|
|
| |
| |
|
Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Library of Contemporary Thought)
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 70 Reviews
|
|
Manufacturer: Audio Literature
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780787118570
|
|
Number of Items: 4
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Audio Cassette
|
|
Author: Stephen Jay Gould
|
|
Publisher: Audio Literature
|
|
Edition: Unabridged
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 291.175
|
|
Publication Date: 1999-03
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: 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
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Interdigitation? |
Date: 2008-12-07 |
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Rocks of Ages. SJ Gould. |
Date: 2008-09-23 |
|
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Reconciles science with ethics, not religion |
Date: 2008-06-25 |
|
| |
Details: Gould claims to be interested in debunking the myth that science and religion are inherent enemies. Conflicts do arise, of course, but only when practitioners of science or religion fail to observe the limits of their "magisterium" (jurisdiction). The task of science is to explain how things are (facts), and the task of religion is to address questions beyond the ability of science to answer-- purposes, values, meanings. Gould mentions in a footnote that as an undergraduate he wrote a paper on "the naturalistic fallacy"-- a term coined by G. E. Moore to describe the fallacy of holding that values are a part of nature and can be acquired like any other empirical knowledge through scientific study.
Gould acknowledges that postmodern philosophers have questioned the fact/value dichotomy but insists that the distinction remains useful. I agree. The problem arises when he characterizes the magisterium which deals with values as religious. But it is obvious-- Gould himself makes the point-- that one need not be religious to have values. Atheistic existential philosophers have values. And agnostic paleontologists like Gould have values. It is quite illogical, therefore, to argue that if only we can get scientists to stop committing the naturalistic fallacy and admit that values cannot be derived from science (and, of course, convince fundamentalists to stop telling us that the world is 6,000 years old), we will have reconciled science and religion. Gould convincingly argues that something besides science is necessary to lead a full life. But the reader will search in vain for any acknowledgment that religion is a legitimate dimension of that necessary complement. The amazing fact is that Gould never even discusses religion, except in its illegitimate fundamentalist forms that encroach on science. Gould bashes fundamentalism as passionately as any of the new atheists-- and makes peace only with "religion"-- understood vacuously as a concern for values. He speaks of the transcendent importance of values-- but never the value of the transcendent. He never mentions sin, salvation, prayer, resurrection, or even religious experience. The only kind of God who can stay out of the way of scientists is a clockwinder God, whose only act was to create the laws of nature. God's domain is before the beginning of time or after the end of time. A living God in time is a violation of the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). Gould is dismissive not only of "creation science" (as are many religious people) but of any religion containing more than an uncaused cause. Gould claims to be interested in religion, but he is far more "religiously unmusical" than the sociologist Max Weber, who described himself that way.
An author who actually delivers what Gould promises is Francis Collins, the geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project, whose "The Language of God" (DNA) describes how he became a Christian as an adult-- in much the same manner as, and with some inspiration from, C. S. Lewis.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Science and Religion Make Poor Bedfellows |
Date: 2008-01-05 |
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Good enough |
Date: 2007-10-26 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
Accessory Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
