NOMA=Non-Overlapping Magisteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it really works, especially because Creationists often try to cross the line by using religious beliefs to describe the natural universe.
2007-11-10 05:05:41 · 8 answers · asked by blackcat3556 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jill, this principle was made to keep people like you at bay and out of the scientific circle. It's stating that you don't belong in the realm of science.
2007-11-10 05:25:45 · update #1
Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA concept seems reasonable for what it is. However, it seems to me that the Magisterium concept as Gould frames it was intended to cover the sorts of situations you mention. My impression is that Gould defined the Magisterium concept in order to articulate the scope and limits of certain realms of discourse, but not to provide any sort of behavioral norms. You might say he drew the lines, but never mentioned whether folks should color across them or not.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with his writings to know Gould's attitudes regarding statements crossing magisterium boundaries, i.e. the story of the Book of Genesis. The impression I get though is that it's up to the individual to buy into the concept or not. As such one can say that if one chooses to reject science on the basis of Genesis' account of the creation of the earth, it's not evidence of the failure of the magisterium concept, but merely an instance where one has simply chosen not to embrace it.
So I think that the NOMA concept isn't affected by how people treat it. It's rather like defensive driving or manners. The fact that people break the rules as they're laid out doesn't mean that the rules are invalid.
2007-11-10 05:27:29 · answer #1 · answered by Ralph S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
It's on a par with "all religions are essentially the same, just different paths up one mountain": a nice tolerant-sounding idea that unfortunately doesn't stand analysis.
Even the Roman Catholic church, which accepts that evolution occured, has to reserve certain divine aspects to the process. This makes sense, for a deity which doesn't interact with creation is of little practical import.
But if God has, and does, act then the results of such are to be found in the physical world, and are clearly then open to scientific study. Very much *overlapping* magisteria.
Why do woman have painful, sometimes fatal, childbirths?
An evolutionary result of the the development of large brains? God's specific curse on Eve (Genesis 3:16)? Or something God "built-in" to human evolution?
If evolution is contingent, and unguided except by its own internal dynamic, then mass-extinctions and meteor strikes are "things that happen".
But if God exists, then these things are "in the hand of God. " A very different world.
Oh yes, these areas are not "non-overlapping."
2007-11-10 05:24:21 · answer #2 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm at risk of trust Pf Cow. it relatively is a robust compromise, thinking neither faith or technology are going away any time quickly, so we greater valuable be sure a thank you to cause them to stay with one yet another. That being mentioned, if technology and faith the two attempt to describe the comparable factor (such as a results of fact the commencing place of the universe), then there will be an overlap. i do no longer see any way around that. i'm no longer acquainted with Gould's finished argument, so perhaps i'm lacking something.
2016-10-16 00:41:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. If you believe in God, it simply isn't possible. Creationists, by their very definition, aren't 'crossing the line'. They believe that God created the universe, therefore that all the systems of the universe were also created by God. It is ridiculous to us that science would try to put up this shambly little fence with 'Hey God - no trespassing' signs all over it, when He is the one who created and sustains the universe.
When science ignores the possiblity of God, is it really still science?
I mean, it IS one of the possible theorems - but so many people want to enter the dance with blindfolds on! They say "I'll consider ANY possibility to explain this phenomenon!(oh, except the ones that don't explain it the way I think it should be explained)."
Scientists who refuse to look at ALL the possibilities, not just their favorites, have stopped being scientists, closed their minds, and become slaves.
2007-11-10 05:21:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the concept, but it doesn't get at the heart of the problem: People who try to define their "beliefs" as "science." If you believe in God, fine. But remember it's a belief. If you want to prove the existence of God, I challenge you to find a scientific manner for doing so. Science is about testing, meaning it's about proof. BlackCat, I know you are on the side of fact and truth. Your questions reveal that. I wish some of the chistiots who post could understand how to use their system of belief for good rather than trying to punish those with different views.
2007-11-10 14:25:19 · answer #5 · answered by lowerbearville 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. A universe with a deity would have noticable differences from one without one. It would be testable.
2007-11-10 05:21:53 · answer #6 · answered by Eiliat 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm standing behind Marooned with two thumbs up.
2007-11-10 05:13:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
I don't need religion dictating morals to me. Their morals are twisted.
2007-11-10 05:11:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋