Abstract
One philosophical option available to the scientist who believes in God is non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA): treating the domains of science and faith as separate, with science and logic used for the empirical realm (fact and theory) and religion for questions of morality and ultimate meaning. At first glance this seems better than an inconsistent or disjoint worldview, which may require accepting mutually inconsistent “truths” or believing one thing in church and another during the rest of the week. In this paper, arguments for and against NOMA are reviewed, and note made of the fractured and/or illogical thinking that it requires. Taken to its logical conclusion, NOMA reserves all reality as the domain of science, leaving religion with the things that “aren’t actually real”. This amounts to an acceptance of the fundamental proposition of scientism, i.e., that only science provides real answers to real questions. Examples from the works of Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey highlight the problems with the NOMA approach, and contrast it with a unified worldview.
Recommended Citation
Caviness, Kenneth E. PhD
(2025)
"Non-Overlapping Magisteria vs. Unity in Knowledge,"
The Journal of Biblical Foundations of Faith and Learning: Vol. 4:
Iss.
1, Article 10.
Available at:
https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/jbffl/vol4/iss1/10
