Non-Overlapping Magisteria

[NeoGreen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view that was advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets"[1] over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and the two domains do not overlap.[2] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[1] Some have criticized the idea or suggested limitations to it, and there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.

(snip)

Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion is not divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

Dawkins also argues that a religion free of divine intervention would be far different from any existent ones, and certainly different from the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, he claims that religions would be only too happy to accept scientific claims that supported their views. For example, if DNA evidence proved that Jesus had no earthly father, Dawkins claims that the argument of non-overlapping magisteria would be quickly dropped.

The theologian Friedrich Wilhelm Graf has been sympathetic with the approach, but claims it as well for the theological side - Graf assumes that e.g. creationism may be interpreted as a reaction of religious communities on the Verweltanschaulichung of (natural) science in social Darwinism. That said, attempts to compete with religion by natural science may generate a backlash, that is detrimental to both sides.

Not that it imparts anything to support or detract from the idea of NOMA, but my Paleontology professor was a student of Dr. Gould, but even as such, I agree with Dawkins, religion attempts to explain reality and does a poor slow job in contrast to science. The "Magisterium" of Religion and Science overlap.

[Bradshaw3]

1. Time to stop being polite

Gould and scientists like him I think are more concerned with hurting people's feelings than advancing a solid argument. I'm sorry but there is nothing whatsoever to give religion or the supernatural a seat at the table in rational discussions about the state of the universe, human evolution, factual history, etc.

I think the Dawkins passage you quote is from the God Delusion, which I wish more people who feel as Gould did would read. It is not a hateful polemic but a reasoned, sobering, factual approach to religion and its place in our world. A place it definitely does not belong is in understanding our world, universe, or in explanations for existence.

[NeoGreen]

2. My interpretation is that Gould...

...like Neil deGrasse Tyson was in public position (both at the American Museum of Natural History in New York) and tried to serve the entire public, not just the scientifically literate. Where NdGT diplomatically refuses to take a public position SJG attempted to appease both sides, albeit with a weak argument.

[trotsky]

3. If only religion would just concern itself with its own "domain."

But it never does. It insists it has answers - not just suggestions, not just input, but ANSWERS - about how we are supposed to live, about what happens to us after we die, and so on.

Dawkins is absolutely right. Religion has never stayed within its sandbox. It can't. It promotes "facts" that have absolutely no way to be verified. Complete fiction is just as valid as certain truth. When it comes to living together with other humans, we have to find common ground - a framework of reality that we can ALL agree on. Science provides that framework. Religion sabotages it.

[uriel1972]

4. YES!

[Freelancer]

5. My cousin had Non-Overlapping Magisteria. He got better.

His magisteria overlap just fine now.

Oh, come on. At least half of you thought of something similar.

[Brainstormy]

6. I like Dawkins' take

Religion is constantly making claims about the material world and physical "reality" which it can't back up. The most fundamental claims of Christianity--there was a virgin birth, miracles, humans can rise from the dead, etc., etc., --are claims about the material world. The notion of non-overlapping magisteria has never been one that religions ascribe to. On the contrary, they depend on that "overlap."