Originally Posted by George
That's a nice one and it is similar to an epigram by Cardinal Baronio in the 17th century, where religion (Holy Ghost) "is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes".
That almost works nice, especially from the point of view of the scientist. Science may be mute on the “whys” but religion is not void of “hows”, so what happens when the respective "hows" conflict. Religion will be happy to tell you "why" the "how" of science has it wrong.
Consider how Ptolemy developed a remarkable "how" to the planetary motions, and the "why" from religion was easy enough with attention gained for mankind with Geocentricity. But as soon as science advanced and discovered the phases of Venus, the new "how" became in direct conflict with the old "how", but worse, it was in conflict with the entrenched "why". Science has great advantage in its ability to quickly discard the old "hows", but religion is limited on changing any "whys". Nevertheless, the religious requirement given to Galileo called for "necessary demonstrations" to prove religion had an erroneous view, and he did so with the phases of Venus and Mercury.
Since, from the point of view of religion, religion's "why" trumps the "how" of science, the Church adopted the Tychonic model and the conflicting overlap vanished, at least temporarily. Galileo and others, however, did not surrender their view of the superiority of the Copernican model, so, once again, the overlap returned. Unfortunately for Galileo, he thought his tidal model was "necessary demonstration", along with the favorable reasons presented by Copernicus, to justify the heliocentric model, though lack of stellar parallax was no secret.
Today, the overlap is found in other areas. The 6000 year age of the universe is certainly an overlap. We can say another epigram like "religion has the Rock of Ages, and science has the ages of rocks", but that won't separate the magisteria for anyone but the scientist. Either the universe is 6000 years old or its not. In the eyes of this YECist, science needs to get its "hows" corrected because the “why” of religion is well established (ie genealogy with individual ages). We can explain to him the modus operandi of science, and attempt to establish separate magisteria, but a much older Earth will still be just as much a burden to the young Earth holder as before; the overlap will remain and the NOMA pacifier will have little affect.
The NOMA approach still has merit in clearing the air about how each operates, but an additional approach must be included for those few exceptions to the NOMA concept. Ultimately, if science can offer “necessary demonstrations” then the solution rests with those within religion to take these facts and incorporate them into the context of the conflicting passages. In the days of Galileo, that is what the Church eventually did, though they were not accustomed to doing so. It will be more difficult today for some because the overlap is more extensive and afflicts a more valued portion of religious text, but so too is the demonstrations science provides. Another problem is the lack of knowledge of science, by those religious under the overlap, to fully appreciation the merits of those demonstrations, thus the problem has lingered.
I’m open to see how science does not overlap in the religious area of a 6000 year universe, especially as seen from those in the religious magisteria.
|