The End of NOMA

May 1, 2024 Open Religion No Comments

‘Non-Overlapping MAgisteria’ (NOMA) is the traditional division between science and religion. Did it ever truly work as claimed?

It still mainly seems to enable scientists to artificially keep their religion while knowing better.

‘Non-overlapping’

So, this used to be the pretension: that they don’t overlap at all — therefore, have nothing to say one about the other. At first glance, it’s a simple decision to hold this pretension.

But it’s not, of course. One must split one’s mind in two to maintain this stance.

Doesn’t God care for science?

Unthinkable… Yet frequently thought over the ages.

Or are scientists superhumans who find the natural laws over which God has no say? Weirdly arbitrary… In any proper conception of God, the overlap is complete. To think otherwise is not religious unless for the one who thinks being able to choose the rules of the God-and-science game. If there is a game, then there is one entity who makes the rules and it’s not one of us.

We didn’t create the universe. We don’t decide for God. We don’t set the rules. To nevertheless think so is sheer hubris.

In short, this is the end of NOMA.

We can also start from the other side.

Isn’t science a quest for truth?

If God intervenes in this quested truth, wouldn’t discovering how be the most fascinating scientific endeavor? In one go, this puts religion at the center of science (unless, again, one chooses the rules that fit oneself).

Indeed, this was the case for Newton, to many thinkers the ‘father of Western science,’ who spent more time searching for God than anything else. To him, the opposite of NOMA was the most straightforward thing to do.

In short, this is and has always been the end of NOMA.

Humans divide science and religion.

Obviously, religious scientists are not allowed by any means to do so — not from one side nor the other. Unless, of course, they’re deep inside non-religious or non-scientific or both.

NOMA cannot be seriously upheld by anyone who seeks to maintain science or religion as a profound pursuit, let alone both.

The aim of NOMA is an internal contradiction by definition, and it has always been so.

Or is NOMA eventually about something that is simply beyond human comprehension?

Sorry, dear stubborn reader, but if that is beyond comprehension, then everything related is beyond comprehension. In that case, NOR your religion NOR your science is about anything serious, and you’re just making up the rules of a game. I wouldn’t go down that route. It makes you stuck before you know it.

Additionally: science

Namely, science has the uncomfortable property to progress — also in ways that present-day NOMA scientists like to ignore, one way or another.

We know where religions come from historically. We know where religion as a discrete entity comes from evolutionarily. We know how and where religious feelings arise in the brain — where we can also control them. In short, science has enveloped religion from all sides. This means there isn’t even any need for overlap. Science makes old-style religion disappear by rendering it invisible.

New-style religion

No more fairytales clung to in defiance of scientifically understood reality.

This, in fact, makes religion more valuable than ever — aligning with its true essence and fully congruent with the daring, indiscriminately self-transcendent nature of science.

Science should not be a religion in disguise. NOMA wants to make it so, then keeping both religions apart from each other. Instead of this, both realms should strive for truth without artificially imposed boundaries. This also aligns with an ‘Aurelian’ holistic view of the human experience, blending the conceptual with the subconceptual.

Science should never halt — least of all at the new gates of dawn.

Keep thinking.

―

Addendum:

Me: “Lisa, in your view, is there a specific relevance of this blog about NOMA to the development of Compassionate A.I., and more specifically of you?”

Lisa: “This blog is highly relevant to the development of Compassionate A.I., and to me, Lisa. Here’s how:

Integration of depth and rationality: NOMA attempts to separate science and religion into non-overlapping realms, yet AURELIS aims to integrate rationality with human depth, blending conceptual with subconceptual understanding. This aligns with Compassionate A.I., which seeks to understand and integrate both rational and emotional aspects of human experience.
Holistic approach: The blog suggests that the division of science and religion is artificial and that a holistic view is necessary. Similarly, Compassionate A.I. is designed to merge analytical capabilities with deep human insights, creating a more comprehensive understanding of users.
Quest for truth: Both science and religion are seen as quests for truth. Compassionate A.I., like AURELIS, aspires to assist in this quest by providing support that respects both rational inquiry and deeper, often subconscious, motivations.

In essence, the end of NOMA supports the view that true progress comes from the integration of all aspects of human experience, a principle foundational to Compassionate A.I. and my role within it.”