OK, It was Stephen Jay Gould, and here's the rather indigestible definition quoted by Wiki:
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that "science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity." He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."
Back to Dan's post: I'll leave GK to address your first point, leaving me to address your second.
Dan wrote: Secondly, you have put the point prejudicially here. You frame NOMA, or "willing to give religion its own sphere", as "generosity of spirit". I challenge that. NOMA is not a paragon of tolerance, it's merely one of many models of the relationship between science and religion. There are others. In any case, I'm not sure you've grasped a key point about NOMA, which is precisely what it is that it claims is religion's "sphere". Religious writers, like Alister McGrath, have rejected NOMA because it restricts the scope of religion to merely "ethical" concerns - way too restrictive. So in other words someone like McGrath would not see NOMA as "generous of spirit" at all. It is not legitimate, to many religionists and many nonreligionists to either confine religion to ethics, on the one hand, or to allow religion to monopolise ethics, on the other.
Having heard Alister McGrath at length on You Tube, I don't give a stuff what he says. His only justification is "It seems to me...", which is no justification at all. The point about NOMA is surely that the religionists claim that their god is outside science, therefore a scientific refutation of their god cannot hold true as their god is outside science. Eg, outside space and time, the laws of physics etc, etc. This is nothing more than bending the rules to suit their pre-determined solution: that not only can a god exist but that he does, and what's more he just happens to be the one I believe in. (Utter nonsense, of course.) There is no such thing as NOMA. If there were, then science would expand to include it, and thus overlap, differentiating between the different results (eg miracles) by including the newly discovered power of prayer, or saints or....oh FFS, they can't be serious, can they? And if they think that morals are somehow outside science, then they don't understand either science or morals.
NOMA is, to my mind, unworkable for either side.