In the current debate over "intelligent design" versus "evolution," my dear late friend and colleague Stephen Jay Gould is often cited for the proposition that science and religion occupy separate but equal "magisteria." Science deals with questions of fact while religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
The reality is that traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs are based on assertions of fact: namely, that Moses literally received the Torah at Sinai; that the body of Jesus literally disappeared from the crypt; and that Mohammed literally ascended to Heaven on his horse. When Gould and I taught a course together at Harvard, I asked the students whether their acceptance of religion was premised on the truth of these factual assertions. If a video from a far distant galaxy could prove that these events had not, in fact, occurred, would they reject their religions? Most traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims said yes. (Unitarians, Reform Jews and some others said no.) Although we do not have the tools to prove or disprove the empirical assertions underlying traditional religious beliefs, they are issues of fact that are subject, at least in theory, to the laws of science. Gould was confusing religion with philosophy. Philosophy deals with questions of moral value. Traditional Judeo-Christian religions claim their authority over moral values on the basis of supernatural scientific and empirical claims. Without these claims, religious authorities are mere philosophers. Hence the conflict, which is not as easily resolvable as Gould would have had it.