Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
term metaphysical naturalism. The word “metaphysical” means literally “beyond
physics”, and refers to those ideas that suppose the existence of a world above and
beyond the physical world that we are all aware of. Metaphysical naturalism states
that the supernatural does not exist. Thus, unlike methodological naturalism, which
is an
assumption
, metaphysical naturalism is an
assertion
. It is an assertion that is
incapable of being tested, because it states a negative proposition, and it is not logi-
cally possible to disprove a negative proposition. So metaphysical naturalism is not
part of science, but of course it is a view that can be held by scientists, as well as by
anyone else. In the Further Reading at the end of Chapter 2, I have listed articles by
two philosophers, Barbara Forrest and Robert Pennock, who addressed these issues
at the Dover court trial in Pennsylvania referred to in the Preface.
I emphasise this difference between supernaturalism and methodological natural-
ism because some people, including some scientists, suggest that there is no conflict
between the two - that science and religion are compatible because they have dif-
ferent aims and deal with different areas of human experience. Such people argue
that science tries to discover what things are and how they work, while religion is
trying to discover whether the Universe, and human life in particular, has any over-
all meaning. However, this view that science and religion concern different areas of
enquiry is both logically and historically incorrect.
It is logically incorrect because both science and religion have exactly the same
aim - to understand the world and our place in it. It is historically incorrect because
throughout recorded history, religions have tried to answer questions about what
things are made of and how they work as an essential part of their mission, just as
science does. All religious beliefs contain creation narratives about how the world
originated in the physical sense. What has changed over the time since science
started to develop in the seventeenth century, is that many religions have progres-
sively abandoned trying to explain how the world works, as the creation myths were
progressively shown to be unsupported by the physical evidence. So some main-
stream religions today concentrate instead on whether the world has any purpose or
moral dimension, and no longer claim to study how the world works.
The late evolutionary biologist, Steven Jay Gould, proposed in 1997 the idea that
science and religion are concerned with different domains of understanding that he
termed “magisteria”. “Magisterium” is the Latin word for “teacher”. This view is
summarised by the acronym NOMA, for “non-overlapping magisteria”. According
to the NOMA proposal, science is concerned with what the Universe is made of
and how it works, while religion is concerned with questions of ultimate meaning
and moral value. Because of this difference, Gould argued, religion and science
cannot be combined and are not in conflict. They deal with different areas of human
experience, so it follows that science and religion cannot comment on each other's
concerns.
The problem with this NOMA idea is that there is no empirical evidence as yet
that the Universe has any overall meaning or moral dimension, and Gould does
not attempt to offer any. The main-stream religions derive their sense of meaning
and moral purpose from supernatural sources, which leaves them with no room
to manoeuvre to accommodate scientific discoveries about the nature of human
