Jokeroo Community - View Single Post

**squirt** · 07-13-2009, 02:46 PM

Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1999 book Rock of Ages, coined the term non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) in an attempt to finally resolve the conflict between science and religion. He claimed that scientists had one set of tools that equipped them to study science and answer questions relevant to their domain of science. Theologians were similarly equipped to answer an entirely different set of questions. Since the scientific domain, or magisterium, and the theological magisterium studied a different set of questions, they needn’t overlap.
The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).
While this may sound like a pleasing solution to the problem, the fact remains that many of the questions faced by science and religion actually do overlap. You most likely would agree with Richard Dawkins when he says, “God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” Dawkins, however, makes it very clear that he believes that God’s existence is not discoverable in practice. Of course, if no one who would even remotely consider the God hypothesis is engaged in research at most of our academic institutions of higher learning, God’s existence as a scientific fact will likely never be postulated. This does not mean that it cannot be postulated; only that such a consideration will have to wait until such time as science and theology can complement one another in the search for ultimate truth.

Secularists claim that the God hypothesis does nothing other than put an end to scientific inquiry. They assume that God is only used to fill in the answers to the questions that scientific knowledge hasn’t yet discovered. However, I would contend that such a God of the gaps mentality is not a legitimate use of the God hypothesis. Rather, the biblical God has very explicit attributes that may be explainable scientifically. Certain events documented historically in the Bible may be subjected to scientific evaluation. However, scientific materialism places detour signs that block potentially open roads of scientific inquiry into these arenas.

07-13-2009, 02:46 PM	#306 (permalink)
squirt Super Moderator Join Date: May 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 355,993 Rep Power: 8572	Christianity vs. Science Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1999 book Rock of Ages, coined the term non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) in an attempt to finally resolve the conflict between science and religion. He claimed that scientists had one set of tools that equipped them to study science and answer questions relevant to their domain of science. Theologians were similarly equipped to answer an entirely different set of questions. Since the scientific domain, or magisterium, and the theological magisterium studied a different set of questions, they needn’t overlap. The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). While this may sound like a pleasing solution to the problem, the fact remains that many of the questions faced by science and religion actually do overlap. You most likely would agree with Richard Dawkins when he says, “God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” Dawkins, however, makes it very clear that he believes that God’s existence is not discoverable in practice. Of course, if no one who would even remotely consider the God hypothesis is engaged in research at most of our academic institutions of higher learning, God’s existence as a scientific fact will likely never be postulated. This does not mean that it cannot be postulated; only that such a consideration will have to wait until such time as science and theology can complement one another in the search for ultimate truth. Secularists claim that the God hypothesis does nothing other than put an end to scientific inquiry. They assume that God is only used to fill in the answers to the questions that scientific knowledge hasn’t yet discovered. However, I would contend that such a God of the gaps mentality is not a legitimate use of the God hypothesis. Rather, the biblical God has very explicit attributes that may be explainable scientifically. Certain events documented historically in the Bible may be subjected to scientific evaluation. However, scientific materialism places detour signs that block potentially open roads of scientific inquiry into these arenas.