Non-overlapping magesteria

[FatAndFaithless]

Even if we suddenly agreed that moral questions cannot be informed or elucidated with science, would we really want to insert religion as the "magesteria" of morality? Why the hell not moral philosophy or humanistic ethics? Gould's default reversion to religion as the 'moral' realm only highlights his bias and distressing level of cognitive dissonance.

And how would we get to a moral philosophy or humanistic ethics outside of religion? Would it not be through observation, testing, and re-evaluating things as time marches on? Would it not be an evolving societal ethos? What would one call that process of observation, testing, and amending ideas as new information becomes available or as environmental pressures change?

Gee..it's almost as if bald, untestable, unassailable, unrevisable fiat assertions about morality are archaic and unhelpful...