The NOMA principle is the principle that science and religion are nonoverlapping majesteria, that is, two separate ways of acquiring beliefs about two separate fields of knowledge. Science tells us about empirically observable phenomena and religion tells us about the subjects of meaning in life and morality according to this principle. This is clearly and demonstrably false. Both science and religion cross the NOMA border in plenty of cases.
Religions make empirical claims regularly. Religions have origin myths about how the earth was created or about what makes planets move in the night sky. Often times religions make claims about empirical matters that directly contradict the findings of science. The Quran says in Sura 31 verse 10 “He (Allah) set on the earth mountains standing firm lest it should shake with you”. This would seem to mean that Allah set down mountains like you would set down a paperweight on your desk. This contradicts what geology has to say about mountains. Mountains do not come down out of the sky and get set on top of the earth like paperweights. Mountains come up out of the earth either through volcanoes ejecting lava that hardens and piles up into a mountain or through collision of tectonic plates in which the plates buckle upwards.
I took this mountain example from the following video, which argues that the Quran suggests that the earth is flat, another empirical claim.
Science on the other hand, has implications for morality, the supposed domain of religion on the NOMA distinction. Here is one example.
1. If the laws of physics govern our bodies and brains and determine everything we do – control us completely, then we do not have free will.
2. If we do not have free will, then we are not morally responsible. (ought implies can)
Conclusion: If determinism is true, then we are not morally responsible.
If you think that this argument is sound, then the claims of science about whether or not determinism is true will have moral implications.
Another point to make is that the theist doesn’t seem to have any reason to accept the NOMA principle. Why should they think that their god is limited to only giving revelations about moral matters? Can’t he tell people about empirical matters if he wants to?
In my opinion, the NOMA principle does not describe how science and religion actually behave and further, it does not describe how they should behave or what we should be willing to take from them.