Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The enquiry into the state of human wisdom is the only endeavour that has ever mattered. Not that science and technology isn't important, but they are not what we live for.
|
Part of being human is wanting to understand how the world works, not just in understanding "the experience of being alive" (Campbell). I think these realms overlap too, unlike NOMA (Gould):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[1] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[1] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).
Francis Collins also criticised the limits of NOMA, believing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped," though agrees with Gould that morals, spirituality, and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation
Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope.
I don't see why morals and ethics can't be examined scientifically.