Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria

[DrZoidberg]

I'm starting to warm up to Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria, assuming we make some adjustments.

According to Gould, religion was about meaning, morals and values (and science deals with facts about the natural world).

I don't like this as is, because science has plenty to say about morals, meanings and values.

But if we instead adjust it to, religion is about feelings. Then I think it works. Religion as an emotional manageament tool. Which I think is a superior tool to science. There's only so much emotional support pills can give. Yes, I am aware that the secular world also creates platforms for emotional support. But it just doesn't have the pull as religion. Me and my girlfriend signed up as volonteers for a Christmas party for poor people struggling. When we were trying to find organisations to join, they were all Christian. I live in Denmark. Danes are very atheist. The celebration of Christmas stopped being Christian a long time ago in these parts.

Religions just seem to be much better at creating emotionally meaningful, nurturing and connecting moments than science. I share a house with scientists who do "street astronomy". Ie, taking a telescope out on the Copenhagen streets and letting people look through it. Which is cool, and creates a sense of community. But the moment people leave, that's the end of it. Religion gives emotional glue in the way other things just don't do.

Or to put it another way, why does science and secularism suck so much at bringing people together?

 

[bilby]

Feelings are not the domain of religion, they are the domain of endocrinology.

Endocrinology just happens to be so unbelievably complex that we haven't begun to grasp more than the most basic basics.

The sole domain of religion is taking the unknown, and making up bullshit to fill the gap, so we don't have to admit to ignorance.

Anything that is (or becomes) known, immediately moves from the religious domain to the scientific; There is exactly no reason to believe that anything is eternally unknowable, so there is exactly nothing that can be identified as belonging permanently to religion.

As far as a sense of community or belonging goes, that's just as readily available through tribalisms other than religious tribalism; For example through sports fandom, or patriotism, or loyalty to an aristocratic hierarchy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Feelings are not the domain of religion, they are the domain of endocrinology.

Endocrinology just happens to be so unbelievably complex that we haven't begun to grasp more than the most basic basics.

I don't buy that. I remember in therapy and my therapist telling me that avoidant people, instead of working through their emotions, analyse their emotions, put a label on it and then think they're worked through it. But all they've done is avoiding feeling the feeling. This is what I did for years. I'm better now.

How isn't slapping the label "endocrinology" just another version of that?

Or what Jungians, trauma therapists and IFS therapists call "integration". Ie, thoughts a bodily reactions integrated.

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this. Watching bands play? They don't consiously do it anyway. In the secular world, isn't it seen as bad form?

The sole domain of religion is taking the unknown, and making up bullshit to fill the gap, so we don't have to admit to ignorance.

Anything that is (or becomes) known, immediately moves from the religious domain to the scientific; There is exactly no reason to believe that anything is eternally unknowable, so there is exactly nothing that can be identified as belonging permanently to religion.

Sure. But outside your bedroom door when you close it is also the unknown. You consiously fill it with the notion that there's not a monster there. But if your emotions get worked up about the monster outside the door, there's no mere thinking in the world that can fix that.

Or the unknown of what is going on in the heads of that group of people standing around you brandishing knives.

So sure... religion deals with the unknown. But the unknown is more mundane than "the big questions". It's just everything not in front of our face this very moment. I'd say that's the unknown religion primarily deals with. And that's harder for secularists to wave away.

What religion does to help us manage emotions isn't merely the information that God loves us. It's that in conjunction with bodily rituals and repetative activities. All stuff science says works for emotional management. But it seems like only religions can actually successfully make us do all the things that are good for us.

As far as a sense of community or belonging goes, that's just as readily available through tribalisms other than religious tribalism; For example through sports fandom, or patriotism, or loyalty to an aristocratic hierarchy.

I'll give you sports. But otherwise secularists fucking suck at this. All patriotism has been mediated by religion. fandom... meh. A bunch of nerds not communicating in groups is also not emotional connection. It's a simulation of emotional connection. Religion just does this so much better.

 

[bilby]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

 

[bilby]

All patriotism has been mediated by religion.

[citation needed]

 

[DrZoidberg]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

This is why I think football should be classed as a religion. My personal take on religion is that its npt something you believe in. Its something you do.

The problem with defining religion as a belief, is that it only fits two religions that have ever existed, Christianity and Islam. The rest are activities, in groups or alone.

Seen that way, football is absolutely a religion

 

[DrZoidberg]

All patriotism has been mediated by religion.

[citation needed]

I think its self evident. The two seem extremely connected

 

[bilby]

I think its self evident

That is usually an indicator of a subject you haven't studied sufficiently well.

Whenever I think something is self evident, I try* to treat that thought as a red flag - it usually indicates that I need to go away and learn about that thing before I make a fool of myself.







* But usually fail; It's a lot easier to spot other peoples' flaws than it is to spot my own

 

[DrZoidberg]

* But usually fail; It's a lot easier to spot other peoples' flaws than it is to spot my own

That's very relatable

 

[robnisch]

I have read a good bit of Gould. Never really followed the Magisterium thing much. There is so much more to get from his writings then his take on religion. Like Punctured Equilibrium.

 

[bilby]

Gould's notion of Non-Overlapping Magisteria can be summarised in a single quote:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[DBT]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

This is why I think football should be classed as a religion. My personal take on religion is that its npt something you believe in. Its something you do.

The problem with defining religion as a belief, is that it only fits two religions that have ever existed, Christianity and Islam. The rest are activities, in groups or alone.

Seen that way, football is absolutely a religion

Isn't belief the very foundation of religion? The nature of the belief being what separates one religion from another, Hindu theology, Christian theology, Islam, etc?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

This is why I think football should be classed as a religion. My personal take on religion is that its npt something you believe in. Its something you do.

The problem with defining religion as a belief, is that it only fits two religions that have ever existed, Christianity and Islam. The rest are activities, in groups or alone.

Seen that way, football is absolutely a religion

Isn't belief the very foundation of religion? The nature of the belief being what separates one religion from another, Hindu theology, Christian theology, Islam, etc?

No. It's the foundation for only two religions ever to have existed. Christianity and Islam. The rest don't rest of belief. They're founded on ritual.

In Roman paganism, for instance, sacrificing to the gods was hedging one's bets. If god existed then it's worth it. If they don't, then I haven't lost much. Sacrifices were competetive. I primarily sacrifice to gain status in the community.

Buddhism is based on that doing the rituals is good for you. Whether or not reincarnation is real, is not important for the devotee.

In Judaism, you do the rituals. That makes you a good Jew. God does not care what the individual Jew believes.

Hinduism is all over the map. Most of it is metaphor. But throughout all Hinduism, religion is a kind of self help system. If you aren't benefitted, (mostly mentally) in this world, through the religious practice, then it's not working.

Very few gods are omniscient. Most gods don't know what we believe. They can only see what we do.

Basically, Christianity (and Islam) are weird outliers. We can't use them as templates for how all religion works. No matter their current, temporary, popularity.

Christian theologians have been doing this forever. They create a conceptual God shaped hole, and then organise their entire language around that, just to "prove" that God exists. It's disengenous. But since we in the west are culturally Christian, we're a bit blind to it. So we keep falling into the (God shaped) hole.

No, belief isn't the foundation of religion.

Just the word religion proves it. In Roman paganism a "religare" was a contract you had with a god. If you're wife was pregnant you might promise the gods (in a temple) that you will sacrifice such and such once a week in the hopes it'll protect the child. The pagan gods inhabit cult statues. So in the temple the gods can hear what you say. Each such contract is one religion. Later Christian converts would make a n exclusive "religare" with Jesus and Jehova. That's the basis for the word religion. It's got nothing to do with belief. It's just a contract.

 

[DBT]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

This is why I think football should be classed as a religion. My personal take on religion is that its npt something you believe in. Its something you do.

The problem with defining religion as a belief, is that it only fits two religions that have ever existed, Christianity and Islam. The rest are activities, in groups or alone.

Seen that way, football is absolutely a religion

Isn't belief the very foundation of religion? The nature of the belief being what separates one religion from another, Hindu theology, Christian theology, Islam, etc?

No. It's the foundation for only two religions ever to have existed. Christianity and Islam. The rest don't rest of belief. They're founded on ritual.

In Roman paganism, for instance, sacrificing to the gods was hedging one's bets. If god existed then it's worth it. If they don't, then I haven't lost much. Sacrifices were competetive. I primarily sacrifice to gain status in the community.

Buddhism is based on that doing the rituals is good for you. Whether or not reincarnation is real, is not important for the devotee.

In Judaism, you do the rituals. That makes you a good Jew. God does not care what the individual Jew believes.

Hinduism is all over the map. Most of it is metaphor. But throughout all Hinduism, religion is a kind of self help system. If you aren't benefitted, (mostly mentally) in this world, through the religious practice, then it's not working.

Very few gods are omniscient. Most gods don't know what we believe. They can only see what we do.

Basically, Christianity (and Islam) are weird outliers. We can't use them as templates for how all religion works. No matter their current, temporary, popularity.

Christian theologians have been doing this forever. They create a conceptual God shaped hole, and then organise their entire language around that, just to "prove" that God exists. It's disengenous. But since we in the west are culturally Christian, we're a bit blind to it. So we keep falling into the (God shaped) hole.

No, belief isn't the foundation of religion.

Just the word religion proves it. In Roman paganism a "religare" was a contract you had with a god. If you're wife was pregnant you might promise the gods (in a temple) that you will sacrifice such and such once a week in the hopes it'll protect the child. The pagan gods inhabit cult statues. So in the temple the gods can hear what you say. Each such contract is one religion. Later Christian converts would make a n exclusive "religare" with Jesus and Jehova. That's the basis for the word religion. It's got nothing to do with belief. It's just a contract.

Rituals are not random or arbitrary, rituals may be related to religious or social principles or beliefs. Beliefs that serve to reinforce value systems, provide comfort, social cohesion, etc, be they based on theology or social principles.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gould's notion of Non-Overlapping Magisteria can be summarised in a single quote:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

I don't think so. I think Gould's notion of non-overlapping magisteria is more like, when religious people are talking sciency they're in reality using scientific language as metaphors for religious concepts, and shoehorning real science into those metaphors. I think he instead wants to separate the languages.

But Gould is not clear on what religious people really are talking about. I suspect that for a scientists the supernatural is a really easy concept, ie it's stuff that never happened. So scientists can stop talking about it, and can stop wasting time arguing against it, or wasting time trying to make it make sense (I'm looking at you Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainence).

And my take on it is in the OP.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Having a preacher call lines from the Bible and there's a call and response from the crowd, is exactly this... integration. Arguably, brainwashing. But religions actively do this. Which humans need. I don't know any secular activity that also does this.

Have you ever been to a football match?

This is why I think football should be classed as a religion. My personal take on religion is that its npt something you believe in. Its something you do.

The problem with defining religion as a belief, is that it only fits two religions that have ever existed, Christianity and Islam. The rest are activities, in groups or alone.

Seen that way, football is absolutely a religion

Isn't belief the very foundation of religion? The nature of the belief being what separates one religion from another, Hindu theology, Christian theology, Islam, etc?

No. It's the foundation for only two religions ever to have existed. Christianity and Islam. The rest don't rest of belief. They're founded on ritual.

In Roman paganism, for instance, sacrificing to the gods was hedging one's bets. If god existed then it's worth it. If they don't, then I haven't lost much. Sacrifices were competetive. I primarily sacrifice to gain status in the community.

Buddhism is based on that doing the rituals is good for you. Whether or not reincarnation is real, is not important for the devotee.

In Judaism, you do the rituals. That makes you a good Jew. God does not care what the individual Jew believes.

Hinduism is all over the map. Most of it is metaphor. But throughout all Hinduism, religion is a kind of self help system. If you aren't benefitted, (mostly mentally) in this world, through the religious practice, then it's not working.

Very few gods are omniscient. Most gods don't know what we believe. They can only see what we do.

Basically, Christianity (and Islam) are weird outliers. We can't use them as templates for how all religion works. No matter their current, temporary, popularity.

Christian theologians have been doing this forever. They create a conceptual God shaped hole, and then organise their entire language around that, just to "prove" that God exists. It's disengenous. But since we in the west are culturally Christian, we're a bit blind to it. So we keep falling into the (God shaped) hole.

No, belief isn't the foundation of religion.

Just the word religion proves it. In Roman paganism a "religare" was a contract you had with a god. If you're wife was pregnant you might promise the gods (in a temple) that you will sacrifice such and such once a week in the hopes it'll protect the child. The pagan gods inhabit cult statues. So in the temple the gods can hear what you say. Each such contract is one religion. Later Christian converts would make a n exclusive "religare" with Jesus and Jehova. That's the basis for the word religion. It's got nothing to do with belief. It's just a contract.

Rituals are not random or arbitrary, rituals may be related to religious or social principles or beliefs. Beliefs that serve to reinforce value systems, provide comfort, social cohesion, etc, be they based on theology or social principles.

Sure. My argument is the same.