Religion & Science as Territories

In 1997 Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay entitled, "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA), which argued that there should not be any conflict between science and religion because they treat different fields of concern that do not intrude on each other.  While his thesis has since been widely rejected, Gould's underlying assumption that science and religion are territorial in nature has gone largely unobserved.  That is, Gould's critics generally accept the notion that science and religion are two domains and reject only that they do not overlap.   More broadly, commentators largely agree that there is conflict between science and religion.  Different authors come to different conclusions about what to do with the conflict between these two territories.  Some want to press forward to ultimate victory for one side or the other.  Some want reconciliation or even unification.  Many would, at least, like to see some form of truce declared.  Many more express weariness over the whole battle, which goes on interminably with no real resolution.  But seldom do they question the "fact" that science and religion are separate entities, each with their own "territory".

But what happens if we step back and simply dismiss the metaphor of territoriality itself?  Science is a structured, principled pursuit of knowledge.  It is a way of learning and knowing,  not a territory.  Religion is a principled, structured approach to questions of ultimate meaning and purpose.  It is a way of living and understanding, not a territory.  Furthermore, neither science nor religion is one thing.  They represent complex assortments of institutions, histories, perspectives, agendas, concerns, and purposes.  The "boundaries" of each are contested and permeable, so much so that it is difficult to speak of boundaries in any precise way at all.  Science does not exist, only sciences.  There is no such thing as religion, only a plethora of religions, each comprised again of many sects.

The turf that is being so bitterly contested by creationism and scientism, thus, is a figment of their imaginations.  Their war is about power, politics, and ego.  The conflict is real.  The sides are real as are their institutions.  It's the turf that doesn't exist.  Science and religion, in all of their complexities, are nothing less than ways of looking at reality that are different in some ways and similar in other ways.  When we realize that there's no turf to defend, we can lighten up and look on each other without fear and animosity as folks looking and searching that may in some ways be able to help each other in our journeys of exploration.

Is this naïve?  Probably so.  But that may be just what is needed: a naïve commitment to learning important things that help us move forward in our own life journey and perhaps helps others too.  Where science opens doors of the mind and heart, fantastic!  Where it isn't helpful, so what?  Why fixate on what we think is wrong-headed thinking?  In truth, testing every jot and title to make sure it is orthodox, be its religious or scientific orthodoxy, is really boring.