EVALUATION OF STEPHEN JAY GOULD’S NOMA (Nonoverlapping Magisteria) PRINCIPLE

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.

Evaluation

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.

Conclusion

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.

WORKS CITED

ETIENNE GILSON:Three Quests in Philosophy The Education of a Philosopher; In Quest of Species; In Quest of Matter

From Mark Johnson over at Thomistica.net
“News from the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto that a book of some unpublished lectures from Etienne Gilson has been published. Fr Armand Maurer had been hard at work editing these lectures at the time of his death earlier this year, and Fr James Farge brought the project to completion. Here is some material that Fr Farge sent along:”

Contents
Foreword (James K. Farge) VII
I. The Education of a Philosopher (Etienne Gilson)
Translated by James K. Farge 1
II. In Quest of Species (Etienne Gilson) 25
Introduction by Armand Maurer 27
1. Species for Pure Experience 33
2. Species for Science 47
3. Species for Philosophy 59
III. In Quest of Matter (Etienne Gilson) 75
Introduction by Laurence K. Shook 77
1. Matter for Sense Experience 81
2. Matter for Christian Philosophers 95
3. Matter for Science 109
Appendix 127
Bibliography 131
Index 141

Sample from the book:

http://www.pims.ca/pdf/egs31.pdf

Thomist Spotlight | Étienne Henri Gilson

From Gifford Lectures 

Biography

Étienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.

Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field

From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures

Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four

His works include: La liberté chez Descartes et la théologie (1913); Le Thomisme (1919, trans. 1924); Etudes de philosophie médiévale (1921); Saint Thomas d'Aquin (1925); Introduction a l'etude de S. Augustin (1929; trans. 1960); L’espirit de la philosophie medieval (2 vol., 1932; trans. 1936); La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard (1934; trans. 1940) Christianisme et philosophie (1936); The Unity of Philosophical Experience (1937); Réalisme thomiste et critique de la connaissance (1939); God and Philosophy (1941); L’Etre et l’essence (1948; trans. 1949); La philosophie de saint Bonaventure (1953; trans. 1965); Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955); Painting and Reality (1957); Elements of Christian Philosophy (1960); Le philosophe et la théologie (1960; trans. 1962).

International Conference on Natural Theology | Beyond Paley: Renewing the vision for Natural Theology

International Conference on Natural Theology
 
Beyond Paley: Renewing the vision for Natural Theology
 
23-25 June 2008, Museum of Natural History, 
Oxford University

A major international conference on natural theology will be held at Oxford University from 23 – 25 June 2008, entitled “Beyond Paley: Renewing the Vision for Natural Theology”. The conference will review every aspect of the question of whether the divine can be known through nature, aiming to stimulate discussion of the scientific, theological, historical, philosophical and broader cultural aspects of this important issue.

The conference is named after William Paley (1743-1805), whose celebrated Natural Theology (1801) is widely regarded as one of the most important historical statements of this approach. It is clear that the approach stands in need of substantial renewal and redirection, in the light of the many scientific, philosophical and theological criticisms directed against it. The conference will aim to craft new approaches in the light of developments since then.

This conference, in addition to reviewing past approaches, will seek to chart some new directions for natural theology, especially in the light of recent scientific exploration of so-called “anthropic” phenomena. There is considerable interest in these questions at every level of the academic world, as well as in the media. This conference is likely to attract much attention from the media and academy, and is certain to catalyse further discussion for years to come.

This conference will be held in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, designed by John Ruskin. Appropriately enough, at one stage it was proposed to name this building the “Museum of Natural Theology”. This magnificent neo-Gothic Grade I listed building contains scientific collections gathered over a period of three centuries. It was opened in 1860, and is widely regarded as one of the finest of its kind. The Museum includes a state of the art lecture theatre, fully equipped for digital presentations. Accommodation will be at St Anne’s College, close to the conference venue, but conference delegates are welcome to make their own arrangements with local hotels and guest houses.

We are negotiating to see if it may be possible for conference delegates to view the room (no longer open to the public) in which Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley debated Darwin's Origin of Species during the 1860 meeting of the British Association.

Confirmed speakers and topics include:

Dr Justin Barrett, Senior Director of the Centre for Anthropology and Mind, Oxford University. His publications include Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (AltaMira, 2004), described by Pascal Boyer as “a brilliant and challenging presentation of the cognitive study of religion, by a psychologist who practically invented the field.” Dr Barrett will explore the relevance of the emerging field of the cognitive science of religion for natural theology.

Topic: How “natural” is natural theology?

Jeremy Begbie, Professor of Theology at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, and Associate Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Professor Begbie’s research interests are principally in the interplay between theology and the arts. His publications in this field include Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts (T&  Clark, 1991) and Theology, Music and Time (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Topic: Natural theology and the arts.

John Hedley Brooke, formerly Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, Oxford University, and presently Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Durham University. Professor Brooke has a long-standing interest in the development of natural theology. His publications include the prize-winning book, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 1991), and more recently, Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science & Religion, co-edited with Ian Maclean (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Topic: The historical development of British natural theology.

Simon Conway Morris, FRS, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society aged 39, was awarded the Walcott Medal of the National Academy of Sciences in 1987, and the Lyell Medal of the Geological Society of London in 1998. His publications include The Crucible of Creation (Oxford University Press, 1998) and Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in an Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003). His 2007 Gifford Lecture at the University of Edinburgh was entitled “Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation”.

Topic: New developments in evolutionary biology and the redirection of natural theology.

Hilary Fraser, Geoffrey Tillotson Professor in Nineteenth-Century Studies, and Head of School, English & Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London. In her Beauty and Belief: Aesthetics and Religion in Victorian Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1986), Dr Fraser explored the link between natural beauty and religion, a theme which she will develop in this conference address with particular reference to natural theology in the writings of John Ruskin and Gerard Manley Hopkins. Her more recent publications include The Victorians and Renaissance Italy (Blackwell, 1992), and English Prose of the Nineteenth Century (Longmans,1997).

Topic: Natural beauty and natural theology in Nineteenth Century Writers

Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, Oxford University. He has published extensively in the area of cultural and intellectual history with a focus on the philosophical, scientific and religious thought of the early modern period. His publications include 'Religion' and the Religions in the English Enlightenment ( Cambridge University Press, 1990) and The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Topic: Reading the “Book of Nature” in the Early Modern Period

John Haught, Landegger Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. He was the winner of the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion. He has written extensively on the importance of Darwinism for Christian theology, including God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Westview Press, 2000), and Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Westview Press, 2003).

Topic: The Challenges of Darwinism for Natural Theology

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University. Dr McGrath has a special interest in the relation of the natural sciences and Christian theology. His recent publications include A Scientific Theology (3 vols, T&T Clark, 2001-3) and the forthcoming The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Blackwell, 2008). He will deliver the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen in 2009 on the theme of the place of anthropic reasoning in contemporary natural theology.

Topic: The theological basis of natural theology

Richard Swinburne, FBA,  Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford. Dr Swinburne is one of the best-known and most widely read contemporary philosophers of religion. His recent publications include new editions of his Faith and Reason (Clarendon Press, 2005) and The Existence of God (Clarendon Press, 2004). He has dealt with natural theology at many points in his writings.

Topic: Natural theology: the current state of the debate within philosophy of religion.

Keith Ward, FBA, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London, and formerly Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford University. Dr Ward has written extensively in this field, especially in relation to the interface of science and religion. His works include God, Chance and Necessity (Oneworld, 1996)and Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding (Oneworld, 2006).

Topic: The Arthur Peacocke memorial lecture: the future for natural theology. [This lecture will be open to the public, and will take place in the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, Oxford].

Other speakers are being approached. A conference brochure is in preparation, which will be published in various formats, including a version to be distributed on the web.

Applications will be received from 1 January 2008.

Call for papers:

Papers are invited for presentation at the conference and publication on the web site. These should be limited to 15 minute oral presentations, although longer versions of the paper can be posted on the website. Applications should be received by 15 November 2007; decisions will be notified to the e-mail address supplied by 1 January 2008. We particularly encourage submission of papers in the following broad areas, although other areas are also welcome:

The history of natural theology

The philosophical foundations of natural theology

The place of the natural sciences in natural theology

The theological evaluation of natural theology

Applications should take the following form: A 200-300 word description of the topic to be addressed, including your assessment of its significance; a brief curriculum vitae (no more than a single side) including publications relevant to your proposed topic; and an e-mail address that will be active up to the time of the conference itself. Please submit applications as a Word attachment by e-mail, marking the message “Proposed Paper for Oxford Natural Theology Conference” to the convenor, Professor Alister McGrath, at the following address:

Alister.McGrath@hmc.ox.ac.uk

Bursaries

We will be offering a limited number of student bursaries to promising graduates who might wish to develop research in this area, and will provide further details of this shortly. These bursaries will cover the conference fee but not accommodation costs.

You are welcome to circulate this updated notice to anyone who might be interested in attending this conference.

Alister E. McGrath, Convenor
Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University

Last updated: 24 September 2007

COMMENTARIA IN LIBRUM PRIMUM SENTENTIARUM (St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on the Sentences )

by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O. F. M.
DOCTOR SERAPHICUS
WITH TEXT OF THE BOOK OF SENTENCES BY PETER LOMBARD

© 2006-7 English Translations, emendations
and digitization of texts, unless otherwise specified.

As Part of the Commentary Project

Accompanied by the Latin Text of the Quaracchi Edition, in Parallel

With the footnotes and Scholia of the Quaracchi Editors

Nota Bene:  If you are a Professor of Theology or Philosophy or of Medieval Studies and have found this English Translation useful to yourself or students, and would like to publicly commend it, to further its diffusion and utility, please contact the Project at the URL Above.

Public Commendations of This Work:

"This is a very impressive achievement and a great service to the scholarly community,” says Dr Benjamin Myers
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for the History of European Discourses (CHED), The University of Queensland, Australia
January 31, 2007

Also: Comments, criticism and suggestions in regard to any aspect of this translation or project are cordially invited from the Academic Community, and most gratefully accepted, as the purpose here is to propagate the authentic thought of the respective Authors.

——————————————————————————–

This "Summa" of Theology stands shoulder-to-shoulder with that of St. Thomas Aquinas, but which differs from it by retaining the outlook of the Greek and Latin Fathers, while reconciling Aristotle with St. Augustine. 

——————————————————————————–