In lieu of a starter, please work on yesterday's journal based on the reading. Add your thoughts on the following philosophical questions as well.
JOURNAL 2.11: Response to NOMA and the “Skeptic”:
JOURNAL 2.11: Response to NOMA and the “Skeptic”:
React to the idea of “Non-overlapping Magisteria” and/or Michael Shermer’s article. Identify a specific passage in the article and agree or disagree with it.
Philosophize: Are religion and science compatible? Can they work together to illuminate meaning in our lives? Or do they contradict each other?
SHARE OUT IDEAS ABOUT "The Creation"
What claims could we make about its meaning?
The Scientific World View: What Makes Us Human?
What claims could we make about its meaning?
The Scientific World View: What Makes Us Human?
In pairs, make a T-chart.
Commonalities between Religion and Science
|
Areas where you see tension between them
|
SHARE OUT.
Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" Non-overlapping Magisteria
Read Gould's original article (linked) for more depth of information!
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" [1] over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and the two domains do not overlap.[2] 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."[1] Still, there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.[3]
Quote from Gould: "Our failure to discern a universal good does not record any lack of insight or ingenuity, but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms. Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people. The answers will not be read passively from nature; they do not, and cannot, arise from the data of science. The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner"
Are his arguments convincing?
Even if you are not religious, what can we learn from his example?
Journal 2.12: How do religion and other forms of spirituality give meaning and purpose to human life? Use evidence from Rick Warren's TED Talk and/or your personal experiences and observations.
If time is left over....here is some fun we could have.
Belief Quiz What were the results? Did the quiz tell you what you already knew? Did it surprise you at all?