Non-Overlapping Magisteria?

Question

It has been proposed that Science and Religion should be viewed as two separate and exclusive teachings that do not overlap.
At the risk of sounding like a "Neville Chamberlain" atheist I continue to sympathize with this view as a means of defusing the ongoing clash between science and religion.

How many others find this an acceptable compromise? Or do we just keep pushing for final victory?

See below for further information...

The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould, known equally as a staunch defender of the evolution theory and as an iconoclast in its interpretation, published in 1997 an article [19] (reprinted in 2001 [20]) titled "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." The term magisterium, used by the Catholic Church to denote the teaching authority of the Church, stems from the Latin word "magister" meaning "teacher." Brilliantly written, as most of Gould's essays were, this article had gained a considerable popularity. Gould's main idea is that the two "magisteria," that of religion and that of science, have both legitimate areas of reign and have no reason to overlap and even less to engage in a war. Regarding the conflict between religion and science Gould wrote, "No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority -- and these magisteria do not overlap..."

Answer 1

I disagree with NOMA. Dawkins has addressed the subject fairly thoroughly and I do concur with his view that religion should not be held to be beyond the purview of scientific enquiry. Part of the reason why blind faith is so prevalent is the commonly accepted idea that it is somehow immune or exempt from rational analysis. There are people on this board who don't believe in evolution, that is what NOMA has done. Until such attitudes are challenged, nothing is going to move forward.

Answer 2

I absolutely agree with Gould. Unfortunately many believers do not. I have no problem leaving people alone about their faith. If it helps them lead a happier life I am all for it! What I object to is good science being subjugated to religious teachings.

Answer 3

I like Gould's writing too, but this notion is philosophically and theologically naive. Religious assumptions will always play a role in scientific inquiry, even if they are atheistic. For example, Dawkins rejects this view because it restricts his territory. It also ignores the monotheistic impulses that lead to modern science and the scientific method via Francis Bacon.

Answer 4

Like His Holiness the Dalai Lama said... if science refutes a point of logic then you have to change your view. So far, science hasn't refuted anything Buddhist, that I'm aware of, but His Holiness still maintains that opinion and logic and still works with science closely.

_()_

Answer 5

If religion could accept that its realm is ethics and science owns everything else, I wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, they think they have too much to say on too many issues.

Answer 6

Perhaps spirituality or a relationship with God can coexist with science, but religion makes more concrete claims that sometimes conflict with science (ie. creation in six days)....

Answer 7

I actual have a pair problems wiht the belief. First, who's Stephen Jay Gould to come to a decision who does and does no longer have the magisteria? 2nd, traditionally technology became a branch of the church which comprise drugs. As a society we've come an prolonged way style communally following blindly what we are instructed via someone in a miter yet this does not meand that we would desire to constantly provide that blind following over to the oerson wiht a microscope. I help the two part staring at matters from their usually opposing perspectives and coaching their FINDINGS. allowing us to in my opinion parent weight and price of the guidance. the massive subject on the two aspects is, as usually as no longer, what's being taught isn't a looking yet and assumption. it is the greates evil in intelectual progression. We settle for as absolute actuality that that's barely conjecture. i will basically talk as expert witness to that which I actual have spoke of and stories. the two part usually talk of the stories and observations of others or worse their mind's eye that seem a logical lead to line with different's observations ir imagined happenings.

Answer 8

They MUST be seperate. The minds of christians cannot comprehend the science

Answer 9

Obviously, I agree.

(see my top contribs status.)