Overlapping Magisteria

By Karl J. Mogel

Science and religion have long been in conflict. Like two sister species, less than 500 years since they split from one another, this competition has relegated them to two separate domains. Science concerns itself with physical reality and statements of fact, and religion concerns itself with supernatural ideas and matters of faith.

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a prominent evolutionary biologist who died two years ago tomorrow. He called the domains of science and religion "nonoverlapping magisteria," or separate realms of teaching. He thought that the two could coexist peacefully if they remained within their respective territories, but he left the boundaries between the two "magisteria" altogether vague.

The place of the human species in the universe had once been safely within the boundaries of religion. Science began to "colonize" this territory beginning with Copernicus and Galileo, who removed humanity from the physical center of the universe. In the aftermath of the intellectual conflict that arose, it seemed that religion would have to keep out of the domain of physical claims, and that science could address just that.

The lines thus drawn, Charles Darwin addressed the question of human origins, a physical claim. But his hypothesis that all life evolved from less complex organisms also removed humanity from the metaphorical center - the purpose - of the universe. As science builds paradigms on tested knowledge, it encroaches on what was the territory of religion, overlapping and pushing it back.

A decade ago, Pope John Paul II reconciled the position of Catholicism on evolution. He said that it was demonstrably true beyond doubt, but urged that Catholics should still believe in the supernatural concept of the soul. This too, is losing itself as the dominant explanation of human personality. Neurology is pointing towards the brain as the seat of thought, a cooperation - and competition - of neurons and their signal patterns that collectively create a mind, which was metaphorically referred to as the "soul."

As if the mind was not enough, evolutionary psychology is the idea that human concepts of morality are rooted in brain function, and thus evolution. The central unifying moral concept of most world religions, the "golden rule," may be hardwired by natural selection.

Research published in the Feb. 20 issue of Science demonstrated a neurological basis for empathy. Women that witnessed a loved one being shocked - or were told they were shocked - on the hand lit up the same parts of the brain as if they had been shocked themselves. Your brain literally imagines itself in the other person's position.

It may seem, then, that the social realm of moral behavior is not entirely outside the reach of scientific inquiry. It will not be able to tell us that something is "right" or "wrong," but it provides knowledge that may be the basis for a system of ethics. This is exactly why it is in conflict with religion.

Science has been removing the justifications laid down by various religions for moral behavior. Copernicanism, evolution, the brain as the seat of personality and the exclusion of a deity from scientific explanations would seem to undermine morality and lead to a depraved culture.

Why else do people hang onto ideas that they believe are their justifications for moral behavior? Creationism is a purely American cultural phenomenon that is driven by the selfish ethical implications of Darwinism.

The irony is that the selfishness that they want to avoid, because it is the basis for evolution, probably built their desire not to be selfish.

But why is it that many religions have ample justification in their religious texts for behavior that most of us would call selfish and immoral, yet those justifications are ignored in favor of unselfishness? Aren't they using that internal sense of ethics to decide which among the faith-justified actions are right and wrong?

Human thought and reason are the basis for ethics. The philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that knowledge and compassion are essential for the good life. Knowledge provided by an impartial science, and compassion provided by our nature, which science aims to understand.

File Date: 5.19.04

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.

Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.