After being out of town most of the week with my family, I am back in Michigan. I did have time this week to write another paper for my grad class. This one addresses an article about Stephen Jay Gould about the physical domain and the metaphysical domain. Is it disturbing that this stuff is actually getting to be fun?
----------------------------------------
Gould focuses most of his article around statements and papers presented by Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II. He utilizes these two articles to contrast how the situation with regards to evolution and creation has changed in the last fifty years.
These papal statements are the framework in which Gould reaffirms the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisterial) principle. This principle states that science and religion are two separate fields which do not overlap and have unique magisteriums (domains of teaching authority). Pius argued that since there was evidence for evolution, it can be accepted as long as the divine infusion of the soul is accepted as well. Since evolution falls within the magisterium of science and the soul is in the magisterium of religion, these two apparently do not conflict.
Gould rejoices in the fact that Pope John Paul II supports the advancements in science that reinforce evolution. This goes beyond Pius’ statement which still left evolution as questionable.
Gould describes an important aspect of the NOMA concept when he states, "If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly with the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution."
I do not believe that the NOMA concept is logical or realistic. The more we learn about matter, energy, and the details of the universe, it appears as though there is inevitable overlap. NOMA will grant that there is some "gray area" where the two magisterium meet, but I would argue that there is overlap. Science cannot remain independent of morality and morality cannot exist outside of the realm of science.
If we believe in a Creator God, then we cannot accept the NOMA concept. However, the idea of evolution allows us to disconnect the moral God from the creative God. This unhealthy divorce is damaging to a holistic view of the universe, our world, and our lives.
The NOMA concept appears to be a way for religious people to avoid science and scientists to avoid morality. However, it is crucial that this not happen. When we say that science and religion do not share domains of teaching authority, we are robbing the religious person the opportunity to explore God and faith though scientific study. In addition, the scientist will tend to look at the world with less morality. This entire worldview disagrees with my view that the scientific world and the spiritual world overlap.
Gould’s theory assumes two paradigms of world-views: physical/scientific and metaphysical/religious. This is a faulty foundation because the metaphysical is the overlying structure for both. I believe that Gould revisits the mistake of the Scientific Revolution by attempting to separate the physical realm from the metaphysical. I would argue that the physical world is simply the empirically measurable aspects of the metaphysical realm.
One of the consequences of this separation of the physical from the metaphysical is a separation of morality from science. This can create a host of dilemmas in our modern world. As science explores cloning, stem-cell use, euthanasia, atomic weapons, and other modern scientific discoveries, Gould wants to remove morality from science at a time it is needed most. Not only is this theory faulty on a philosophical level, on a practical level it could have damaging consequences.
So where do we go from here? How can we react to Gould’s theory and provide a more holistic model? We must begin by acknowledging that science and theology overlap, but they each also have their own "space." Science and theology are partners that cannot be separated. For example, religion has contributed to many of the scientific achievements, especially in areas of medicine. Without the metaphysical influence of religion and theology, science may not have been as driven to learn more. Christianity had a significant impact over the last two millenniums to influence scientific thought.
I have already discussed the importance of morality in the realm of science, but what about the influence of science on religion? We must remember that scientific/physical realm is simply the empirical manifestation of the metaphysical realm. It is only part of a bigger picture. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that the physical realm cannot dominate the metaphysical. As we have learned in recent years with the developments described by those such as Schroeder, the more we learn about the physical world, the more the majesty of the metaphysical world is revealed to us.
One specific area where this is very important for our young people is in the area of evolution. As we wrestle with the origins of life, this balance of the physical and metaphysical is crucial. If science is the measurable part of the metaphysical, this has major implications in the evolution/creation debate. Rather than exclusively arguing the evidence for evolution against the evidence for creation (which is basically operating in Gould’s world-view), we must teach our young people to think critically and evaluate the physical (scientific) and metaphysical (moral) aspects of the origins of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment