Keith
>Below is another column from Michael Ruse at the University of Guelph in
>Ontario, Canada. Ruse offers a critical review of Stephen Jay Gould's recent
>book, Rock of Ages. Gould advocates the principle of "NOMA," that science and
>religion are "non-overlapping Magisteria." In so doing, Gould also criticizes
>many involved in the science and religion dialogue. Ruse finds fault and
>affirms that the necessity of religious thinkers taking their religion and
>their science seriously. He writes: "I simply do not see how the Jew or
>Christian can or should leave matters untouched at this point, passively
>accepting the science as given and gutting the religion of absolutely central
>content: evolution is contingent and hence we humans cannot make claim to
>special status."
>
>-- Billy Grassie
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>From: "M. Ruse" <mruse@arts.uoguelph.ca>
>Organization: College of Arts, U of G
>Subject: NOMA
>
>Stephen Jay Gould is justly honoured not only for his contributions to science
>but also for his sensitive and humane spirit, something which shines forth from
>his popular writings - especially his monthly column in Natural History. Nor
>should we forget his many activities on behalf of tolerance and understanding.
>Not the least is the work he has done to support the harmonious and fruitful
>mutual existence of science and religion. One of the proudest moments of my
>life was to stand shoulder to shoulder with Gould in Arkansas in 1981, as we
>appeared as expert witnesses for the American Civil Liberties Union in its
>successful attack on a law demanding that children of the state be taught
>Creationism alongside evolution in their biology classes.
>
>Recently, Gould has tied things together in a short book - Rocks of Ages:
>Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life - in which he expounds the
>principle by which he tries to preserve harmony and dignity between science and
>religion. Essentially his principle is one of separation: good fences make
>good neighbours. He thinks that science and religion speak to different
>dimensions and properly understood do not and cannot overlap and conflict. He
>speaks of science and religion as separate "Magisteria" - domains of
>understanding -- and Gould advocates the principle of "NOMA" - Non-Overlapping
>Magisteria. Science has its dimension and religion has its dimension and ne'er
>the twain shall meet. Creationism must be wrong because it is a Biblical
>(hence religious) doctrine presuming to speak of astronomy and biology
>(scientific doctrines).
>
>Obviously, things cannot be quite this simple. Even if one ignores what Ian
>Barbour has shown us in a helpful taxonomy, namely that Gould's NOMA is not the
>only possible stance on the science/religion relationship, the Gouldian
>separation ploy requires some further work. Prima facie, Genesis does tell us
>things which conflict with science - six days of creation, humans last,
>world-wide flood, tower of Babel, and so forth. If you are to insist that
>there is no conflict - and, in respects, I am happy to go along with Gould on
>this - then you have got to work to show that Genesis properly understood and
>science properly understood do not conflict. Prima facie conflict is no more
>than that -- prima facie -- and not definitive.
>
>But note now what usually happens, historically and conceptually, when you try
>to rule out conflict. It is religion which has to modify, in order to fit in
>with science unmodified. The scientist tells us that the universe is fifteen
>billion years old or whatever, and the religious believer shifts the
>interpretation of Genesis. The scientist tells us that evolution rules okay,
>and the religious believer shifts again. The scientist nixes the Flood and
>again the believer falls into place. And so on and so forth. This is fine and
>dandy, but what if the believer wants to go the other way? What if the
>believer insists that the science has to yield rather than the religion? I
>suspect that most people who work on the science/religion relationship from the
>science side of the divide, including both Gould and myself, would get very
>tense at this point. We would insist that, in the empirical realm, it is
>science which rules supreme and religion must make way. That is all there is
>to it. I suspect that if we are ourselves believers we would add something
>about our powers of reason being a gift from God, and hence - far from being a
>denial of true religion - this advance of science is a wonderful affirmation of
>our respect for God. God did not expect us to sit on our bottoms in ignorance,
>but to go out and to explore the wonderful creation.
>
>But does this mean that - for all that you are trying to convince yourself that
>this is what you wanted all along - the person working from the domain of
>religion must simply give way passively, never revising his or her beliefs
>except to trim yet more from the content? Is he or she at no point to look
>across to science for inspiration and understanding? This seems to be Gould's
>understanding of NOMA, and I confess that here (although I too come to the
>issues from the side of science rather than religion) I cannot follow him. If
>you interpret the divide in this stringent a way, then I fear that science is
>unjustifiably constraining the freedom of the theologian or the person of
>religion. One is deny him or her the right to revise and reinterpret one's
>faith in the light of scientific advances.
>
>Perhaps, if like certain liberal theologians of the last and present century,
>you are able to understand your faith solely in terms of ethical principles -
>Christianity reduces to moral sentiments about loving your neighbour and so
>forth - then probably you can go along with Gould. But if you think your faith
>makes existence statements - ontological commitments to such things as God's
>being creator of heaven and earth, of Jesus being the divine incarnate, and of
>the promise of eternal life for the saved - then I simply do not see how you
>can avoid trying to understand these statements and commitments in the light of
>the existence statements, the ontological commitments, of science. Comparison
>and influence comes with the territory.
>
>To show my unease, take the discussion at the end of Rocks of Ages. Gould
>speaks harshly of the contributions of speakers at a Templeton-sponsored
>conference, "Science and the Spiritual Quest," held at Berkeley last summer.
>Although I did attend some of the earlier workshops leading up to this
>conference, I was not at the main event. Hence, I cannot speak to the overall
>quality and content of the presentations. But consider what Gould has to say
>in reaction to reports of various offerings. First, he is very critical of the
>attempt (by F. Russell Stannard) to interpret the God/Jesus relationship in
>terms of the complementarity of the wave and particle natures of the electron.
>"Wooly metaphor misportrayed as decisive content" says Gould. "I don't see
>what such a comparison could indicate except that the human mind can embrace
>contradiction (an interesting point, to be sure, but not a statement about the
>factual character of God), and that people can construct the wildest metaphors"
>(216).
>
>But with respect, why should not Stannard play with such ideas and metaphors
>and analogies? Frankly, I do not know if it makes ultimate sense to talk of
>the Trinity. How can one thing be something else at the same time?
>Generations of critics -- many inspired by science -- have gone after
>Christianity on precisely this point. Yet, if it turns out that scientists are
>now playing this game, talking about something apparently having contradictory
>properties, why should not the Christian see if there is help and understanding
>in the new science for the old religious belief? Is the wave/particle
>complementarity of the electron precisely what Christians have been claiming?
>You may not illuminate anything in the end -- strictly speaking the point about
>Heisenberg's Principle is that if an electron is taken as a wave at some
>instant then it is no particle, and conversely. There is no claim that the
>electron is a wave and a particle at one and the same time. This may all be
>too weak for the Christian. But surely it is legitimate for the believer to
>try to see if modern physics has a kind of understanding which throws light on
>Christian claims.
>
>Next Gould criticizes Arthur Peacocke when he argues that modern biology
>suggests that God creates in a sequential fashion rather than all at once.
>"Has the factuality of an old-fashioned creating God been proven because Darwin
>used developmental language to describe the genealogical history of life?"
>Rhetorically, Gould asks: "Is Mr Peacocke's God just retooling himself in the
>spiffy language of modern science?" (217) Well, yes of course he is in a
>sense, but what is wrong with that? As a devout Anglican, Peacocke believes
>that God was creator. How can he fail then to ask how God was a creator?
>Modern science tells us that instantaneous creation is not on. What else is
>Peacocke to do but to ask if then God creates in an evolutionary fashion? Why
>should one not say, as does Catholic priest Ernan McMullin, following Saint
>Augustine, that however God created it was one which only unfurls gradually, as
>we get the expression of the seeds of development. And why should not Peacocke
>not now turn to science to find out how precisely this Augustinian suggestion
>this should be understood. Is one simply to remain silent?
>
>Third, I will mention Gould's comments on the anthropic principle, an idea
>which he considers either "utterly trivial" or "completely illogical" (218).
>Now let me say that this is a negative position not that far from my own.
>Despite the efforts of John Leslie, my long-time colleague and friend at the
>University of Guelph, I am inclined to think that the physicists of today are
>trying to resurrect arguments that the biologists of yesterday showed to be
>fallacious. And before them, David Hume cast a very cold, sceptical eye on
>this kind of caper. But one of the main reasons why I have never written
>formally on the topic of the anthropic principle, and probably never will, is
>simply because I do not know enough physics to give a formal proof of my
>suspicions and prejudices. I leave that to others and so I think should
>Gould. It is not enough simply to sneer and then dismiss.
>
>The people promoting the anthropic principle are serious thinkers, often
>knowing a lot of physics. To show them wrong, you too need to know some
>physics. Just as Gould would (rightly) claim that, if you are going to show
>the Creationists wrong about the fossil record, you need to know some
>palaeontology. Phillip Johnson's ludicrous claims about Archeopteryx are
>refuted by an understanding of avian evolution. Not by sneer and bluster. The
>same is true of physics. In any case, even if you can show that the anthropic
>principle does not do what its supporters claim, it is still open to the
>believer to argue that the design-like nature of the universe fleshes out one's
>faith, giving it deeper meaning. The same is true of the organic world. This
>has surely been the position of most sophisticated believers since Aquinas.
>Natural theology complements revealed religion. It does not replace it.
>
>No one has more respect than I for Stephen Jay Gould. I fear however that the
>fence he would build between science and religion lies too far on one side's
>land and not enough towards the middle. This is no trivial matter. There are
>some really serious issues still facing the person concerned to harmonize
>science and religion -- serious issues which the Creationist debate about
>Genesis does us all a disservice by drawing attention from them. Crucially, it
>is part of Judaeo-Christian theology that humans are not simply animals like
>any other, nor is our existence on this earth simply a matter of contingency.
>We are made in the image of God (whatever that might mean) and, although the
>universe may not exist for our special benefit, we humans do have a rather
>special place in the scheme of things.
>
>Yet it is Gould most prominently who has been preaching the non-directedness of
>evolution and the absolute radical contingency of our own existence. "Since
>dinosaurs were not moving toward markedly larger brains, and since such a
>prospect may lie outside the capabilities of reptilian design ..., we must
>assume that consciousness would not have evolved on our planet if a cosmic
>catastrophe had not claimed the dinosaurs as victims. In an entirely literal
>sense, we owe our existence, as large and reasoning mammals, to our lucky
>stars" (Gould 1989, 318). (Gould is here referring to the asteroid which hit
>earth about 65 million years ago, killing the dinosaurs and making possible the
>rise of the mammals.)
>
>I simply do not see how the Jew or Christian can or should leave matters
>untouched at this point, passively accepting the science as given and gutting
>the religion of absolutely central content: evolution is contingent and hence
>we humans cannot make claim to special status. As it happens, there are a
>number of options which present themselves here to the believer. (I discuss
>the various options in some detail in a book to appear next year: Can a
>Darwinian be a Christian?) Holmes Rolston I suspect would want to modify the
>science, making room for progress. But, as I explained above, people like
>Gould and myself would feel uncomfortable about altering our science purely to
>accommodate religion. Even if things work for the moment, you lay yourself
>open to the possibility of another theory next year which spoils everything.
>Another option, one I favour, is to argue that Gould's scientific contingency
>says nothing about the theological non-contingency of Judaeo-Christianity. But
>if you are going to go this route - or any other - you are surely going to
>engage in precisely the kind of enterprise for which we have just seen Arthur
>Peacocke criticized. In Gould's rather unkind way of putting things, you are
>going to have to reinterpret your faith in the "spiffy language of modern
>science." My point is that I do not see how you could avoid doing this, which
>leads me to conclude that Gould's NOMA is a lot less balanced and fair-minded
>than appears at first sight.
>
>Both Stephen Jay Gould and myself would describe ourselves as "agnostics" - how
>I hate that word with its odour of indifferent fence-sitting, true of neither
>of us - and I suspect that we both find as offensive the militant atheism of a
>Dawkins as the strident literalistic Calvinism of a Plantinga. But we must
>take care not to deny those who do not share our scepticism the right to
>explore and develop their beliefs in the light of modern science.
>
>
>References:
>
>Barbour, I. 1988. Ways of relating science and theology. Physics, Philosophy,
>and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding., 21-48. Vatican City: Vatican
>Observatory.
>
>Gould, S J. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.
>New York: Ballantine.
>
>---. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New
>York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton Co.
>
>McMullin, E. 1993. Evolution and special creation. Zygon 28: 299-335.
>
>Rolston III, H. 1999. Genes, Genesis and God: Values and their Origins in
>Natural and Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Footer information below last updated: 2/25/1999.
>
>Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service dedicated to
>promoting the constructive engagement of science and religion.
>Subscriptions are free. For more information, including subscriptions,
>archives and submission guidelines, go to <http://www.meta-list.org>.
>
>If you would like to unsubscribe to Meta at any time, simply "Reply" to
>this message with the word "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. We will
>promptly disable your subscription. Thanks.
>
>Please feel free to forward all Meta postings in their entirety including
>this notice. It is the intention of the editor that each posting be
>protected by copyright as a compilation. Permission is granted only for
>duplication and transmission of each message complete and intact including
>this paragraph. Otherwise, duplication and/or transmission of any portion
>should be guided by "fair use" principles, and explicit permission should
>be obtained when needed. Except when permitted by "fair use," permission
>to duplicate or transmit any portion written by a contributor must be
>obtained from that author.
> -Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999.
>William Grassie <http://www.voicenet.com/~grassie>.
>
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/