Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria"

[Sunstone]

Stephen Jay Gould famously pronounced science and religion to be "non-overlapping magisteria", by which he seems to have meant, among other things, that they each seek to answer different questions. Science seeks to answer questions of fact, while religion seeks to answer questions of value. Hence, the two do not conflict, but nor can they answer each others questions.

Gould's position that science and religion deal with separate topics, so to speak, is perhaps the most popular view of their relationship today. But is it really a sound view? Do you think it will withstand the test of time, or is it merely a fashion of the moment?

I myself think it's a rather crude understanding of the relationship between science and religion -- a politically acceptable gloss that does not take into account much that is relevant to the relationship.

For instance, religions can and do make claims about facts -- about reality -- that have been shown by science to run counter to the best available evidence. See, for instance, Noah's Flood.

Science, on the other hand, has often enough shown that certain practices are relatively wise ways of obtaining to common values. But if Gould was correct in asserting that science and religion are non-overlapping, how could that be so?

I myself do not think Gould's position will withstand the test of time. I see it as largely a fashion. But what do you think?

 

[Quintessence]

I think it is neither correct nor incorrect. The conclusion one comes to depends very much on how one is understanding and defining science and religion. While science is relatively easy and straightforward to define, religion is not. That creates something of a problem, especially considering science may be classified as a form of religion, or in some cases, a component of a religion.

I would not call the viewpoint a "fashion" though, unless we want to call every social and ideological construct throughout human history by the same label.

 

[starless]

The net, or 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).

- S.J. Gould, Rocks of Ages


First, we have to acknowledge if indeed those question of "ultimate meaning" are valid and deserve an answer.

Then, my problem with Gould's position would be that one could easily substitute the world "religion" for the words "philosophy" or "art". I don't see how and why religion has any qualifications to answer the ultimate questions of life's meaning, morality and purpose.

Dawkins had a nice chapter on this in his book, page 54:
http://w3.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Dawkins-DelusionCh2.pdf

 

[Valjean]

An excellent bit of political song and dance...

But there is overlap.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think Gould is correct, except in that there is indeed an overlap, and it must be acknowledged for Religion to be faithful to itself.

It is indeed a fashion, and also a political defense. Perhaps a necessary one in these days of exacerbated politics and superstition, but a defense all the same.

 

[Willamena]

For instance, religions can and do make claims about facts -- about reality -- that have been shown by science to run counter to the best available evidence. See, for instance, Noah's Flood.

Science, on the other hand, has often enough shown that certain practices are relatively wise ways of obtaining to common values. But if Gould was correct in asserting that science and religion are non-overlapping, how could that be so?

Perhaps Gould doesn't see religion as being about spouting facts, whereas that's mainly what science is about.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think Gould was expressing a religious statement, not a scientific one, so to speak.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When we consider the scope of science, NOMA implies that the proper scope of religion is much smaller than the scope of any real-world religion today.

I don't think you can neatly divide things up so that science answers the "how" questions while religion answers the "why" questions, since many answers to "why" questions are predicated on the answers to "how" questions.

 

[HonestJoe]

I consider the whole dichotomy of purpose debate between science and religion to be fundamentally flawed. Science is a process for learning and understanding about the universe around us. Religions are defined practices based upon specific sets of beliefs.

Some religions can include definitive statements about the way of things and they can include methods to seek understanding of the way things are. Religions can even (in principle at least) include application of scientific method.

Religion (singular) does none of those things. Religion is a concept and nothing more. Comparing science and religion is like comparing Saturday and disappointment.

 

[metis]

Stephen Jay Gould famously pronounced science and religion to be "non-overlapping magisteria", by which he seems to have meant, among other things, that they each seek to answer different questions. Science seeks to answer questions of fact, while religion seeks to answer questions of value. Hence, the two do not conflict, but nor can they answer each others questions.

Gould's position that science and religion deal with separate topics, so to speak, is perhaps the most popular view of their relationship today. But is it really a sound view? Do you think it will withstand the test of time, or is it merely a fashion of the moment?

I myself think it's a rather crude understanding of the relationship between science and religion -- a politically acceptable gloss that does not take into account much that is relevant to the relationship.

For instance, religions can and do make claims about facts -- about reality -- that have been shown by science to run counter to the best available evidence. See, for instance, Noah's Flood.

Science, on the other hand, has often enough shown that certain practices are relatively wise ways of obtaining to common values. But if Gould was correct in asserting that science and religion are non-overlapping, how could that be so?

I myself do not think Gould's position will withstand the test of time. I see it as largely a fashion. But what do you think?

I agree with you more so than with Gould as there is no doubt a significant area of overlap that should not be ignored. Also, even the process of our entire approaches is very different in that science depends on objectively-derived evidence whereas religion doesn't.

 

[Valjean]

The meaning and value which religion claims as its purview don't exist in a vacuum. They're embedded within a mythology, and it's this supporting mythology that science has been steadily eroding.

Without its mythologic scaffolding how is religion to remain standing?

 

[viole]

Stephen Jay Gould famously pronounced science and religion to be "non-overlapping magisteria", by which he seems to have meant, among other things, that they each seek to answer different questions. Science seeks to answer questions of fact, while religion seeks to answer questions of value. Hence, the two do not conflict, but nor can they answer each others questions.

Gould's position that science and religion deal with separate topics, so to speak, is perhaps the most popular view of their relationship today. But is it really a sound view? Do you think it will withstand the test of time, or is it merely a fashion of the moment?

I myself think it's a rather crude understanding of the relationship between science and religion -- a politically acceptable gloss that does not take into account much that is relevant to the relationship.

For instance, religions can and do make claims about facts -- about reality -- that have been shown by science to run counter to the best available evidence. See, for instance, Noah's Flood.

Science, on the other hand, has often enough shown that certain practices are relatively wise ways of obtaining to common values. But if Gould was correct in asserting that science and religion are non-overlapping, how could that be so?

I myself do not think Gould's position will withstand the test of time. I see it as largely a fashion. But what do you think?

I see lack of overlap only in case of deism, or some sort of (Spinoza style) pantheism.

Once you have miracles, answers to prayers, a helping guide to evolution, or any other direct intervention in this universe, you have an overlap. A pretty thick one.

Ergo, for all practical purposes, religion invades the realm of objective reality for the vast majority of believers and is therefore subject to scientific inquiry.

I think Gould invented this to help him in fighting the teching of creationism in North America.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

Stephen Jay Gould famously pronounced science and religion to be "non-overlapping magisteria", by which he seems to have meant, among other things, that they each seek to answer different questions. Science seeks to answer questions of fact, while religion seeks to answer questions of value. Hence, the two do not conflict, but nor can they answer each others questions.

Gould's position that science and religion deal with separate topics, so to speak, is perhaps the most popular view of their relationship today. But is it really a sound view? Do you think it will withstand the test of time, or is it merely a fashion of the moment?

I myself think it's a rather crude understanding of the relationship between science and religion -- a politically acceptable gloss that does not take into account much that is relevant to the relationship.

For instance, religions can and do make claims about facts -- about reality -- that have been shown by science to run counter to the best available evidence. See, for instance, Noah's Flood.

Science, on the other hand, has often enough shown that certain practices are relatively wise ways of obtaining to common values. But if Gould was correct in asserting that science and religion are non-overlapping, how could that be so?

I myself do not think Gould's position will withstand the test of time. I see it as largely a fashion. But what do you think?

I think Gould is correct.

Science is concerned with sensual graspable-measurable objects. Religions chiefly are concerned with the Seer-knower of the objects. By definition, the Seer of objects is not seen by any third party mechanism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no overlap unless and until religion ventures out of bounds.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I myself do not think Gould's position will withstand the test of time. I see it as largely a fashion. But what do you think?

I think it's an overly simplistic, yet impressive sounding, way of compartmentalizing science and religion from each other, whilst not disparaging either. I think it's pretty clear that Gould put it forth as a pragmatic, and diplomatic, position for scientists to hold in a world where most people believe in god(s), rather than some type of profound or insightful observation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no overlap unless and until religion ventures out of bounds.

There's overlap as soon as a religion makes a factual claim. And I don't know of any religion that doesn't make factual claims.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no overlap unless and until religion ventures out of bounds.

There's overlap as soon as a religion makes a factual claim. And I don't know of any religion that doesn't make factual claims.

Agreed. I was being somewhat sarcastic. At the same time, my personal 'religion' views such claims as fallible human effort.