What do you think?
Rate this book
Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life
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.
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.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
77 people are currently reading
1445 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Jay Gould
208 books1,365 followersStephen Jay Gould was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Most of Gould's empirical research was on land snails. Gould helped develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary stability is marked by instances of rapid change. He contributed to evolutionary developmental biology. In evolutionary theory, he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
Many of Gould's essays were reprinted in collected volumes, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb, while his popular treatises included books such as The Mismeasure of Man, Wonderful Life and Full House.
-Wikipedia
Most of Gould's empirical research was on land snails. Gould helped develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary stability is marked by instances of rapid change. He contributed to evolutionary developmental biology. In evolutionary theory, he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
Many of Gould's essays were reprinted in collected volumes, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb, while his popular treatises included books such as The Mismeasure of Man, Wonderful Life and Full House.
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews
July 15, 2007
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.
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.
Read
October 16, 2019Get this nonsense off my shelf.
March 10, 2013
Goodreads must really consider adopting ratings with 0.5 increments. I would really rate this book 2.5 stars or even 3 on a good day (which after a second thought is what today seems to be, hence the change from 2 to 3 stars). It was an interesting read especially when you consider the low expectations I had when I started reading it. In atheistic circles, this book is nearly seen as a betrayal of everything good and beautiful about science and I assure you it is nothing as such, at least not how it is often described to be. I would however, really criticize Gould for not being so consistent throughout his analysis. Like for example, he seriously thinks that Thomas shouldn't have questioned about Jesus being resurrected. I mean, really? Is there a real scientist (let alone someone like Gould who is clearly passionate and caring about science) who cannot applaud Thomas for his disinterest? Anyway, one gets the feeling that Gould has changed his mind a little between the beginning and end of writing the book, especially when he finishes by showing his derision of those who really think the Big Bang is consistent with Genesis or the notorious Templeton foundation that year after year violates his much beloved NOMA by awarding bigger-than-the-nobel-prize sums to scientists who show that science and religion are actually two things of explaining the same thing, whatever that is supposed to mean.
To come to NOMA, it is really not as bad as it is pictured to be. It is, in fact, a much more limiting factor for religion than science. Like the idea that if Science finds a fact about nature which contradicts religion, then religion must be wrong and science right. How can you disagree with such a thing? It is also an important limitation on science, which guarantees that scientific discoveries will conform more to the basic principles of science.
However, there are signs of the usual cowardice when he tries to define what religion actually is. He seems (like many of those who like to be nice to religious folks) to see all religions as more or less the same phenomenon which is something I really disagree with. We really need to acknowledged that some religions are more harmful than the others. Also, he views religion as something as broad as to include the whole of morality in it. So basically when a scientist tries to talk about morality, he is actually violating NOMA which is something I am not so sure about.
Anyway, much more interesting were the bits about how those opposed to religion have their own myths when it comes to the Dark Ages or Galileo and the like. The stories which are often told about the clergy believing that the earth was flat or of Galileo being more or less a martyr in the "holy" war between science and religion, are questioned and sometimes exposed to be frauds, just like many religious traditions are filled with them. So one can't help but feel the irony here, of all the places.
One last idea to end my rambling with, which is about agnosticism. Agnostics really think that they are more honest intellectually and not as "fundamentalist" as atheists or religious people are, but I'm afraid their case cannot be sustained. When Gould (who is an agnostic) talks about how Darwin's idea of Evolution by Natural Selection cannot refute God's existence, I cannot avoid disagreeing with that. For one thing, God's existence (at least before the near relativism of the 20th century religions) was a response to the fascination of humans with nature (including stars, planets, fear, dreams...etc. etc.), so when science explains it, it is really cowardly to say that it doesn't mean anything about God's existence. It makes it, at least, less likely for a God to exist and which is why I consider agnosticism a lame and not more than a politically correct idea and skeptical atheism a much more sustainable position.
To come to NOMA, it is really not as bad as it is pictured to be. It is, in fact, a much more limiting factor for religion than science. Like the idea that if Science finds a fact about nature which contradicts religion, then religion must be wrong and science right. How can you disagree with such a thing? It is also an important limitation on science, which guarantees that scientific discoveries will conform more to the basic principles of science.
However, there are signs of the usual cowardice when he tries to define what religion actually is. He seems (like many of those who like to be nice to religious folks) to see all religions as more or less the same phenomenon which is something I really disagree with. We really need to acknowledged that some religions are more harmful than the others. Also, he views religion as something as broad as to include the whole of morality in it. So basically when a scientist tries to talk about morality, he is actually violating NOMA which is something I am not so sure about.
Anyway, much more interesting were the bits about how those opposed to religion have their own myths when it comes to the Dark Ages or Galileo and the like. The stories which are often told about the clergy believing that the earth was flat or of Galileo being more or less a martyr in the "holy" war between science and religion, are questioned and sometimes exposed to be frauds, just like many religious traditions are filled with them. So one can't help but feel the irony here, of all the places.
One last idea to end my rambling with, which is about agnosticism. Agnostics really think that they are more honest intellectually and not as "fundamentalist" as atheists or religious people are, but I'm afraid their case cannot be sustained. When Gould (who is an agnostic) talks about how Darwin's idea of Evolution by Natural Selection cannot refute God's existence, I cannot avoid disagreeing with that. For one thing, God's existence (at least before the near relativism of the 20th century religions) was a response to the fascination of humans with nature (including stars, planets, fear, dreams...etc. etc.), so when science explains it, it is really cowardly to say that it doesn't mean anything about God's existence. It makes it, at least, less likely for a God to exist and which is why I consider agnosticism a lame and not more than a politically correct idea and skeptical atheism a much more sustainable position.
March 11, 2015
The book's theme is Science and Religion have non overlapping domains, Science can't give ethical and moral truths and that religion should be respected when it stays within it's own domain.
I'm glad this book is not influential today. When it was written (in 1998 according to the book itself) marriage equality was completely being shot down by the imprimatur of religion. Science actually refuted each of the arguments used by religion ("it's not natural", "people aren't born that way", "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve who were in the Garden of Eden", and other statements which Religions defined as moral truths), and Science showed their statements to be false thus changing the dialog. Science didn't need to go into the ethical or moral sphere directly, but rather provided arguments to refute statements based on authority only. This book would have allowed the science but seems like it would have suggested it remain silent instead of challenging the religious dogma which was based on authority alone.
Another example, a current senator from Oklahoma has written a book on how climate change is impossible because his revealed religion tells him so based on his moral beliefs and his interpretation of his bible. That argument by itself deserves no respect. The science is speaking loud and clear and global warming is real and is man made. Once again, on strict reading of Gould's book he would have allowed the science to proceed, but he would have required respect in challenging the assertions. I would suggest the arguments put forth in that book should be attacked and shown no respect whatsoever.
He did say a couple things in the book that highlight its anachronistic nature. He says, what happened before the big bang is best left to religion since nobody can say what happened before. The overwhelming majority of today's physicist ignore that statement and give reasonable theories and speculate what happened before the big bang. Also, he thinks ID (intelligence design) is not significant (as he was writing in 1998). It is very relevant today. We even had a president since that time who thought Russia was Gog (or Magog) and is part of the 'end times' as prophesied in Daniel and Revelations.
Morality and ethics are complex. Reason, rational thought, experience and our empathy and concepts of reciprocity are good starting points. People who pretend to know things they don't know and thus have no doubt do not make for good starting points and are best ignored if possible, but unfortunately anti-Marriage Equality, Climate Denialism, Intelligence Design, and other such items have real world consequences and must be considered for what they are: absurd positions not worthy of respect.
Overall, the book is silly and is best ignored.
I'm glad this book is not influential today. When it was written (in 1998 according to the book itself) marriage equality was completely being shot down by the imprimatur of religion. Science actually refuted each of the arguments used by religion ("it's not natural", "people aren't born that way", "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve who were in the Garden of Eden", and other statements which Religions defined as moral truths), and Science showed their statements to be false thus changing the dialog. Science didn't need to go into the ethical or moral sphere directly, but rather provided arguments to refute statements based on authority only. This book would have allowed the science but seems like it would have suggested it remain silent instead of challenging the religious dogma which was based on authority alone.
Another example, a current senator from Oklahoma has written a book on how climate change is impossible because his revealed religion tells him so based on his moral beliefs and his interpretation of his bible. That argument by itself deserves no respect. The science is speaking loud and clear and global warming is real and is man made. Once again, on strict reading of Gould's book he would have allowed the science to proceed, but he would have required respect in challenging the assertions. I would suggest the arguments put forth in that book should be attacked and shown no respect whatsoever.
He did say a couple things in the book that highlight its anachronistic nature. He says, what happened before the big bang is best left to religion since nobody can say what happened before. The overwhelming majority of today's physicist ignore that statement and give reasonable theories and speculate what happened before the big bang. Also, he thinks ID (intelligence design) is not significant (as he was writing in 1998). It is very relevant today. We even had a president since that time who thought Russia was Gog (or Magog) and is part of the 'end times' as prophesied in Daniel and Revelations.
Morality and ethics are complex. Reason, rational thought, experience and our empathy and concepts of reciprocity are good starting points. People who pretend to know things they don't know and thus have no doubt do not make for good starting points and are best ignored if possible, but unfortunately anti-Marriage Equality, Climate Denialism, Intelligence Design, and other such items have real world consequences and must be considered for what they are: absurd positions not worthy of respect.
Overall, the book is silly and is best ignored.
September 21, 2015
This book sets out a case for the notion of "non overlapping magisteria" or NOMA, to insist that religion should stay out of science, science stay out of religion, but both engage in constructive interactions. There is no reason not to give full respect to both, each in their proper domain or "magisterium." He emphasises the folly of religion getting trapped into making factual claims that can be disproved by science. He also makes an interesting case that scientists get into trouble when they think they are competent to make claims about matters in the domain of religion. NOMA is not an easy option, he argues, but a discipline which both religious and scientific thinkers would do well to observe.
In support of this proposition, Gould supplies some interesting observations about the history of conflicts between science and religion. These remarks have the reasonable effect of challenging not only some of the stories used to disparage religion, but also some of the claims made by scientists and some of the political claims made in the name of science. I always enjoy revisionist history and the puncturing of well established myths. For example, he argues that Christians and the Catholic Church have never insisted that the world is flat.
His most interesting material (presumably because it is close to home) concerns the Creationist controversies in the USA. He gives helpful detail about the American court actions over teaching evolution and creationism in state schools. He stoutly defends Charles Darwin against uninformed and unfounded attacks. He helpfully clarifies the specific errors made by Creationists. However, he also performs a useful service by clarifying the thinking that motivated much of the hostility to teaching evolution in state schools early in the 20th Century, pointing out quite firmly some of the intolerable assertions included in American texts about race and heredity based on a perverse misreading of Darwin. Early 20th Century America was a deeply racist nation, strongly committed also to ideas of eugenics, and the "science" textbooks in question were poisoned by racist ideology; it was by no means illiberal to protest, even if the specific arguments used proved erroneous. This is not a defence of creationism (quite the opposite - it attacks it) but it is a defence of the people involved and their motives at the time. The teaching of "evolution" was open to serious moral objections unless its presentation was radically changed. [It would have helped had Gould pointed out the huge influence of Herbert Spencer's writing about evolution, which were very much at odds with Darwin's thinking despite the label of "Social Darwinism" which Wiki describes as "a politically motivated metaphysic very different in both form and motivation from Darwinist science"; frequently, the ideas attacked by Americans when debating evolution are Spencer's and not Darwin's. The distinction is of major importance.]
Gould writes very well and has a big audience. What he has to say is interesting and thought provoking but I would suggest this book fails for the reason so much writing by scientists about religion fails, and that is the lack of philosophical training and the belief that common sense is an adequate substitute. Gould is a scientist breaking his own rule by trying to enter debate outside the "magisterium" of science without sufficient preparation.
If we are to debate the conflict of science and religion then we need some clarity about our definitions. He defines religion as follows: "I will .. construe as fundamentally religious (literally binding us together) all moral discourse on principles that might activate the ideal of universal fellowship among people." (p62). Conversely, he argues that fundamentalists, and notably Creationists in the USA, are not motivated by religion but engaged in politics and should be confronted politically without that affecting our view of religion itself. This is a concept of religion that may appeal to many people but it is not a valid account of what religion is.
In general terms, he argues that all concern with ethics, the meaning of life, our purpose and motivation for living, belongs to the realm of religion primarily on the grounds that humans have historically always embraced such topics within a religious framework. I certainly agree that we must respect the history of ideas for what it is and not discard or disparage the thinking of our predecessors because they were primarily religious. Nor should we allow religious differences, including atheism, to permit a slide into advocating hatred and hostility on the grounds of religious belief. There is much for an atheist to admire and respect in most religions and in any case, it will be a cold day in hell before religion vanishes from our social world. So hostility to religion is not helpful. My problem is that, historically, humans have overwhelmingly considered matters of science in religious terms too, so this is not a coherent basis to separate what Gould calls religion and what Gould calls science. Probably everything has at some time been considered "religious".
Science, on the other hand, he seems to regard as the realm of "facts" or facticity, the state of affairs, the way things really are. Matters of fact must be determined through the methods of science and disputes adjudicated on scientific criteria. It is not acceptable that religion is used to evade the factual evidence of science. When this does happen, the use of religious argument is typically spurious and conceals a political agenda unrelated to religion. Conversely, it is not possible to make moral or ethical or existential claims based on the facts exposed by science. This is of course the age old gap between what is and what ought to be.
However, it is also a false dichotomy. In order to divide the universe of ideas into two camps, religion and science, arbitrary and unconvincing definitions have to be accepted. I do not accept the Positivist notion that science is restricted to making factual statements about the natural world and at a minimum I want recognition of the methods and findings of the social sciences. But however science is defined (and Gould does not define it as far as I can see) that does not entitle religion to claim the residue of rational (or even just human) thought, since there are so many other categories that can be deployed, including philosophy, politics and the humanities. I just cannot go along with the idea that ethics or aesthetics are religious and, for example, can cite Bishop Holloway arguing for "Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics", or Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" as a serious and effective discussion that does not require an appeal to religion; neither book is anti religion.
I am happy to conclude that Gould has written an interesting book and provided some very constructive historical information that may correct a number of myths. I disagree with his main argument for many reasons but that is not a reason to ignore the contribution this book still does make to the wider debate. We need to hear from scientists and Gould writes better than most; we just don't have to suspend our critical faculties when they speak.
In support of this proposition, Gould supplies some interesting observations about the history of conflicts between science and religion. These remarks have the reasonable effect of challenging not only some of the stories used to disparage religion, but also some of the claims made by scientists and some of the political claims made in the name of science. I always enjoy revisionist history and the puncturing of well established myths. For example, he argues that Christians and the Catholic Church have never insisted that the world is flat.
His most interesting material (presumably because it is close to home) concerns the Creationist controversies in the USA. He gives helpful detail about the American court actions over teaching evolution and creationism in state schools. He stoutly defends Charles Darwin against uninformed and unfounded attacks. He helpfully clarifies the specific errors made by Creationists. However, he also performs a useful service by clarifying the thinking that motivated much of the hostility to teaching evolution in state schools early in the 20th Century, pointing out quite firmly some of the intolerable assertions included in American texts about race and heredity based on a perverse misreading of Darwin. Early 20th Century America was a deeply racist nation, strongly committed also to ideas of eugenics, and the "science" textbooks in question were poisoned by racist ideology; it was by no means illiberal to protest, even if the specific arguments used proved erroneous. This is not a defence of creationism (quite the opposite - it attacks it) but it is a defence of the people involved and their motives at the time. The teaching of "evolution" was open to serious moral objections unless its presentation was radically changed. [It would have helped had Gould pointed out the huge influence of Herbert Spencer's writing about evolution, which were very much at odds with Darwin's thinking despite the label of "Social Darwinism" which Wiki describes as "a politically motivated metaphysic very different in both form and motivation from Darwinist science"; frequently, the ideas attacked by Americans when debating evolution are Spencer's and not Darwin's. The distinction is of major importance.]
Gould writes very well and has a big audience. What he has to say is interesting and thought provoking but I would suggest this book fails for the reason so much writing by scientists about religion fails, and that is the lack of philosophical training and the belief that common sense is an adequate substitute. Gould is a scientist breaking his own rule by trying to enter debate outside the "magisterium" of science without sufficient preparation.
If we are to debate the conflict of science and religion then we need some clarity about our definitions. He defines religion as follows: "I will .. construe as fundamentally religious (literally binding us together) all moral discourse on principles that might activate the ideal of universal fellowship among people." (p62). Conversely, he argues that fundamentalists, and notably Creationists in the USA, are not motivated by religion but engaged in politics and should be confronted politically without that affecting our view of religion itself. This is a concept of religion that may appeal to many people but it is not a valid account of what religion is.
In general terms, he argues that all concern with ethics, the meaning of life, our purpose and motivation for living, belongs to the realm of religion primarily on the grounds that humans have historically always embraced such topics within a religious framework. I certainly agree that we must respect the history of ideas for what it is and not discard or disparage the thinking of our predecessors because they were primarily religious. Nor should we allow religious differences, including atheism, to permit a slide into advocating hatred and hostility on the grounds of religious belief. There is much for an atheist to admire and respect in most religions and in any case, it will be a cold day in hell before religion vanishes from our social world. So hostility to religion is not helpful. My problem is that, historically, humans have overwhelmingly considered matters of science in religious terms too, so this is not a coherent basis to separate what Gould calls religion and what Gould calls science. Probably everything has at some time been considered "religious".
Science, on the other hand, he seems to regard as the realm of "facts" or facticity, the state of affairs, the way things really are. Matters of fact must be determined through the methods of science and disputes adjudicated on scientific criteria. It is not acceptable that religion is used to evade the factual evidence of science. When this does happen, the use of religious argument is typically spurious and conceals a political agenda unrelated to religion. Conversely, it is not possible to make moral or ethical or existential claims based on the facts exposed by science. This is of course the age old gap between what is and what ought to be.
However, it is also a false dichotomy. In order to divide the universe of ideas into two camps, religion and science, arbitrary and unconvincing definitions have to be accepted. I do not accept the Positivist notion that science is restricted to making factual statements about the natural world and at a minimum I want recognition of the methods and findings of the social sciences. But however science is defined (and Gould does not define it as far as I can see) that does not entitle religion to claim the residue of rational (or even just human) thought, since there are so many other categories that can be deployed, including philosophy, politics and the humanities. I just cannot go along with the idea that ethics or aesthetics are religious and, for example, can cite Bishop Holloway arguing for "Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics", or Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" as a serious and effective discussion that does not require an appeal to religion; neither book is anti religion.
I am happy to conclude that Gould has written an interesting book and provided some very constructive historical information that may correct a number of myths. I disagree with his main argument for many reasons but that is not a reason to ignore the contribution this book still does make to the wider debate. We need to hear from scientists and Gould writes better than most; we just don't have to suspend our critical faculties when they speak.
June 26, 2016
This is not one of Stephen Jay Gould's best books and should be seen as a polemic about the relationship between science and religion peculiar to its time and place - the struggle against creationism in the US in the last years of the last century.
To most Europeans, the core proposition is self-evident - science is a description of the world, 'religion' is the ascription by humans of value or meaning to the world. The two exist in separate spheres of understanding, each is an independent 'magisterium'.
From this point of view, the book might be interesting to Americans but less so to the rest of the world. His account of science is, as one would expect from him, unimpeachable. His account of religion less so. His desire to accord respect to religion equalises it and concedes too much ground.
In fact religion is simply a matter of power relations, the imposition of value by some on others, and value and meaning exist as much outside religion as within it. Gould's defensive posture, designed to win a local cultural debate, lets down those struggling for freedom elsewhere.
As a result, I am not sure anyone on the materialist side of the debate is going to get very much from it except concessionary arguments in debate with a room full of holy types. The book seems to buttress the religious establishment in order to shore up its support for science.
However, the old Stephen Jay Gould, a rational and incisive historian of science shines through with the best and most humane account of the Scopes trial and William Jennings Bryan that I have read to date. He is also good on his pet subject, the malignity and bad science of social Darwinism.
The passages on Jennings show how liberal East Coast readings of the Scopes trial have utterly misread the situation and that Bryan's critique at the time was more complex and nuanced than they allow themselves to admit - and the 'Darwinist' side more self-serving and less honest.
Gould is right that, in the context of the use of Darwinism in the interwar period ('bad science'), Bryan was trying to reinculcate some sense of value. He also accepted 'bad science' but his 'good value' was still superior in many ways to the misuse of science by his opponents.
Gould's conclusion is a sound one - science should be value-free in its exercise and presentation to the world but that means having strong values in deciding what must be done with the knowledge. Social Darwinism is the type-case of bad social policies arising from an over-reading of science.
If there is a take home message of this book that I would want to emphasise, it is that value is entirely separate from science (though not to be assumed to be a matter of religion alone) and that religious language is often a means of establishing value against complete absence of value.
But the use of religion to establish value is always second best because value and meaning stand outside not only science but also outside religion itself. 'Religio' is simply the inculcation of chosen value in society, ritual, dogma, custom and text. It is not value in and of itself.
If a person needs religion to bring value to the world shown to us by science, then he or she has not mastered the independence of value from the world. Value and meaning are intrinsic to the human condition, found from within not imposed from without.
The book is, overall, a distraction. The defence of science here is excellent and certainly it needs saying over and over again, especially against those fluff merchants trying to merge science and 'spirituality' (whatever that is), that science can tell us nothing about value.
However, the transfer of value to religion is conservative and anti-progressive and far too much of a compromise by a writer known to have been at the leading edge of progressive thinking in the scientific community, unravelling conservative mythologies embedded in past scientific ideologies.
In short, he defends religion at the expense of philosophy to shore up a political position. Not impressed!
May 29, 2016
A very interesting book. For those who don't know (which appears to include most of the reviewers), Gould is the world's foremost evolutionist. He is the one responsible for the theory of punctuated equilibrium -- required reading in any anthropology or biology 101 course worth its salt.
Gould suggests that things would go smoother if everyone realized that religion looks toward the moral sphere, and science towards the factual sphere, and each simply stayed off of the other one's turf. I have to wonder if some of the reviewers have actually read the book, which accurately claims that this was never the historical case.
For my part, I think he's exactly right, and I think this book ought to be required reading for all those religionists who create "biblically accurate" museums and for all the scientists who criticize religion in general. However, I don't think it would work, since it seems that most have already made up their minds and won't be persuaded otherwise no matter how impressive the credentials of the person who suggests otherwise.
Gould suggests that things would go smoother if everyone realized that religion looks toward the moral sphere, and science towards the factual sphere, and each simply stayed off of the other one's turf. I have to wonder if some of the reviewers have actually read the book, which accurately claims that this was never the historical case.
For my part, I think he's exactly right, and I think this book ought to be required reading for all those religionists who create "biblically accurate" museums and for all the scientists who criticize religion in general. However, I don't think it would work, since it seems that most have already made up their minds and won't be persuaded otherwise no matter how impressive the credentials of the person who suggests otherwise.
December 21, 2019
An embarrassment to science and philosophy.
April 28, 2023
Hay científicos que reportan los resultados de sus investigaciones en artículos científicos o en libros donde reúnen varios resultados de sus investigaciones. Y hay científicos que divulgan la ciencia en libros que hacen asequible al público sus resultados y los de otros científicos. S.J. Gould es de los dos tipos. Su propuesta de los equilibrios puntuados es muy influyente en la biología evolutiva. Por otro lado, sus libros de divulgación son muy interesantes. Este libro es de divulgación y en mi criterio muy decepcionante. Lo escribió antes de su muerte a inicios de este siglo. Esto se nota en el enfoque y en el desarrollo de su idea. Sostiene que ciencia y religión son dos magisterios separados, por lo que no deberían entrar en conflicto. Decepcionante. La religión inició el conflicto en el renacimiento (con el caso de Galileo). La ciencia lo terminará. Mientras pasa, me parece imposible trabajar con la mente basada en la razón para entender la realidad e irte a la cama soñando en ángeles, vírgenes, santos y resurrecciones. No es posible. Bueno, pero es que creer no implica religiones dirán muchos, sino creencias personales (aún más increíbles e indescifrables). Lo siento, pero los cucos personales siguen sin ser ni reales, ni "espirituales". Hay que vivir esta vida, intensamente, porque es única y se va acabando desde que se nace.
April 8, 2022
I love SJG, even though we have very different perspectives on life. But he was a brilliant man and a wonderful essayist. I love the way he wrote, how thoroughly read he was, and how respectful he was of those with different spiritual convictions.
What I appreciate about his "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) concept is that it, at least in theory, respects both science and religion (or morality/ethics) as vital and authoritative in their own domains. Science tells us about the facts of the physical world, but it cannot make judgements about those facts, or moral extrapolations from them. Metaphysics/philosophy, which has usually been guided by religion in most cultures throughout history (as SJG notes), informs us on ethical and moral judgments, and cannot predetermine what "facts" science must find. Gould notes examples where both sides have sinned by encroaching on the other's domain. NOMA respects both domains, arguing that each is vital to a full life. That is, they both give us important truths, just in their respective "magisteria". I think this point is often missed by materialists and fundamentalists alike. Truth can be, must be, gathered from several different domains and fields. To rely on just one field to understand the fullness of life is naive.
However, I will say that I don't think NOMA can stand in its strictest form. I understand what Gould is trying to accomplish, and I think there is much truth in his premise. However, I do think that there is inherent overlap in the two disciplines, just as all disciplines overlap to some degree. Even if in theory we could separate out the two magisteria, in practice our lives are too complex and interrelated to do so. Further, some of Gould's interpretations of when faith encroaches on sciences' domain I would disagree that it is an encroachment. Taking a "fact" uncovered by science and trying to explain or assimilate it into the worldview of faith is much different than faith determining what a "fact" of science must be. Gould seems to disagree. Perhaps our disagreement stems from our fundamentally different worldviews, mine of faith and his of no faith. Regardless, we still continue to work out how each relate to one another.
All that said, this was a very enjoyable read for me, as with most of Gould's writing. I appreciate his kindness and clarity. His essays prompt me to want to be an essayist myself. It is well worth the read, even if you ultimately come to a different conclusion.
What I appreciate about his "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) concept is that it, at least in theory, respects both science and religion (or morality/ethics) as vital and authoritative in their own domains. Science tells us about the facts of the physical world, but it cannot make judgements about those facts, or moral extrapolations from them. Metaphysics/philosophy, which has usually been guided by religion in most cultures throughout history (as SJG notes), informs us on ethical and moral judgments, and cannot predetermine what "facts" science must find. Gould notes examples where both sides have sinned by encroaching on the other's domain. NOMA respects both domains, arguing that each is vital to a full life. That is, they both give us important truths, just in their respective "magisteria". I think this point is often missed by materialists and fundamentalists alike. Truth can be, must be, gathered from several different domains and fields. To rely on just one field to understand the fullness of life is naive.
However, I will say that I don't think NOMA can stand in its strictest form. I understand what Gould is trying to accomplish, and I think there is much truth in his premise. However, I do think that there is inherent overlap in the two disciplines, just as all disciplines overlap to some degree. Even if in theory we could separate out the two magisteria, in practice our lives are too complex and interrelated to do so. Further, some of Gould's interpretations of when faith encroaches on sciences' domain I would disagree that it is an encroachment. Taking a "fact" uncovered by science and trying to explain or assimilate it into the worldview of faith is much different than faith determining what a "fact" of science must be. Gould seems to disagree. Perhaps our disagreement stems from our fundamentally different worldviews, mine of faith and his of no faith. Regardless, we still continue to work out how each relate to one another.
All that said, this was a very enjoyable read for me, as with most of Gould's writing. I appreciate his kindness and clarity. His essays prompt me to want to be an essayist myself. It is well worth the read, even if you ultimately come to a different conclusion.
April 7, 2023
Este es mi primer libro del gran Stephen Jay Gould y me ha sorprendido gratamente. Si bien la especialidad de este autor es la divulgación en biología –y en general en ciencia– conocerlo en esta faceta de divulgación filosófica fue bastante interesante.
La primera sorpresa que me llevé al leer "Ciencia versus religión" fue la erudición que evidencia Jay Gould en este libro, su aparente conocimiento del mundo clásico, incluyendo las lenguas latina y griega, de la Historia y de la filosofía, incluso su conocimiento aparentemente profundo de la religión cristiana (una condición necesaria para escribir un libro sobre este tema).
No es común encontrar entre las personas de la ciencia profesionales que tengan además una amplia cultura humanística. Es cierto que grandes divulgadores y divulgadoras como Carl Sagan, Lynn Margulis o Isaac Asimov, son –y fueron– también grandes humanistas, la mayoría de autores en estas disciplinas no lo son realmente. Así que fue grato saber que esta discusión la haría alguien suficientemente ilustrado en una variedad más amplia de disciplinas.
Pertenezco a ese grupo de personas a las que va dirigida en parte la crítica que hace Jay Gould en este libro; en particular, aquellos que asumimos una actitud militante frente a la separación radical de las ciencias –o del pensamiento científico– y de la religión o en general de la superstición y el pensamiento mágico; una identificación –no muy acertada como he empezado a entender– que es propia del tipo de ateismo militante con el que me he identificado por mucho tiempo.
El libro es una defensa de una postura filosófica que Jay Gould nombra con el acrónimo de MANS, magisterios que no se superponen o en inglés –como averigue posteriormente en wikipedia– NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria.
La idea básica del MANS es que tanto el pensamiento científico (el método hipotético deductivo soportado en evidencias que lo definen además del corpus de conocimientos que se ha construído a lo largo de la historia con ese método – conocimiento científico), y el pensamiento religioso, es decir, la búsqueda del sentido, la trascendencia y la razón profunda de nuestra naturaleza y acciones, son complementarios y no excluyentes.
Según Jay Gould la "eterna" lucha de Ciencia versus Religión ha surgido de algunos malentendidos históricos, ha sido motivada por los momentos en los que las religiones organizadas han establecido alianzas perversas con el poder secular (pe. el papel del cristianismo en el poder en la Europa medieval y en la edad moderna), alianzas que han desvirtuado su papel; pero más importante, el conflicto, según Jay Gould, surge de entender mal lo que ambos magisterios persiguen.
Para sustentar su posición, Jay Gould hace una presentación que brilla por su organización y rigor, a pesar de no perder en ningún momento un tono relativamente desenfadado e informal que hace que el libro no se convierta en un ensayo filosófico pesado e impenetrable. Se encarga con juicio de enunciar bien el problema y lo hace con ejemplos y analogías que ayudan a quiénes no tenemos una formación académica en filosofía o en ciencias humanas. Posteriormente hace un recorrido histórico por la división entre ciencia y religión, con especial énfasis en la agudización del conflicto que se produjo en el período que siguió a la publicación del "Origen de las especies de Darwin". Aquí, Jay Gould ahonda también en la lucha legal que se produjo en Estados Unidos durante buena parte del siglo xx, entre los enemigos de la evolución y promotores del creacionismo y las autoridades seculares.
Está última parte, si bien interesante, creo que le resta interés al texto y puede resultar lo suficientemente aburrida y en especial muy local como para que algunas personas que leen el libro espontáneamente lo abandonen finalmente. Mi recomendación: ¡no lo hagan!
Finalmente Jay Gould, hace un análisis de las razones psicológicas para el conflicto, pero también sobre el por qué ese conflicto en realidad es imaginario. En está última parte Jay Gould presenta su propuesta (si se puede llamar así) para una convivencia "pacífica" –o irénica como aprendí en el texto– entre la ciencia y la religión.
¿Logra el texto su cometido?, es decir ¿puede cambiar, por ejemplo, la actitud separatista hacia la religión de un ateo militante como lo he sido yo la mayor parte de mi vida adulta?.
No sé si pueda generalizar, pero en realidad los argumentos, la forma de presentación de los mismos en este libro, así como la autoridad de la que emanan –y esto no es poco importante– en realidad si lograron que revisara algunas convicciones sobre la tajante división entre ciencia y religión que venía sosteniendo. Me hicieron ver los grises en los que antes veía solo blanco y negro. Bueno, al menos lo digo por mí (pero quiénes me conocen también reconocerán que no es poca cosa).
Me encanto la analogía que presenta Jay Gould de la interface entre la ciencia y la religión como una superficie con una estructura fractal. En lugar de pensar que estos dos dominios del pensamiento son terrenos divididos por una muralla, terrenos que si bien contradictorios deben convivir en paz, la posición de Jay Gould parece basarse en su propio conocimiento del mundo natural. Las fronteras entre la ciencia –el logos– y la religión –el mitos– podrían ser mucho más complejas, parecerse más a las que existen entre dos líquidos inmiscibles que se han sacudido, o los borrosos límites que existen entre dos biomas –ecosistemas– que coexisten o tienen una frontera en el mismo espacio (pe. el bosque y la pradera).
Para citar un ejemplo de esto, pensemos en uno de los temas centrales de la religión: la muerte.
Si bien la ciencia, con su método y corpus de conocimientos, tiene mucho que decir sobre el momento en el que cesa la actividad que define el "estar vivo" en un organismo complejo, en particular en el cuerpo humano –que es el foco de la religión– en realidad aporta muy poco frente a la pregunta de lo que la muerte misma significa para los humanos, de lo que la conciencia de ese evento definitivo dispara en nuestra mente o los cambios mentales que se operan frente a la muerte de nuestros seres queridos. Aceptemos o no que existe un conflicto, creamos o no en el poder ilimitado de la ciencia para develar los secretos de la naturaleza, a los humanos –y muy posiblemente a otros animales– les preocupa la muerte y lo que ella "significa" para nuestra conciencia. La pregunta es si esa preocupación puede ser completamente satisfecha con respuestas científicas o si necesita de "algo más".
Este tipo de razonamientos y de preguntas son las que ahora me estoy permitiendo tener, incluso en en medio de mi radicalidad antireligiosa. No ha sido solo este libro lo que me ha llevado a considerar que tal vez una posición muy rígida sobre este supuesto conflicto –ciencia versus religión– me esté haciendo perderme de algo. Otros libros, hablar con amigos y amigas creyentes y experiencias personales profundas y traumáticas –tal vez ahí está la raíz de nuestra necesidad de "algo más"–, han contribuido también con el cambio.
¿Será para bien? ¡no lo sé!
Lo que sí se es que ahora no estoy seguro de que la ciencia pueda ayudarme a responder siquiera esta sencilla pregunta.
Sea que militen en el ateismo –como yo– o que, amando la ciencia aprecien también sus propias intuiciones religiosas o practiquen con vehemencia los rituales de sus abuelas, no dejen de leer este libro.
No dejen de leer a Jay Gould.
Yo, personalmente, desde ahora mismo, comienzo a buscar sus otros ensayos y espero descubrir mucho más del humanismo que descubrí aquí.
La primera sorpresa que me llevé al leer "Ciencia versus religión" fue la erudición que evidencia Jay Gould en este libro, su aparente conocimiento del mundo clásico, incluyendo las lenguas latina y griega, de la Historia y de la filosofía, incluso su conocimiento aparentemente profundo de la religión cristiana (una condición necesaria para escribir un libro sobre este tema).
No es común encontrar entre las personas de la ciencia profesionales que tengan además una amplia cultura humanística. Es cierto que grandes divulgadores y divulgadoras como Carl Sagan, Lynn Margulis o Isaac Asimov, son –y fueron– también grandes humanistas, la mayoría de autores en estas disciplinas no lo son realmente. Así que fue grato saber que esta discusión la haría alguien suficientemente ilustrado en una variedad más amplia de disciplinas.
Pertenezco a ese grupo de personas a las que va dirigida en parte la crítica que hace Jay Gould en este libro; en particular, aquellos que asumimos una actitud militante frente a la separación radical de las ciencias –o del pensamiento científico– y de la religión o en general de la superstición y el pensamiento mágico; una identificación –no muy acertada como he empezado a entender– que es propia del tipo de ateismo militante con el que me he identificado por mucho tiempo.
El libro es una defensa de una postura filosófica que Jay Gould nombra con el acrónimo de MANS, magisterios que no se superponen o en inglés –como averigue posteriormente en wikipedia– NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria.
La idea básica del MANS es que tanto el pensamiento científico (el método hipotético deductivo soportado en evidencias que lo definen además del corpus de conocimientos que se ha construído a lo largo de la historia con ese método – conocimiento científico), y el pensamiento religioso, es decir, la búsqueda del sentido, la trascendencia y la razón profunda de nuestra naturaleza y acciones, son complementarios y no excluyentes.
Según Jay Gould la "eterna" lucha de Ciencia versus Religión ha surgido de algunos malentendidos históricos, ha sido motivada por los momentos en los que las religiones organizadas han establecido alianzas perversas con el poder secular (pe. el papel del cristianismo en el poder en la Europa medieval y en la edad moderna), alianzas que han desvirtuado su papel; pero más importante, el conflicto, según Jay Gould, surge de entender mal lo que ambos magisterios persiguen.
Para sustentar su posición, Jay Gould hace una presentación que brilla por su organización y rigor, a pesar de no perder en ningún momento un tono relativamente desenfadado e informal que hace que el libro no se convierta en un ensayo filosófico pesado e impenetrable. Se encarga con juicio de enunciar bien el problema y lo hace con ejemplos y analogías que ayudan a quiénes no tenemos una formación académica en filosofía o en ciencias humanas. Posteriormente hace un recorrido histórico por la división entre ciencia y religión, con especial énfasis en la agudización del conflicto que se produjo en el período que siguió a la publicación del "Origen de las especies de Darwin". Aquí, Jay Gould ahonda también en la lucha legal que se produjo en Estados Unidos durante buena parte del siglo xx, entre los enemigos de la evolución y promotores del creacionismo y las autoridades seculares.
Está última parte, si bien interesante, creo que le resta interés al texto y puede resultar lo suficientemente aburrida y en especial muy local como para que algunas personas que leen el libro espontáneamente lo abandonen finalmente. Mi recomendación: ¡no lo hagan!
Finalmente Jay Gould, hace un análisis de las razones psicológicas para el conflicto, pero también sobre el por qué ese conflicto en realidad es imaginario. En está última parte Jay Gould presenta su propuesta (si se puede llamar así) para una convivencia "pacífica" –o irénica como aprendí en el texto– entre la ciencia y la religión.
¿Logra el texto su cometido?, es decir ¿puede cambiar, por ejemplo, la actitud separatista hacia la religión de un ateo militante como lo he sido yo la mayor parte de mi vida adulta?.
No sé si pueda generalizar, pero en realidad los argumentos, la forma de presentación de los mismos en este libro, así como la autoridad de la que emanan –y esto no es poco importante– en realidad si lograron que revisara algunas convicciones sobre la tajante división entre ciencia y religión que venía sosteniendo. Me hicieron ver los grises en los que antes veía solo blanco y negro. Bueno, al menos lo digo por mí (pero quiénes me conocen también reconocerán que no es poca cosa).
Me encanto la analogía que presenta Jay Gould de la interface entre la ciencia y la religión como una superficie con una estructura fractal. En lugar de pensar que estos dos dominios del pensamiento son terrenos divididos por una muralla, terrenos que si bien contradictorios deben convivir en paz, la posición de Jay Gould parece basarse en su propio conocimiento del mundo natural. Las fronteras entre la ciencia –el logos– y la religión –el mitos– podrían ser mucho más complejas, parecerse más a las que existen entre dos líquidos inmiscibles que se han sacudido, o los borrosos límites que existen entre dos biomas –ecosistemas– que coexisten o tienen una frontera en el mismo espacio (pe. el bosque y la pradera).
Para citar un ejemplo de esto, pensemos en uno de los temas centrales de la religión: la muerte.
Si bien la ciencia, con su método y corpus de conocimientos, tiene mucho que decir sobre el momento en el que cesa la actividad que define el "estar vivo" en un organismo complejo, en particular en el cuerpo humano –que es el foco de la religión– en realidad aporta muy poco frente a la pregunta de lo que la muerte misma significa para los humanos, de lo que la conciencia de ese evento definitivo dispara en nuestra mente o los cambios mentales que se operan frente a la muerte de nuestros seres queridos. Aceptemos o no que existe un conflicto, creamos o no en el poder ilimitado de la ciencia para develar los secretos de la naturaleza, a los humanos –y muy posiblemente a otros animales– les preocupa la muerte y lo que ella "significa" para nuestra conciencia. La pregunta es si esa preocupación puede ser completamente satisfecha con respuestas científicas o si necesita de "algo más".
Este tipo de razonamientos y de preguntas son las que ahora me estoy permitiendo tener, incluso en en medio de mi radicalidad antireligiosa. No ha sido solo este libro lo que me ha llevado a considerar que tal vez una posición muy rígida sobre este supuesto conflicto –ciencia versus religión– me esté haciendo perderme de algo. Otros libros, hablar con amigos y amigas creyentes y experiencias personales profundas y traumáticas –tal vez ahí está la raíz de nuestra necesidad de "algo más"–, han contribuido también con el cambio.
¿Será para bien? ¡no lo sé!
Lo que sí se es que ahora no estoy seguro de que la ciencia pueda ayudarme a responder siquiera esta sencilla pregunta.
Sea que militen en el ateismo –como yo– o que, amando la ciencia aprecien también sus propias intuiciones religiosas o practiquen con vehemencia los rituales de sus abuelas, no dejen de leer este libro.
No dejen de leer a Jay Gould.
Yo, personalmente, desde ahora mismo, comienzo a buscar sus otros ensayos y espero descubrir mucho más del humanismo que descubrí aquí.
June 3, 2016
Stephen Jay Gould was an iconic figure in the evolutionary biology, as well as being a prolific popular science writer. He died in 2002 but his scientific writing in the area of evolution is still much admired. He was evidently an avid reader in addition to a highly successful scientific career.
However this slim book, with both a heart-felt sincerity and astonishing naiveté, demonstrated the author’s tenuous grasp of both science and religion as something can be safely compartmentalized. His main idea is a peaceful co-existence with no cognitive contamination. Specifically, he proposed a “non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry."
At the first glance, this idea is wonderfully simple and clean. However, just like anything with such neat simplicity, it does not meet the messy reality of human reality. Science does not have its intrinsic ability to question its moral boundary, and religion of any use must be relevant to the “factual world” we live. In addition, religion is not just about ethics or morality, but something beyond (see Kierkegaard’s theology). Yet even in Gould’s own definition of religion as ethics and world-views are problematic. Taking stem cell research, cryonics, or legalization of cannabis, the demarcating boundary of science and religion is often illusionary. If religion is about “what we ought or ought not to do” and science “what we can or can not do”, then the pitting of the battles are more likely to be presence than a polite acquiesce from either sides. The moving of time and history changes these boundaries like the tide washing away lines in the sand.
However this slim book, with both a heart-felt sincerity and astonishing naiveté, demonstrated the author’s tenuous grasp of both science and religion as something can be safely compartmentalized. His main idea is a peaceful co-existence with no cognitive contamination. Specifically, he proposed a “non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry."
At the first glance, this idea is wonderfully simple and clean. However, just like anything with such neat simplicity, it does not meet the messy reality of human reality. Science does not have its intrinsic ability to question its moral boundary, and religion of any use must be relevant to the “factual world” we live. In addition, religion is not just about ethics or morality, but something beyond (see Kierkegaard’s theology). Yet even in Gould’s own definition of religion as ethics and world-views are problematic. Taking stem cell research, cryonics, or legalization of cannabis, the demarcating boundary of science and religion is often illusionary. If religion is about “what we ought or ought not to do” and science “what we can or can not do”, then the pitting of the battles are more likely to be presence than a polite acquiesce from either sides. The moving of time and history changes these boundaries like the tide washing away lines in the sand.
May 13, 2018
Stephen Jay Gould is an elegant writer who loved science and didn't understand the fuss between science and religion. In simple words, he saw science as a study of facts and religion the study of meaning and purpose. In other words, don't mix them up together. He died in the early 2000's suspecting that the fanatics/extremists on both sides would rise to the surface again. And they have. Oh well.
January 5, 2020
Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Audiobook) elegantly written, the idea of keeping science and religion separate is a must.
November 11, 2023
Well-written, well-meaning, but ultimately vacuous.
April 19, 2020
First I want to preface by saying, based upon some of the reviews I glanced over, that if you're looking for another religion-bash fest by yet another scientist, this book may not be up your alley. This book was published in 1999. While the topic of the book was largely fueled by the looming debate of whether creationism had a place to be taught in science curricula within the United States, it does not pander to the anti-theistic rhetoric that has been popularized by a handful of scientists and philosophers within the last two decades (Interestingly, the books by said philosophers and scientists expressing such fervent anti-theism gained a lot of popularity after the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th, 2001). So, with that said, I'd like to lay out some of the main points that caught my attention.
1) Gould argues that science and religion fall under the definition of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). He claims that science and religion occupy separate schools of thought and that these schools of thought have different philosophical objectives. I think most academics in both disciplines would generally agree with this. He argues that science focuses on the physical nature of our world while religion attempts to explore the meaning and morals that we give our own lives (I'm reluctant to mention morals because I feel like a lot of people have gotten unnecessarily hung up on this). He argues that much of these supposed conflicts stem from one party or another violating NOMA.
2) Gould makes the argument that much of the supposed conflict we observe between science and religion, or even religion against religion, are often about the clash of two or more political powers vying for influence by utilizing the tools that they have at their disposal. He uses the examples of Pio Nono (Pope Pius the IX) to illustrate the use of church doctrine in opposition to fellow members of his own wing who held more liberal leanings.
3) He traces the popularization of rhetoric that conflated science and religion as being at odds to the mid-late 19th century. During this time there was an large influx of Catholic immigrants and a growing fear that American values would soon deteriorate. Writers such as Draper and White spun the narrative that Christopher Columbus was a champion of science and reason against the dogmatic and superstitious Catholic Church. And Catholic immigrants would bring backwards superstitions and dogma that would bring our nation down.
4) Gould also points out scientists have often been guilty of of using their area of discipline to push their own political and social cause. e.g. the use of intelligence testing to institutionalize, sterilize, or otherwise segregate certain members of our society.
5) While Gould encourages the critique of dogma and superstition, he cautions against defining religion as nothing more than these features.
So, while I felt that the book as a whole was very well written, I feel that the way in which Gould defined the role of religion may be a bit of an oversimplification. I have to admit, I do not have a background in religious studies, so I can't provide a sufficient critique here. The last quarter of his book explains what these two disciplines must do in order to not violate NOMA. I think as an academic exercise, this makes a lot of sense. but in practice, I feel that this is often much easier said than done, particularly if your religion already has an anthropocentric view of the universe deeply ingrained in it's identity (Again, not my field. So, I could be completely wrong).
While I feel that his analysis of religion might be slightly lacking at times, I would definitely recommend this book as a useful way of examining and critiquing different schools of thought and their applications in the world. There is also great history about both Church leaders and scientists. I also thought that this book was a very interesting look into Gould's own agnosticism, his personal values, and how he saw his social responsibility as a scientist. Gould was someone who was always for good healthy discourse. but, he always emphasized the need to understanding where different positions were coming from and what fundamental, nuanced tools were being used to construct their logic.
1) Gould argues that science and religion fall under the definition of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). He claims that science and religion occupy separate schools of thought and that these schools of thought have different philosophical objectives. I think most academics in both disciplines would generally agree with this. He argues that science focuses on the physical nature of our world while religion attempts to explore the meaning and morals that we give our own lives (I'm reluctant to mention morals because I feel like a lot of people have gotten unnecessarily hung up on this). He argues that much of these supposed conflicts stem from one party or another violating NOMA.
2) Gould makes the argument that much of the supposed conflict we observe between science and religion, or even religion against religion, are often about the clash of two or more political powers vying for influence by utilizing the tools that they have at their disposal. He uses the examples of Pio Nono (Pope Pius the IX) to illustrate the use of church doctrine in opposition to fellow members of his own wing who held more liberal leanings.
3) He traces the popularization of rhetoric that conflated science and religion as being at odds to the mid-late 19th century. During this time there was an large influx of Catholic immigrants and a growing fear that American values would soon deteriorate. Writers such as Draper and White spun the narrative that Christopher Columbus was a champion of science and reason against the dogmatic and superstitious Catholic Church. And Catholic immigrants would bring backwards superstitions and dogma that would bring our nation down.
4) Gould also points out scientists have often been guilty of of using their area of discipline to push their own political and social cause. e.g. the use of intelligence testing to institutionalize, sterilize, or otherwise segregate certain members of our society.
5) While Gould encourages the critique of dogma and superstition, he cautions against defining religion as nothing more than these features.
So, while I felt that the book as a whole was very well written, I feel that the way in which Gould defined the role of religion may be a bit of an oversimplification. I have to admit, I do not have a background in religious studies, so I can't provide a sufficient critique here. The last quarter of his book explains what these two disciplines must do in order to not violate NOMA. I think as an academic exercise, this makes a lot of sense. but in practice, I feel that this is often much easier said than done, particularly if your religion already has an anthropocentric view of the universe deeply ingrained in it's identity (Again, not my field. So, I could be completely wrong).
While I feel that his analysis of religion might be slightly lacking at times, I would definitely recommend this book as a useful way of examining and critiquing different schools of thought and their applications in the world. There is also great history about both Church leaders and scientists. I also thought that this book was a very interesting look into Gould's own agnosticism, his personal values, and how he saw his social responsibility as a scientist. Gould was someone who was always for good healthy discourse. but, he always emphasized the need to understanding where different positions were coming from and what fundamental, nuanced tools were being used to construct their logic.
June 11, 2022
Certainly interesting, and well-written, but riddled with inconsistencies, shallow thought, and unexplored consequences. As a starting point, Gould pits science and religion against one other. You know, religion, that one monolithic way of approaching the world. Maybe he will define his terms before moving on. Science, according to Gould, is an attempt "to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts." Fair enough. What about religion? Religion, as defined by Gould, "operates in the...realm of human purposes, meanings, and values." Okay, but what is it? What does Gould mean when he says religion? No satisfactory answer is given. Gould goes on to say that these two forms of thought are distinct and should remain so. Except that "the factual domain of science might illuminate" the domain of religion? So are they seperate? It seems Gould holds to his NOMA (Non-Overlaping Magisteriums) principle, until he needs "religion" to cede ground to science. So while NOMA may exist, the boundaries of the Magisteriums is shifting. As a note, Gould never states this; as far as one can tell, Gould believes the boundaries are fixed. Perhaps undiscovered, but fixed. It is also interesting that, while Gould holds that religion cannot come into the realm of science, the same does not hold true for science jumping into the realm of religion. As stated above, Gould science can help religion answer the questions he has delegated to this realm. NOMA is more of a one way principle then; religion staying in its box, and science going wherever it shall please.
What is the solution, then? First, maybe science should have been pitted against philosophy, rather than "religion". I understand Gould was writing to address specific concerns about religion, but the dichotomy he creates is a false one. However, religion is not the only place people go to find meaning, purpose, and values. Neither is philosophy, but I would suggest that philosophy better encapsulates the process of determining that which cannot be understood through scientific investigation than religion. In addition, religion would theoretically be captured in the definition of philosophy. It would take the book of the heated debates, but, if I understand Gould correctly, he wants to move away from those debates.
To end on a high note, the book closed beautifully, encouraging a respectful and ongoing dialogue between science and religion. Now while this seems to undermine what I took to be the focus of the book (NOMA), I believe the sentiment is correct. There are different ways of gaining knowledge and wisdom. And in order to properly explore our world, we should engage with these different ways, and encourage respectful and thoughtful dialogue between them. If Gould had focused more on this aspect, and explored what this practically looks like, I would have enjoyed it far more. As it is, you can skip this book and stick to the summaries. That way you avoid getting upset at Gould for his inability to hold the threads of this work together while presenting a consistent position.
What is the solution, then? First, maybe science should have been pitted against philosophy, rather than "religion". I understand Gould was writing to address specific concerns about religion, but the dichotomy he creates is a false one. However, religion is not the only place people go to find meaning, purpose, and values. Neither is philosophy, but I would suggest that philosophy better encapsulates the process of determining that which cannot be understood through scientific investigation than religion. In addition, religion would theoretically be captured in the definition of philosophy. It would take the book of the heated debates, but, if I understand Gould correctly, he wants to move away from those debates.
To end on a high note, the book closed beautifully, encouraging a respectful and ongoing dialogue between science and religion. Now while this seems to undermine what I took to be the focus of the book (NOMA), I believe the sentiment is correct. There are different ways of gaining knowledge and wisdom. And in order to properly explore our world, we should engage with these different ways, and encourage respectful and thoughtful dialogue between them. If Gould had focused more on this aspect, and explored what this practically looks like, I would have enjoyed it far more. As it is, you can skip this book and stick to the summaries. That way you avoid getting upset at Gould for his inability to hold the threads of this work together while presenting a consistent position.
December 29, 2024
I enjoyed listening to this, but I felt the premised was flawed by first a limited understanding of religion and second a profound and I believe misplaced belief in humanity’s common goal of mutual understanding and respect. I think many of the religious people he would like to engage with have no interest in ceding areas of knowledge to science just because their religious ideas do not have onset connections to the material world.
June 4, 2024
A Detailed Analysis Of Religion And Science
With a heavy heart, I need to note that I believe this book was just an okay read.
I found it overly historical and scientific. Hard for me to get into the theology of it.
It was quite a heavy book.
Had a great message, and I only got it as it was referenced in another book I have been reading, but it was just not my type of book too much.
3/5
With a heavy heart, I need to note that I believe this book was just an okay read.
I found it overly historical and scientific. Hard for me to get into the theology of it.
It was quite a heavy book.
Had a great message, and I only got it as it was referenced in another book I have been reading, but it was just not my type of book too much.
3/5
August 25, 2023
Best een oppervlakkig boek eigenlijk. Eigenlijk presenteert Gould een werkelijkheidsvisie -die in zichzelf overigens niet eens gesloten is- en verdedigt die tegenover extreme representanten van beide zijden (creationisme vs. radicaal atheïsme); de nuances van de gepresenteerde werkelijkheidsvisie en haar verhouding tot mogelijke posities tussen beide extremen in zijn echter veel interessanter, en op dat punt word je met dit boek weinig wijzer.
Gould gebruikt wel prettig veel verschillende (soorten) bronnen; vandaar de 2e *. :)
Gould gebruikt wel prettig veel verschillende (soorten) bronnen; vandaar de 2e *. :)
August 3, 2023
Re-reading this book as part of a clear-out, I find its capacity to convince greatly diminished with another 20 years maturity. Gould asserts the principle of NOMA - Non-Overlapping Magisteria - by which religion and science maintain a gentlemanly distance and stick to their respective and non-interfering fields. Years of encountering creationists and anti-choice activists online make this seem something like appeasement. That kind of religion is relentless in its false claims in the domain of science, and Gould knew this from personal experience.
It seems to me now that science is also even the better source for moral reasoning. There is no valid path from "is" to "should be", yet religion in the hands of the political right informs us about neither. Gould probably meant well, but this work now seems to me to be dangerously naive.
It seems to me now that science is also even the better source for moral reasoning. There is no valid path from "is" to "should be", yet religion in the hands of the political right informs us about neither. Gould probably meant well, but this work now seems to me to be dangerously naive.
February 22, 2013
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.
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.
January 1, 2016
This excellent book outlines how and why science and religion should coexist without any violation to either body. This has been my intuition for a long time and reading this book has helped clarify it in my mind.
In addition to speaking to the invalidity of attempting to answer questions of factual nature from within the realm of religion, I appreciate Gould's acknowledgement that scientists have also overreached their domain both historically and currently. Scientists must also be held accountable--not to succumb to using science as pretense to put forward their own prejudices or politics.
And I have always found the militant atheists railing against religion as particularly distasteful. Here, Gould puts my exact feelings into words:
"I do get discouraged when some of my colleagues tout their private atheism as a panacea for human progress…. If these colleagues wish to fight superstition, irrationalism, philistinism, ignorance, dogma, and a host of other insults to the human intellect…then God bless them--but don't call this enemy 'religion.'"
The answers to all questions are not to be found in any one "magesteria" (the word Gould uses to describe a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for discourse). For a "full life" we must have a dialogue between them.
In addition to speaking to the invalidity of attempting to answer questions of factual nature from within the realm of religion, I appreciate Gould's acknowledgement that scientists have also overreached their domain both historically and currently. Scientists must also be held accountable--not to succumb to using science as pretense to put forward their own prejudices or politics.
And I have always found the militant atheists railing against religion as particularly distasteful. Here, Gould puts my exact feelings into words:
"I do get discouraged when some of my colleagues tout their private atheism as a panacea for human progress…. If these colleagues wish to fight superstition, irrationalism, philistinism, ignorance, dogma, and a host of other insults to the human intellect…then God bless them--but don't call this enemy 'religion.'"
The answers to all questions are not to be found in any one "magesteria" (the word Gould uses to describe a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for discourse). For a "full life" we must have a dialogue between them.
January 15, 2018
An intelligent book full of much common sense. In Rocks of Ages the author seeks a better understanding of religion, science, their limits, and their interplay. Gould writes as somebody displaying a well-rounded education and more than a little wisdom as opposed to what you most often find in the narrow, shallow, fanatical tirades of the more current New Atheists. Please read this book instead of Dawkin's The God Delusion. And if you read and/or liked The God Delusion, please try giving this book a read as a better alternative starting point to approaching the science/religion conflict.
Read
April 7, 2024If only Stephen Jay Gould had outlived Richard Dawkins! In Rocks of Ages, he presents his argument for non-overlapping magisterial, a mode of thought by which science and religion can both be understood to perform vital, related but distinct roles in human life. Non-overlapping magisterial allows science to function fully in discovering the realities of the natural world, while still allowing for religious belief and religion’s role in the formulation of morality and ethics. He also demonstrates, from his own agnostic position, the ability to still be respectful of those who are religious—allowing for a dialogue which Richard Dawkins’ more inflammatory brand of agnosticism precludes. An excellent, intelligent book, far more worth our time than listening to yet another unproductive, polarizing debate between a scientist and representative of fundamentalist Christianity.
December 24, 2014
Gould puts forward his idea of non-overlapping magisteria, where science deals with facts and religion with values. What a positively terrible idea! Suggesting that science and religion can mind their boundaries and occupy separate fields of expertise is laughable. Facts inform values, and the fact is that no religion has demonstrated its tenets to have any form of veracity or even an air of verisimilitude. Why would we leave the domain of ethics and morality to people who believe that such things are delivered by a voice in whirlwind? Gould makes an excellent biologist, paleontologist, advocate for science, and author. He makes a terrible apologist for religion. Then again, is there any other kind?
March 1, 2021
This author doesn’t seem to be starting where we are. He spends the whole book talking about how religion and science need not overlap, but in my mind this is a moot point because people ardently believe they do. His observations do nothing to reconcile the fractured relationship between science and religion. My favorite part of the book was the historical overview of creationism in US public school (spoiler alert team evolution was largely spearheaded by eugenicists). On the whole I didn’t find this book super useful.
February 19, 2016
Although this was a great read in which Gould takes a very liberal position in his consideration of a very sensitive issue, I can't agree with the best part of it. In fact, I don't agree with the underlying premises. However, much respect to Gould and his attempt to reconcile this matter. Id have rather given it 5 stars for enjoyability, and 1 star for validity.
April 3, 2021
Gould is always an entertaining writer and this little book is certainly worth checking out
April 19, 2025
I kept asking myself "how could somebody so smart write something so dumb?". This book is a perfect example of how even the smartest people can be undermined in their thought processes by bias. Even worse than that, this book is entirely pointless, as Gould himself admits that he is presenting a solution for what he views as a non-problem ("the war between religion and science").
His argument is simple. He presents the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA. In his argument, science and religion each represent one view of thinking (a magisterium) and do not overlap. Any overlap is the result of one magisterium stepping out of its bounds, such as creationism as a defense to dismiss science. I know this book is 25 years old and we've learned a lot more since then but even in the 1990s, Gould should have been able to understand the fundamental fallacy in his argument. Religion and science aren't separate magisteria. Religion is (and was the first) social construct humans developed to explain reality. It dominated for millennia and then science came along, which is a social construct that has been proven to be far more effective at describing reality than religion; so effective in fact that it has fundamentally proven many religious claims to be outright false.
From context clues, I feel like Gould knows this is the case about religion, as he admits in the book that religion has no equal footing with science and that he is only assigning morality to the magisterium of religion because it has been the basis for morality far longer than philosophy. In order to fit his argument, he is falsely propping up religion so that it conforms to his belief that it is a separate but equal domain to science. So on top of his argument ignoring reality, he's also allowing bias to inhibit his logic solely to achieve his purpose, which is to fix - as he describes it - the non-issue between religion and science. It's incredibly disappointing for someone considered to be a great scientist. What I found to be even more grating was his gaslighting techniques to prime the reader to take his side. He constantly makes claims that if you disagree with NOMA, you're the one being less intelligent, biased, etc.
I want to finish by making one thing abundantly clear. Religion is not the source of morality. It can be a source of morality, but rarely does it live up to that objective. It has been conclusively shown that religiosity has no bearing on moral and prosocial behavior and some studies suggest that religiosity may negatively correlate with moral behavior. This is largely because religion demands absolute morality, with many of the absolutes being contradictive toward human nature. The result is that religiosity becomes for show, in which people are outwardly performative but then don't actually act any more morally in private than an atheist adhering to a secular social contract. Religion also fosters outright immoral behavior, particularly because it prioritizes in-group sociality and out-group hostility. He completely ignores that; something that can be resolved by a secular social contract.
This entire argument is an example of pitiful reductionism. Gould wanted to appear as a peacemaker between science and religion as not to fall into the realm of other evolutionary scientists that he doesn't mention by name. He refers to them as mean because they are ruthless against their ignorant religious foes. Sure, someone like Richard Dawkins can come off as mean, condescending, and even arrogant. I think Dawkins on many occasions goes too far. But his arguments for atheism are major league and what Gould presents here is tee-ball.
His argument is simple. He presents the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA. In his argument, science and religion each represent one view of thinking (a magisterium) and do not overlap. Any overlap is the result of one magisterium stepping out of its bounds, such as creationism as a defense to dismiss science. I know this book is 25 years old and we've learned a lot more since then but even in the 1990s, Gould should have been able to understand the fundamental fallacy in his argument. Religion and science aren't separate magisteria. Religion is (and was the first) social construct humans developed to explain reality. It dominated for millennia and then science came along, which is a social construct that has been proven to be far more effective at describing reality than religion; so effective in fact that it has fundamentally proven many religious claims to be outright false.
From context clues, I feel like Gould knows this is the case about religion, as he admits in the book that religion has no equal footing with science and that he is only assigning morality to the magisterium of religion because it has been the basis for morality far longer than philosophy. In order to fit his argument, he is falsely propping up religion so that it conforms to his belief that it is a separate but equal domain to science. So on top of his argument ignoring reality, he's also allowing bias to inhibit his logic solely to achieve his purpose, which is to fix - as he describes it - the non-issue between religion and science. It's incredibly disappointing for someone considered to be a great scientist. What I found to be even more grating was his gaslighting techniques to prime the reader to take his side. He constantly makes claims that if you disagree with NOMA, you're the one being less intelligent, biased, etc.
I want to finish by making one thing abundantly clear. Religion is not the source of morality. It can be a source of morality, but rarely does it live up to that objective. It has been conclusively shown that religiosity has no bearing on moral and prosocial behavior and some studies suggest that religiosity may negatively correlate with moral behavior. This is largely because religion demands absolute morality, with many of the absolutes being contradictive toward human nature. The result is that religiosity becomes for show, in which people are outwardly performative but then don't actually act any more morally in private than an atheist adhering to a secular social contract. Religion also fosters outright immoral behavior, particularly because it prioritizes in-group sociality and out-group hostility. He completely ignores that; something that can be resolved by a secular social contract.
This entire argument is an example of pitiful reductionism. Gould wanted to appear as a peacemaker between science and religion as not to fall into the realm of other evolutionary scientists that he doesn't mention by name. He refers to them as mean because they are ruthless against their ignorant religious foes. Sure, someone like Richard Dawkins can come off as mean, condescending, and even arrogant. I think Dawkins on many occasions goes too far. But his arguments for atheism are major league and what Gould presents here is tee-ball.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews