Rocks Of Ages: Science And Religion In The Fullness Of Life (2002) - Plot & Excerpts
Gould seems to relegate religion to issues of morality, and argues they need to accept scientific claims that miracles don't and cannot happen and that they violate NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) by seeking to get creationism taught in schools. But NOMA cuts both ways though, scientist (which deals with all facts and reality) have no right to use Darwinism as a means to establish moral truth, Gould gave an example of such misapplications of Darwinism finding their way into science textbooks. Gould wrote how Darwinism was used by social-Darwinist in their eugenics programs, by the Nazis to justify “Might makes right” and by many scientist who sought to use science to give weight to their racist prejudices. Later generations saw all of these things to be morally repugnant and also based upon bad science—as Gould argued in “The Mismeasure of Man.” Morality is the domain of religion (It seems on could as well say philosophy), and science, though it indeed informs us on what IS, can never show us what we morally ought or ought not to do. Towards the beginning of the book, Gould, while creating the setting for his case of NOMA, shared the biblical story about doubting Thomas and Jesus' response to him, and yes, I must agree that on the face of it, it seems like Jesus was telling the more scientific-minded Thomas “Blessed are the credulous who believe I rose from the dead, though they have not seen me, for those who have blind faith are better than you who demanded proof. Yes, I say that the more blind, baseless and contrary to the evidence faith is, the more virtuous it is” and thus Jesus shows us how religion is about obstinately believing in pure speculations, despite or contrary to the evidence, and how science alone can inform us on fact and reality. It seems Gould's concept of the nature of faith is similar Richard Dawkins caricature of it, but I think they both misunderstand what it is. Faith ultimately is trust, and it is unreasonable to place our trust in someone or something which we do not have reasons to believe is reliable. If we are justified in believing the gospel accounts (some scholars and historians have given us many good reasons to do so) then we know that Thomas saw the miracles of Jesus, he heard his teachings, he heard Jesus tell him he would be crucified and be raised from the dead three days later, and yet still after Jesus was killed and after the other disciples told him they saw the risen Lord, Thomas refused believe the other disciples nor did he trust Jesus (though he had GOOD REASONS to do so), it was not that Thomas was reluctant to take a leap of faith, but instead he doubted three years of profound evidence of a Divine Man sent from God. He experienced Jesus to be trust-worthy and he didn't trust him, this was insulting. It is within a relationship that giving someone the benefit of the doubt and trusting someones character, in uncertain times, becomes virtuous. No one treats a relationship with a woman in a highly critical, skeptical and scientific way and remains in that relationship for long! In a good relationship, we form reasoned conclusions about the other people, though we lack scientific certainty. Indeed our experience of the other, our observations of their character and actions inform us and gives us reason to trust them, even when mysterious and dark circumstances later on makes us look like the fool for doing so. Now I do have one more bone to pick with Gould, who doesn't think the religious are justified in their belief in miracles for science has shown us they cannot happen. Gould is perfectly comfortable with Deist and liberal theologians and seems to think science has made this the only intellectual and reasonable position those of faith can take. I think Gould's understanding of a miracle is that it's a violation of the law of nature and since science has shown the reliability of natural laws, NOMA doesn't permit the religious person to think God actually does or could do anything in our world. I think Gould has a complete misunderstanding of the actual nature of a miracle if they do indeed occur. It is obvious that man manipulates nature and her laws and uses them to his own advantage, but in doing this he is not breaking the laws of nature! If we could go back several 100 years, much of our current technology would all seem miraculous, it would even seem as if we were violating the laws of nature. Now we merely need to suppose that if there is a God, just as man can act in the natural world—molding it to his own advantage, so God can likewise act, and just as man doesn't violate the laws of nature by doing so, God acting in the world doesn't violate the laws either, it's just that what he does seems like it to us, just like our technology and medicine would seem like magic to people in the past. Just because we can't see God doesn't rule out his activity, there are plenty of things in the natural world that are invisible to us that effect and alter the normal way of things. We can't see the wind, but we can feel the effects of the wind... wind can cause a feather to be swept up into air, is wind causing the feather to violate the law of gravity? Heck, we can reach down and pick up the feather ourselves, are we violating the laws of nature? I don't see why the idea of God raising up a feather is anathema and for God to do so would be for him to “break the laws of nature” in the mind of scientist and liberal Christians. If I was in a Texas hotel and I left five 20 dollar bills in the dresser and left for the day, only to come back that evening and pulling open the drawer, to find only three 20 dollar bills in the drawer, I wouldn't proclaim “THE LAWS OF ARITHMETIC HAVE BEEN BROKEN!!!” But instead that “the laws of Texas have been broken!!!” If there is a God, I think it absolutely absurd, that people think God can't do what humans do. Doctors work hard so not to allow nature to take it's course, are they violating the laws of nature in doing so? What if God acted like a doctor and brought healing in ways we've yet to figure out? Well, these cases would seem miraculous (there are countless cases of such mysterious healings and not all are easily explained-away by placebos) of course science cannot prove God did it, and thus NOMA does come into play here, but also science CANNOT say God didn't have part in it, which Gould is suggesting—and thus I think Gould is actually violating the vary principle of NOMA when making this ridiculous claim that it's a scientific fact that miracles don't and cannot happen. Over all, I did enjoy this book, so I will go ahead and end on a good note, I am really thankful for Gould setting the records straight about the very popular myth that the ancients and the church during the middle ages believed in a flat-earth. It's amusing how so many of the atheist “Brights” are so credulous when it comes to embracing anti-religious propaganda, misinformation and memes that confirm their bias, and though calling themselves skeptics are so little discernment. It is refreshing that someone who atheist would consider their own, took some time to dispel some of the nonsense that spreads like a virus among secularist. I liked how Gould gave a more reasoned coverage of Galileo, the Catholic church and the Scopes trial, among other things, and that he can acknowledge the reality that religion isn't pure evil and that it doesn't poison everything.
A very well written, engaging book with a horribly mistaken premise. The concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is flawed in two ways: it rules out of bounds religious claims that are susceptible to empirical test and it hands over to religion categories of human inquiry over which it is not qualified to hold exclusive dominion, such as ethics. Traditional religion, as it is understood by the majority of the Earth's inhabitants, makes claims that are in theory testable. We can at least in theory decide the question of the efficacy of prayer by scientific experiment. The historicity of certain events such as the resurrection of Jesus or the fall of the ancient civilizations described in the Qur'an are also open to objective investigation via accepted historical methods. While playing coy about these specific historical claims (he is mum about the historicity of the resurrection), he does acknowledge that NOMA requires that religion give up its belief in the efficacy of intercessory prayer and in a designed universe unfolding according to a plan discernible from nature itself. A religion that lacks any appeal to the supernatural is simply not going to be meaningful to majority of the Earth's inhabitants at this stage of our cultural evolution and it will take a lot of work to change that. The proponents of traditional religion are not stupid, regardless of the stereotypes that secularists have of them. They see through the bargain that NOMA is offering them: it deprives them of much of their persuasive force by denying them their appeal to the importance of humanity in the grand scheme of things and denying their belief in a personal God who protects his followers.On the flip side, there is no compelling reason to assign to religion the entire domain of culture, as Gould does here. Secular ethical philosophy is more capable of providing moral guidance to modern human beings than is traditional revealed religion because it does not have to appeal to dubious historical claims to establish its authority nor does it have to appeal to divine authority to justify its at times hideous commandments (female circumcision, anyone?). There is absolutely no need to for ministers, priests, rabbis, and Imams to sit on scientific advisory panels or to give them a unique prestige when it comes to legislative deliberations regarding novel scientific developments. A priest is no more qualified to pontificate on the morality of stem cell research than the average person on the street. The best qualified panels are those whose members have either studied the scientific issues in depth, are trained ethicists, legal professionals, or a combination of the three. It may be advisable to have lay members to represent the views of the average citizen, but there is no reason to give clergyman any kind of privileged position. Even as a historical position, this side of NOMA lacks credibility- the morality of society is shaped by many more factors than religion. Literature, the arts, the law, and politics also shape the ethics that become the guide for a civilization. Uncle Tom's Cabin did more for the abolition than a thousand sermons from the pulpit.I am willing to give this book two stars for its style and for the historical sources that Gould delves into which are quite interesting. But a flawed central premise prohibits me from rating it higher, which is a shame because I respect the man's work in combating Creationism and his scientific achievements.
What do You think about Rocks Of Ages: Science And Religion In The Fullness Of Life (2002)?
SJG is clearly delusional to believe that science and religion occupy seperate areas of knowledge, or NOMA.This book will reassure those who want to feel warm and cuddly by giving science and religion equal respect.It's a shame that a field based on empirical evidence and the testing of theories is considered an equally valid way of knowing as a field based on 2,000 year old assumptions and hearsay.Science and religion overlap. Sorry.It's obvious that the field of science and its new findings are replacing the previously interpreted roles of our former gods."Non-overlapping"Yeah, right.
—Michael
Refreshing look at science and religion by someone with a reasonable temperament. Loved the section on William Jennings Bryan, which was insightful and fair minded, BUT revealed something that I think is inherent in his writing, which is that he is primarily an essay writer. The section on Bryan, it turns out, is adapted from an essay he had written previously (as were other sections in the book). So, even though the book is cogent and argues a single (reasonable though-I-would-have-loved-to-discuss-its-implications-with-him-if-he-were-still-living-because-I-didn't-entirely-agree-with-his-conclusions) thesis, the individual chapters don't necessarily feel like chapters in a book but essays in a collection. But it could always be worse: he could be Richard Dawkins.
—Drew
I understand the wide acclaim for Professor Gould. I can't speak to his scientific achievements, but he is a fabulous writer--a kind of Carl Sagan for biology, a man whose breadth of interests is matched by the felicty of his pen. So I enjoy reading his stuff, and this book was great. My complaint with the New Atheists (decidedly not Gould's team) is that they define religion as the Fundamentalists do because they need the Fundamentalists' wacky literalism as a straw man to then destroy religion. We attack religion because religion IS fundamentalism and fundamentalism is ignorant and stupid. You consider yourself both religious and a non-fundamentalist? That's because, say the New Atheists, you're actually an intellectual wuss--you want the benefits of religion without actually committing to it. You're a sell out. Come back to us when you're a fundamentalist so we can attack you properly. Atheism may be more attractive than fundamentalism (perhaps....even probably), but it's got a more difficult opponent in liberal religion. The solution? Deny that liberal religion is religion. Gould wants to save the liberal religious folks. Ostensibly he's not against the fundamentalists, either, insofar they keep their fundamentalism to themselves. His principle of NOMA suggests that religion and science each have their own subject respective subject matter and competencies. And were this true, his philosophy would solve us from all the messiness of real life. But here's the thing. Gould defines science in a way most people would recognize, but he defines religion so narrowly that defenders of religion are left to wonder why there's remaining worth defending. Gould claims that religion, and religion alone (or, presumably, philosophy) can tell us about meaning and values. But as soon as it begins to involve itself in the world of factuality (not his word; his word was cooler, though I can't remember it. Maybe something like factuity) religion ceases to speak in its proper domain; it has entered the world of science. Which would be just fine if that's how religious folks understood the claims of their religions. But they don't. Of the world religions, I know Christianity best so that's all I can speak about. But Christianity turns on a historical event, the resurrection of a person. And it purports to describe all manner of past events, some involving humans and others involving God and nature. So it's a little like this. Gould says that nation A and nation B are not at war because he says to nation A (science) behave yourself and don't be so arrogant! And to nation B (religion) he takes away their weapons and declarations of war and says "isn't peace grand?" Come over here you guys, time for a big group hug!!!His world is a beautiful world in some respects, but it's effectually an atheistic world, a world in which there may or may not be a god, but that god is not allowed to intervene in the world or inspire His or Her followers to better understand factual reality.
—Mike
