I came across this idea in a book a while back, and was never very comfortable with it. For those that aren't familiar it is the idea that (to quote wikipedia): science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap.
I strongly disagree with it, for many reasons, including:
1) Religion does make claims about things that can and have been examined by science. Even ignoring all the Creationist style claims, many religions claim as to the efficacy of prayer, something that has been tested by science.
2) Where do you define the boundary?
3) Religion might claim to answer the "purpose of life" questions, or provide moral guidance, but they are just that - claims. Not only do they all disagree to various extents, but they can't come up with sufficient evidence to back up their claims.
4) If Science did find some evidence of a God, I doubt any Theist would object and say it wasn't valid as it was in the wrong magisterium.
I'm sure there are many more, although they are all essentially along the same lines.
Any thoughts?
I strongly disagree with it, for many reasons, including:
1) Religion does make claims about things that can and have been examined by science. Even ignoring all the Creationist style claims, many religions claim as to the efficacy of prayer, something that has been tested by science.
2) Where do you define the boundary?
3) Religion might claim to answer the "purpose of life" questions, or provide moral guidance, but they are just that - claims. Not only do they all disagree to various extents, but they can't come up with sufficient evidence to back up their claims.
4) If Science did find some evidence of a God, I doubt any Theist would object and say it wasn't valid as it was in the wrong magisterium.
I'm sure there are many more, although they are all essentially along the same lines.
Any thoughts?
