Have the religious (primarily Christians) violated the boundary of the "non-overlapping magisteria"?

Question

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that Religion and Science occupied separate realms of study and human experience. He declared that they could co-exist because the were concerned with ""non-overlapping magisteria."

(A "magisterium" refers to the arena where a field of study has the authority to teach its findings regarding truth.)

However, since Dr. Gould's death, fundamentalist Christianity has taken on science in both the media and the classrom, declaring the findings of science open to biblical refutation.

Does this incursion into the field of science in turn justify science's critical examination of the claims of religion?

If fundamentalists had continued to focus more on the messages of Jesus instead of criticizing scientific findings, would they have been less likely to contend with books like "The God Delusion" (Richard Dawkins) and "The End of Faith" (Sam Harris)?

.

Answer 1

Christianity is about a fanatical obsession with all-powerful God or is just power? Christians demand dominion over everything and everyone. Anything that runs counter to that must be ignored or destroyed.

Answer 2

I have a couple problems wiht the concept.

First, who is Stephen Jay Gould to decide who does and does not have the magisteria?

Second, Historically science was a branch of the church including medicine.

As a society we have come a long way form communally following blindly what we are told by a person in a miter but this does not meand that we should give that blind following over to the oerson wiht a microscope.

I support both side looking at issues from their often opposing perspectives and teaching their FINDINGS. Allowing us to individually discern weight and value of the information.

The big problem on both sides is, as often as not, what is being taught is not a finding but and assumption. This is the greates evil in intelectual advancement. We accept as absolute truth that which is only conjecture. I can only speak as expert witness to that which I have observed and experiences. Both side often speak of the experiences and observations of others or worse their imagination that seem a logical conclusion based on other's observations ir imagined happenings.

Answer 3

What it means is the religious couldn't come up with a valid argument when Gould was alive so they're claiming victory because he's dead.

People who dance on others' graves are loathesome individuals.

One of the christians' own, Judge John J. Jones, threw out the case filed by stupid christianazis attempting to force religion into schools. He agreed with the religious position but he had the brains to recognize that the religious arguments aren't proven.

If cretinism - oops, creationism - belongs in a science class, then the Easter bunny belongs in a biology class, numerology in a math class, and faith healing in a medical school. Would you use a doctor who thinks prayer will cure you appendix which is about to burst? If not, then why support equally unpalpable pap that some nitwits want to put where it doesn't belong.

The purpose of schools is increase knowledge. The purpose of religion is to increase ignorance. They are most definitely incompatible.


.

.

Answer 4

the church we see at present are through in great seen as splinter crew like branches from an straightforward framework of beliefs, an straightforward interpretation and consider of the bible, that's the starting off position for those beliefs and international view. at the same time as differences upward push up, and both events with fervor cite the authoritative scriptures as their foundation, then both events comply with disagree and section procedures and a sparkling church is born. the differences might want to be over something, it really is function of the pastime in the back of it that determines the chop up. A non denominational church is a church that became shaped and has no roots, with an latest classic framework of beliefs. it really is a gestalt of beliefs from various denominations, some baptist, some reformed, some charismatics. The church would have a particular concentration depending on the founding pastor historic past, alongside with baptist, reformed or charismatic. yet yet again period for non-denomination is 'Bible Church' Peace

Answer 5

Only fundamentalists that are half crazy with religios fervor behave that way. They are so caught up in their own ideologies and stories that they have completely forgotten Christ's message of love and compasion. They would rather focus on ancient biblical ideas and stories about homosexuality, keeping women in a sunserviant role, and the alleged creation of man through Adam ad Eve. They are so stuck on the details they missed the message entirely.

Answer 6

as for a different outcome with a different path taken....you can say
I don't think religion should explain science and I don't think science should explain religion. Both are based on evidence of its own. To say a christian can not have science in their life is just silly. To say a science person could not be religious is silly. But the line is clear for me and I feel comfortable with both just so long as they stay in the context they were intended to be.

Answer 7

The problem is with the Dominionists. They are having their last gasp. They have to conquer the world of their religion will fail and be relegated to the trash heap of history. They have lost everywhere else and in spite of being protected in the US under freedom of religion are doomed to failure there too. You only have to look at the demographics to realize the incredible age of the adherents. In less than ten years well over half of them will be dead and buried, they currently average about 65 years old..
The unfortunate thing about it is that they don't understand or trust science or the modern world. As far as they are concerned everything was better in the good old days.

Answer 8

I don't remember it like that at all.

Christians didn't start to get into anyone's face until it became glaringly apparent that the ideals of non-Christians were making inroads into our way of life.

Where will it stop? Our beloved country's democratic system can only work if the country pre-disposed to Christianity. Otherwise it would be a mess.

I'm wondering how long it will be before it will be illegal for a Spanish speaking person to say, "Via con Dios" or "A dios". After all, isn't that "forcing" people to be subjected to God's name?

Answer 9

Scientists are so concerned with if they can that they forget to ask if they should. (Jurassic park I know it is a dumb reference)

Religious discomfort with certain types of experimentation regardless of its attachment to religious views should be respected because society should not be made to pay for things the majority is not comfortable with. This is within the authority of the society through legislation and it is reasonable for society to expect scientists to prove their case before giving up their money and their right to claim their innocence.

Incidentally militant atheism is a dangerous area field for scientists to practice. The freedom of thought that allows religious freedom allows scientific inquiry. If militant atheism destroys religious freedom scientific freedom will fall with it.

Answer 10

The vast majority of us Christians embrace Science. I have a Bachelor's in Science and work in the field of Radiology. We just dont blindly follow theories like Evolution that have no basis in reality or reason.

Answer 11

Gould is dead??????? WHEN?

2002... damn... no wonder he hasnt come out with any books recently.

The 'wonderful life' one about the burgess shale was pretty cool... shame.