Debunking NOMA: Non-overlapping Magisterium
The Wikipedia entry on Non-overlapping magisterial has: Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap.
NOMA may succeed as a political ploy for keeping peace between scientists and believers, but its 1) not true, and 2) doesnt always succeed anyway.
As to 2), witness all the fundamentalists who deny evolution and believe in an Earth thats about ten thousand years old.
As to 1), history shows NOMA is nonsense. Merely a few centuries ago, cosmology was in the domain (or, to use a more impressive word, magisterium) of religion: Genesis told the story of how the universe came into being, in six-days. Linguistics was in the domain of religion: the Tower of Babel story explained the origin of different languages.
Martin Luther placed astronomy in the domain of religion: Said Luther:
There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever, he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Science has taken fields from religions domain for itself and made spectacular progress. It has shown religions knowledge about cosmology, linguistic, and astronomy was, in fact, fairy tale.
But if domain is not the essential difference between science and religion, what is? Epistemological method. The fundamental difference between science and religion is epistemological. Religion derives authority from sacred personages and holy scriptures, which cannot be contradicted. Science derives its authority from evidence and explanatory theories.
Will science ever appropriate the fields of ethics and ultimate values for itself? It may be difficult to see how it could. But if it did, I would expect progress similar to the progress it made in cosmology, linguistic, and astronomy. Exactly how this might be done is a question too large to discuss in a post, a question which Im working on. If interested, check out
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
NOMA may succeed as a political ploy for keeping peace between scientists and believers, but its 1) not true, and 2) doesnt always succeed anyway.
As to 2), witness all the fundamentalists who deny evolution and believe in an Earth thats about ten thousand years old.
As to 1), history shows NOMA is nonsense. Merely a few centuries ago, cosmology was in the domain (or, to use a more impressive word, magisterium) of religion: Genesis told the story of how the universe came into being, in six-days. Linguistics was in the domain of religion: the Tower of Babel story explained the origin of different languages.
Martin Luther placed astronomy in the domain of religion: Said Luther:
There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever, he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Science has taken fields from religions domain for itself and made spectacular progress. It has shown religions knowledge about cosmology, linguistic, and astronomy was, in fact, fairy tale.
But if domain is not the essential difference between science and religion, what is? Epistemological method. The fundamental difference between science and religion is epistemological. Religion derives authority from sacred personages and holy scriptures, which cannot be contradicted. Science derives its authority from evidence and explanatory theories.
Will science ever appropriate the fields of ethics and ultimate values for itself? It may be difficult to see how it could. But if it did, I would expect progress similar to the progress it made in cosmology, linguistic, and astronomy. Exactly how this might be done is a question too large to discuss in a post, a question which Im working on. If interested, check out
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
Comments (3)
Stephen Jay Gould is one of my favorite writers. He taught me a lot about evolution, science, and writing. But I agree that his non-overlapping magisterium idea is wrongheaded. I think it's, as you say, a political gambit that doesn't really work.
Quoting Art48
So Martin Luther was wrong, by our lights, about the sun and Earth. On the other hand, the Protestant Reformation knocked the Roman Catholic Church out of the center of the Christian religious universe and freed people to experience God directly. I'd say, socially and politically at least, it is as important as what Copernicus did. So cut Martin some slack.
And let's take a look at something else a religious leader wrote long before Luther came along - "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," written in 415 AD.
Quoting St. Augustine
Quoting Art48
I think this is probably true.
Quoting Art48
But I disagree with this.
Quoting Art48
Dr. Mengele and his colleagues have already shown us what it would look like if science were to "appropriate the fields of ethics and ultimate values for itself."
One case doesn't prove anything. Christianity for centuries endorsed killing women for the "crime" of witchcraft and said slavery was A-OK. And then there was the Catholic Church's habit of transferring child-raping priests so then could rape again and again. If science is disqualified from speaking about ethics and ultimate values, then so is religion.
P.S. I didn't mean to condemn Luther entirely. In fact, there was a Catholic bishop (I forget who) who echoed his view. And, of course, the case of Galileo is well-known. The point was merely astronomy was once in the domain of religion but today is not.
Science already has lots to say about ethics and ultimate values - from the perspective of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.