Editing Stephen Jay Gould (section)

==Non-overlapping magisteria==
{{Main|Non-overlapping magisteria}}
In his book ''[[Rocks of Ages (book)|Rocks of Ages]]'' (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion".<ref name=RoA>Gould, S. J. (2002). ''[[Rocks of Ages|Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life]]''. New York: Ballantine Books.</ref> He defines the term ''magisterium'' as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution".<ref name=RoA/> The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry."<ref name=RoA/> He suggests that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that NOMA is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria".<ref name=RoA/>

This view has not been without criticism, however. In his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] argues that the division between religion and science is not so simple as Gould claims, as few religions exist without claiming the existence of [[miracle]]s, which "by definition violate the principles of science".<ref name="DawkinsTGD">Dawkins, Richard (2006). ''[[The God Delusion]]''. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, [https://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA83 p. 83.]</ref> Dawkins also opposes the idea that religion has anything meaningful to say about ethics and values, and therefore has no authority to claim a [[magisterium]] of its own.<ref name="DawkinsTGD"/> He goes on to say that he believes Gould is "bending over backwards to be nice to an unworthy but powerful opponent".<ref>Dawkins, Richard (2006). ''[[The God Delusion]]''. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, [https://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA81 p. 81.]</ref> Similarly, [[secular humanism|humanist]] philosopher [[Paul Kurtz]] argues that Gould was wrong to posit that science has nothing to say about questions of ethics. In fact, Kurtz claims that science is a much better method than religion for determining moral principles.<ref name="Kurtz">{{cite web |last=Grothe |first=D. J. |author-link=D. J. Grothe |date=December 11, 2005 |title=Paul Kurtz – Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? |url=http://www.pointofinquiry.org/paul_kurtz_science_and_religion_are_they_compatible/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201105906/http://www.pointofinquiry.org/paul_kurtz_science_and_religion_are_they_compatible/ |archive-date=February 1, 2014 |access-date=January 18, 2014 |work=[[Point of Inquiry]] Podcast |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]]}}</ref>