The concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) refers to the position that the domains of science and religion are separate areas of study, able to coexist without contradiction. Stephen J. Gould writes:

No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria"). The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

For such a profound thinker and scientist, I am surprised how shallow his argument is:

Just as religion must bear the cross of its hard-liners. I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate thc rapprochement, especially the pope's latest statement—they say: "C'mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you're only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science." I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay—and I therefore end this essay with a personal statement about religion, as a testimony to what I regard as a virtual consensus among thoughtful scientists (who support the NOMA principle as firmly as the pope does).

Here, Gould introduces a strawman argument: "...religion is addel-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s...." This attitude, he does not think, is common among scientists, nevertheless, it fills him with dismay. So why does Gould an attitude which he does not think is common? Because it allows him to refute a non-position. What Gould and NOMA does not offer is any sound reason or evidence science cannot explain morality, its meaning, and its value. Before closing his mind to the possibility of overlap, he should have looked to psychology, sociology, biology, and anthropology. Surely his critics are going to look to these disciplines for counter-arguments. From these, the real arguments against NOMA will arise, and will not be as easily dismissed as his own strawman argument.

The NOMA position is not an argument. Gould (an agnostic) himself admits he knows little of the details of Catholicism. How, then can he hold the position that morality is the domain of religion. Richard Dawkins, though, makes the case, through good argument and evidence, religion is not only not the source of morality, but morality can be explained through the scientific disciplines mentioned above.

Dawkins may not have made the case so robustly as to avoid all debate and criticism; however, he argues logically from evidence. NOMA merely seems to reiterate Cartesian (among others) duality: The soul and matter are separate, distinct, and non-overlapping. Why? On what grounds? NOMA simply assumes this position. This is in no way critical thinking.