It's sorta like that...

Thinking hardly or hardly thinking?

Major trains of thought

Logic Morality Reality

The good, the bad, and the brain fart

Philosophical naturalism Pyrrhonism Antihumanism Sophistry Panpsychism Systems thinking Absurdism Pure Land Buddhism

Come to think of it

Religion Science Philosophy of science Ethics Psychology v -t -e

Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a philosophical worldview that placesreligion andscience in separate domains of questioning ("magisteria") in order to avoid one contradicting the other. NOMA hopes to provide an end to theconflict thesis between science and religion by establishing ademarcation.

Stephen Jay Gould popularized the designation "NOMA" in his bookRocks of Ages.^[1] Gould hoped that the concept could provide a way to eliminate the conflict betweenscience andreligion by suggesting that both contribute to different areas ofhuman existence and give meaning tolife in different ways. He saw the two "magisteria" as so different that they could not inform, comment on, or criticize each other: science based onmethodological naturalism offers no insight into issues of what is morallyright or wrong. Gould claimed that although science automaticallyassumes a lack ofsupernatural causation in its methods, it does not make any definite statements about the existence of the supernatural.

The idea is not entirely new; the twelfth-centuryMuslim philosopherAverroes used a similar concept. To fend off the fierce religiousdogmatic criticism ofAristotelian schools, he proposed that science and Islam presented two different types of truth, one pertaining to nature, and one to the supernatural. Later thinkers, includingThomas Aquinas, vehemently rejected this concept.

The topic was revisited by Barbara Herrnstein Smith in her bookNatural Reflections (2010) and by Stanley Fish in a review of the same.^[2] Smith discusses how both religion and science seek what she calls "underneath-it-all status", but states that one should not view the two as competing.

As with everything,just because it's the middle ground doesn't make it true.

Philosophical issues[edit]

Problems of definition[edit]

The question of whether science and religion are in conflict largely hinges on how one defines "science" and "religion".

The problem of defining science is known as theproblem of demarcation inphilosophy of science. Two broad, differing methods of defining science have often been taken by philosophers: Ideal, or prescriptive, definitions, such asKarl Popper's concept offalsification, and descriptive definitions, such asThomas Kuhn's concept ofparadigm shifts. Some have taken a third approach by combining the former two, such asImre Lakatos' concept of research programs.

One of the biggest problems with the definition of religion vis-a-vis science is whether religion necessarily includes asupernatural element; a question which effectively gives religion its own "demarcation problem". Certain sects ofBuddhism, for example, are claimed to be fully compatible with boththeism andatheism. What qualifies as "supernatural" also presents a problem in religions that worship natural phenomena as deities themselves, such aspantheism, where the entire universe is conceived of asgod, or sun worship, which has appeared in various forms throughout history.

The is-ought problem[edit]

Albert Einstein (a pantheist, as near as we can tell) was very familiar with theis-ought problem, which deals with the issue of how anought can be derived from anis. The way he viewed it, a conflict between science and religion was impossible because science deals with thewhat is side of the is-ought problem and religion deals with theought side. If you define science and religion as Einstein did, he is right. A conflict between them doesn't occur. The following are a couple of Einstein's definitions of science and religion.

As science is concerned with "[bringing] together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible" and religion is concerned with "the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting," conflict doesn't have to occur, as science and religion are dealing with separate sides of theis-ought problem. The issue is that most people don't adhere to Einstein's definitions of religion and science, as scientists will sometimes try to makeought claims based off of the scientific method and people who adhere to a particular religious belief will often makeis claims based off of their faith. Einstein spoke of this as well.

Conflict thesis[edit]

Theconflict thesis is aphilosophical orhistorical position which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict betweenscience andreligion. Examples to support this thesis have commonly been drawn from the relations between science and religion in Western Europe.

A taxonomy of philosophies[edit]

If philosophical positions and arguments regarding the conflict thesis can be put on a sliding scale from "full conflict" to "no conflict", it might look something roughly like this:

Total warfare[edit]

Science and religion are totally irreconcilable. A number of arguments may be given for this position. A common one is that science and thescientific method operate on principles (e.g.,reason,empiricalevidence) that are in opposition to the principles religion operates on (e.g.,faith,revelation). Thus, even though professional scientists may be theists, this does not demonstrate the compatibility of science and religion, but simply that a person may holdcontradictory beliefs. Another common argument is that the existence of God(s) is a testable scientifichypothesis that can be falsified.^[5]Richard Dawkins, and the "New Atheism" in general, is associated with this position.^{[note 1]}

Semi-overlapping magisteria[edit]

A number of positions fall under the umbrella of what might be called "semi-overlapping magisteria" in which science and religion may or may not conflict to varying degrees.

• Forms of "scientifictheology" in which science and religion answer different questions, but science is claimed to supporttheism or science and religion are said to inform each other. Proponents of this view include Alister McGrath, who plainly labels his position "scientific theology",^[6] andAlvin Plantinga, who argues that science actually underminesnaturalism.^{[7][note 2]}
• Science is ultimatelyagnostic about the existence ofGod, but science conflicts with any form of religion that makesempirical claims about the natural world, i.e., scientific claims. This argument makes a distinction betweenmethodological naturalism andphilosophical naturalism, making it compatible with both theism and atheism. Adherents to this view includeEugenie Scott andMassimo Pigliucci.^[8]

NOMA: No conflict and no overlap[edit]

Science and religion are totally separate, so no conflict is possible. The general strategy used by those who defend this position is to argue that positing a conflict between science and religion is acategory mistake. This argument, for example, is used explicitly by Terry Eagleton.^[9] This logic also underpinsStephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria, in which religion's purpose is to answer onlymoral questions and the purpose of science is purely to gatherempirical data about the natural world. That is to say, science and religion seek to answer different and unrelated questions. Einstein's definitions of science and religion fall under this category as well.

The conflict thesis in the history of science[edit]

Theconflict thesis as a historical concept has been rejected by historians of science as aWhiggish narrative in which the inevitableprogress of science is always and everywhere opposed by the dark forces of religion. It is largely based on a number ofpseudohistorical claimsfabricated or recycled by the 19th century intellectuals John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.^[10] A great deal of history contradicts this simplistic narrative. A claim commonly associated with the conflict thesis is that MedievalChristians believed theearth to be flat untilChristopher Columbus discovered the Americas, which is patently false.^[11] The "Dark Ages" are commonly referred to as the "Early Middle Ages" by historians, in part because of theCarolingian Renaissance of the 8th-9th centuriesCE.^[12] Many of the early scientists, such asIsaac Newton, believed that the laws of the physical universe were dictated and enforced by God, thus scientific discovery was also seen as a revelation of God's creation.^[13][14]

NOMA: No conflict and no overlap[edit]

Einstein's position is logically consistent, as he redefined religion to make the conflict between religion and science impossible. His position is a very useful approach to theis-ought problem, but it is only free of logical errors when it is used with religious or philosophical mindsets that avoid making claims based on faith. Gould, who doesn't appear to have redefined religion, is more exposed to logical errors.

Pros of Einstein's NOMA[edit]

It is ingenious, it is useful, and it deals with issues not often addressed with science or even philosophy. For example, how does one scientifically or philosophically evaluate the aims and effectiveness of theBlack Lives Matter movement? Einstein had a way of framing the question and deriving an answer to it. In short, Einstein's position provides a sense of clarity for theis-ought problem.

Cons of Einstein's NOMA[edit]

One has to redefine religion, and most religious people are sensitive about how their religion is defined. He also uses the word religion when talking about broad philosophical issues, and this leads to conflicts with theseparation of church and state.

Pros of Gould's NOMA[edit]

The proposal is that science and religion describe entirely different things; science describes what is known and religion gives answers to what cannot be known. Moreover, people withfaith may argue thatscience is a good explanation of what things likeevolution andgravity are, butreligion provides the answer forwhy they exist. Provided that one isn't abiblical literalist or anantitheist, this may be an attractive position. An advocate of NOMA can be confident that their religious beliefs cannot be affected by the materialism of science, and in theory, science can be confident that supernatural entities cannot mess around with its work regarding the understanding ofreality. Gould in his essay on NOMA says "creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth rather than illuminating literature", suggesting the separation applies to non-literalist faiths such as Roman Catholicism and mainstream Judaism rather than other more fundamentalist Protestant sects.^[15]

NOMA may help unitemetaphysical naturalists together with those who believe in religion and science againstfundamentalists. Non-Overlapping Magisteria may have helped reconcile theRoman Catholic Church toevolution, though this is disputed.^[16]

Criticisms of Gould's NOMA[edit]

Problems with empirical investigation[edit]

In practice, Gould's NOMA is sometimes used as an excuse to try to make religious doctrinestotally immune from examination. Religious individuals often feel that statements concerningempiricalreality — such as the theory ofevolution — that conflict withliteral readings of religious work are overstepping the "bounds" proposed by NOMA. This is a little strange, because according to the doctrine, religion should never have made statements about reality that science could look at in the first place. Still, this often leads to NOMA being more of a "one-way street" in the sense that science is not allowed to examinemiracles orprayer, but religion is still allowed to make claims about the material universe that would otherwise fall under the purview of science.

Where science has looked at the specific claims made and adhered to by Biblical literalists, such as the views regarding the origin of life, cosmology, and so on, it has easily disproved the versions seen in the Bible. When such research has been done, NOMA-like views have been used to justifyignoring evidence that doesn't fit the religious worldview — this is the basic stance taken byAnswers in Genesis andCreation Ministries International whendismissing hard evidence. Regarding the famouslynegative prayer studies, it is often questioned whether religious persons would maintain their NOMA stance should the result have been positive; if NOMA says that science can't disprove religious ideas, then it certainly can't provide evidence for them.

Problems with ethics[edit]

Treating "sacred texts" that are clearly flawed in their understanding of the physical universe or human nature as unquestionable guides to morality is clearly inconsistent.Ethics without Religion avoids problems with Bronze Age and Iron Age religious texts. Advocates of NOMA — particularly religious ones — don't afford the same protection to scientific methods to be free from religious input, as such views are still allowed to comment on policies relating to scientific ethics, and essentially having a say on what science can and can't study legally. Issues such asstem cell research show a potential conflict.^[18]

One moral universal is that preventing harm is morally good while causing harm is morally bad. Science can make a large input in many fields into how harm is caused and how harm can be prevented. Therefore, science is inevitably relevant to ethics.

Materialist critics[edit]

The system itself has met with some resistance and harsh criticisms from figures such asRichard Dawkins (who suggests that Gould was straining to be apologetic when he proposed it),PZ Myers,Jerry Coyne, and numerous others from thenew atheist movement. These critics propose that questions such as the existence of God can be tested just like any other materialhypothesis and that, in principle, even things that are "outside our universe" are still within the grasp of human understanding and the scientific method.^[19]

This is because most proposed gods'alleged effects on the material world are, of course, material, and can be studied much in the same way that all science really just detects real-world cause and effect relationships. In this sense, critics reject the "non-overlapping" aspect of the two magisteria and conclude that if the two genuinelydidn't overlap, supernatural entities would have no effect on the real world and thus their existence, or not, is a moot point.

Further,archaeologists andhistorians are able to study the religious texts of Christianity and other religions and give findings about how reliable or unreliable these texts are.

Another critic of NOMA isThomas Nagel, who is critical of Dawkins, but agrees with him in dismissing the concept.^[20]

See also[edit]

• Accommodationism
• Debate:Is Non-overlapping magisteria merely political correctness?
• Essay:The religious views of Albert Einstein
• Escape hatch
• Goddidit
• Theistic evolution
• Templeton Foundation
• Clergy Letter Project
• Separate Spheres ideology

External links[edit]

• Stephen Jay Gould.Non-Overlapping Magisteria.Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22
• Albert Einstein.Science and ReligionIdeas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49
• Albert Einstein.Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?The Christian Register, June, 1948
• Ursula Goodenough.The Holes in Gould's Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion.American Scientist, vol. 87, no. 3, 1997.
• Religion and Science, Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy
• Conflicts Between Science and Religion, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Science and Religion: Models and Metaphors
• Don Wiebe.Science and Religion: Is Compatibility Possible? JASA 30 (December 1978): 169-176.
• Tom Flynn: The Science vs. Religion Warfare Thesis, Point of Inquiry
• Andrew Dickson White,History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896)

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Bronze-level articles
• Philosophy
• Apologetics and counter-apologetics
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science
• Science and religion
• Religious terms
• Science

• Pages using DynamicPageList parser function