Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
NOMA and Rocks of Ages (RJS)

NOMA and Rocks of Ages (RJS)

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm by RJS

NOMA and Rocks of Ages (RJS) 2015-03-13T22:24:55-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A topic that comes up often in the discussion of science and religion is Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA. I’ve read many papers and books that refer to this principle – sometimes agreeing, more often disagreeing significantly from both sides. There are those who disagree with the concept, wanting to put religion out of the picture all together, and those who disagree, wanting to subject science to religious ideals or because the separation seems somewhat artificial. David Barash, an evolutionary biologist and psychology professor at the University of Washington whose NY Time opinion piece was the subject of a post a few weeks ago Coming Soon … “The Talk”? finds Gould’s argument for NOMA particularly troubling.

I tend to think that the separation into separate magisteria is somewhat artificial, but had never read Gould’s argument directly from his own work. This didn’t seem wise, so I picked up a copy of his book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life where the concept is explained in detail. The range in the amazon reviews, almost equally spread from 1 to 5, give a flavor for the controversy over his proposal. Gould is anything from wise and thoughtful offering a useful framework to a fool, out of his depth, misinterpreting religion, and capitulating to those who believe in bronze age myths. The most scathing reviews come from atheist readers. This may be interesting.

Before digging too deeply into Gould’s argument it is necessary to understand what he means by magisterium … which is not to be confused with the similar words majesty or majestic (apparently a confusion he encountered).

A magisterium, on the other hand, is a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution. In other words, we debate and hold dialogue under a magisterium; we fall into silent awe or imposed obedience before a majesty.

[The magisterium] of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work 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) (p. 5-6).

Although Gould often has Christianity and Judaism in mind as he makes his argument, his definition of religion isn’t constrained to anything resembling Christian faith (or any other religion). It might be better to use the term moral philosophy rather than religion. But the Christian faith as it provides a moral philosophy is one example of an approach to the magesterium of religion.

The realms of science and religion concerning life. Some questions concerning the origin and diversity of life are scientific questions subject to the magisterium of science. Why do we look so much like the apes? What is the age of the earth? Why is there so much non protein coding DNA? What is the mechanism for change over the ages? What caused the five mass extinctions that have punctuated evolutionary history?

[S]uch questions fall under the magisterium of an institution that we have named “science” – a teaching authority dedicated to using the mental methods and observational techniques validated by success and experience as particularly well suited for describing, and attempting to explain, the factual construction of nature. (p. 54)

Other questions such as the origin of disease, the best treatment and containment strategies for Ebola, and the importance of prenatal care are also scientific questions.

But there are questions that science cannot address. It simply does not have the right set of tools. “Are we worth more than bugs or bacteria?” and “Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another creature?” are examples that Gould gives. A more timely example might be the value placed on a child to be born with Down’s syndrome. Richard Dawkins created quite a stir back in August by suggesting that it would be immoral not to abort a baby known to have Down’s syndrome. (See this article from the Guardian, this opinion piece in the NY Times, or simply search for Dawkins and Down’s Syndrome for a number of links to reports from a range of sources.)

According to Gould’s proposal …

Such questions … engage different concerns that simply cannot be answered, or even much illuminated, by factual data of any kind.

These questions address moral issues about the value and meaning of life, both in human form and more widely construed. Their fruitful discussion must proceed under a different magisterium, far older than science (at least as a formalized inquiry), and dedicated to a quest for consensus, or at least clarification of assumptions and criteria, about ethical “ought,” rather than a search for any factual “is” about the material construction of the natural world. (p. 55)

This separate magisterium is that Gould terms religion. We must all construct a moral and philosophical framework for dealing with these important questions of ethical value and moral behavior. Insights from science can be integrated into this framework – but science cannot address these questions directly. It simply isn’t the role or focus of scientific endeavor.

I … construe as fundamentally religious (literally binding us together) all moral discourse on principles that might activate the ideal of universal fellowship among people. (p. 62)

And a bit later he parenthetically explains,

The vitality of this magisterium lies largely in the transcendent importance of moral issues, and questions of meaning, for all thinking and feeling people, not in the style of available resolution based more on compromise and consensus than on factual demonstration, as in the magisterium of science. (p. 62)

The different form of the discourse on moral, ethical, and social issues of value and ethics versus the factual discoveries and theoretical descriptions of nature force the separation of these two magisteria of science and religion. They are independent because the same set of tool cannot be applied to both sets of questions.

Although the magisteria are separable as forms of discourse and inquiry, they are not separable in human experience and social life.

Science and religion interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity.

Still, the magisteria do not overlap – but then neither do spouses fuse in the best of marriages. Any interesting problem, at any scale (hence the fractal claims above, meant more than metaphorically), must call upon the separate contributions of both magisteria for any adequate illumination. The logic of inquiry prevents true fusion, as stated above. The magisterium of science cannot proceed beyond the anthropology of morals – the documentation of what people believe… (p. 65-66)

Science is limited. The most important point of Gould’s proposal is that science cannot address all interesting questions. Science is limited in scope and power. Even speculation about the adaptive benefit of certain behaviors cannot address the moral question of “ought.” This is, no doubt, why it raises the ire of so many adamant atheists and scientific materialists. Everyone, whatever their view or particular religious framework must move beyond science alone in answering the most important questions concerning life and human society.

Does the concept of non-overlapping magisteria make sense?

What problems do you see with Gould’s proposal?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Science and Faith

Previous Post

October 23, 2014

When God Asks the Question

Next Post

October 23, 2014 Jesus Creed: For the Whole Church

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Proverbs say about "a soft answer"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It brings rain It makes a fool wise It turns away wrath It brings riches