Preamble/Definitions:
An article by Stephen J. Gould on the topic: https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf
The concept of NOMA is essentially that we have two "teachings" one of religion and one of science and these domains do not overlap. The idea is that someone can be a fantastic scientist and still believe all aspects of their religion (including those that may appear to "conflict" with modern science).
The following wiki articles may serve as a brief introduction to two other concepts referred to in this thread:
Ontological Naturalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Methodological Naturalism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Some Thought Questions
In regards to this topic the following are some questions to think about, and answer if you wish to. You need not answer these in order to contribute to the topic but you are welcome to pick and choose from them as well.
Do the teachings of religion and science overlap?
Can someone who does not believe that evolution excluded a creator still follow the concept of evolution and be a "good" scientist?
Are you a methodological naturalist or do you take it one step further and consider yourself an ontological naturalist? Richard Dawkins is a notable ontological naturalist. The following is an excert from the linked wiki article that I found interesting: According to Richard Dawkins, 'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' Daniel Dennett goes Dawkins one (or two) further: 'Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant.' You wake up in the middle of the night; you think, can that whole Darwinian story really be true? Wham! You are inexcusably ignorant.
Definition source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteriaNon-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap. He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."Despite this, there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be or if they should exist.
An article by Stephen J. Gould on the topic: https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf
The concept of NOMA is essentially that we have two "teachings" one of religion and one of science and these domains do not overlap. The idea is that someone can be a fantastic scientist and still believe all aspects of their religion (including those that may appear to "conflict" with modern science).
The following wiki articles may serve as a brief introduction to two other concepts referred to in this thread:
Ontological Naturalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Methodological Naturalism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Some Thought Questions
In regards to this topic the following are some questions to think about, and answer if you wish to. You need not answer these in order to contribute to the topic but you are welcome to pick and choose from them as well.
Do the teachings of religion and science overlap?
Can someone who does not believe that evolution excluded a creator still follow the concept of evolution and be a "good" scientist?
Are you a methodological naturalist or do you take it one step further and consider yourself an ontological naturalist? Richard Dawkins is a notable ontological naturalist. The following is an excert from the linked wiki article that I found interesting: According to Richard Dawkins, 'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' Daniel Dennett goes Dawkins one (or two) further: 'Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant.' You wake up in the middle of the night; you think, can that whole Darwinian story really be true? Wham! You are inexcusably ignorant.
__________