Thoughts on the NOMA Concept

[Saki]

Preamble/Definitions:

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap. 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."Despite this, there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be or if they should exist.

Definition source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

An article by Stephen J. Gould on the topic: https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf

The concept of NOMA is essentially that we have two "teachings" one of religion and one of science and these domains do not overlap. The idea is that someone can be a fantastic scientist and still believe all aspects of their religion (including those that may appear to "conflict" with modern science).


The following wiki articles may serve as a brief introduction to two other concepts referred to in this thread:
Ontological Naturalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Methodological Naturalism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Some Thought Questions

In regards to this topic the following are some questions to think about, and answer if you wish to. You need not answer these in order to contribute to the topic but you are welcome to pick and choose from them as well.

Do the teachings of religion and science overlap?

Can someone who does not believe that evolution excluded a creator still follow the concept of evolution and be a "good" scientist?

Are you a methodological naturalist or do you take it one step further and consider yourself an ontological naturalist? Richard Dawkins is a notable ontological naturalist. The following is an excert from the linked wiki article that I found interesting: According to Richard Dawkins, 'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' Daniel Dennett goes Dawkins one (or two) further: 'Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant.' You wake up in the middle of the night; you think, can that whole Darwinian story really be true? Wham! You are inexcusably ignorant.

__________​

 

[Tek]

As I perceive reality, ontological naturalism is, quite simply, a reductionist approach to categorizing phenomena.

It can be seen that there are four co-arising and interdependent components of any object or event. These are the exteriors of individual event/objects, the exteriors of collective event/objects, the interiors of collectives, and the interiors of individuals. Respectively, we can call these domains it, its, we, and I. From what I can tell and what I've read, these four are fundamentally different and irreducible.

This is actually a very old concept: the good, the true, and the beautiful. Morals, science, and art.

The question of good and evil is primarily determined by cultural norms, which are informed by personal judgements, biology, and functional fit within society. Empirical science alone can't tell us what is good.

The question of beauty is primarily determined by personal preference, which is informed by neurochemistry, cultural context, and the interaction of physical systems. Empiricism alone can't tell us what is beautiful.

The question of what is true is where science comes in. This is of course influenced by individual and collective thought. But when we want to have empirical knowledge, science is the primary source we turn to.

This is why you can use the Bible to learn about morality, and the culture of the Abrahmic people, but not the nature of physical reality. This is why science can tell us what is important for stellar evolution and the survival of organisms, but it can't tell you what you should do with your life.

 

[Her]

The best way to explain my opinion is that in my eyes, religion is a shackle draped over the grand bust of science. But not in the way that you would think. Rather, think of them as... benevolent shackles. Science and all it encompasses is the physical power that allows the universe, and therefore us, to exist and do as it must. It may be a physical expression of a god's will, but that's not where I believe the overlap exists as any god's existence cannot be proven at this point in time. Rather, religion overlaps science as a moral center for it.
Religion, while not the birth of human morality and certainly not the absolute definer of it, is needed to 'hold back' science for its own good. It's the most widespread teacher of morality and is often at the center of one's definition of it. Religion can be the hand that guides the scientist into doing what they believe is good, but holding them back from going too far. Benevolent shackles, as I mentioned earlier. So, in regards to the overlap, I tend to hold religion as the teacher that guides the prodigal student.

This is probably a more 'philosophical response' than the thread is asking for, but oh well.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

Science and religion overlap considerably. Therefore, it's nonsense to think a boundary can be set up between the two. If it were, science would constantly be transgressing by following new lines of thought or uncovering new information that continues to conflict with religious belief.

As I mentioned in the D&D University topic, both are trying to answer the same fundamental questions. Some religious people who are scientists get on with being a scientist, but in doing so they would have to reject key parts of the teachings of their religion. For example, the age of the earth and the origin of species. If not, they would need to consciously ignore compelling evidence and I would therefore doubt their competence as a scientist. The only thing science won't tell you, which was mentioned by Tek in his post, is the purpose you find in your life. Science will tell you why you exist, but not what meaning to add to that existence. You must either form your own purpose or believe that there is a greater meaning through religion.

To answer the final question, I would guess myself to be a ontological naturalist. While I know science does not have all the answers, I'm certain there's nothing supernatural lying in the gaps in our current understanding.

Religion, while not the birth of human morality and certainly not the absolute definer of it, is needed to 'hold back' science for its own good. It's the most widespread teacher of morality and is often at the center of one's definition of it. Religion can be the hand that guides the scientist into doing what they believe is good, but holding them back from going too far. Benevolent shackles, as I mentioned earlier. So, in regards to the overlap, I tend to hold religion as the teacher that guides the prodigal student.

I don't agree with this view. There is already a requirement for ethics approval on any research that includes human or animal participants. Our own morals and ethics can guide us. You mention it yourself that religion is not the birthplace of morality. Religion may be a manifestation of our morality but we certainly don't need it to be good.

 

[Saki]

Science and religion overlap considerably. Therefore, it's nonsense to think a boundary can be set up between the two. If it were, science would constantly be transgressing by following new lines of thought or uncovering new information that continues to conflict with religious belief.

As I mentioned in the D&D University topic, both are trying to answer the same fundamental questions. Some religious people who are scientists get on with being a scientist, but in doing so they would have to reject key parts of the teachings of their religion. For example, the age of the earth and the origin of species. If not, they would need to consciously ignore compelling evidence and I would therefore doubt their competence as a scientist. The only thing science won't tell you, which was mentioned by Tek in his post, is the purpose you find in your life. Science will tell you why you exist, but not what meaning to add to that existence. You must either form your own purpose or believe that there is a greater meaning through religion.

To answer the final question, I would guess myself to be a ontological naturalist. While I know science does not have all the answers, I'm certain there's nothing supernatural lying in the gaps in our current understanding.

So do you think someone who believes evolution is catalyzed by a god or God cannot be an evolutionary biologist and let's say, conduct research on the evolution of gastropods since the Cambrian? Being religious doesn't mean you don't believe in evolution, it can mean that they don't believe in the proposed vehicle or believe in an altered proposed vesicle.. or that they believe the exact same as another scientist. For example a person may consider themselves muslim but be a research biologist. You don't need to be atheist in order to be a scientist.

Occasionally I find it interesting that people make such a huge contrast between religion and science, someone who is religious does not necessarily reason out everything via supernatural causes, they may simple have faith and separate it completely from their work. I will use myself as an example, I have faith but I don't use it to imply anything about my own research (botany, entomology, agri science plus my university course/lab work). My "religion" is a bit atypical of where I live (Canada) but it has no impact on my scientific mind whatsoever. This isn't to say other may allow their religion to impact their thoughts/reasoning, but then again those people wouldn't be scientists for the most part.

You consider yourself an ontological naturalist so I understand your point of view. I just don't think science and religion actually overlap considerably, I think you can separate them nicely if you wish. You just have to decide how religion affects your life - is it a set of morals and things to consider or is it a strict "rulebook" that you must follow and believe in at all times? I must admit my choice of religion is the first one, and there isn't a culture in it that adheres to the latter for the most part. I recognize that Christianity can easily fall into the latter though.

I usually find myself in the grey area though, instead of the black and white realm. :)

 

[Lotus the Cat]

So do you think someone who believes evolution is catalyzed by a god or God cannot be an evolutionary biologist and let's say, conduct research on the evolution of gastropods since the Cambrian? Being religious doesn't mean you don't believe in evolution, it can mean that they don't believe in the proposed vehicle or believe in an altered proposed vesicle.. or that they believe the exact same as another scientist. For example a person may consider themselves muslim but be a research biologist. You don't need to be atheist in order to be a scientist.

You misunderstand me. I never said religious people can't be scientists. I made the point that those that do need to accept evidence that contradicts their traditional teachings. Yes, they can study evolution but in order to do so they have decided that any part of the bible that may state or imply that God created all current creatures as they are today is wrong. Not doing so gives your work bias, which is not welcome in science.

You consider yourself an ontological naturalist so I understand your point of view. I just don't think science and religion actually overlap considerably, I think you can separate them nicely if you wish. You just have to decide how religion affects your life - is it a set of morals and things to consider or is it a strict "rulebook" that you must follow and believe in at all times? I must admit my choice of religion is the first one, and there isn't a culture in it that adheres to the latter for the most part. I recognize that Christianity can easily fall into the latter though.

I usually find myself in the grey area though, instead of the black and white realm. :)

If you only base your morals on religion then that's fine because Science won't go there. I'm only referring to those that cling to the biblical causes of the natural world.

 

[twocows]

An incomplete hypothesis. Religion is a sub-branch of philosophy. It is philosophy dressed up as a mandate from a higher power.

Saying that religion and science are two separate domains of teaching with their own lessons is like saying philosophy and chemistry are two domains of teaching with their own lessons. While it is true, using a sub-branch of the general field as your "domain" is artificially limiting.

 

[Saki]

You misunderstand me. I never said religious people can't be scientists. I made the point that those that do need to accept evidence that contradicts their traditional teachings. Yes, they can study evolution but in order to do so they have decided that any part of the bible that may state or imply that God created all current creatures as they are today is wrong. Not doing so gives your work bias, which is not welcome in science.

If you only base your morals on religion then that's fine because Science won't go there. I'm only referring to those that cling to the biblical causes of the natural world.

I wasn't assuming you didn't believe that religious individuals could be scientists but merely asking the question. :P

Under the NOMA concept they don't decide that their religion is wrong, they just realize they cannot operate under the fact that there is proof. They must follow the scientific method and not their religion, thereby separating them. It really depends on the following question:
Will you use implications from your religion in your scientific method ? If you don't then are you saying your religion is not true, or are you simply separating the methods?

It's easy to fall on either side of this debate.

 

[Tek]

An incomplete hypothesis. Religion is a sub-branch of philosophy. It is philosophy dressed up as a mandate from a higher power.

Saying that religion and science are two separate domains of teaching with their own lessons is like saying philosophy and chemistry are two domains of teaching with their own lessons. While it is true, using a sub-branch of the general field as your "domain" is artificially limiting.

I'm a bit confused at 'religion is a sub branch of philosophy'. What do you mean by that?

I think that distinguishing the domains of religion and science is quite accurate. The problem seems to arise when we try to use science to answer moral questions and use religious mythology to describe physical phenomena.

 

[twocows]

I'm a bit confused at 'religion is a sub branch of philosophy'. What do you mean by that?

I think that distinguishing the domains of religion and science is quite accurate. The problem seems to arise when we try to use science to answer moral questions and use religious mythology to describe physical phenomena.

Philosophy is, generally speaking, the study and exploration of the most basic and core problems and questions we face. These are questions like how best to live our lives, what is right and wrong, what does it mean to exist and in what way do we exist, what is the basis for reason, what is the basis for and scope of knowledge, etc. Religious texts explore many of the same ideas that arise from these general questions. The main difference is its approach; philosophy seeks to explore these questions through reason whereas religion answers them with a set of mandates and laws created by one or several long-dead philosophers (or, if you're a believer in the particular religion in question, from the big philosopher(s) in the sky).

For instance, you mention that religion answers the question of morality. And it does. But it is only one man's (or possibly several men's) answers to the core philosophical question, passed down through generations. The basis for these answers is never questioned because, being divinely inspired, it is by definition infallible. Thus, the only problem lies in the interpretation and execution of these principles by we flawed humans.

All religions are created by man (or, if you're a believer, all religions but one are created by man). Religion is subordinate to philosophy because it a set of philosophical beliefs passed down under the specter of divine mandate and left largely unexamined.