Science, The Resurrection, and NOMA

[Dan_Eastwood]

@swamidass

I agree. But that conclusion essentially demonstrates NOMA is not valid. The Resurrection takes place in the physical world we all inhabit, what is supposed to be science’s domain.

Let me take another swing at this: >>I do not require<< the Resurrection to be a scientific event, whatever that means. If someone chooses to accept this event as a scientific fact, then I have no particular reason to object. If a person further asserts, “… and therefore the Earth is only 6000 years old”, then I might have an issue, but that is not the case here.

The value of your faith is not contingent of my acceptance of the Resurrection.

Better?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Dan_Eastwood

The value of your faith is not contingent of my acceptance of the Resurrection.

That is certainly true.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

I agree that Gould was not strident on this. He was trying to articulate a path out of conflict. It was a genuine bid for peace. The problem, however, is the claim that they are non-overlapping, and that science has domain over facts in the physical world, and faith has domain over values. That division does not seem to work, as the two often appear to be talking about the same things in the physical world.

From my reading of Gould’s essay I think he would agree that NOMA has exceptions. It is basically Gould’s attempt at describing his own fallible view as an agnostic of how science and religion interact.

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).
–Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”

That last part is the all-purpose get out of jail free card. He freely admits that this won’t cover all questions, and one could perhaps argue that the Resurrection fits into this area of non-coverage.

Another possible way of looking at this is to define the magisteria by the empirical evidence we do have. The scientific magisteria would include theories that are either supported or refuted by known evidence. Being that there is no evidence for or against the Resurrection, it would fall outside the magisteria of science.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Let me take another swing at this: >> I do not require << the Resurrection to be a scientific event, whatever that means. If someone chooses to accept this event as a scientific fact, then I have no particular reason to object.

@Dan_Eastwood

But this makes for a terminology problem. The only way the resurrection of Jesus can be a SCIENTIFIC fact is if resurrections like his can be replicated.

I think it is more coherent to say His resurrection is most likely a miracle.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

The only way the resurrection of Jesus can be a SCIENTIFIC fact is if resurrections like his can be replicated.

It can also be a scientific fact if it created empirical evidence that we could observe in the present. The Chicxulub meteor impact is a scientific fact because of the massive crater and other evidence (e.g. tektites, iridium layer) we can find in the present.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@T_aquaticus

t can also be a scientific fact if it created empirical evidence that we could observe in the present. The Chicxulub meteor impact is a scientific fact because of the massive crater and other evidence (e.g. tektites, iridium layer) we can find in the present.

@T_aquaticus

The meteor is a scientific fact, in part, because no religion claimed their God produced that event.

If we are being semantically careful… the resurrection of Jesus may have scientifically verifiable evidence… without necessarily any evidence that the resurrection itself was due to natural laws and causation.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@gbrooks9

But this makes for a terminology problem. The only way the resurrection of Jesus can be a SCIENTIFIC fact is if resurrections like his can be replicated.

I think it is more coherent to say His resurrection is most likely a miracle.

OK, but this pushes us to consider scientific evidence of miracles and LALALALALALALICANTHEARYOULALLALAL

{I’m not going there today}

[Djordje]

I don’t think resurrection specifically could be proven. It could, maybe, be proven that some “event” did happen but we wouldn’t, scientifically call it resurrection because we haven’t seen any other resurrection.

However, would it be logically consistent to think that “event” is resurrection? Certainly.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

The only way the resurrection of Jesus can be a SCIENTIFIC fact is if resurrections like his can be replicated.

It can also be a scientific fact if it created empirical evidence that we could observe in the present. The Chicxulub meteor impact is a scientific fact because of the massive crater and other evidence (e.g. tektites, iridium layer) we can find in the present.

Because of MN, science would never consider the Resurrection, because it is a claim of supernatural involvement in the world.

There is, however, an immense amount of evidence for the Resurrection.