From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that "science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."^[1] 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]

[edit] Gould's separate magisteria

In an 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" for "Natural History" magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."^[1] He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius's Humani Generis of 1950, and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"^[1], and describes the NOMA principle as "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. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."^[1]

In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct—and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution—then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far."^[2] However, he did not consider this diplomatic stance to be paramount, writing in 1997: "NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance."

In 1997 he had elaborated on this position by describing his role as a scientist with respect to NOMA:

Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.

[edit] National Academy of Sciences

Also in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."^[3]

[edit] Humani Generis

Gould wrote that he was inspired to consider non-overlapping magisteria after being driven to examine the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, in which Pope Pius XII famously permits Catholics to entertain the hypothesis of evolution for the human body so long as they accept the divine infusion of the soul. ^[4] Gould cited the following paragraph:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. ^[5]

[edit] Criticisms

Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. 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."^[6] However, Gould does not make such a claim. In his 1997 essay, Gould addressed a comment by Pope Pius XII which declared the notion of more than one progenitor to the human species (more than one 'Adam') to be contrary to Catholicism; "If Pius is arguing that we cannot entertain a theory about derivation of all modern humans from an ancestral population rather than through an ancestral individual (a potential fact) because such an idea would question the doctrine of original sin (a theological construct), then I would declare him out of line for letting the magisterium of religion dictate a conclusion within the magisterium of science." Gould's conception of NOMA placed such material facts within the magisterium of science.^[7]

Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. ^[8] Dawkins also argues that a religion in which there were no interventions in the physical world by supernatural beings (hence subject to scientific investigation) would be a far different one to any existent ones, and certainly different to all the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, he claims that religions would be only too happy to accept any 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.

Dawkins makes a more fundamental criticism of NOMA by stating that not all grammatically correct questions are legitimate (for example, "What does the color red smell like?"), and thus the Why? questions of religion do not necessarily deserve an answer.^[9] Under this argument, contrary to Gould's assertion that religion properly addresses "questions of moral meaning and value", the magisterium of religion encompasses nothing.

Francis Collins attempted to criticise the limits of NOMA, arguing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped," while agreeing with Gould that morals, spirituality, and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation. ^[10] However, Gould encompassed exactly such a formulation in his original 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magesteria", writing that:

[E]ach subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority ... This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.^[11]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Nonmoral Nature - by Stephen Jay Gould
• Nonoverlapping Magisteria - by Stephen Jay Gould
• Gould on God - by H. Allen Orr, Boston Review.
• NOMA - by Michael Ruse, Metanexus Institute.
• A Separate Peace - by Michael Ruse, Science & Spirit.
• Rock of Ages - by Mark Ridley, New York Times
• The Holes in Gould's Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion - by Ursula Goodenough, American Scientist
• Gould's Separate "Magisteria" - by Mark Durm, Massimo Pigliucci, Skeptical Inquirer
• The religious views of Stephen Gould and Charles Darwin - by Martin Gardner, Skeptical Inquirer
• Inventing allies in the sky - by Kenan Malik, New Statesman
• Rocks of Ages Book review - by Jim Walker