I want to first let people know that I haven't abandoned my reading of Dawkins, thought I have had to put it off a bit, and, for today's discussion at least, it will be less "off the cuff" due to some of my necessary background reading. I'm a bit frustrated by my laziness lately--I've wanted to read an explanation of NOMA in Stephen Jay Gould's own words, especially given, what is in my opinion, the indecent and scurrilous assertion by Dawkins, in chapter 2 that:
Sadly for my reading project, Milo Yiannopoulos, on account of hamartia (in both the Aristotelean sense of 'miscalculation' and the Christian sense of 'sin') and hubris, decided to make his life resemble the art of a Greek tragedy, and I felt an unspeakable and daemonic urge to waggle my parts in the dance at the heathen bonfire that is Civics.
So, this is an overly long excuse that, as I have not been able to get to the bookstore or library, I haven't yet read the salient parts of "Rock of Ages." Thus, in honest disclosure, my understanding of NOMA comes from the sages at Wikipedia, and it's online sources I don't think Gould would absolve me however, noting as he does in his article from natural history:
Shame on me. Ah well, I am an imperfect vessel.
end prologue
At its core, NOMA is the simple observation that different disciplines come to understand and comment upon reality using tools unique to that discipline. In some cases--perhaps most--those disciplines techniques and conclusions are producible only through these unique tools. So if science thinks about the cosmos in one way, with one set of methods and ideas, then religion thinks about the world in another way, with another set of methods and ideas. Gould refers to the areas of study and influence as “magisteria,” and when the methods are non-competing and the results non-contradictory, then the “magisteria” are said to be “non-overlapping.”
I think Gould is expressing his ideal of the relationship between science and religion, but in practice, reality is messier than that. Religions--with their origin stories and miracles--overlaps into areas where scientific knowledge ought to hold primacy--and vice versa, scientists make pronunciations of value and ultimate meaning in their capacity as scientists, thus overlapping into areas where religious (or at least abstract philosophical/ethical) means and conclusions ought to hold primacy. In short, it seems at times that few people actually think that the idea has much merit.
Part of Dawkins dismissal of NOMA, at least in the case of science and religion, has roots in this historical conflict. Whereas Gould sees reason to partially accommodate religious thought, if for no other reason than to diplomatically live with opponents, Dawkins sees no reason to do so when religions make truth claims (again, origins and miracles) about which science has much to say. I’m not sure if this comes from an unshakeable rejection of NOMA as it pertains to the relationship between religion and science, of if this is driven instead by his frustration (recall chapter 1) with the respect that he believes religion inordinately receives.
I see merit to the idea of NOMA, and I see some limits. Properly observed, NOMA reflects the intellectual humility of people who recognize the limits of their own understanding, a way to acknowledge Socrates’s ancient truth about wisdom coming from an awareness of one’s own ignorance. I’ve noted previously that I get the sense of a lack of this in Dawkins’s public persona. Clearly, there are disciplines that are non-overlapping. I suppose that a non-controversial example might be how psychology and literature both seek to comment on the human condition but in different ways. Our understanding of one might enrich our understanding of the other while they theoretically create truth using different rules.
Still, some argue that since they both comment on the human condition, then they naturally overlap. Why then isn’t there the same outrage from psychologists to novelists? Because, between psychologists and novelists, nothing’s at stake. To be blunt, I think the dynamics of political power -- specifically regarding political monotheism (a great evil, according to Dawkings, and I’m inclined to agree)--poisons the well. Scientists like Dawkins are not innocent in this regard either; what they propose is nothing less than replacing political monotheism with political naturalism. My feelings on this are still embryonic, but I’m interested in others’ opinions on this as well.
In addition, I feel like we draw the lines of NOMA using taxonomies that aren’t always reasonable--there is this category that we call “science” that we propose is in conflict with “religion” or, more narrowly, “Christianity,” but within those circles, there are sub-circles, so that while “North American Protestant Fundamentalism” is in conflict with “Evolutionary Biology,” “Roman Catholicism” is not. And whereas “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “North American Protestant Fundamentalism,” “Physics” is not (I realize this is debatable. Feel free to pick this apart). And so on. In addition, there is an irrational all-or-nothing nonsense foisted on religion by multiple sides in this, so again, depending on where we draw the line, while “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “Literal Six Day Creation,” it isn’t in conflict with the “Historicity of Jesus.”
Lastly, I'm interested in why exactly some scientists think that miracle claims are violations of NOMA. Are miracle claims really making falsifiable assertions?
I’m going to stop here for now just to make sure that if anyone wants to give me correction or discuss the basic terms before we deal specifically with this part of chapter 2.
Sorry about the wall of text,
guacamole
I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages [regarding NOMA].
Sadly for my reading project, Milo Yiannopoulos, on account of hamartia (in both the Aristotelean sense of 'miscalculation' and the Christian sense of 'sin') and hubris, decided to make his life resemble the art of a Greek tragedy, and I felt an unspeakable and daemonic urge to waggle my parts in the dance at the heathen bonfire that is Civics.
So, this is an overly long excuse that, as I have not been able to get to the bookstore or library, I haven't yet read the salient parts of "Rock of Ages." Thus, in honest disclosure, my understanding of NOMA comes from the sages at Wikipedia, and it's online sources I don't think Gould would absolve me however, noting as he does in his article from natural history:
"I then remembered the primary rule of intellectual life: when puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience."
end prologue
At its core, NOMA is the simple observation that different disciplines come to understand and comment upon reality using tools unique to that discipline. In some cases--perhaps most--those disciplines techniques and conclusions are producible only through these unique tools. So if science thinks about the cosmos in one way, with one set of methods and ideas, then religion thinks about the world in another way, with another set of methods and ideas. Gould refers to the areas of study and influence as “magisteria,” and when the methods are non-competing and the results non-contradictory, then the “magisteria” are said to be “non-overlapping.”
I think Gould is expressing his ideal of the relationship between science and religion, but in practice, reality is messier than that. Religions--with their origin stories and miracles--overlaps into areas where scientific knowledge ought to hold primacy--and vice versa, scientists make pronunciations of value and ultimate meaning in their capacity as scientists, thus overlapping into areas where religious (or at least abstract philosophical/ethical) means and conclusions ought to hold primacy. In short, it seems at times that few people actually think that the idea has much merit.
Part of Dawkins dismissal of NOMA, at least in the case of science and religion, has roots in this historical conflict. Whereas Gould sees reason to partially accommodate religious thought, if for no other reason than to diplomatically live with opponents, Dawkins sees no reason to do so when religions make truth claims (again, origins and miracles) about which science has much to say. I’m not sure if this comes from an unshakeable rejection of NOMA as it pertains to the relationship between religion and science, of if this is driven instead by his frustration (recall chapter 1) with the respect that he believes religion inordinately receives.
I see merit to the idea of NOMA, and I see some limits. Properly observed, NOMA reflects the intellectual humility of people who recognize the limits of their own understanding, a way to acknowledge Socrates’s ancient truth about wisdom coming from an awareness of one’s own ignorance. I’ve noted previously that I get the sense of a lack of this in Dawkins’s public persona. Clearly, there are disciplines that are non-overlapping. I suppose that a non-controversial example might be how psychology and literature both seek to comment on the human condition but in different ways. Our understanding of one might enrich our understanding of the other while they theoretically create truth using different rules.
Still, some argue that since they both comment on the human condition, then they naturally overlap. Why then isn’t there the same outrage from psychologists to novelists? Because, between psychologists and novelists, nothing’s at stake. To be blunt, I think the dynamics of political power -- specifically regarding political monotheism (a great evil, according to Dawkings, and I’m inclined to agree)--poisons the well. Scientists like Dawkins are not innocent in this regard either; what they propose is nothing less than replacing political monotheism with political naturalism. My feelings on this are still embryonic, but I’m interested in others’ opinions on this as well.
In addition, I feel like we draw the lines of NOMA using taxonomies that aren’t always reasonable--there is this category that we call “science” that we propose is in conflict with “religion” or, more narrowly, “Christianity,” but within those circles, there are sub-circles, so that while “North American Protestant Fundamentalism” is in conflict with “Evolutionary Biology,” “Roman Catholicism” is not. And whereas “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “North American Protestant Fundamentalism,” “Physics” is not (I realize this is debatable. Feel free to pick this apart). And so on. In addition, there is an irrational all-or-nothing nonsense foisted on religion by multiple sides in this, so again, depending on where we draw the line, while “Evolutionary Biology” is in conflict with “Literal Six Day Creation,” it isn’t in conflict with the “Historicity of Jesus.”
Lastly, I'm interested in why exactly some scientists think that miracle claims are violations of NOMA. Are miracle claims really making falsifiable assertions?
I’m going to stop here for now just to make sure that if anyone wants to give me correction or discuss the basic terms before we deal specifically with this part of chapter 2.
Sorry about the wall of text,
guacamole
Comment