Debunking NOMA: Non-overlapping Magisterium

Art48

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 it’s 1) not true, and 2) doesn’t always succeed anyway.

As to 2), witness all the fundamentalists who deny evolution and believe in an Earth that’s 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 religion’s “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 I’m working on. If interested, check out

https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

T Clark

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. — Art48

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.

Martin Luther placed astronomy in the domain of religion: — 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.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? — St. Augustine

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. — Art48

I think this is probably true.

Religion derives authority from sacred personages and holy scriptures, which cannot be contradicted. Science derives its authority from evidence and explanatory theories. — Art48

But I disagree with this.

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. — 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."

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." — T Clark

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.

T Clark

If science is disqualified from speaking about ethics and ultimate values, then so is religion. — Art48

Science already has lots to say about ethics and ultimate values - from the perspective of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

Debunking NOMA: Non-overlapping Magisterium

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions