Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA Your views?

Question

I'm reading Stephen Jay Gould's ROCKS OF THE AGES Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life

Anyone have a response to his NOMA principle?

Remember the question is about Gould's NOMA principle not about evolution or Design or Gould?

Thumbs down to anyone whose answer suggests they havnt read the book!

The keyword in this question is NOMA not Gould!

Answer 1

NOMA was Gould's idea that science and religion could not comment on each other's realm. You can't prove God be science alone but science plus a little common sense and logic can give you a fair approximation of a proof. Everywhere you look in the universe there is design. You have to be blind to not see it. Bats, dolphins,whales have sonar. That's design. The universe is filled with design. What science does is that it goes out and finds that design and then a little common sense says that wherever there is design there must be a designer. Who could design a universe? You call Him whatever you want. I call Him God. Gould and Niles Eldridge realized that the so-called 'transitional forms(or missing links) don't exist and never have, so they came up with their 'hopeful monster theory' known as 'Punctuated Equilibrium'(which has nothing to do with NOMA). So much for Darwinian evolution.

Answer 2

Stephen Jay Gould Noma

Answer 3

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
--Albert Einstein
From The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations

In the book the author explores the contemporary principle he calls NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria; a magisterium represents a domain of authority in teaching). Gould summarizes the principle as follows:
The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of and why does it work this way. The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap.
Source..http://ideaisaac.blogspot.com/1999/12/principle-of-noma.html

I would agree with Einstein.....
If one accepts God as the creator of the universe and all that is in it, one has to accept that God is omniscient or "all-knowing". God cannot be beneath the science or laws of the universe or else He would not be true God, therefore, we should be able to correlate His Word in scripture to the truths of science and vice-versa. This is in fact what many early Christian scientists did in gaining understanding of our solar system and natural forces or laws by inspiration of the Bible. The Bible does indeed have many scientific truths contained in it but it is not a science book, per se.
If you accept the Bible as the infallible Word of a perfect, Holy God, then science should not contradict it with the exception of the miracles or super-natural events. Therein lies the problem we have today. Can we find a concordance between the two or not?
The law of biogenesis states that all life comes from life...it is not a theory, it is a law that has been observed to be true in every instance. For life to have begun on earth, there must have been a point of abiogenesis or creation of life from non-living materials. The Bible states that it was God's divine creation that did this.... science is still trying to determine whether or not this is possible through purely natural methods or from an outside source which would also have to had to begin through natural methods.
Either assumption is based on faith so far. We cannot directly observe it either way.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Answer 4

I agree with Gould, but it narrows religion down to a fairly limited territory. I think that it's a fairly important territory, though.

Questions of science are way outside of the field of religion. When religion attempts to address questions like the origin of the earth or how speciation occurred it devalues both itself and science.

Questions of ethics, meaning and morality, I think, can be examined using the tools of reason, evidence and logic. However, when you trace the arguments back you end up with fundamental axioms to do with the importance of compassion, justice, and the value of sentience which are beyond the reach of scientific questioning. It is important to do the reasoning rigorously, but also to acknowledge where it can't go, because therin lies much of our humanity.

Here is religon and spirituality's true home, not in the propogation of irrationality and ignorance which seems to be the main function of a lot of today's popular religious discourse.

Answer 5

disagree with the NOMA thing: if you are going to position (a) god(s) as the central figure of the universe, designing and guiding it all you are stating a hypothesis about the origin and patterns of the universe. As such, you then open your beliefs for critical examination.

ESPECIALLY if people are going to use those religious beliefs in the science arena where they selectively attack scientific theories because they don't fit with their beliefs.

Answer 6

If science were solely about the natural and religion were solely about the supernatural, it would be true.

The extremes of science encroach on the supernatural (e.g. superstring theory). Religion encroaches on the natural (e.g. Literal Biblical Creation). The overlap is a violent area.

Answer 7

I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one - either it is a fact that God exists, or it is a fact that God does not exist. Either way it's a scientific hypothesis, and should be treated as such.