Product Description

Writing with bracing intelligence and clarity, internationally renowned evolutionist and bestselling author Stephen Jay Gould sheds new light on a dilemma that has plagued thinking people since the Renaissance: the rift between science and religion. Instead of choosing them, Gould asks, why not opt for a golden mean that accords dignity and distinction to each realm?

In his distinctively elegant style, Gould offers a lucid, contemporary principle that allows science and religion to coexist peacefully in a position of respectful noninterference. Science defines the natural world; religion our moral world in recognition of their separate spheres of influence. In exploring this thought-provoking concept, Gould delves into the history of science, sketching affecting portraits of scientists and moral leaders wrestling with matters of faith and reason. Stories of seminal figures such as Galileo, Darwin, and Thomas Henry Huxley make vivid his argument that individuals and cultures must cultivate both a life of the spirit and a life of rational inquiry in order to experience the fullness of being human.

In Rocks of Ages, Gould’s passionate humanism, ethical discernment, and erudition are fused to create a dazzling gem of contemporary cultural philosophy.

Amazon.com Review

Revered and eminently readable essayist Stephen Jay Gould has once again rendered the complex simple, this time mending the seeming split between the two "Rocks of Ages," science and religion. He quickly, and rightfully, admits that his thesis is not new, but one broadly accepted by many scientists and theologians. Gould begins by suggesting that Darwin has been misconstrued--that while some religious thinkers have used divinity to prove the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would have never done the reverse.

Gould eloquently lays out not "a merely diplomatic solution" to rectify the physical and metaphysical, but "a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds," central to which is the elegant concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould defines magisteria as a "four-bit" word meaning domain of authority in teaching.) Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion.

Gould's argument is both lucid and convincing as he cites past religious and scientific greats (including a particularly touching section on Darwin himself). Regardless of your persuasions, religious or scientific, Gould holds up his end of the conversation with characteristic respect and intelligence. --Paul Hughes

[ ^Top ]

Interdigitation?        Rating:

In Rocks of Ages, Gould defends his famous (or infamous, in the eyes of critics such as Richard Dawkins) NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) thesis. Weary of the what he sees as a fruitless and unnecessary battle between science and religion, Gould argues that the two are separate "magisteria" or authorities which don't clash because they concern themselves with two distinct realms. Science, says Gould, is concerned with facts, and religion with values. The boundaries of the two run up against one another, and in fact frequently "interdigitate," but nonetheless remain distinct.

Dawkins, in his typically arrogant way, claims that Gould must've been insane when writing this little book (see Dawkins' God Delusion). One needn't sympathize with this outrageous accusation to admit that Gould's thesis is troublesome. It's not clear, for example, how to understand the logical or ontological status of magisteria. At times, Gould writes as if they're something like Wittgenstein's language games. But surely he doesn't want to say this. Gould is, if anything, a realist. Moreover, it would appear that he's using "religion" in such a broad sense as to sap it of meaning. Religion does deal with values, but it's more than that. Apparently, though, Gould doesn't want it to be much more than that, because he clearly has no use for miracles (p. 89 ff). At the same time, he seems to suggest that value judgments are subjective, thereby rendering the religious realm even more vague. Finally, it's not at all clear (at least to me) that the boundaries between the scientific and the religious are as crisp (even if they do "interdigitate") as Gould claims. A better metaphor to me seems to be that the boundaries ooze into one another in the way that wetlands ooze into dry ground. Facts inform moral decisions; values influence the way we read facts.

So Gould's NOMA thesis, I believe, is unconvincing, at least as defended in Rocks of Ages (a book which is unusually sloppy for Gould). But along the way, Gould introduces the reader to several interesting asides: for example, the free thought of Francis William Newman, Cardinal Newman's brother; the incredibly poignant and courageous letter written by Thomas Henry Huxley to Charles Kingsley on the occasion of the death of the former's young son; and the "progressive" reasons for William Jenning Bryan's objections to Darwinism.

Readers may want to explore John Haught's "overlapping layers of meaning" thesis, which seems to me a much more successful attempt to mediate the religion/science warfare. See his Is Nature Enough? and Darwin's God.

Rocks of Ages. SJ Gould.        Rating:

This collection of the late Harvard paleontologist S.J. Gould's thoughts is mostly enjoyable, it is also mostly (with a few exceptions) well-studied and even handed. The immodest and starkly partisan bombast that Richard Dawkins has brought to this topic is conspicuously absent throughout most of Gould's discussions. Even where he fails to maintain his dispassion, his interest in doing so is easy to appreciate.

Where Dawkins is compelled to write vigorously (and vitriolically) against religion and theism, while being fundamentally loath to do any respectably dispassionate homework on the topic, Gould has obviously studied the relevant issues rather extensively. Unfortunately, Gould saves a paroxysm bordering on an emotive meltdown worthy of Dawkins for the final pages, demonstrating a surprisingly angry and malfeasant view of the so-called Anthropic Cosmological Principle: "If the laws of nature were just a tad different, we wouldn't be here. Right. . . the universe would present just as interesting a construction, with all parts conforming to reigning laws of this different universe. Except we wouldn't be around to make silly arguments about this alternative universe. So we wouldn't be here. So what." In his sudden angst, the good professor labels a universe without conscious observers "just as interesting" and his own such musings "silly arguments about this alternative universe." He recovers somewhat for a few more eloquent words in the final paragraph. The book is more often characterized by scholarly caution and restraint, and is recommended to readers interested in Gould's perspective on the science-religion dialogue. Although imperfect, this is a better book than some of the more popular offerings in this field.

Science and Religion Make Poor Bedfellows        Rating:

In this landmark work, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould offers a framework in which one may consider the relationship between science and religion. His thesis is that both subjects fall within NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) and only properly comment upon things within their own bailiwicks. Science and religion aren't even the only two categories of NOMA disciplines. Science is the domain of factual truths and religion, moral truths. Science tells us what we're made of and religion tells us what we mean. NOMA isn't an invention; it's an orthdox (if you'll pardon the term) way of looking at science and religion that's been held by many of the world's greatest thinkers for millenia. (I recall that Gustave Le Bon, a 19th century anti-religionist, correctly observed that science never promised to make us happy. Many great early Jewish and Christian thinkers recognized the creation narratives in Genesis as allegory.) While I can't claim to be a great thinker, NOMA sketches out a structure that I've for decades believed existed, but never attempted to systematize.

Gould provides such a structure and also a geneology for NOMA-type thinking. He also describes some of the problems that occur when disciplines step outside of NOMA. It's pretty well-known the errors that can arise when religion tries to become a science (intellectual repression, factual error), but Gould, an irenic non-religious scientist and famous Darwinist, also demonstrates the dangers of science as religion (eugenics, historical justifications for violence). One of the most interesting and intellectually honest parts of the book is Gould's retelling of the Scopes controversy of the early 20th century and his apologia (sort of) pro Bryant who's normally cast as an ignoramus. Gould shows Bryant as a man who was progressive througout most of his life and made some terrible logical and NOMAic errors with regard to Darwinism probably because he was blinded by what he saw as real, understandable dangers - particularly in his time - stemming from hyper-Darwinian thinking. Finally, Gould demonstrates at the end of the book that nature cannot be relied upon for providing moral models; that's up to us.

Gould has been criticized since the publication of this book (1999) by folks like Richard Dawkins for either not actually believing NOMA or for failing to take into account scientific belief systems. Since Gould passed in 2002 he's not able to directly respond to those criticisms. But I believe the text stands and is vindicated by history and reasonable thinking, and that NOMA accurately describes and limits "rocks of ages." There's no sensible way for science and religion to become bedfellows, but NOMA provides a protocol for arguing at the dinner table. This is easily one of the best 50 books I've ever read. In a year or two after more reflection I may bump it up some. This is required reading for those involved in the science-religion discussion.

Good enough        Rating:

This book is not very well written, but this book does offer is a very sound argument that science and religion have no reason to clash nor any reason to support each other. Gould bases his claim mostly around the Scopes "Monkey" trial and offers a few tidbits that most people probably wouldn't realize, but that really show how overblown the trial was, and how it's a false conflict between religion and science. I would recommend this book to anyone who feels torn between science and religion.

[ ^Top ]