|
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry - fact vs. values - so that there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap.〔"''Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms''", Stephen J. Gould, p. 274, Jonathan Cape, 1998, ISBN 0-224-05043-5〕 He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."〔 Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.〔( Iritqa: Dennett and problems with Gould's NOMA ). Accessed 26 October 2014〕 ==Gould's separate magisteria== In a 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria"〔Gould, S. J. (1997). ("Nonoverlapping Magisteria." ) ''Natural History'' 106 (March): 16–22.〕 for ''Natural History'' magazine, and later 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.",〔 from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".〔(【引用サイトリンク】author = Pope John Paul II )〕 He draws the term ''magisterium'' from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, ''Humani generis'' (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution",〔 and describes the NOMA principle as "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."〔 "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."〔 Gould emphasized the legitimacy of each field of endeavor only within its appropriate area of inquiry: "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution."〔 In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures": "Do humans look so much like apes because we share a recent common ancestor or because creation followed a linear order, with apes representing the step just below us?" represents an inquiry concerning fact, while "Under what conditions (if ever) do we have a right to drive other species to extinction by elimination of their habitats? Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values.〔 He went on to present "an outline of historical reasons for the existence of conflict, where none should exist;"〔 In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating that "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct—and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution—then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far."〔SJ Gould (2000). ("Evolution and the 21st Century." ) ''Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences''. March 2000.〕 He did not, however, consider this diplomatic aspect to be paramount, writing in 1997: "NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance." In 1997 he had elaborated on this position by describing his role as a scientist with respect to NOMA: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Non-overlapping magisteria」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|