Search results

1

„Podwójna gra”. O przydatności koncepcji NOMA w socjologii religii

100%

Rogińska M.

Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

|

2014

|

vol. 50

|

issue 2(200)

89-103

PL

Artykuł jest poświęcony poznawczej sytuacji wierzącego badacza religii, którego przynależność zarówno do świata nauki, jak i do świata wiary, Peter Berger nazywa podwójnym obywatelstwem, zaś Pierre Bourdieu podwójną grą. Autor zastanawia się, czy do sytuacji tej można zastosować koncepcję rozłącznych obszarów dociekań (ang. non-overlaping magisteria, NOMA), która powstała jako model współistnienia religii i nauk przyrodniczych.

EN

The objective of this paper is to analyze the situation of a believing sociologist of religion. It is her affiliation to the both scientific and religious world that Peter Berger calls “the dual citizenship” and Pierre Bourdieu – “the double game”. The author investigates whether the non-overlaping magisteria (NOMA) concept proposed by Stephen Gould as a model of coexistence of religion and natural sciences can be applied to the situation of the social researcher of religion.

2

NOMA as the Cure for Conflict Between Science and Religion: Reply to Ludwik Kowalski’s Commentary on the NOMA Principle

85%

Bylica P.

Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy

|

2014

|

vol. 11

29-34

EN

In my response to Kowalski’s commentary I indicate that: 1) there is an imprecision in Kowalski’s presentation of the NOMA principle; 2) the NOMA principle is not a valid way of presenting theistic religions; 3) the argumentation adopted by Kowalski is inconsistent, due to inconsistency in the NOMA principle itself. The Kowalski’s cure for the “Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists” mentioned in the title of the Kowalski’s commentary is the postulate of a “miracle-free” theism, which means the elimination of theism. Another important weakness of Kowalski’s proposal and of the application of the NOMA principle in general is the self-contradictoriness of this position: when we decide on the truth value of this or that factual religious statement by reference to science, then we deny the essence of the NOMA principle itself.

3

Nonoverlapping Magisteria

85%

Gould S. J.

Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy

|

2014

|

vol. 11

7-21

EN

There is no conflict between science and religion. Creationism is only a local movement, prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that read the Bible as an inerrant, literally true document. Creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism, for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth. The lack of conflict arises from a lack of overlap between the respective domains of professional expertise of science and religion. No conflict should exist because the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap. According to the principle of NOMA — “nonoverlapping magisteria” — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value. This principle was obeyed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. They both saw no conflict between Catholic faith and a theory of evolution. However, there is one important difference between their positions. Pius XII admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis, but at the same time he proclaimed that the theory of evolution had not been proven and might well be wrong. On the other hand, John Paul II stated that evolution can no longer be doubted. Now, he stated, evolution must be accepted not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. This fact is no threat to religion if one accepts the principle of NOMA. As a consequence of this principle, religion can no longer dictate the factual conclusions that belong to the magisterium of science, nor may scientists decide on moral truths.

4

Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

71%

Kowalski L.

Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy

|

2014

|

vol. 11

23-28

EN

The commentary focuses on Gould’s idea of NOMA, according to which science and theology are two Non-Overlapping Magisteria. The term “non-overlapping” is appropriate because methods of validation of claims in these two fields of intellectual investigation. are different, not because the areas of investigation should be different. The author was once an active atheist, in Poland; now he is a practicing theist, belonging to a Reform synagogue in the United States. He thinks that Gould’s idea, if universally accepted, could help to reduce intensity of dangerous doctrinal confrontations between theists and atheists, and between different groups of theists. The commentary ends by a quote from a statement about desirable collaboration between religion and science, made by Pope John Paul.

Refine search results

3 Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy

1 Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

4 2014

1 Bylica P.

1 Gould S. J.

1 Kowalski L.

1 Rogińska M.

„Podwójna gra”. O przydatności koncepcji NOMA w socjologii religii

NOMA as the Cure for Conflict Between Science and Religion: Reply to Ludwik Kowalski’s Commentary on the NOMA Principle

Nonoverlapping Magisteria

Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists