During the summer after my sophomore year in high school, I read Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. My wonder regarding fossils received some content. And paleontology seemed right around the corner, i.e., if Indiana Jones-like archeology dried up ;-)
That story did not come to pass, but I returned to a consideration of Gould’s work as part of an Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God and Religion book discussion.* Not surprisingly the concept of NonOverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) became a focal point of the conversation. Here’s a quote from Gould:
The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.
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. To cite just two broad questions involving both evolutionary facts and moral arguments: Since evolution made us the only earthly creatures with advanced consciousness, what responsibilities are so entailed for our relations with other species? What do our genealogical ties with other organisms imply about the meaning of human life? — Stephen Jay Gould, Nonoverlapping Magisteria, Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22; Reprinted with permission from Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Harmony Books, 1998, pp. 269-283.
Yes, the particular topics which Gould raises could generate quite a number of comments, but I’m interested in the larger question of NOMA. Who has wrestled with NOMA and have thoughts to share?
BTW, Stephen Jay Gould’s Official Archive can be found here.
* Sponsored by the Central Pennsylvania Forum for Religion and Science. Introducing the “Oracles of Science” and Russia Licenses Faith Healers are earlier posts with material from the conversation.