No room for God in science? How about other disciplines?

Most of the posts here are presumably from white Westerners.

Logically speaking these comments appear to be quite neutral. But, this logically neutral perspective is rooted in the Western tradition of learning.

Western intellectual heritage is accessible to everyone. However, non-Westerners are only willing to acknowledge Western Science as legitimate.

Other areas of inquiry that are internal to the human mind and not easily available to experimentation are usually considered off limits, a product of 'western culture' and considered a Threat to their own non-Western belief systems.

The lack of democracy in most parts of the world is evidence that the European enlightenment is still not taking root amongst the many peoples of the world. Rights of Man are not respected everywhere.

What has this got to do with NOMA?

Well, IMHP, a secularisation of science and other areas of human knowledge enables non-Western peoples everywhere to have access to Western thought and intellectual tradition.

They need not put aside their biases. They can delve into it without feeling guilty about neglecting their own cultures.

Western thought is quite intoxicating and addictive. Once these correct modes of thought and logic become ingrained in a non-western culture, it becomes easier to for any person to appeal to reason and logic in the persuit of truth. Christianity is Truth.

NOMA helps non-Westerners to "lose their religion".

"That's me in the corner That's me in the spotlight, I'm Losing my religion Trying to keep up with you"

Apologies to REM.

Just a collection of developing thoughts....

I have been looking at the idea of NOMA at little closer in an attempt to be charitable to thoughtful individuals who approach the subject with bona fide sincerity. It occurred to me that there is both a metaphysical and epistemological component that should be separated and investigated. Is a proponent of NOMA meaning that there exists two different realities (the metaphysical component)? I think that would be a serious problem, so much so that this probably is not what they mean. Then again, a person who has not really thought about it might make such a mistake implicitly. Take for example a person who says "Religion might be true for you, but not true for me. So you can have your beliefs but not mix them with science". Though an attempt to be inoffensive, there cannot be a God and not a God at the same time in the same way. Using the term "true" for both implies the existence of two contradictory yet actual realities. I realize that such an incoherent statement seems like it would only come out of the mouth of a drunken college student, but in a postmodern culture I think it would be pretty common.

The epistemological component, I'm speculating, is the more common issue a non-NOMA person would have to deal with from thoughtful, coherent opponents. Let’s say they agree that there can be only one reality. Then they would keep science and God apart because they believe there is no way to know if revealed knowledge is true or false. Religious ideas, to them, are held by faith (defined as wishful thinking) and scientific knowledge is held by reason. For example, the statement "the universe began as a singularity sometime in the past". If a person really held the faith=wishing idea, I can see why they would not want religious ideas included in the interpretation of empirical evidence. This could lead to a good conversation about the relationship between faith (pistis), reason, and empirical evidences.

As I have been exploring history, I have seen that many historians take a NOMA approach in an attempt to scientifically analyze the evidence from the past while testing an historical account. It would be interesting to converse with them about the merits of an approach that overlaps religious claims with scientific claims. My position would be similar to Bob's, but I would say to them that any claim about reality, including the scientific, should endure the sharp edge of reason.

I think one of the issues with NOMA is the misconception that "science" necessarily means naturalistic. A more appropriate view would place science back into the realm of testing hypotheses and selecting the most reasonable explanation for a given set of observances (to simplify it).

However, there are things in which NOMA makes a bit of sense. For example, there is a difference between mechanical causation "hows" and actual "whys". Let's say a child asks their parents why they were born. A possible answer is "well, we had intercourse by which you were conceived" (the 'hard' reality answer). Another possibility is "well, we wanted a child to love" (the 'soft' cushy answer). Which is more correct? Neither (given that the parents actually did desire to have a child).

So yeah, the above example isn't quite NOMA, but it does introduce something of a divider between certain responses that separates them into two different realms of thought. Not something that can be applied to all of reality, but just a thought.

The idea of "NOMA" is as dumb as they come. Nobody who makes any claim about the real world deserves clemency from a swift execution by Science.

I am still waiting for Dr. Ross to provide evidence of amputees growing back limbs in the mission field. And to show he has more than a semblance of sophistication in probability theory. As Zweerink says, "Ultimately, all the evidence for design boils down to probability arguments..." You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

Great post!

I have found true what many smarter guys before me have stated... that people - from the very learned to the intellectually humble - when faced with a conclusion unpalatable to their worldview (such as the idea of a Creator) will reject the notion out of a personal objection, rather than from objective evidence. Isn't that funny, how the so-called scientist will dismiss scientific evidence on philosophical grounds? :-)

To give a shot at some of your questions, Joe, I'd say that NOMA types would hold that there is no room for God in their sciences - in the hard sciences of math, physics, and the like - but would allow room for a god to enter as the spectrum of disciplines drift away from them and toward the softer, more subjective sciences of archeology, philosophy, etc. What they're effectively saying is that they'll "graciously" accept God once the stated magisteria is one that entertains subjectively derived conclusions - or "making stuff up"... much the same way someone might say "art can't be wrong".