I felt an unspeakable and daemonic urge to waggle my parts in the dance at the heathen bonfire that is Civics.

So, this is an overly long excuse that, as I have not been able to get to the bookstore or library, I haven't yet read the salient parts of "Rock of Ages." Thus, in honest disclosure, my understanding of NOMA comes from the sages at Wikipedia, and it's online sources I don't think Gould would absolve me however, noting as he does in his article from natural history:

"I then remembered the primary rule of intellectual life: when puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience."

Shame on me. Ah well, I am an imperfect vessel.

end prologue

At its core, NOMA is the simple observation that different disciplines come to understand and comment upon reality using tools unique to that discipline. In some cases--perhaps most--those disciplines techniques and conclusions are producible only through these unique tools. So if science thinks about the cosmos in one way, with one set of methods and ideas, then religion thinks about the world in another way, with another set of methods and ideas. Gould refers to the areas of study and influence as “magisteria,” and when the methods are non-competing and the results non-contradictory, then the “magisteria” are said to be “non-overlapping.”

I think Gould is expressing his ideal of the relationship between science and religion, but in practice, reality is messier than that. Religions--with their origin stories and miracles--overlaps into areas where scientific knowledge ought to hold primacy--and vice versa, scientists make pronunciations of value and ultimate meaning in their capacity as scientists, thus overlapping into areas where religious (or at least abstract philosophical/ethical) means and conclusions ought to hold primacy. In short, it seems at times that few people actually think that the idea has much merit.

Part of Dawkins dismissal of NOMA, at least in the case of science and religion, has roots in this historical conflict. Whereas Gould sees reason to partially accommodate religious thought, if for no other reason than to diplomatically live with opponents, Dawkins sees no reason to do so when religions make truth claims (again, origins and miracles) about which science has much to say. I’m not sure if this comes from an unshakeable rejection of NOMA as it pertains to the relationship between religion and science, of if this is driven instead by his frustration (recall chapter 1) with the respect that he believes religion inordinately receives.

I see merit to the idea of NOMA, and I see some limits. Properly observed, NOMA reflects the intellectual humility of people who recognize the limits of their own understanding, a way to acknowledge Socrates’s ancient truth about wisdom coming from an awareness of one’s own ignorance. I’ve noted previously that I get the sense of a lack of this in Dawkins’s public persona. Clearly, there are disciplines that are non-overlapping. I suppose that a non-controversial example might be how psychology and literature both seek to comment on the human condition but in different ways. Our understanding of one might enrich our understanding of the other while they theoretically create truth using different rules.

Still, some argue that since they both comment on the human condition, then they naturally overlap. Why then isn’t there the same outrage from psychologists to novelists? Because, between psychologists and novelists, nothing’s at stake. To be blunt, I think the dynamics of political power -- specifically regarding political monotheism (a great evil, according to Dawkings, and I’m inclined to agree)--poisons the well. Scientists like Dawkins are not innocent in this regard either; what they propose is nothing less than replacing political monotheism with political naturalism. My feelings on this are still embryonic, but I’m interested in others’ opinions on this as well.

In addition, I feel like we draw the lines of NOMA using taxonomies that aren’t always reasonable--there is this category that we call “science” that we propose is in conflict with “religion” or, more narrowly, “Christianity,” but within those circles, there are sub-circles, so that while “North American Protestant Fundamentalism” is in conflict with “Evolutionary Biology,” “Roman Catholicism” is not. And whereas “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “North American Protestant Fundamentalism,” “Physics” is not (I realize this is debatable. Feel free to pick this apart). And so on. In addition, there is an irrational all-or-nothing nonsense foisted on religion by multiple sides in this, so again, depending on where we draw the line, while “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “Literal Six Day Creation,” it isn’t in conflict with the “Historicity of Jesus.”

Lastly, I'm interested in why exactly some scientists think that miracle claims are violations of NOMA. Are miracle claims really making falsifiable assertions?

I’m going to stop here for now just to make sure that if anyone wants to give me correction or discuss the basic terms before we deal specifically with this part of chapter 2.

Sorry about the wall of text,
guacamole

[Meh Gerbil]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism. Many others simply use atheism as an excuse to avoid having to answer to anyone or for anything whatsoever. In that usage atheism is a way to assuage guilt or obligation - not that such a use is invalid, I understand the need for an intellectual repose.

[shunyadragon]

I believe a better explanation of Gould's view of NOMA is called for.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Gould's separate magisteria

In a 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria"[4] for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion.",[1] from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".[5] He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution",[1] and describes the NOMA principle as "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."[1] "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[1]

Gould emphasized the legitimacy of each field of endeavor only within its appropriate area of inquiry: "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution."[1] In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures": "Do humans look so much like apes because we share a recent common ancestor or because creation followed a linear order, with apes representing the step just below us?" represents an inquiry concerning fact, while "Under what conditions (if ever) do we have a right to drive other species to extinction by elimination of their habitats? Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values.[1] He went on to present "an outline of historical reasons for the existence of conflict, where none should exist;"[1]

© Copyright Original Source

The Baha'i view in the 'Harmony of Science and Religion' is that there is no distinct boundary between scientific knowledge of our physical existence, and Creation and Revelation from God. It is true that the nature of Methodological Naturalism is limited to the knowledge of the physical existence, but apparent boundaries, contradictions and conflicts between science and religion is the weakness of the fallible human perspective. The perspective of science simply reveals the physical nature of God's Creation, and in reality there is no clear boundary nor distinction.

I believe they do overlap, and to avoid this creates conflicts and contradictions.

Source: `Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, pg. 143

“Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!”.

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away? I agree with your assessment of 'weak' atheism (or is that 'strong' atheism--I get confused.), and to an extent, it reminds me of milquetoast Christianity as well. If I could paraphrase your penultimate line: A Christianity that asserts nothing results in nothing and therefore it follows that its impact cannot be measured.

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism. Many others simply use atheism as an excuse to avoid having to answer to anyone or for anything whatsoever. In that usage atheism is a way to assuage guilt or obligation - not that such a use is invalid, I understand the need for an intellectual repose.

IIRC, LGM could be an aggressive jackass at times too. (In truth, Guacamole can be an aggressive jackass at times too.) I don't mind the vigorous debate, and so I feel sometimes like the "weak" atheism is simply a refusal to strongly examine belief. Again, here I believe that your last line is interesting--consider the vacuous morality that often develops from atheism.

fwiw,
guaca.

[guacamole]

I believe a better explanation of Gould's view of NOMA is called for.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Gould's separate magisteria

In a 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria"[4] for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion.",[1] from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".[5] He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution",[1] and describes the NOMA principle as "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."[1] "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[1]

Gould emphasized the legitimacy of each field of endeavor only within its appropriate area of inquiry: "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution."[1] In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures": "Do humans look so much like apes because we share a recent common ancestor or because creation followed a linear order, with apes representing the step just below us?" represents an inquiry concerning fact, while "Under what conditions (if ever) do we have a right to drive other species to extinction by elimination of their habitats? Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values.[1] He went on to present "an outline of historical reasons for the existence of conflict, where none should exist;"[1]

© Copyright Original Source

Thank you. If it were not the end of the month and the end of my budget allotment, and if "Rock of Ages" weren't 13.99 on kindle, I'd be posting quotes from it, but this is a useful reference.

The Baha'i view in the 'Harmony of Science and Religion' is that there is no distinct boundary between scientific knowledge of our physical existence, and Creation and Revelation from God. It is true that the nature of Methodological Naturalism is limited to the knowledge of the physical existence, but apparent boundaries, contradictions and conflicts between science and religion is the weakness of the fallible human perspective. The perspective of science simply reveals the physical nature of God's Creation, and in reality there is no clear boundary nor distinction.

I believe they do overlap, and to avoid this creates conflicts and contradictions.

Source: `Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, pg. 143

“Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!”.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree that there are some logical mines inherent in NOMA. For one, I think it can create an irrational compartmentalism (I know there is an official term for this, but for the life of me, I cannot remember it now) between two different disciplines. What you've posted echoes the papal citations that Gould provides in several places: "Truth cannot contradict Truth."

fwiw,
guacamole

[Meh Gerbil]

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away?

LGM was permanently banned for the crime of awesomeness.
There are other views but they're considered heterodox.

I agree with your assessment of 'weak' atheism (or is that 'strong' atheism--I get confused.), and to an extent, it reminds me of milquetoast Christianity as well. If I could paraphrase your penultimate line: A Christianity that asserts nothing results in nothing and therefore it follows that its impact cannot be measured.

I can agree with this up to a point.
I feel like LGM's characterization of atheism went beyond milquetoast Christianity in that the latter is merely devoid of commitment or understanding whereas the former was actually asserting the 'nothing' as the only correct understanding.

IIRC, LGM could be an aggressive jackass at times too. (In truth, Guacamole can be an aggressive jackass at times too.) I don't mind the vigorous debate, and so I feel sometimes like the "weak" atheism is simply a refusal to strongly examine belief. Again, here I believe that your last line is interesting--consider the vacuous morality that often develops from atheism.

I think LGM's aggressive demeanor was some weird parroting of Trout.

[Trout]

I think LGM's aggressive demeanor was some weird parroting of Trout.

I'm pretty sure God exists.

[Adrift]

I remember Lake George Man--I believe he passed away?

He was banned from the forum, but I've never heard reports of him passing away. Maybe you're thinking of FormerFundy?

[guacamole]

He was banned from the forum, but I've never heard reports of him passing away. Maybe you're thinking of FormerFundy?

Indeed I was.

[Carrikature]

and when the methods are non-competing and the results non-contradictory, then the “magisteria” are said to be “non-overlapping.”

I'm pointing this line out explicitly to answer this one:

Why then isn’t there the same outrage from psychologists to novelists?

Because they're non-competing.

The rage in the debates stems not from the overlap but the competition.

[Carrikature]

For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view. I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor. Atheism asserts nothing and therefore results in nothing and it then follows that its impact cannot be measured. A world view with no metrics, that is enviable, but not believable.

Atheism isn't a worldview in and of itself. It's simultaneously (albeit contradictorily) a major component of a worldview and a conclusion drawn from other premises. It does, however, necessarily inform every other area of interaction by dictating, in part, how those areas must be interpreted. An atheist still has a worldview, but it's not 'atheism'. I'd be inclined to argue that Christianity isn't a worldview, either, though for many it's effectively the only lens through which they view anything.

I don't think it can be argued that atheism asserts nothing, let alone that it results in nothing or that its impact cannot be measured. If you're looking to it for metrics, though, you're gnawing on the wrong thing. You know all about that, though.

[Starlight]

NOMA seems silly to me because obviously psychologists and anthropologists can study how people in various cultures make moral decisions and perform moral reasoning etc, and philosophers can analyse the logical defensibility of various moral paradigms and explore the edge cases / difficulties / paradoxes that such views could lead to.

In short I see nothing that religion can really do that science can't eventually do some sort evaluation of. So NOMA seems silly to me.

[Starlight]

I think what killed the 'atheist' vs. 'theist' debate for me was the unwillingness of many atheists to own atheism.

Some would sit back and build an entire tree of nonsense out of the assertion "there is a god" while dismissing the idea that atheism suggests any particular realities outside of "there is no god". For example, LGM used to argue that atheism is not a world-view...

So in many ways Dawkins is an aggressive jackass but I'll take brute honesty over lies (or perhaps more charitably, lack of self awareness). He's colliding with religion because he actually believes in and acts upon his atheism.

I hold strongly to a variety of views I see as ultimately flowing from my atheism (utilitarianism, secular humanism, human rights, environmentalism, polically liberal social policies, left-wing / socialist economics etc).

But I acknowledge that as much as I see them as flowing from my atheism (and I think Dawkins is largely on the same page as me on those which is probably one reason I enjoy his books on atheism), not all atheists hold them.

Obviously atheism doesn't come with a handbook of teachings the way religions do (eg Bible, Quran). And since atheism is relatively new in any significant scale in the western world (looking back at census data from the 70s or so the percentage of ppl who were atheists was like 1% or something), there's not a developed cultural understanding of what atheism's logical consequences are that the average person can tap into. So while well-read and well-educated intellectuals like Dawkins and myself might conclude that atheism naturally entails a great deal more once you tease out all the various consequences, the average person in the street is not well-equipped to deduce every single indirect implication of their atheism.

[Meh Gerbil]

I hold strongly to a variety of views I see as ultimately flowing from my atheism (utilitarianism, secular humanism, human rights, environmentalism, polically liberal social policies, left-wing / socialist economics etc).

But I acknowledge that as much as I see them as flowing from my atheism (and I think Dawkins is largely on the same page as me on those which is probably one reason I enjoy his books on atheism), not all atheists hold them.

Obviously atheism doesn't come with a handbook of teachings the way religions do (eg Bible, Quran). And since atheism is relatively new in any significant scale in the western world (looking back at census data from the 70s or so the percentage of ppl who were atheists was like 1% or something), there's not a developed cultural understanding of what atheism's logical consequences are that the average person can tap into. So while well-read and well-educated intellectuals like Dawkins and myself might conclude that atheism naturally entails a great deal more once you tease out all the various consequences, the average person in the street is not well-equipped to deduce every single indirect implication of their atheism.

This is well written.
I also think you do an excellent job of explaining why there is conflict on the question.

*puts a gold star on Starlight's paper*

[Meh Gerbil]

Atheism isn't a worldview in and of itself. It's simultaneously (albeit contradictorily) a major component of a worldview and a conclusion drawn from other premises. It does, however, necessarily inform every other area of interaction by dictating, in part, how those areas must be interpreted. An atheist still has a worldview, but it's not 'atheism'. I'd be inclined to argue that Christianity isn't a worldview, either, though for many it's effectively the only lens through which they view anything.

I don't think it can be argued that atheism asserts nothing, let alone that it results in nothing or that its impact cannot be measured. If you're looking to it for metrics, though, you're gnawing on the wrong thing. You know all about that, though.

I could live with this middle ground.
It seems like a compromise built on an honest assessment.

I'd give you a gold star but I'm fresh out.