Proof of a Higher Power

[Feisty Mouse]

heretic, I agree with what you said there. Maybe "sciencism" is a better word for what I was getting at.

The point being, these are different systems that can be used and/or abused by the "authority" or people in power. For most of human history, it's been religion. Now that it's science, it doesn't mean the same things won't (or aren't) happening.

I think the NOMA concept is useful to try to start getting people to think about religion and science as addressing different things (needs? ways of thinking? ???) in people's lives. I agree that it's not so cut-and-dry, but I think it's a useful tool.

 

[heretic888]

your moral position - it just 'feels' like the 'right' way to behave.(religeon) (approximately)

Errrr..... not necessarily, flatlander.

Thing is, there seems to be a pretty damn impressive amount of cross-cultural evidence to support the existence of multiple levels of moral development (among other things). The most popular versions of this cross-cultural "moral hierarchy" would probably be from George Kohler and Carol Gilligan's work, respectively --- preconventional/narcissistic, conventional/sociocentric, and postconventional/worldcentric; and, selfish, care, and universal care. But, of course, there are other examples as well (Clare Graves' "spiral dynamics" memes, for example).

Anyways, the point is that these levels of moral development are cross-cultural --- i.e., whatever else they may be, they are most definately not the exclusive property of any particular religious tradition. Now, different cultural environments can alter the rate at which the levels are progressed through, but do not fundamentally alter the levels themselves.

In any event, it seems as if this particular aspect of ourselves seems to be collectively inherited ontological potentials --- not a learned behavior created by any particular religious tradition.

That's my take, anyway. Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The point being, these are different systems that can be used and/or abused by the "authority" or people in power. For most of human history, it's been religion. Now that it's science, it doesn't mean the same things won't (or aren't) happening.

Well, I agree that these disciples of scientism, we could say, are just as rigid, jingoistic, and fundamentalist in their treatment of the belief system they adhere to as any religionist --- August Comte actually proposed, and get this, having a "pope of positivism". Yeah, I know.

However, certain differences do need to be highlighted. For example, as annoying as their reductionist intellectualism is, these guys aren't going around on Holy Crusades or the like. I guess you could say the world has perhaps evolved over the past thousand years.

Then again, we have guys like Stalin and Mao --- who have no problem at all with physically imposing their "atheism" on the rest of us.

I think the NOMA concept is useful to try to start getting people to think about religion and science as addressing different things (needs? ways of thinking? ???) in people's lives. I agree that it's not so cut-and-dry, but I think it's a useful tool.

Well, personally, my take is that the NOMA concept confuses the issue.

Basically, it creates a rather rigid and nonexistent dualism to sustain itself --- a dualism which cannot be maintained. As Wilber pointed out in his "Marriage of Sense and Soul", for every subjective religious experience one might have, there are objective sensorimotor correlates that can be observed in the physical organism (i.e., varying brainwaves, among other things). Clearly, the two "magisteria" here --- while not being reduced one into the other --- are overlapping like hell.

Then again, it would probably help if we define "religion" and "science" to begin with, as well.

Laterz.