NEWS FEATURE: Author argues for keeping science and religion apart

c. 1999 Religion News Service CAMBRIDGE, Mass. _ In recent years, a spate of books, news reports and academic papers has appeared maintaining that science and religion, after centuries of conflict, finally seem to be coming together. But there is at least one respected voice saying that not only was this conflict false, but that […]

c. 1999 Religion News Service

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. _ In recent years, a spate of books, news reports and academic papers has appeared maintaining that science and religion, after centuries of conflict, finally seem to be coming together.

But there is at least one respected voice saying that not only was this conflict false, but that science and religion should remain separate.


Stephen Jay Gould, a renowned Harvard University paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and best-selling author, writes in his new book,”Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life”(Ballantine), that it is a mistake to interpret science and religion as ever having been at war, much less in need of total integration.

Instead, Gould has proposed the theory of”NOMA,”or”non-overlapping magesteria.” Magesteria _ derived from the Latin word for”teacher”_ are the distinct teaching authorities that Gould argues both science and religion have in the world.

Despite the prevalence of studies and writing about the reconciliation of the two fields, Gould says his theory has the backing of a”consensus”of religious intellectuals, including Pope John Paul II, who wrote a statement on evolution and creation in 1996 that Gould claims”re-affirm(s) NOMA.” Gould’s book was released just as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion was awarded to Ian Barbour, a physicist and theologian whose interdisciplinary work on science and religion has pioneered the field since the mid-1960s.

But Gould is vehemently opposed to those who conceive of science and religion as being in opposition to each other, yet capable of coming together.

Barbour’s viewpoint, which maintains that science and religion can be integrated into one discipline, is well-intentioned but ultimately illogical, Gould says.”The aim is worthy,”he said,”I support the aim; dialogue between science and religion.”But, he added,”You can’t support a viewpoint because you like its consequences when its logic is wrong.” Gould says that the current work to reconcile science and religion is based on a mistaken premise that the two were once at war.”It is unfortunate in this positivistic age of the second half of the twentieth century that you have this warfare model of science and religion,”he said recently.

In his book, Gould uses the example of the”flat-earth”theory, which most school children learn was disproved by Christopher Columbus, to illustrate the false warfare model. Gould found that most religious scholars in Columbus’ time actually believed the earth was round, but that later academics _ convinced that science and religion had been diametrically opposed, despite such evidence _ wrongly recorded animosity between leaders of the two fields.

Instead of the warfare model, Gould says science and religion simply contribute differently to the human experience. That difference is the fundamental concept behind NOMA.”Religion asks ethical questions, science asks factual questions,”Gould said.


It is a mistake, he continued, to conceive of these differences as being in opposition, especially when considering such volatile issues as cloning or genetic engineering.”Any complicated question has ethical and factual dimensions,”Gould said.”That doesn’t mean the ethical is going to resolve the factual question, or vice versa.” Opponents of the NOMA position argue that religion is about far more than just ethics, although ethical behavior is certainly part of the religious message. They also note that religious faith is often rooted in non-scientific beliefs, such as miracles.”Ethics is broader than religion,”countered Gould.”But religion cannot,despite frequent mentions of miracles, give a moral character to scientific facts.””We would like to think that lightening kills bad people more often than good people, that evil is rewarded with pain and suffering. But of course it doesn’t, and the reason is NOMA. The facts are indifferent to people’s moral hopes,”he said.

Religious thinkers must realize the distinction between the factual and ethical magesteria if science and religion are to successfully occupy their respective spheres, Gould insists.”Those religious folks who think that their religion depends on or implies a definite factual statement about the world that cannot be wrong, like the belief that the earth is 10,000 years old, I think to that extent they are misusing the domain of religion,”he said, adding that”scientists can do the same thing.””Science can’t find God,”Gould concluded.”Science can respect God, science can recognize that religious belief is enormously important. But science does something else.”

IR END LEBOWITZ

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!