Gould´s Non-Overlapping Magisteria In The Eyes of Another Presumptuous Rationalist

" Nonoverlapping magisteria: why Gould got it wrong By Jonathan Meddings Reconciliation between science and religion is as likely as between Israel and Palestine, but that hasn’t stopped the scientific and religious alike from trying. In his 1997 essay Stephen Jay Gould proposed that religion and science are nonoverlapping magisteria, stating that: The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. 1 It says a lot about how the religious have dominated the moral discourse that even scientists defer ethical matters to them without objection. But what is wrong with Gould’s proposition? First, even if one ignores the instances that religion is expressly in conflict with science – such as when it lobbies to prevent stem cell research and have creationism taught in schools – the two nonetheless remain fundamentally irreconcilable. Second, religion does not restrict itself to moral teachings, and the role of science in developing an intelligent ethical framework is unavoidable. " from https://www.academia.edu/6094983/Nonoverlapping_magisteria_Why_Gould_got_it_wrong?email_work_card=view-paper Rigor requires clarity of subject matter. Science is about the physical material constitution of the Universe, not "empirical." "Empirical" is a larger subject meaning perceptible, not even merely observable. "Empirical methodology" has supplemented all the social sciences and humanities as they developed from moral philosophy. Gould´s use of the term "religion," and Meddings discussion of it, is also rationalized, as might be expected from the source, a rationalist. Gould´s own definition, if accurate, would also be rationalized. Anthropologist Anthony FC Wallace formally suggested four categories of religion: *Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest. **Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. Religious authority acquired through one's own means. ***Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship. ****Ecclesiastical: dominant in agricultural societies and states; are centrally organized and hierarchical in structure, paralleling the organization of states. Typically deprecates competing individualistic and shamanistic cults. The Philosophy of Religion can involve the following, according to at least two sources: Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God (or gods)(and Ultimate Reality), the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death.[1](Taliaferro, Charles (1 January 2014). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Philosophy of Religion (Winter 2014 ed.).) The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation.{5} Bunnin, N, Tsui-James, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, p. 453. Meddings´ discussion is circular and simplistically self-justifying. Gould is wrong because science and religion are, "nonetheless, irreconcilable." Excuse me? That´s not logic, that´s a conclusion. He´s not actually arguing, but confusing his conclusion for an argument. A foregone conclusion fallacy, so to speak. He has taken a step to present science and religion as different. To argue that they are "irreconcilable," he then would need to assert that there ARE NO differences between them. He makes parenthetical comments and argues that religion conflicts with science in areas like stem cell research and creationism. He doesn´t suggest how they might differ, or why it´s significant. Science seeks knowledge of things as physical living processes in the case of stem cells. Religion, certain Christian or perhaps other religious groups in particular, to address some issue of the inviolability of some concept of life, depending on the context. These are areas of conflict, for some religious groups. Meddings doesn´t make basic distinctions between certain religious groups, in the first place. Meddings´ second point combines two components. He begins with religion´s involvement in matters beyond simply moral teachings. This point addresses the issues of Gould´s and Meddings´ definitions and the meaning of Magisteria. It also raises the issue of religion and science having their own different identities, and areas of overlap. Meddings´ second component factor is that science has a necessary role in developing an intelligent ethical framework. The definitions so far have limited science to "empirical" or physical-biological-medical matters. He has mentioned stem cell research and creationism. Science wants to conduct experiments, and some religious groups protest, depending. Some religious groups want to include or substitute "creationism" in relation to evolution. Meddings: "On the face of it the argument that there exists no conflict between science and religion seems patently absurd. Numerous conflicts spring to mind, and one doesn’t have to read a history book to find them, only a newspaper. The philosopher Russell Blackford argues that the reason it is even possible to imagine no conflict between science and religion is a result of just how much the religious have had to concede: "Historically, religions have been encyclopedic systems of belief, offering explanations of a vast range of phenomena ... As encyclopedic systems, they inevitably come into conflict with science as the latter provides more and more facts about how the worldactually works. Religion can avoid direct conflicts only by retreating into highly abstract and more-or-less unfalsifiable positions. Some modern-day versions of religion may well have retreated so far from falsifiability that they are no longer in direct conflict with science, but that's a fascinating historical development, not an indication that religion and science exercise inherently different and non-overlapping magisteria.2 Over and over again history has proven religion to not just be wrong, but embarrassingly, fatuously wrong; so much so that it would appear the only thing all religions got right is that all other religions are wrong. And now the religious stand before us clinging to the one thing science is yet to take from them –morality." What are Meddings' categories now? More presumption, not substantive thinking. "No conflict" is absurd. Imagining 'no conflict' is a function of the quantity of historical religious concessions. He quotes an R Blackford referring to religions historical "encyclopedic systems of belief" and the "explanations they offer." Blackford refers to religions avoiding direct conflict by "retreating to highly abstract and unfalsifiable positions." There is projection here, because the discussion is itself abstract without concrete references to ground it. The assumption is that science is "taking things" from religion, and it will take "morality" in the future. The issue of historical concessions, say, geocentrism and creationism, reflects specific religious institutions and their doctrines about those physical phenomena. The writer´s confusion then includes the misguided references to the parties in conflict. The writer´s failure to acknowledge the broader range of religious components interferes further with his ability to make clear distinctions. Blackford´s stating that there are "modern-day versions of religion" that have "retreated" into "unfalsifiability" assigns the expression "fascinating historical development" with no sense of "inherent differences." Denominations like the Episcopalians might reason that the Creator created the Big Bang as the First Cause. "Unfalsifiability" is based on a scientific methodological term that applies to the physical realm. Science itself is philosophical in nature. The argument for a First Cause is coherent with the historical sociology of Jesus´ heritage, for one. It corresponds to the basic Biblical account of Creation in Genesis. Coherence and Correspondence are two fundamental criteria of philosophical truth, and those principles actually involve "falsifiability." Is God the Creator and Parental figure through Jesus incoherent with the Big Bang and Natural Selection? No. Does it correspond to the limits of scientific philosophical knowledge? Yes. Is God incongruent with them? No. R Bradford is defining "highly abstract and unfalsifiable" positions as historical developments, not evidence of different knowledge and phenomena domains. That is the definition of magisteria. Since the Philosophy of Religion includes the First Cause argument(s), while religious experience addresses the issues of Jesus and his heritage in the OT, it is philosophy that clarifies the necessary equivalent categories, not the self-justifying and convenient denials offered by Bradford. God as Creator and Parent through Jesus and his heritage is one category, and the teachings of Jesus and their legacy are another, I believe.