romansh wrote:

Hermit wrote: … NOMA, both made up to enable theists to believe all currently accepted scientific knowledge in its entirety while simultaneously believing in the existence of a supernatural being, be that being the divine watchmaker type or the interfering busybody type.

Do you have any evidence that Gould did NOMA to enable theists?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I think God’s purposes are hidden from us because it’s the nature of lower elements in organism not to know the purpose of the higher. My pancreas doesn’t know why I go to town today.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

zoon wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

zoon wrote:
Again, I don't see why you consider that the process of evolution by natural selection, as I've very roughly outlined it above, would be incompatible with your version of theism, since you say that you do not expect God to make any purposes he may have apparent to us mortals. There's no apparent guiding purpose behind the functionality which evolution by natural selection produces, and you don't expect to see any apparent guiding purpose in God's creation, so why do you go to the trouble of arguing with the consensus of scientific opinion?

I can’t stand it that so many people can be wrong in the stories they tell about the creation of mankind. And there’s something interesting about the way they are wrong; it’s organic. And that organic structure seems to be explorable in an open-ended way. That's why I don't want to limit exploration by agreeing e.g. that "evolution is true"

The creation is described in terms of evolution through more than just a consensus of scientific opinion, it is authoritative, also in an organic way. Take the concepts of punctuated equilibrium and exaptation; both central to the human creation. Both are associated with Stephen Jay Gould and with also somewhat lesser known (though surely well respected) figures; Niles Eldredge and Elisabeth Vrba. Gould can be seen as having appropriated these potentially dangerous terms to scientific authority and so removed their sting. His later concept of spandrels diverts attention away from the deep functionality of living things. It claims that some changes just happen because something has to happen and it doesn’t matter what that is.

Punctuated equilibrium was immediately recognised as potentially dangerous because it could give comfort to the enemy: it looks a bit like special creation. And its sting was pulled by just categorising it along with phyletic gradualism as one way that evolution can work. Exaptation replaced the politically incorrect term preadaptation. Basically both terms speak to new functionality appearing through structured processes and one can get as spooky or as un-spooky about that, as one likes. The point is that one CAN get spooky. ..

The core of your argument, as I understand you, is given in your comment: “His later concept of spandrels diverts attention away from the deep functionality of living things.” You appear to me to be saying that if attention is focussed on this “deep functionality” of living things, then it will seem more probable that God created them. This is the classic argument from design, that functionality needs a creator. It is somewhat at odds with your claim that you would not presume to say what God’s purposes are, since you are presumably saying that the functionality is good for something, which would be God’s purpose in creating it, assuming He didn’t do it by accident.

While I agree with you that the functionality of living things at all levels is astonishing, there is also more than enough evidence that it is entirely the result of evolution by natural selection, with no input from any creator. Calilasseia has a fine collection of relevant papers.

If you want to be spooky without clashing with science, you could say that God is out there and active, but choosing to keep his purposes hidden by following the laws of physics without exception.

I think God’s purposes are hidden from us because it’s the nature of lower elements in organism not to know the purpose of the higher. My pancreas doesn’t know why I go to town today.
I admit that a confounding problem with the notion of human embeddedness in hierarchy, is that human intelligence seems to us to have a hierarchy - flattening quality; we imagine there is nothing we can’t figure out. However that may be, we sure haven’t yet figured out what is going down on planet Earth.

romansh wrote:

Hermit wrote: … NOMA, both made up to enable theists to believe all currently accepted scientific knowledge in its entirety while simultaneously believing in the existence of a supernatural being, be that being the divine watchmaker type or the interfering busybody type.

Do you have any evidence that Gould did NOMA to enable theists?

Cito di Pense wrote:You don't have to give NOMA a second thought, just because Gould dreamed it up. It's a reference to the fact that you can't argue someone out of a god-belief just by waving a lot of science at him.

NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I think God’s purposes are hidden from us because it’s the nature of lower elements in organism not to know the purpose of the higher. My pancreas doesn’t know why I go to town today.

Trees don't have any purposes that people don't attribute to them. Beyond that, trees function in various ways; they have intakes and outputs, same as humans. Everyone has to eat. Your silly attempts at theology and philosophy are banal and tedious.

It's layers of organism all the way down. And looking up, it looks the same

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You don't have to give NOMA a second thought, just because Gould dreamed it up. It's a reference to the fact that you can't argue someone out of a god-belief just by waving a lot of science at him.

Exactly right.

By the same token NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension, let alone irreconcilable contradiction, between the secular and the divine spheres.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I think God’s purposes are hidden from us because it’s the nature of lower elements in organism not to know the purpose of the higher. My pancreas doesn’t know why I go to town today.

Trees don't have any purposes that people don't attribute to them. Beyond that, trees function in various ways; they have intakes and outputs, same as humans. Everyone has to eat. Your silly attempts at theology and philosophy are banal and tedious.

It's layers of organism all the way down. And looking up, it looks the same

Scot Dutchy wrote:He is talking the biggest load of crap and he knows it. Why do you guys entertain him.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You don't have to give NOMA a second thought, just because Gould dreamed it up. It's a reference to the fact that you can't argue someone out of a god-belief just by waving a lot of science at him.

Exactly right.

By the same token NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension, let alone irreconcilable contradiction, between the secular and the divine spheres.

IOW, people have theistic beliefs because they want to. Their reasons for wanting to are all over the map, but nobody gets credit for much else automatically just because he or she wants it, unless it involves social justice or chocolate.

I think theists' own inclinations and their faith communities enable what they're doing, in the sense of being enablers.

The NOMA concept is used much more often by non-theists who just don't feel like giving theists a hard time, and want to sound literate. I don't think accepting scientific conclusions requires much license, even for theists within their faith communities. It's a political matter to try to decide what's taught in school, and NOMA would not suffice to justify that.

How is directing tax revenue toward religious institutions actually justified, in societies where that happens? NOMA?

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You don't have to give NOMA a second thought, just because Gould dreamed it up. It's a reference to the fact that you can't argue someone out of a god-belief just by waving a lot of science at him.

Exactly right.

By the same token NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension, let alone irreconcilable contradiction, between the secular and the divine spheres.

IOW, people have theistic beliefs because they want to. Their reasons for wanting to are all over the map, but nobody gets credit for much else automatically just because he or she wants it, unless it involves social justice or chocolate.

I think theists' own inclinations and their faith communities enable what they're doing, in the sense of being enablers.

The NOMA concept is used much more often by non-theists who just don't feel like giving theists a hard time, and want to sound literate. I don't think accepting scientific conclusions requires much license, even for theists within their faith communities. It's a political matter to try to decide what's taught in school, and NOMA would not suffice to justify that.

How is directing tax revenue toward religious institutions actually justified, in societies where that happens? NOMA?

WTF? Right now you've either gone off your meds or you are stoned off your tits.

zulumoose wrote:

NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension

As long as they can remain comfortable with the obvious contradiction that science illustrates the need for evaluation of evidence, the value of objectivity, the nature of bias, and the types of thinking and evidence that tend to lead towards or away from truth.

Hermit wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension

As long as they can remain comfortable with the obvious contradiction that science illustrates the need for evaluation of evidence, the value of objectivity, the nature of bias, and the types of thinking and evidence that tend to lead towards or away from truth.

They are comfortable with their ideology/worldview precisely because they see no contradiction in it. If they did and decided to do something about it, they'd either become atheists or religious fundamentalists.

Cito di Pense wrote:What's your position? Don't just toss a spitball at the teacher if you contest the lesson.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension

As long as they can remain comfortable with the obvious contradiction that science illustrates the need for evaluation of evidence, the value of objectivity, the nature of bias, and the types of thinking and evidence that tend to lead towards or away from truth.

They are comfortable with their ideology/worldview precisely because they see no contradiction in it. If they did and decided to do something about it, they'd either become atheists or religious fundamentalists.

Not everyone is compulsively dedicated to resolving every contradiction they experience or have pointed out to them by people who may not really have the requisite training to identify contradictions rigorously.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

NOMA enables theists to accept everything science has to offer without it causing a hint of tension

As long as they can remain comfortable with the obvious contradiction that science illustrates the need for evaluation of evidence, the value of objectivity, the nature of bias, and the types of thinking and evidence that tend to lead towards or away from truth.

They are comfortable with their ideology/worldview precisely because they see no contradiction in it. If they did and decided to do something about it, they'd either become atheists or religious fundamentalists.

Not everyone is compulsively dedicated to resolving every contradiction they experience or have pointed out to them...