It’s been a few years since I’ve read Stephen Jay Gould’s “Rocks of Ages”, but ever since then, the underlying premise of the book has stuck with me. By “stuck with me”, I mean more in the manner of a popcorn kernel that gets stuck in your teeth and refuses to be dislodged, rather than in the manner of how a memorable vacation or good movie gets stuck in your mind, if you catch my drift.
This is not to say that I didn’t enjoy the book, or even that I think that Gould was completely off base with his idea of NOMA. For those that might be unfamiliar, NOMA stands for “Non-Overlapping MAgisteria”, which in turn refers to the idea that the intellectual realms of religion on one hand, and science, on the other, are either in fact, or ought to be in principle, completely separate without any sort of overlap in their respective spheres of influence. At the same time, however, they are each presumably legitimate pursuits of knowledge in their own respective spheres of influence. Sounds reasonable — on the face of it at least — right?
The problem is, during my reading of Gould’s book where he lays out this premise of NOMA, it became clear (to me at least) that, in fact, Gould had little sympathy for the idea of religion as being anywhere near the same level as science on the scale of intellectual legitimacy. In brief, it almost seemed to me that he came up with the idea of NOMA as a means to “throw a bone” to theologians and other religious thinkers while still maintaining his view of the modern supremacy of science as the ultimate expression of human intellect. What I mean is that Gould came at the problem with the idea that science was the de facto standard for getting at “truth” and was trying to see if there was still a way that religion could fit in to the picture, given its obvious importance in human history and current state. It never seemed to occur to him that his whole starting point might be a little off balance, and in this way, he merely came across as condescending toward those who didn’t share his fundamental epistemology.
This starting point, it seems to me, is this implicit assumption that the explanations for reality alternately proffered by science and religion are part of a zero-sum game: that is, this idea there can be only one explanation for any given phenomenon. On this view, if science comes along and explains something in physical terms that used to be explained by some sort of appeal to supernatural entities, then that is an example of science gaining ground on religion. Looked at this way, it seems that religion has been losing ground for quite some time.
But not so fast. While it is certainly true that different explanations for a given phenomenon can compete with each other, it’s not obvious that they logically are required to. I’m perfectly fine with the idea that religion attempts to focus on the “why” questions for phenomena, or questions of purpose, while science mainly focuses on the “what” and “how” questions, as a basic starting point for trying to find demarcations between science and religion. But it seems to me that NOMA takes this to extremes when it declares that there can be in fact no overlap. As a quick aside, many atheists also reject NOMA, but they do so from the standpoint that religion is not a legitimate means to knowledge or truth, and thus it doesn’t even have a “magisterium” to begin with. While I stand with these atheists in rejecting NOMA, my reasons for doing so are quite different.
As an example of what I mean, science surely has something to say about what it means to be human, by revealing our evolutionary history, and the biological underpinnings of any number of human behaviors. At the same time, to take an example from Christian theism, religion may talk about humans being made “in the image of God”. My point is, who’s to say that the biological explanations for our behaviors, our intelligence, and so on aren’t in fact part of this “image of God”. In such a way, we see that there could be layered explanations for phenomena, instead competing ones, coming from science and religion. I’m not trying here to argue necessarily for the legitimacy of particular religious explanations, but rather to argue that at least some of them can and do overlap with scientific ones, without any obvious conflict. But, if this is true, NOMA fails almost by definition.
I doubtless will have more to say about this in future posts, but hopefully this will get things started.
« The progressive nature of science Wonder and Awe in Science, or “Your God is too small” »
I also disagree with Gould’s notion of NOMA. Science and religion overlap in certain key areas that have become more contentious with time as the religious right expands its sway here in the US: biology, geology, and astronomy come to mind. There are, in fact, places in the “sacred” texts of all the major monotheistic religions where the biblical explanations directly confront scientific explanations. Hence, we have clashes between creationists and the science of evolutionary biology, creationists and the science associated with geological time scales, and those diehards who continue to advocate an earth-centered universe. Not only do these “magisteria” overlap, but they have widely divergent views of the origins and evolution of the natural world as we now see it. Religious sacred texts were written by people long before the development of science (which dates from the Renaissance), and in their ignorance, they substituted the “god explanation” for damned near everything.
You can rationalize the conflict between science and religion however you choose, but the whole mechanism of science is diametrically opposed to basing one’s world view on the writings of late bronze age men thousands of years ago. Fortunately, there’s nothing in the bible regarding meteorology, or we’d be seeing clashes with biblical fanatics regarding tornadogenesis!
Hi Chuck,
I certainly agree that there have been times where certain religious thoughts, precepts, or attitudes have come into conflict with science, and this isn’t confined to what the various sacred texts say, but also what various leaders and spokespeople for religions have said, or beliefs they have maintained. People *have* held up the Bible and other sacred texts over and against scientific findings throughout history. People *did* recklessly attribute (and still do) natural phenomena to capricious and unexplained activities of a deity or deities, which were later explained scientifically. I personally reject the mode of thinking (i.e., the “God of the gaps”) that leads to this behavior, and so I don’t see any point of disagreement here.
However, when it comes to what sacred texts say, it’s important to understand that there is more than one way of viewing these sacred texts, and different religions have different ways, and there are a diversity of ways within a given religion. This is not even getting to the various literary styles that are present within a given sacred text. For example, in the Bible there are genealogies, narrative prose, descriptions of purported eyewitness accounts, poetry, apocalyptic metaphorical imagery, and many other styles. These all must be identified and treated appropriately, certainly not with the same hammer of literalistic bludgeoning. In other words, it’s a complex and nuanced problem, the above agreements notwithstanding.
One of the biggest errors I see scientific atheists making these days is this idea that Christians are somehow required by their faith to take their “sacred texts” completely literally in all particulars and at all places, and that if they don’t, they are “compromising”, or “picking and choosing”, in some arbitrary manner. I maintain that this is a profound misunderstanding of Christian thought, and completely ignores the vast amount of scholarship that thoughtful and reasonable people have performed in an effort to take the “sacred texts” seriously. For my part, I think the Bible should be subjected to whatever insights modern textual criticism, studies of ancient cultural biases, and archaeological findings — in short a thoroughgoing *scientific* investigation. It should be read carefully, with a mindfulness toward cultural and other biases of the writer, and not recklessly. Ironically, both *some* atheists and fundamentalist Christians tend to be reckless in their application of a brutal and exacting literalism when it comes to the Bible.
You may see all the above as mere rationalization, but I see it as looking more deeply for other options than the stark dichotomy you presented in your response. I certainly think it is possible to build one’s worldview on a strict scientific rationalism that is indeed diametrically opposed to religion, but, again, I maintain that it isn’t the only logical, or even rational, possibility. In other words, there is a difference between the methodology of science and a philosophical position of strict naturalism built upon science.
Finally, regarding meteorology in the Bible, there are actually several places weather is mentioned either explicitly or implicitly. I think the fact that there are no clashes with “fanatics” over this is because it’s not nearly as weighty or far-reaching a topic as ultimate origins of humans and the universe itself, not because it’s not there.
I just realized that my comment above was almost as long as my original post! I need to either make them more concise, or split them off into a post of their own. I’m still learning this blogging thing!
Chuck, they are already doing that too, we had a tornado hit near dtn minneapolis a couple of years ago that damaged the roof of a church, and the pastor of another church publicly gave his opinion that god sent the twister to judge the church for allowing homosexual ministers in, which spawned a storm of a debate I guess 😉
Michael,
Suffice it to say for now that I have extreme reservations about attempts by contemporary religious leaders to try to identify specific natural disasters as judgment for any sin, real or perceived (Pat Robertson, I’m looking at you!). If Jesus taught us anything, it was that we are all sinful and need to look to ourselves before we try to remove the specks from other people’s eyes.
Hi Dan, Oh I agree, but i have to admit it was weird. I was right in the area and it was not usual tornado weather, no thunderstorm dark clouds, just lightly overcast and kind of cool, when all of a sudden they started talking about tornados near by. I always look around when there is a warning because I would like to see one someday, but nothing could be seen, but a couple of miles away the damage was real to homes and trees. they must have been sinners to eh? haha no I really think thats silly, even though I am supposed to be a christian!
I think that even most preachers who actually claim that natural disasters are judgement from God don’t even believe their own words. Don’t get me wrong, I feel that religion is a fine thing when a rational and responsible person practices it. But when you get preachers who mis-lead and followers who allow themselves to be manipulated by those who play to their prejudice, then that is where you get into the worst type of trouble. Aside from that thanks for the post. I have not read the book myself, but it does sounds like something that should be put on my to do list. From reading the posts and comments above, it contains some really interesting and thought provoking material that I would like to take a look at and think about.
I don’t believe that there is a God in the sense that most people think. I do believe there is something that is so far unimaginable to the human mind and that our current concept of God is just a primitive fairy tale. On the other hand, I do think that some of the statements about God and the nature of reality are very close to the real truth. I however tend to think of the ideas in Hinduism and Buddhism as being the religions that are closest to matching our current and ongoing scientific understandings. I think the Christian and other major Western and Middle Eastern religions are more concerned with creating rules and regulations for people living in strictly structured human societies rather than going into depth in explaining nature.