Gould writes,

the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.

The problem is that nearly all religions make claims of fact, notably the existence of deities, and provide explanations for why the world works the way it does, e.g. providence. How can you claim that God is great if you don’t also claim that God exists? If Christianity were to confine itself to Gould’s magisterium, it would no longer possess a first commandment.

I agree with Gould that science isn’t equipped to answer moral and aesthetic questions. In that sense, there is a non-overlapping magisterium that complements science. However, “religion” is a bad name for it. The magisterium of religion, as Gould describes it, would be more accurately called the magisterium of philosophy.

Posted: November 22nd 2009

See all questions answered by George Locke

I think its nuts.

I respect what Gould has done in his field and he’s a pretty good writer, but he’s way off base on this one.

I think his confusion is between theology and religion. Or, perhaps, philosophy and religion.

It’s possible to make an argument that theology and science are non-overlapping magisteria, but only if you are approaching theology from a non-religious (ie academic) point of view.

That there are still lots of people who don’t believe in evolution or the big bang because of religious beliefs would seem to be a trivial refutation of his claim. Not to mention advocacy of miracles and the power of prayer – those are at direct odds with science.

Honestly, I think he’s advocating for how he thinks the world should be, but that’s so at odds with the way that it is that I’m not sure why he bothers.

Posted: November 20th 2009

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

I think the concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is bunk, and the following is why. I’m using (not quoting) an argument by Richard Dawkins with which I completely agree.

Imagine if scientific evidence emerged which went a long way towards verifying a supernatural event in the Gospels. Say for example DNA were found on a cup which was analysed and found to be from a human with no biological father. Say the body of Lazarus were found and it showed signs of having died twice, and not in quick succession.

If something like this happened, do you think for a moment that Christians would dismiss such evidence as religious and therefore unscientific? No, they’d shout it from the rooftops. They would proclaim, rightly if the evidence were genuine, that science had proved the Gospels were at least partially correct. (In fact many people already claim this has happened, though they haven’t gained much traction even with fellow believers.)

The religious, and those sympathetic to religion, only try to separate religion from science when science appears to pose a threat to religious doctrine. Gould, an evolutionary biologist, would have been very aware that it currently does. The moment science appears supportive of religion, NOMA goes out the window. They cannot have it both ways.

Posted: November 19th 2009

See all questions answered by SmartLX