I just came across this blog post on Big Questions Online, entitled “The Myth of Separate Magisteria” (http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/the-myth-of-separate-magisteria).  The author, Susan Jacoby, provides a solid argument as to why the model of non-overlapping magisteria in the science and religion dialogue is invalid.  She is espousing this view seemingly in an attempt to promote Sam Harris’ relatively new book (The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), in which he argues for a science of morality.

I would also note that she is plugging the model of conflict by saying that science can answer questions normally relegated to religion.  As we know and I’ve discussed before (https://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/the-limits-of-science-and-its-relationship-to-religion/), not only does Harris think science can provide answers to these types of questions, he thinks that they provide better answers.  I believe that he is correct in the former and incorrect in the latter.

Jacoby’s blog post again highlights to me the limited way in which the interaction of science and religion is presented in the media. We get either-or (conflict) or different domains (non-overlapping or separate magisteria) only.  I have written before about how there are alternate models for science and religion (https://scienceandtheology.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/science-and-religion-barbours-4-models/) and how I believe these models are, in fact, much better than the two mentioned in the Jacoby post.  It is becoming clearer to me by the day that the media needs to promote the potential for interaction and dialogue between science and religion.  And no, publishing essays that say that a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution is not good enough, at all.