What is Richard Dawkin's argument against Nonoverlapping Magisteria NOMA?

Answer 1

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion criticizes NOMA on two points. First, he notes that many, if not most, of the pronouncements of religion lie within the domain of science, according to this scheme. Since claims such the efficacy of prayer, the historicity of scriptures, the authenticity of miracles, and the very existence of a creator, are all claims about the natural world ("what"), according to NOMA, they are within the realm of science, even if they are not currently testable in any practical way. To strip religion of these teachings would leave something unrecognizable as modern religion.

Indeed, religious institutions have occasionally ventured into scientific (and pseudoscientific) inquiry into their religious beliefs, and have certainly not discounted any apparently positive results as being outside the scientific magisterium.

Secondly, Dawkins questions whether religious institutions are any more qualified than science or any other method to address the issues of purpose.

"If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse."