We often think that people belong either to the world of science or to the world of religion. That there isn’t even any overlap between the two fields.
But is that really the case? A few days ago, I came across a publication by a thinker and philosopher that dealt precisely with this topic.
His name is Stephen Jay Gould, a career paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, among other activities. He describes a scenario in which such a confrontation is not even logically conceivable, let alone recreated or even meaningful.
In his view, Gould argues that science and religion start from very different points of origin. They are not even on the same dimension or plane. They have distinct initial premises and speak or reflect on things that are absolutely disparate. The objectives of each are very distinct, and they do not share common ground for conflict.
Science and religion occupy realms that are not even in the same galaxy, let alone the same country.
Can Science and religion be "compatible"?
“Science seeks to document the factual nature of the natural world and to develop theories that organize and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important but entirely different realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—matters that the factual realm of science can shed light on, but can never resolve.”
It is in his theory, often referred to as NOMA—Non-Overlapping Magisteria—that we understand that not everything can be explained by science, and not everything that religion posits is true.
One truth cannot contradict another truth.
The two magisteria do not cancel each other out, nor do they overlap. Let us imagine the magisterium of art and beauty. The two are not entirely superimposable, and the truth of one does not imply the falsehood of the other, or the exclusion of the other. Much less the perfect superimposition of the two.
Just as religion cannot comment on or pass judgment regarding the factual conclusions that form part of the body of scientific knowledge, scientists, on the other hand, cannot claim to have a superior or more accurate understanding of moral truth or of the structure of the world in light of it.
The role of religion is far too important to be dismissed or ridiculed, for the comfort and security it provides to those who seek particular solace in theology is fundamental.
In other words, science cannot deny the existence of something higher or transcendent, and thus cannot eliminate a different view of humanity or the world.
Not all of modern science can prove or disprove what religion believes. Evidence does not exclude faith.
Gould posits that science and faith are more or less like having two activities. Just as we read a book in the morning and go for a bike ride in the late afternoon, so can our lives be. We can accept both science and faith. Being believers does not necessarily mean we reject science.
A polarized world seems to be becoming increasingly pronounced. And ideas like those this philosopher developed long before the start of this century seem to be falling apart.
The need to take ideas to extremes, to exclude the coexistence of different schools of thought, seems to be something that has become practically impossible these days.
We can only surround ourselves with people who think like us. And who share the same ideas. Common likes and dislikes. Sharing only these interests and disinterests is far too limiting.
A society that wishes to be evolved is only so when it seeks to establish points of contact. It seeks to see beyond its own limitations.
Source for this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Original text written by me in Portuguese and translated with DeepL.com (free version)
