http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1176111...

In Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Gould makes a strong and eloquent case that science and religion can and do normally get on just fine; that despite the extremes of creationists on the one side and (though Gould does not name him) Richard Dawkins on the other, in fact most practitioners of both science and religion recognise that they are answering different questions, and are sensible enough to stay out of areas in which they are not experts. I agreed with almost everything in it, and recommend the book to anyone interested in a saner take on the issue than we sometimes get. ( )

If you've read any of the clutter of recent books on evolutionary science or popular atheism, you'll know that Stephen Jay Gould - and particularly this book, Rocks of Ages comes with something of a health warning: Gould, despite great eminence and magisterial publishing history, is seen by a certain clique of like-minded authors within the biological community as being damaged goods and this attempt at popular philosophy, with its central thesis of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" ("NOMA") - an attempt at peaceful mediation between science and religion - is given short shrift by such authors, and elsewhere tends to be put down to Gould's compromised situation when he wrote it (terminally ill with cancer). Since his death a few years ago, Rocks of Ages has lost an able champion and as a result looks set to disappear quietly beneath the waves of the current, squally debate.

Which is a pity. While I didn't find Gould's particular formulation entirely convincing, his starting point: that it would be a great shame if neither of the two greatest intellectual traditions on the planet could rest without destroying the other, seems to me to be thoroughly pragmatic and worthwhile, since each has an awful lot of merit and utlity if only they could agree a means of peacable separation.

The likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, of course, will have none of that, and while the great majority of the liberal religious happily would, this only furthers the militant atheists' conclusion that they are therefore right, and the god-botherers must be crushed. Very childish indeed, if you ask me. For the record, I'm not religious myself: just more pleasantly disposed to religious people than some of my atheist confreres.

All the same, I'm not persuaded by NOMA, because, like all the participants in that pointless debate, Gould believes he can hold onto transcendental truth, and is therefore hoist by the same petard: using NOMA simply as a means of deciding which truth is the province of which discipline is as forlorn as the forensic search for any kind of transcendental truth, and worthy of the same criticisms that Rorty, Kuhn, Wittgenstein and others make of that idea.

But enough of what I think. NOMA is, at least, a good try and along the way Gould has written an elegantly phrased, beautifully learned, contemplative, reflective book and made some very pithy observations, that Richard Dawkins might have done well to note.

In particular, the observation that hardly any of the modern religions take young-earth creationism literally. Once it is seen as metaphorical (and this may be heresy in the deep south, but it's been taken as read in all of the churches I've ever been to), the atheistic thrust of Darwin's Dangerous Idea (a wonderful book in other respects) comes to nought. Gould notes that it can only be taken figuratively, if for no other reason than that it makes no sense whatsoever otherwise: the literal text refers to the making of the sun on the fourth "day" - but it's difficult to see how days 1-3 could have been measured! Additionally, pretty much the only place where religion strays more than nonchalantly into the scientific magisterium (certainly the only one you'll find Dawkins obsessing about, since it is his chosen field) is in the creation myth, which as far as I know is over and done with in about ten pages, which leaves much of the balance of the Good Book unscathed.

Erudition of Gould's sort (absent without official leave in the The God Delusion) lives on every page, and the book is worth its value for these alone. The myth of the flat earthers is similarly surprising: read it and see.

Lastly, I found Gould's book valuable because it faces up to and accomodates what, for fundamentalists (of either stripe) is a rather uncomfortable fact: there are millions, if not billions, of thoughtful, well educated, scientifically literate, liberal people who are able to hold to religious devotion and scientific practice contemporaneously, without unease or mental torment. Dawkin's best guess is that these people are systematically deluded: hardly a useful or scientific approach, you would think. Gould's more mature reaction is to say: these are the facts: science has not supplanted religion; these ideas can co-exist in our heads; now how can we reconcile that.

There are better explanations, I believe, of the particulars, but Gould's book is a worthwhile and charming entry all the same. ( )

Gould is attempting something subtle here: by arguing “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, he's confirming that science and religion are non-overlapping realms.

Some may never realize that - taking a long view - the "respectful - even loving concordat between science and religion" that Gould hopes for will doom religion to irrelevance.

Rocks of Ages is a uniquely horrid jumble of philosophical and historical inanities. It’s central thesis is that science and religion occupy “non-overlapping magesteria." (Gould introduces the not very catchy acronym NOMA.) Science deals with empirical matters, whereas religion is concerned with ethical claims and questions of ultimate meaning. Now it is never really clear whether Gould is simply asserting that this IS the case, or arguing that it SHOULD be the case. If the former, then it is once again evidence for how only a Harvard professor, could get away with publishing a book whose basic claim is so obviously false. ALL religions are founded on empirical assertions--God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, parted the Red Sea, gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, etc.; or Jesus was physically resurrected; or Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed through the whisperings of Gabriel; or life is suffering and spiritual liberation comes through a renunciation of bodily desires; or Vishnu did this, that or the other thing; and so on. If, on the other hand, Gould is arguing that NOMA SHOULD be the case, then, well, I really have no idea why he doesn’t just junk the term “religion" to begin with and just relabel it “ethics" or “metaphysical fluffiness" or whatever. But if he were to do this, what would his position be on the truth or falsity of what 99.9% of all thinkers have viewed as religious propositions? Does he think they are all just false (then why doesn’t he have the courage and honesty to say so), or is it that he believes they are meaningless or unimportant (now THAT would be a bizarre claim)? And if we are nothing but physical creatures who evolved in some random way from amoebas or whatever, then what basis do we have for believing that debate about ethics or the true “meaning" of life is anything more than just fantasy talk, let alone that it has the same metaphysical importance as scientific observation? Gould appears to believe that he is being “evenhanded" or arguing for some sort of a “compromise" or “coexistence" between religion and science. Whether or not this is all part of a cagey strategy to undermine religion or is just sheer battiness on Gould’s part is anyone’s guess. Perhaps this is not a "wicked" work. (If only. I would have enjoyed it more.) But it is otherwise a true 1 star effort. ( )