Science, Religion & Morality...

An interesting post at http://kakistocrat.blogsome.com/

Here's a summary:

The concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisterium) holds that both science and religion hold the tools necessary to particular realms (ex: science with the natural world, religion with human purpose, meaning, values...).

Gould proposes NOMA, while Dawkins obviously viewed it as empty, and Dawkins suggests that to suppose religions holds dominance in the ethical realm is utter nonsense in light of the fact that there must be some sort of alternate source of moral conviction since it overrides
authority, revelation, tradition, scripture, when each of the latter
seems out of step.

Originally posted by OldLoon
An interesting post at http://kakistocrat.blogsome.com/

Here's a summary:

The concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisterium) holds that both science and religion hold the tools necessary to particular realms (ex: science with the natural world, religion with human purpose, meaning, values...).

Gould proposes NOMA, while Dawkins obviously viewed it as ...[text shortened]... rides
authority, revelation, tradition, scripture, when each of the latter
seems out of step.

I like that you give us a summary too, and not only the link. By this you emphasize what you find the most important, and not let us read the material for ourselves.
Thank you for that. Others should do the same.

Originally posted by OldLoon
An interesting post at http://kakistocrat.blogsome.com/

Here's a summary:

The concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisterium) holds that both science and religion hold the tools necessary to particular realms (ex: science with the natural world, religion with human purpose, meaning, values...).

Gould proposes NOMA, while Dawkins obviously viewed it as ...[text shortened]... rides
authority, revelation, tradition, scripture, when each of the latter
seems out of step.

Gould never said that religion holds dominance in the ethical realm. He never excluded philosophy or other non-religious ways of dealing with ethical issues.

He just excluded science from having the tools to deal with ethical issues* and religion from having the tools to properly deal with the study of the natural world.

*i.e. even if science determines that a certain action leads to genocide, you still need a moral argument on why genocide is morally wrong.

That is a misunderstanding of the NOMA concept. Might I suggest reading Gould's "Rocks of Ages." He isn't just stating what each magesterium does not have the expertise to comment on, but instead he is speaking of how each has the tools necessary to oversee meaningful discourse and resolution in areas specific to their respective magesteriums. To science, Gould offers the natural world, to religion, Gould offers, human meaning, purpose and values.

Originally posted by OldLoon
That is a misunderstanding of the NOMA concept. Might I suggest reading Gould's "Rocks of Ages." He isn't just stating what each magesterium does not have the expertise to comment on, but instead he is speaking of how each has the tools necessary to oversee meaningful discourse and resolution in areas specific to their respective magesteriums. To science, Gould offers the natural world, to religion, Gould offers, human meaning, purpose and values.

Can you elaborate on what Gould sees as "religion" and what qualifies it to oversee morality?

For those interested: The encyclical letter Faith and Reason written by Pope John Paul II:

ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html