Metaphysics

In this post I will talk about Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria otherwise called NOMA (hereafter we will use NOMA to denote the above concept). According to Gould, NOMA represents his attempt to establish a sort of peace accord between science and religion. It was during his trip to Rome for a meeting with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that he encountered two priests (who were also scientists) that asked him what was all the fuss about the supposed tension between science and religion? However, it was a front page article years later that captivated his attention. In the Pope’s address to that same academy he declared that “Truth cannot contradict truth,” and proceeded to acknowledge that evolution was more than just a hypothesis but a scientifically supported theory. The Pope then declared,

With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs (emphasis mine).

This gave way for Gould to formulate his NOMA paradigm. What is it that he set to accomplish through his paradigm, you might ask? Gould answers this question by establishing that there are two Magisteria in the fields of science and religion, respectively. Magesterium means teaching or authority of the church and Gould uses this term to apply it equally to both realms, since both of them advocate a sort of authority in their respective fields. He further adds that these overlapping Magisteria are “interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border.” These two spheres do not overlap and to use his clichés he says that, “we get the age of the rocks, and religion retain the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they (religion) determines how to go to heaven.” As a more concrete example, Gould uses us humans as a specimen when he asks what each of these spheres has to contribute when we talk about origins and morality. Of course, Gould would say that when it comes to the realm of origins then religion itself would not have anything to say that would be relevant to science. Furthermore, if there are items in morality such as intrinsic human value and meaning, then he would say that science could only remain on the scientific turf without going into religion.

Further inspection reveals that the content of these two realms deal with what we could classify as a fact and value distinction. What science describes through its medium of empirical verification is what is factual or what is and what ought to be or any value derived thereof is relegated to the field of religion. It almost reminds of the Stephen Crane quote that says, “A man said to the universe: ‘Sir, I exist!’ ‘However,’ replied the universe. ‘The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.’” Nevertheless, Gould expresses joy when he sees other influential characters from the “other Magisteria” give support to the scientific claims of evolution as is the case when Pope John Paul was addressing the group of scientist and before that, Pope Pius XII semi endorsement of the same in his encyclical Humani Generis.

As well intentioned Stephen Jay Gould is by proposing a solution to the supposed conflict between religion and science; I think that this model serves its own interest in the name of science. Before I delve into some of the observation I have about this model, I think that Gould should be commended in at least trying to plug the ever-leaking drip of Darwinian fundamentalism in the cracks on the damn of science. The torrent of hate that has spewed on both sides of the wall has had serious repercussions for the opportunity and chance of a successful dialogue between the two. One has only to see the vitriolic work of Andrew Dickson White to get a feel (although somewhat inaccurate) of the entrenched battle between the two fields, especially since the Galileo incident.

However, his proposed solution to the conflict between science and theology actually just puts a fence between the two that could mute any potential dialogue between the two. You see, even though he is quoted as saying that there would be an “interdigitating” between the two; actually, what that does is that it cuts the dialogue with science having the upper hand. In fact, Todd Moody is quoted as saying that NOMA is nothing but a gag-order masquerading as a principle of tolerance. To explain this a bit, science in its magisterial realm deals with facts, with empirical data, and with that which is verifiable, tested and hypothesized within our natural world. Religion on the other hand deals with more ethereal things such as God, love and miracles. What this does is that it sets up a false dichotomy between what is factual and what is value. This is what is commonly called that fact/value dichotomy.

In the similar vein of the logical positivist and their principle of verifiability, science would be the legitimate child of the natural world where it could come out and play while the stepchild (and thus somewhat metaphorically nonexistent) doesn’t have too much of an authority since we all know who is nature’s favorite child. This false dichotomy assumes that even if there is not discord between the two there will also not be any dialogue, for what relationship has Athens with Jerusalem, what can religion possibly say about science and what can science say about religion? Well, about the latter, I think that science’s a priori commitment to reductionism will eventually find an answer to all of religion’s problems and supposed mysteries. There have even been recent reports of scientist finally finding the love gene. As the magazine The Economist points out, “the brain has a reward system designed to make voles (and people and other animals) do what they ought to. Without it, they might forget to eat, drink and have sex—with disastrous results.” However, science pretends to forget about the “why” when it successfully answers the “how.”

Even Robert Harris, in his paper A Summary Critique of the Fact/Value Dichotomy clarifies what in fact is at stake when there’s this false dichotomy between science and religion. He states the following six observations:

1. Since facts and values are separate, with facts being solid and provable and values being matters of personal taste, values play no role in the realm of facts (that is, in science).

2. Values are not involved in the determination of what is a fact.

3. Values are not involved in scientific descriptions of fact.

4. Values are not intermixed in the statement of scientific theories or facts.

5. Values, being matters of personal taste, cannot be reasoned about.

6. Values are completely subjective and have no objective qualities.

This is the fodder that science needs to keep the fire burning and in the meantime religion gets robbed the opportunity to even have anything to say.

However, what does religion have to say to science? Is dialogue even possible? I think that both science and religion operate under the prolegomena of realism and even at a more fundamental level they have an underlying foundation of logic. Both of the realms of science and religion assume certain laws of logic that undergird these two realms. For example, “Philosophy undergirds science by providing its presuppositions. Science (at least most scientist and philosophers understand it) assumes that the universe is intelligible and not capricious, that the mind and senses inform us about reality, that mathematics and language can be applied to the world, that knowledge is possible, that there is uniformity in nature….” With this in mind, I think there are certain principles that can indeed overlap if there is to be some communication at all. For example, an informed commitment to a proper historical investigation has prompted us to reexamine the Bible with a more critical eye and thus make changes to our interpretation of it. On the other hand fideism surely will not prompt us to have critical analyses of the text.

In contradistinction, an informed commitment to knowledge of moral principles allows us to know that we don’t experiment on ourselves into extinction. There is a basic goodness that is presupposed in all disciplines. This is what I call “the borrowed capital of science and religion.” Since both of these realms share the same underlying reality they cannot but help in using this shared capital despite what Gould says about the Nonoverlapping Magisterial proposal. It is what Francis Schaeffer once called “the upper story value system” where even naturalist climb to the upper story (where values reside) in order to make judgments about reality. Even Stephen Jay Gould sets aside his own NOMA principle and makes these upper story value judgments when he says, “Good design exists, and implies production for its current purpose; but adaptations are built naturally, by slow evolution towards desire ends, not by immediate, divine fiat.” As Peter Bocchino points out, “How can Gould as a scientist know this to be true if science cannot make such pronouncements?”

On the other hand, others have acknowledged that religion has had a positive contribution to science and instead of limiting the progress of such, it has actually encouraged it. This runs contrary to what Gould states as neither the affirmation nor denial of God. As scientist, he says, that they cannot comment on it and only work with naturalistic explanations. Nevertheless, as scientist, it is not totally out of the realm of the scientific enterprise to deal with postulated entities to explain the occurrence of a certain phenomenon. Operating by the inductive principle of finding the inference to the best explanation, the scientist does have the opportunity to “detect” some sort of intelligence in their respective fields of study. As a matter of fact, that is what the SETI (The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) program is all about. These individuals are not sitting around in their chairs listening for randomness and chaos in order to decipher something. The “intelligence” in the name alone assumes otherwise. However, I think that when it comes to biological issues (such as evolution) there is a certain existential import that affects both sides of the issue.

There was a panel not too long ago where someone asked the question, “Why doesn’t all this happen with other sciences?” My answer to that is because although cosmology is important, biological sciences hits us where we live.

Let me briefly end with a question from philosopher William Lane Craig that allows me to entertain the idea that religion and science can have a dialogue.

Why can’t the scientist postulate a Godlike being as a theoretical entity in order to explain certain observable data, just as high-level physicists postulate strings, hyperspaces, parallel universes, and sundry unobservable theoretical entities in order to explain observable data? This need not represent a blending of religion and science, since the postulated deity would serve merely an explanatory function, not a cultic one. In Aristotle’s physics his Unmoved Mover; which he called God, was not an object of religious devotion but served merely as the engine that turned the crank to set in motion the system of spheres.

As Craig notes, these Magisteria need not blend and thus lose their identity. What we do need is two spheres that are in dialogue since they are the two books of God.