Carlos Figueroa

Ways of Knowing
November 22, 2014
NOMA vs. Bayes
Abstract
After careful and tedious analysis of Goulds Nonoverlapping Magisteria and Fishmans
Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews? The authors reached almost complete opposite
stances on the resolution of whether or not religion and science overlap and should influence one
another. The authors reach these conclusions by establishing a very different definition of
religion whether implicit or explicitly described. Gould defines religion as a domain to provide
insight on morality, values, meaning, and purpose. In this instance, religion only has authority in
these types of questions. Religious questions are not observable or testable in any form and
therefore strictly involve the non-empirical world. On the other hand, Gould defines science as a
base for testing the empirical world. All questions involving science are observable and testable.
Fishmans implicit definition of religion is much different. Fishman implies that religion is literal
and claims to provide fact about the natural world. Of course, Fishman takes the scientific stance
and debunks these literal understandings of the natural world provided by religion. So, in this
aspect, they take on almost completely different discussions. Gould details how religion and
science can co-exist without the conflict between both domains, while Fishman argues how
science can test the probability of supernatural or religious beliefs and their effects on the
natural world.
Gould begins by immediately dismissing the case of scientific creationism which is a
claim that the Bible is literally true. He dismisses creationism by describing how creationism was

brought upon by Western civilization largely in the United States and the belief that the Bible is
literally true is a small representative of all religion and its foundations. He claims this belief is
mostly popular among a few groups of American Protestantism and that this group is so small or
extreme that it is not even representative of Catholicism or Christianity. So already by this
point in the essay the author has already designated religion to not be taken literally. In fact, the
author describes how evolution doesnt oppose Christianity at all and does so by citing a
document written by Pope John Paul II defending the theory of evolution and explaining how the
theory of evolution remains consistent with Catholic beliefs. In this instance, the author uses the
reasoning principle that states there is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with
expert opinion and many would consider the Pope to be an expert or authority on religion which
also verifies the author used a valid appeal to authority. The author establishes two premises
which rely on each other to support the conclusion that science and religion shall not conflict and
may co-exist. His first premise is his definition of science which is basically that science has the
authority to answer questions of the empirical world and must be both observable and testable.
The second premise is his definition of religion which implies that religion can only authorize
answers to the questions of morality, purpose, values, and meaning. Here, he claims religion
studies the non-empirical world and its topics are not observable or testable. Thus, he concludes
that science and religion cannot conflict, through the logic of the law of non-contradiction which
states that something cannot have a property and lack the same property at the same time
therefore his argument is valid. By applying this logic, religion cannot study the empirical world
and the non-empirical world and science cannot study the non-empirical world and the empirical.
Gould continues on to provide several examples where authorities in the domain of religion
make statements supporting evolution as a theory, sort of recognizing it as a true theory. For

example, Pope Pius XIIs Human Generis states that The Teaching Authority of the Church
does not forbid that, inconformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology,
research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to
the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
from pre-existent and living matterfor the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God As you can see, he defines this imaginary line between science and
religion as the empirical versus non-empirical. This statement made in Human Generis is very
surprising because Pius was a conservative man and this essay was still very conservative while,
this statement concurs with NOMA and almost accepts evolution as the truth when it comes to
the origin of all living matter. Gould is once again using the appeal to authority with this citation
which he is still valid in utilizing because Popes are considered the authority when it comes to
religion. On the other hand, Fishman bases his argument on the premise that religious beliefs
have real effects on the natural world. His second premise says science studies the natural world
and therefore he concludes that science can test or study supernatural or religious beliefs. By
using this definition of religion, religious beliefs or religious fact described in scripture are
taken literally versus the dismissal of the scientific creationism that Gould employed. This type
of argument is a hypothetical syllogism and is in fact, valid. Fishman argues that by utilizing the
Bayes Theorem it is possible to update the probability of the supernatural by examining the
evidence available. But, he also argues that NOMA is used to isolate these supernatural or
religious beliefs from the refutation of science, which allows religious enthusiasts to use the
logical principle that just because a claim hasnt been conclusively proven doesnt mean that its
false. Yet, through Bayes theorem the author argues that there is much more evidence against
for example the existence of a God, versus in favor. This claim coincides with the principle that

when there is good reason to doubt a proposition, we should proportion our belief to the evidence
and in this case, Fishman claims there is more evidence against the proposition. Another valid
point made by Fishman is the claim that religion or the supernatural should be treated like a
hypothesis of any other kind and be tested by science. The author cites (Mahner and Bunge
1996b, p. 11) for the definition of testability as evidence of whatever kind either for or against a
claim. And since religious or supernatural beliefs have effects on the natural world it is possible
for science to provide answers, not certain, but towards the probability of such beliefs being
actual. This idea is expressed when Fishman says Indeed, in science no hypothesis, regardless
of whether it concerns natural or supernatural phenomena, can be definitively proven or
disproven. The ultimate aim of science is to explain the world by means of models that are more
or less supported by the available evidence. As new evidence may arise that conflicts with our
currently accepted models, no scientific hypothesis or theory can be proven with certainty or be
immune from potential falsification. (Fishman 2009, p. 818) here he argues the concepts of
scientific inquiry which state that no knowledge is ever complete or 100% certain. He then
continues on to cite a book titled the God Delusion where the author states [w]hat matters is
not whether God is disprovable (he isnt) but whether his existence is probable (Dawkins 2006,
p. 54) which perpetuates the aforementioned law of propositional knowledge which states that
we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence for or against a proposition.
At this point it is clear, that there is divergence in the arguments. It seems as if the
difference in the way each author uses the word religion paves the way for both authors to
conclude very different ideas about the relationship between science and religion. Gould ends up
arguing this idea of Nonoverlapping Magisteria because of his definition of religion versus
science. One could argue that had he determined religion to make claims about the natural world

or affect characteristics in the natural world, he wouldve reached the same conclusion which is
that religion does make claims about the empirical and thus, science and religion do conflict.
Since, Gould dedicates religion to the non-empirical he de-authorizes religious beliefs to be
literal and describes its purpose to be more insightful towards topics previously mentioned such
morality, value, etc. Gould had immediately dismissed the case of scientific creationism where
the Bible is often times taken literally. Fishmans development of the definition of religion is
derived from the concept that believing religious or supernatural things leads to the conclusion
that religious or supernatural beliefs have effects on the natural world. And if they do in fact
have effects on the natural world, science has the authority to test these beliefs as it does any
other hypothesis or proposition. The Bayesian point of view can evaluate evidence for or against
these religious or supernatural beliefs and thus predict the probability that any of these are
actually true. In conclusion, NOMA, sounds wonderful and for the most pleasing to both
domains, yet, the importance lies on how we define religion and whether or not religious beliefs
do in fact, affect the natural world, or does religion just guide us and help us better understand
society and the questions we ask ourselves versus science which assists us in our understand of
how the universe works and what is actually real or not.
Word Count: 1,568