Quetzal

Well, why not? We haven't had a good NOMA (Gould's non-overlapping magisteria) discussion for awhile.

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept (where have you been living, Mars?), NOMA is a concept developed by the late S. J. Gould in his book "Rock of Ages" and numerous articles. Gould proposes that there are questions which science cannot address, and which rightly belong in the purview of religion. This notably includes such areas as "meaning" and "purpose", "love" and "ethics", etc. Gould's idea was that limiting each magisterium would permit a reconciliation between science and religion, creating a sort of modus vivendi between the two worldviews.

My reposting the topic here was prompted by a discussion (not argument oddly enough) on another board. The question was raised: "Does religion have an exclusive mandate to determine what constitutes morality and ethics?"

Under NOMA, the answer is "yes". Science is limited to what can be observed. Ethics and morality, in this context, would therefore fall outside the ability of science to analyze.

My personal opinion is that NOMA is a meaningless concept. I hold this opinion primarily because a case can be made that religion cannot justifiably lay claim to any exclusive province, thus falsifying the underlying premise.

Before continuing, I'd like to see if there's any interest in re-opening this topic.

Lord Asriel

I would certainly enjoy reading such a thread, although I don't feel qualified to contribute.

Godless Dave

I disagree with the first part. I agree science doesn't help with questions of morality and ethics beyond providing data to base judgements on. That providing data is an important aspect, but science itself won't make a jdugement for you.

But religion is not the only alternative to science. You're setting up a false dualism. The human conscience is what we turn to for morality and ethics. For some people their religious beliefs play an important role in the conscience, but for many of us they do not.

Quetzal

Doesn't look like there are too many takers. Hmmm.

However, DG, I'd like to point out that I'm not setting up a false dualism - NOMA as presented by Gould is. I mentioned in my OP that I consider the concept devoid of meaning.

The Lone Ranger

Just because science is unequipped to answer questions of morality doesn't mean that religion is equipped to do so. I agree with Dawkins: NOMA is a cop-out.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Cheers,

Michael

Oolon Colluphid

I agree entirely. Religion does not have any factual basis, except maybe in psychology (see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001354" target="_blank">this thread</a> in E/C). It amounts to “this behaviour is right/wrong because the voices tell me it is”. I'm at a loss as to how something baseless can be the basis of anything

Anyone here who does want to defend NOMA?

Oolon

bluefugue

Dawkins put it well. In one of his articles ("Snake Oil" something-or-other, perhaps?) he talks about how a physicist, when asked the big "why" questions, replied "Well there I will have to hand you over to my friend the chaplain." To which Dawkins says: Why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? True, religious figures *claim* to have the answer to these big questions while gardeners and chefs don't; but what reason have they ever given us for taking those claims seriously?

NOMA seems to me to have to do with the desire of secular scientists not to appear threatening to theists.

Xeluan

I'll volunteer to be the proverbial fish in the barrel

I just read "Rock of Ages" and found the NOMA concept interesting and have no real problems with it. I'll admit that my acceptance is provisional. I do need to read up on the con side of the NOMA argument.

Still a discussion like this would help so I'm game.

One reason why I may be sympathetic to NOMA is that my idea of being an agnostic is much the same as Gould's. Obviously I am a big fan of Gould which is also why am, at the moment, favourably inclined towards NOMA. I do understand that any acceptance/rejection of NOMA on my part is not to be based on an admiration for Gould but in light of the worthiness of the arguments pro and con (Funnily enough, I do agree with those that argue Gould over emphasized the importance on punctuated equilibrium in regards to evolutionary theory).

Anyone want to hand out a point of contention from which to start? (I just can't think of anything at the moment).

For fun, NOMA seems to have made an appearance of sorts in The Simpsons episode in which Gould appeared. From <a href="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F05" target="_blank">Lisa The Skeptic</a>

Xeluan