Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Bradskii]

Stephen J Gould, from his book 'Rock Of Ages':

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve...These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

As this is in the Creation and Evolution sub forum, i would suggest that we can consider those two subjects to be in separate magisteriums. Creation obviously within the religious one and evolution in the scientific.

Is there an overlap?

 

[Occams Barber]

Stephen J Gould, from his book 'Rock Of Ages':

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve...These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

As this is in the Creation and Evolution sub forum, i would suggest that we can consider those two subjects to be in separate magisteriums. Creation obviously within the religious one and evolution in the scientific.

Is there an overlap?

Yes. I appreciate that Gould was trying to calm the waters between religion and science at a time when Dawkins & Co were creating waves. Unfortunately Gould was wrong - there is an overlap.

Whether we are talking about the creation of the Universe, evolution, demonic interventions or assorted miracles, whenever there is (say) a Christian claim that a religious entity has dabbled in the material world - we have an overlap.

OB

 

[DamianWarS]

Is there an overlap?

if there is a God, then overlap is implicit.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. I appreciate that Gould was trying to calm the waters between religion and science at a time when Dawkins & Co were creating waves. Unfortunately Gould was wrong - there is an overlap.

Whether we are talking about the creation of the Universe, evolution, demonic interventions or assorted miracles, whenever there is (say) a Christian claim that a religious entity has dabbled in the material world - we have an overlap.

OB

I agree with you in the sense that a Christian might claim (or admit) that there is an overlap in the sense that there must be a connection between the ephemeral and the material (say the soul and the mind for example or any given miracle) else how could the supernatural affect the natural?

But if a claim was made then the evidence would need to be presented so that one could investigate to see if that overlap actually occured. I've yet to see such evidence presented that is in any way convincing.

 

[Bradskii]

if there is a God, then overlap is implicit.

By definition. And if Visnhu exists then overlap is implicit. By definition. I'm looking for something explicit. A specific example. We'd need an example of an overlap where there is a scientific aspect which can be scientifically verified.

 

[Occams Barber]

I agree with you in the sense that a Christian might claim (or admit) that there is an overlap in the sense that there must be a connection between the ephemeral and the material (say the soul and the mind for example or any given miracle) else how could the supernatural affect the natural?

But if a claim was made then the evidence would need to be presented so that one could investigate to see if that overlap actually occured. I've yet to see such evidence presented that is in any way convincing.

I probably could have worded my answer better.

In my view - when religion and science have competing explanations for the same event then an overlap has occurred. The religious explanation will normally be unprovable in the scientific sense but, since it is regarded by the religious as a valid explanation, we have an overlap.

The context of Gould's opinion went to an attempt to remove friction by pretending religion and science could be kept separate. This is obviously not possible. This Forum provides numerous examples of this problem.

OB

 

[pitabread]

I think the question of overlap comes down to how one views the fundamental nature of the universe in a philosophical framework.

Science operates in philosophical framework that assumes an objective universe against which ideas are tested. Basically things are assumed to look like what they look like.

Conversely, it's possible for religious beliefs to take a non-objective view of the universe. Such a view doesn't necessarily challenge or supplant science. It just boils down to whatever philosophical view one ultimately adopts.

But religious beliefs aren't going to disprove science any more than science is going to disprove religious beliefs. Science by its nature can't address supernaturalism. And religion can't challenge science within the framework in which science is conducted.

In that sense, I don't think they overlap.

 

[d taylor]

This can not be established, as christianity is such a mishmash of teachings that do not form a united theology. And that is just christianity, then throw in the other religions and you have nothing but confusion.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Aron Ra, a former member of this forum, critiqued this idea thusly: "If the omnipotent creator of the universe reached his hand into our reality he would pull it out dripping in physics."

There's just no way God could impose his will on the Earth, the Universe and us, whether though magic or miracles, and not leave behind some evidence of that interaction. We would be able to observe it. It ALL overlaps.

 

[Bradskii]

Aron Ra, a former member of this forum, critiqued this idea thusly: "If the omnipotent creator of the universe reached his hand into our reality he would pull it out dripping in physics."

There's just no way God could impose his will on the Earth, the Universe and us, whether though magic or miracles, and not leave behind some evidence of that interaction. We would be able to observe it. It ALL overlaps.

Can you give me an example of that evidence?

 

[Occams Barber]

And religion can't challenge science within the framework in which science is conducted.

Religion frequently challenges science. The fact that it doesn't do it based on scientific standards is immaterial. Religion can and does claim that Event X was caused by some form of religious intervention, based on religious belief. Science will say that there is no evidence to support this based on scientific standards. Science will assert that Event Y has a rational scientific cause while religion will attribute cause to its own entities.

Think about evolution, miraculous healing, attribution of cause to demons, answered prayers, resurrection, walking on water, water into wine, religious apparitions etc. etc. etc. - all events where a material result is attributed to an immaterial cause. Whether you accept or reject supernatural causation or mundane cause-and-effect, it's obvious that there are competing explanations.

That is overlap.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Religion frequently challenges science. The fact that it doesn't do it based on scientific standards is immaterial. Religion can and does claim that Event X was caused by some form of religious intervention, based on religious belief. Science will say that there is no evidence to support this based on scientific standards. Science will assert that Event Y has a rational scientific cause while religion will attribute cause to its own entities.

Think about evolution, miraculous healing, attribution of cause to demons, answered prayers, resurrection, walking on water, water into win, religious apparitions etc. etc. etc. - all events where a material result is attributed to an immaterial cause. Whether you accept or reject supernatural causation or mundane cause-and-effect, it's obvious that there are competing explanations.

That is overlap.

OB

But Gould wasn't saying that there cannot be claims of an overlap. He obviously would have agreed with you that there are claims galore. There are claims that there's an overlap between terrestrial and alien technology as well. I think his point was that the claims are nothing more than that and because of zero scientific evidence for them, there's no actual cross over into the scientific realm.

Look at miracles. Do you know of one that could actually have been scientifically proved not to have happened? There's not one. And religious institutions such as the Catholic Church are very careful that they acknowledge only miracles which are impossible to prove never happened.

 

[Occams Barber]

But Gould wasn't saying that there cannot be claims of an overlap. He obviously would have agreed with you that there are claims galore. There are claims that there's an overlap between terrestrial and alien technology as well. I think his point was that the claims are nothing more than that and because of zero scientific evidence for them, there's no actual cross over into the scientific realm.

Look at miracles. Do you know of one that could actually have been scientifically proved not to have happened? There's not one. And religious institutions such as the Catholic Church are very careful that they acknowledge only miracles which are impossible to prove never happened.

The fact that there is no (scientific) evidence for miracles etc. does not mitigate the overlap.

You're interpreting this with a science oriented bias. From the point of view of a Christian these things are real. If we accept that both sides have a claim to the truth then they are making competing claims.

As an atheist I see no overlap, but that's because, from my point of view, there is no supernatural. If I accept (as I must) that the religious claim is real to them then there is overlap.

The context of Gould is not about who is actually right but, according to Gould, the separate role and function of each "magisterium". It's obvious that the religious magisterium intrudes on the scientific magisterium and vice versa - i.e. there is overlap.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

As an atheist I see no overlap...

Me neither. But if we get a claim from a Christian who does see an overlap, then we can examine it to see if he or she is actually right and we are wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

Me neither. But if we get a claim from a Christian who does see an overlap, then we can examine it to see if he or she is actually right and we are wrong.

We will crush them with our combined intellect.

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

We will crush them with our combined intellect.

OB

But surely 1+0 is still only 1.
@Bradskii

You can decide between you who is who.

 

[Bradskii]

But surely 1+0 is still only 1.
@Bradskii

You can decide between you who is who.

I'm the apprentice.

 

[hedrick]

I think the distinction makes some sense, but there is overlap. Science, as well as historical disciplines, give us information that should make clear (if simply reading the text didn't already) that certain sections of the Bible aren't historically accurate. Christian ethics also can place constraints on how science works in some cases.

But there is still a difference in purpose, and the two tend to operate in different ways.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the distinction makes some sense, but there is overlap. Science, as well as historical disciplines, give us information that should make clear (if simply reading the text didn't already) that certain sections of the Bible aren't historically accurate. Christian ethics also can place constraints on how science works in some cases.

But there is still a difference in purpose, and the two tend to operate in different ways.

I think I'm in the minority here in suggesting that science proving some aspects of scripture aren't factually accurate shows that there in no overlap. Isn't the opposite case akin to saying that there's an overlap between science and sorcery because science shows that wizards aren't real?

 

[hedrick]

I think I'm in the minority here in suggesting that science proving some aspects of scripture aren't factually accurate shows that there in no overlap. Isn't the opposite case akin to saying that there's an overlap between science and sorcery because science shows that wizards aren't real?

I believe the intent of "non-overlapping magisteria" is to say that they speak on different topics, and thus don't interfere with each other.