GraceHartley

ProfessorButenhoff
5/19/16
CriticalAnalysisGould

NonOverlappingMagisterium
Inhisbriefarticle,Gouldaddressestheconflictbetweenreligiousandscientific
teachings,consistentlystressingtheimportanceandrespectabilityofeach.Hedoesthisby
analyzingthedifferencebetweentheHumanGeneris(writtenbyPopePiusXIIin1950)anda
pressreleaseofferedbyPopeJohnPaulIIin1996.Thebigdifferenceinthemessageofeachhas
todowiththevalidityandacceptanceofthetheoryofevolutionPiusarguesthistheoryhasnot
beenprovenandthereforedoesnotnecessarilyneedtobeacceptedbythosewithreligious
beliefs.PopeJohnPaulIIhasaverydifferentviewafternearlyhalfacenturyofnew
anthropologicaldataheannouncestheCatholicacceptanceofthetheoryofevolution.Gould
usesthisnarrativetolookathowcreationismandthetheoryofevolutioncancoexistdespite
theirradicallydifferentideasontheoriginofman.Hismainclaimhereisthat
becauseeach
schoolofthoughtissubjecttodifferentteachingauthorities,ormagisterium,their
respectivebeliefsdonotapplytothesameareasofknowledge,andthereforedonot
conflict
.Ifeltthat
itwasawellarguedidea,butthatthemajorflawwasinthedistinction
betweenthemagisteriumofmoralityandmeaningandempiricaltruth,consideringonecan
derivemeaningormakemoralassessmentbasedoffcertainempiricaltruths
.Inthisway,theydo
interactand,potentiallyconflict.

Claim:Becauseeachschoolofthoughtissubjecttodifferentteachingauthorities,or
magisterium,theirrespectivebeliefsdonotapplytothesameareasofknowledge,and
thereforedonotconflict.
Premise1:Scienceappliestoempiricalandobservabletruths.
Subpremise:Scienceisabletoprovewithtangibleevidencethetheoryof
evolution.
Premise2:Religionappliestomeaningandmorality.
Subpremise:Anonliteralinterpretationofcreationismoffersameaningand
purposeforexistence.

Analysis:
ThebasicelementsofagoodargumentarepresentGouldisarticulateand
communicatesclearlyhisideas.Thetoneofthepieceiseffective,comingofflikeapersuasive
conversationitismorecasuallystructuredthanCliffordsarticleorchapterfiveof
Howto
ThinkAboutWeirdthings
,butnotcompletelyrandomorunstructured.Hegivesusaninformal
introductiontothetopic,movingintoanindepthcomparisonbetweentwoanthropological

theories,thenamorefocusedcomparisonofthetwomessagesofPopeJohnPaulandPopePius,
finishingwithhisviewonthematter.Throughoutthepiece,hesaysthingssuchasIthink...
orIcertainlyfelt...or...apositionIholdsincerely.Whileitsnotbadtouseopinionor
experienceinanargument,thecontextisimportantGouldweavesinexperiencewithanalysis,
sayingThesetwostoriesillustrateacardinalpoint...absolutelycentraltoanyunderstanding
of...scientificcreationism...Creationismdoesnotpitscienceagainstreligion...doesnot
raiseanyunansweredquestionsaboutthethenatureofbiologyorhistoryoflife...(Gould,
1998).Thisisaneffectivemodelforpersuadingthereaderofhisviews.
ThemainissueIfindwiththepieceisthelackofexplanationconcerninghowthetwo
magisteriabumpuprightnexttoeachother,interdigitatinginwondrouslycomplexwaysalong
theirjointborder...(Gould,1998).Theadditionofthewordwondrouslyhereonlyillustrates
theintellectualviewofconflictbetweennonoverlappingmagisterium.Bothreligionandscience
arepowerfulwaysofknowing,andtherearepeoplewhoarecompletelyinvestedinoneorthe
other,andthecontentionbetweenthemisnotwondroustoeveryone,butupsettingand
confusing.Ofcourse,onsomesubjectsitiseasytorecognizetheauthorityofoneoranother,but
thebriefparagraphGouldoffersonthesubjectisnot,inmyopinion,satisfyinginaddressing
suchacontroversialaspectofNOMA.ThebasisofNOMAliesinitsdistinctionbetweenthe
magisteriaofeachbeliefGouldadmitstherearegrayareasinthatdistinction,butdoesnot
elaborate.Forexample,thereisevidenceinthematinghabitsofotheranimals,thefactthatsex
isnotpurelyforreproductivepurposes,thefailureoftreatmentsintendedtoheal
homosexuality,etc...thathomosexualityisanaturaloccurrencethatdoesnotsomehowtaintor
damageapersonorgroupofpeople.Andyet,thereismoralcontroversyoverthesubject
becauseofpassagesintheBible,suchasRomans1:26whichsays...womenexchanged
naturalsexualrelationsforunnaturalones.
27
Inthesamewaythemenalsoabandonednatural
relationswithwomenandwereinflamedwithlustforoneanother.Mencommittedshameful
actswithothermen,andreceivedinthemselvestheduepenaltyfortheirerror.Whohas
authorityinthisinstance?Thereisnoclearline,andithasbeenthesourceofseriousconflict,
fromheateddebatestoinnumerabledeaths.

Conclusion:
GouldarguesNOMAaswellashecan.Thereareinherentflawsintheconceptof
NOMA(thoughitappearsthebestwaytodealwithcontentionsbetweenscienceanreligion),
whicharenotaddressed,butitishisthoroughexplanationofwhyitdoesworkthatmakesso
effective.Gouldendshisarticleclaiming,Here,Ibelieve,liesthegreateststrengthand
necessityofNOMA...[it]permitsindeedenjoinstheprospectofrespectfuldiscourse.As
mentionedabove,theconflictherecanbecomeviolent,andthemoderatingaspectofthe
principleishissolutiontotheblurryborders.

WordCount:918