Person19960
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2024
- Messages
- 1,098
Forget the Plus.I always and still do find NOMA highly dishonest in it's ignoring of the assumptions of fact that are essential to religious beliefs, and the emotional and therefore moral/"spiritual" consequences of facts that are inherent byproducts of science.Hey IIDB. Twenty-plus years or so ago, here on this forum, ("here" haha), nearly everyone rejected NOMA, or the "non-overlapping magisteria" concept of religion and science not being in opposition at all, just separate subjects.
Stephen Jay Gould was known as an advocate of the NOMA argument, but in most of the Secular movement world, both Gould and NOMA were rejected.
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
An AI tells me some popes also liked the concept.
It seemed fine to me then and still does. How about all of you?
Links would be appreciated, top, thank you.
You lost me at "the fact(s) that are essential to religious beliefs."
I'm from the hood, @stanley , what type of facts are those?
Elucidate me. List them, please.