More About Unnecessary Confrontations

[kowalskil]

What do you think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians)? My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

 

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

 

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

 

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc. .

.

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[CraigD]

NOMA, Education, and Moral Politics

What do you think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians)?

My thought on the peaceful – and more importantly, I think, complementary – coexistence of (for short, and in keeping with recent convention I like, let’s simply call them) naturalism and spiritualism – was expressed aptly by Stephen Gould in his 1997 essay Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). (links to the essay, a wikipedia article about it)

 

Gould used the unusual word magisterium, meaning “teaching authority”, to propose that science and religion don’t overlap in their areas of useful teaching. Paraphrasing, he propose that science is effective at teaching objectively real truth (ie: “how does light behave?”, “how should I build an airplane?”), but ineffective at teaching how to make the unavoidably imperfectly informed, uncertain and confused decisions we humans must often make (ie: “should I steal food if I am starving?”, “may I kill a person if necessary to prevent them killing me?”)

 

Thus the concepts of science (eg: distance, time, mass, and laws and theories relating them) are useful for describing physically reality, while those of religion (eg: god, souls, good, evil, heaven, hell) are useful for describing imperfectly understood but vitally important human interaction.

 

My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

 

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

Reading your failed essay and some of the comment following it, I suspect your attempt to reconcile naturalism and spiritualism is similar to Gould’s, and my own.

 

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible?

Yes, per NOMA, and evidenced by long periods of old and recent history where such peaceful and complementary coexistence occurred.

 

Is it desirable?

I believe so.

 

What should we do promote it? etc. .

In my experience, perceived conflicts between scientific and religious thinking are due prevalently to poor education in both science and religion, and in history.

 

So, in a practical, tactical way, to promote scientific and religious compatibility and complementariness, we should promote broad and effective education.

 

Doing so requires addressing two main kinds of causes of educational failure:

• “sins of omission”, in which formal and informal education fails to adequately expose people to scientific and religious ideas; and
  
• “sins of commission”, in which antagonists, some altruistically, some avariciously, actively seek to thwart learning.
  

Science education, and by association, science educators, tend to fail by omission. Science simply is not taught adequately, usually because those teaching it are themselves inadequately educated. While such failures occur also in the teaching of religious ideas, more often, I think, religious educators and authorities are often guilty of committing acts thwarting learning. This is reflected, I think, in accepted aphorisms of many religions to the effect that “knowledge is evil” (eg: the Biblical fall from grace account.

 

In a long-thinking, strategic way, we should seek to understand and address what causes people to committing acts thwarting learning. This is a very difficult mission, with no clear consensus on how best to proceed, or theory to suggest approaches. My personal best guess, however, is that the beginning of such a theory are best found in the “strict father vs. nurturant parent” metaphor Lakoff describes in his 1996 book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

[kowalskil]

NOMA, Education, and Moral Politics

 

My thought on the peaceful – and more importantly, I think, complementary – coexistence of (for short, and in keeping with recent convention I like, let’s simply call them) naturalism and spiritualism – was expressed aptly by Stephen Gould in his 1997 essay Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). (links to the essay, a wikipedia article about it)

 

Gould used the unusual word magisterium, meaning “teaching authority”, to propose that science and religion don’t overlap in their areas of useful teaching. Paraphrasing, he propose that science is effective at teaching objectively real truth (ie: “how does light behave?”, “how should I build an airplane?”), but ineffective at teaching how to make the unavoidably imperfectly informed, uncertain and confused decisions we humans must often make (ie: “should I steal food if I am starving?”, “may I kill a person if necessary to prevent them killing me?”)

 

Thus the concepts of science (eg: distance, time, mass, and laws and theories relating them) are useful for describing physically reality, while those of religion (eg: god, souls, good, evil, heaven, hell) are useful for describing imperfectly understood but vitally important human interaction.

 

 

Reading your failed essay and some of the comment following it, I suspect your attempt to reconcile naturalism and spiritualism is similar to Gould’s, and my own.

 

 

Yes, per NOMA, and evidenced by long periods of old and recent history where such peaceful and complementary coexistence occurred.

 

 

I believe so.

 

 

In my experience, perceived conflicts between scientific and religious thinking are due prevalently to poor education in both science and religion, and in history.

 

So, in a practical, tactical way, to promote scientific and religious compatibility and complementariness, we should promote broad and effective education.

 

Doing so requires addressing two main kinds of causes of educational failure:

• “sins of omission”, in which formal and informal education fails to adequately expose people to scientific and religious ideas; and
  
• “sins of commission”, in which antagonists, some altruistically, some avariciously, actively seek to thwart learning.
  

Science education, and by association, science educators, tend to fail by omission. Science simply is not taught adequately, usually because those teaching it are themselves inadequately educated. While such failures occur also in the teaching of religious ideas, more often, I think, religious educators and authorities are often guilty of committing acts thwarting learning. This is reflected, I think, in accepted aphorisms of many religions to the effect that “knowledge is evil” (eg: the Biblical fall from grace account.

 

In a long-thinking, strategic way, we should seek to understand and address what causes people to committing acts thwarting learning. This is a very difficult mission, with no clear consensus on how best to proceed, or theory to suggest approaches. My personal best guess, however, is that the beginning of such a theory are best found in the “strict father vs. nurturant parent” metaphor Lakoff describes in his 1996 book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

 

Thank you for very useful comments. Yes, I was thinking like S. Gould. I attended one of his lectures, long time ago, and that probably influenced me.

 

Ludwik