{"id":2536,"date":"2013-05-13T03:36:09","date_gmt":"2013-05-13T10:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgdarkly.com\/blog\/?p=2536"},"modified":"2013-05-13T03:36:09","modified_gmt":"2013-05-13T10:36:09","slug":"religion-and-science-method-2-independence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2013\/05\/13\/religion-and-science-method-2-independence\/","title":{"rendered":"Religion and Science: Method 2 — Independence"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
But now was turning my desire and will, Even as a wheel that equally is moved, The Love which moves the sun and the other stars. — Dante, Divine Comedy<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Part 2 of a series on “method” in religion and science.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Independence<\/strong><\/p>\n

In contrast \u2013 or apparent contrast \u2013 to these conflict models, many opt for an \u201cindependence\u201d model in which \u201cscience\u201d and \u201creligion\u201d occupy entirely separate, non-overlapping domains.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/span>The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould introduced the concept of \u201cnonoverlapping magesteria\u201d (NOMA) that purported to separate scientific claims from moral truth.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/span>This perspective is reflected, to a certain extent, in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences statement on the compatibility of science and religion:<\/p>\n

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIndependence\u201d models, however, seem inevitably to devolve into \u201cconflict,\u201d in which \u201cfaith and evidence\u201d and \u201cnatural and supernatural\u201d are put at odds, as the NAS statement above reflects.\u00a0 <\/span>Upon reflection, NOMA seems to represent little more than a Kantian separation between objective truth and subjective values, mediated by a kind of empiricism and positivism that is no longer taken seriously in the philosophy of science.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> McGrath, at pp. 46-47.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Stephen Jay Gould, Nonoverlapping Magesteria<\/i>, Natural History<\/span> 106:16-22 (March 1997).\u00a0 <\/span>See the discussion of NOMA in Cunningham, Darwin\u2019s Pious Idea, at pp. 270-272.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> National Academy of Sciences website, \u201cEvolution Resources,\u201d \u201cCompatibility of Science and Religion,\u201d available at http:\/\/www.nationalacademies.org\/evolution\/Compatibility.html.<\/p>\n

Image Source:\u00a0 NASA<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 2 of a series on “method” in religion and science. 2.\u00a0 Independence In contrast \u2013 or apparent contrast \u2013 to these conflict models, many opt for an \u201cindependence\u201d model in which \u201cscience\u201d and \u201creligion\u201d occupy entirely separate, non-overlapping domains.[1]\u00a0 The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould introduced the concept of \u201cnonoverlapping magesteria\u201d (NOMA) that purported […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[71,50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cosmos","category-science-and-religion"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-EU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}