Below is a message from Eugenie Scott in response to Michael Ruse's discussion of Stephen Jay Gould's book "Rock of Ages" (see Meta 117). Scott argues that properly understood religions (!) and science (not scientism or humanism) really are "non-overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA for short).

Also of interest is an article on religion and health care in the current issue of The New Republic by Gregg Easterbrook. The article is available online at<http://www.tnr.com/magazines/tnr/current/easterbrook071999.html>. Of course, health care is one of the confounders of the NOMA principle. For me personally this meant being confounded with some kind of flu for the last three days, which meant neither science or religion on Meta for several days.

-- Billy Grassie

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <scott@natcenscied.org> Subject: Re: Meta 117: NOMA

I enjoyed Michael's essay very much, and find that I agree with virtually every paragraph (including sharing a suspicion about the anthropic principle but having sense enough not to leap into the fray because of my lack of knowledge of physics!) I would like to add a thought to his reservations about NOMA.

First - religion is more than the familiar Middle Eastern monotheisms. I define religion as do most other anthropologists: as a set of rules, beliefs and behaviors concerning a universe beyond the material. Thus not just God, but gods, ancestors, spirits, universal forces, etc., are included as the major focus of "religion." (There are nuances and hierarchies -- the most important forces are the omnipotent ones, but this limited definition will suffice for here). Although it is common for ethical behavior to be proscribed by superior forces, not all societies include rules for behavior under "religion", but all religions are concerned with "something beyond". If science is a procedure attempting to explain the natural world through natural processes (methodological materialism) there is thus a pretty bright line between religion and science. It means, for one thing, that science is an inappropriate tool to use to discover the nature of *supernatural* powers, since such powers are beyond the ability of science to test. It also means (shades of Ursula Goodenough!) that feelings of awe, reverence, etc., are not deterministic of the religious sensibility, unless those feelings are evoked by contemplation of this extra-material world.

So far, I'm pretty much agreeing with the NOMA position, but the fact that the fundamental orientations of science and religion are different does not mean that they might not take interest in one another's concerns. Most religions have explanations of the natural world - but as Michael points out, science has done a better job than revelation in this realm. As a result, there *is* a tendency for religious explanations to give way to scientific ones, and Michael is correct that although this sits easily with many theists, it sits very poorly with others.

But what about the shoe on the other foot? What about the subject matter of religion? Has it given way to science in the same fashion? Here is where I'd like to expand a bit on Michael's ideas. I think Michael is correct that a sense of "special status" to humankind, broadly defined, is critical to the Middle-Eastern monotheisms (we should include Islam with Christianity and Judaism here). It is tied to the idea of existential meaning: does it matter whether I live or die, do I have any purpose on earth, what's it all about? But I do not agree that the contingencies of evolution make it impossible to derive both a sense of purpose and meaning, and, yes - even for specialness - for humankind.

Michael and I share a similar nontheistic philosophy, so I am not speaking from my own experience, but I have spoken with and read enough theists to recognize that for many, contingent evolution is not a problem, in neither its "strong" nor "weak" forms. In its weak form, contingent evolution is irrelevant to Christian faith, according to this view. What matters to God is that a sentient being evolved to worship Him; whether this being was a pentadactyl featherless biped is unimportant. We would still be special to God if we had tentacles, or scales. The zigs and zags of evolution that produced our particular morphology (we're mammals, primates, anthropoids, etc) may have depended on contingency and some accident, but by virtue of our evolving consciousness and high intelligence, and recognizing a superior being in the universe, we become special to God. Our final, evolutionarily-contingent form is no more significant in this weak view than the fact that single-toed grazers were the survivors of Miocene equid evolution, rather than two-toed browsers.

The "strong" contingency argument claims that beyond the particularities of pentadactylism, the evolution of consciousness and high intelligence themselves are highly contingent and unlikely. Thus we intelligent humans are a cosmic accident, lucky to be here, improbable, and "proof" that the universe doesn't give a damn. Well, even if I find this position philosophically acceptable, I do not see that this is a scientific conclusion. It is a conclusion that Gould and others may *draw*from science, but to say that the evolution of intelligence and consciousness are cosmic flukes goes beyond science. Just because dinosaurs didn't seem to be evolving larger brains doesn't mean that they or some other group of organisms might not have evolved this trait (I am reminded Dougal Dixon's whimsical book "After Man") - we're generalizing on a pretty small sample here! We have knowledge only of life on one planet. The "strong" contingency argument seems to me to be not much more than opinion, not science.

Thus said, perhaps it is premature to conclude that "evolution is contingent and hence we humans cannot make claim to special status." Another consideration is that special status is in the eye of the believer, not nonbelievers like Michael and me! The foundational assumption of the magisterium of religion is the existence of supernatural forces. If you make that assumption, you in fact, may (and usually are) arguing from a somewhat different foundation than someone who does not accept that assumption (which is one of the sources of conflict between religious people and nonreligious people, whether scientists or not.) Many theists will argue for the need to be logical and rational about religious beliefs, and there is much discussion in the sci/rel camp about the degree to which God works through natural law and whether He ever steps outside of them to achieve His purpose. But an omnipotent God always has the option of intervening, which is precisely why science must ignore the possibility of supernatural cause in explanation.

So I would conclude with Michael that the NOMA idea in Gould's expression appears to be a bit lopsided in favor of science, but I feel the correction is to recognize the limitations of science in dealing with the magisterium of religion. This doesn't mean that each can't poke its nose into the others affairs, but when this happens, each must be prepared to be disappointed. Sorry, but science *is* better than revelation for finding out why the Grand Canyon looks as it does, and sorry, science (qua science) has no special contribution to make to the sense of place and meaning that is addressed by religion. Philosophies drawn from science, like humanism or scientism in its various forms, can provide this latter, but not science itself.

Eugenie

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. The National Center for Science Education, Inc. 925 Kearney St. El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810 510-526-1674 FAX: 510-526-1675 800-290-6006 scott@natcenscied.org web site: www.natcenscied.org

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   1999.07.20