Non-Overlapping Magisteria? Not At All. May 29, 2010

Non-Overlapping Magisteria? Not At All.

For anyone who believes that religion and science are separate ways of finding the “truth” and that you can’t apply scientific principles to religious claims, Jesus and Mo point out that religion always seems to have something to say about science…:

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pat

    Ha ha. That was really funny because it is so true.

  • Aegis

    J&M usually is, for that exact reason.

  • fritzy

    Religion is good for finding “extra-truthiness.” I’m amazed by well-meaning, intelligent people who are convinced otherwise.

  • Barry

    After reading this, I scrolled up and saw an ad on the top of the blog.
    “Unbelievable Sayings” I read.
    But then I saw it really said “Unbelievable Savings.” I guess my mind was primed by Jesus ‘n’ Mo to find unbelievable sayings everywhere! (Just another example of people seeing what they expect to see.)


    What a brilliant “foot in the door” of overcoming the implicit inhibition of the “sacrosanct.” Considering science only and solely as a method with an implicit understanding of it’s use as a method from a detailed methodology by consensus.
    Religion could never contend nor even show any glimpse of it’s own process. Being a fan of Julain Jaynes work, religion will likely be categorized as a vestige of a shared brain phenomena, loosely a kind “schizophrenia” that we as human beings perpetrated way beyond its effectiveness. Perhaps because of some who are so mystified about the simple act of mass hallucination and it’s vestige “faith” which is part of the heritage our species. We convinced ourselves as something greater in the dark caves and ice age with a memory of gliding between trees and living with the habit of flight from our fright but in the cold there is no where to go. With these factors our brains further developed as we concocted and soothed our shared fears then reveled to continue and become a gestalt that has led to the incisive self awareness of modern humans. If we hold the value of science as JUST a method then as a tool it enable us to face the unknown with ALL of what we do know and begin to process that which will lead to discoveries of what is seemingly unknowable. In my humble but clearly irreverent opinion.

  • Richard Wade

    Many religionists happily accept all the gifts of science, the longer, healthier lives, the greater freedom and leisure, but whenever that very same method of investigating the world fails to soothe their childish fears, or to flatter their vanity, or to confirm their simplistic views, oh THEN they decry science as invalid, objectionable and evil.

    Like spoiled kids, they want the candy without the vegetables.

  • Dan W

    Yep, that’s usually how it goes. They don’t like it when science appears to intrude on their beliefs, yet think they should intrude on scientific research and conclusions all the time. It’s a double standard.

  • Hitch

    I think this summarizes the argument in perhaps it’s most direct form. I would have loved to know Stephen J Gould’s reaction.

  • Collin

    If they say something like the cartoon, they are hypocrites. Hang them by their own rope.

    It’s the same mistake the Christians make about Islam. They respond to the Muslim terrorists by saying Islam is fake, and the terrorists eat it up.

    If someone goes against their own principles, then it makes no difference to argue for or against the principles, because the person’s action has created a contradiction. They haven’t merely used an argument that can be debunked. They have broken the rules of argument itself. So it doesn’t matter what they believe or what they worship. It doesn’t matter how many passages in the Bible, or any book, support what they’re doing. They are sinners because they have defiled their own mission.

    This is what bothers me about atheists. They are so convinced that others believe things they don’t that they refuse to acknowledge, and stand up for, the principles that let them achieve in actuality what mainstream religion merely pretends to do. They know there are absolute ethical principles, but they refuse to admit it, because that would mean admitting that there is something out there besides reality. (It is “out there” because it is a goal most people instinctively realize. It is “unreal” because people are unable to achieve it, and often unwilling to try.) They are faced with a cognitive dissonance believers never have to worry about. If we find something in the Bible we know is wrong, we are free to say “God didn’t really say that”. And we don’t have to be afraid of damnation, because the only really scary threats of damnation are those made by atheists who supposedly don’t believe in eternity. We have a system of norms that is 1% right and 99% wrong, and all we have to do is pocket the gold and throw away the dirt. They have a system that avoids mentioning norms. In order to make ethical decisions, they have to excuse them by calling it their dictation over the rest of the group. So while most of the world has tyrants pretending to be scholars, they have scholars pretending to be tyrants. I wish they’d just admit that they really do have the start of the world’s most honorable ethics campaign. I wish they’d stop acting all-big-and-bad trying to conform to a popular standard of ungodliness.

error: Content is protected !!