You are absolutely right to say that Gould's worldview is an integral
part of his writings. Would you go on to say that his worldview is
an integral part of his scientific work? Gould spends enough time
showing that this is true of a great number of scientists in the past
- the real breakthrough in our understanding comes when we realise
that we cannot escape our worldviews - and all scientists bring their
worldviews to their work. The picture of "objectivity" that is
promoted by positivist science is a myth.
Incidentally, although I agree that Gould does not denigrate "humanity
and morality", I do think he denigrates Christianity. He wants to
confine Christianity along with other religions to ethics. This is
far removed from the calling of Christ: to love God with all our
heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbour as ourself.
(We use our minds in every area of life - not ethics only!).
> Philosopher Mary Midgley (Evolution as Religion, The Ethical
> Primate) also affirms the
> scientific conclusions of science without buying the scientific triumphalism
> (propaganda) or social Darwinist worldviews that so often are attached to it by
> popular science writers like Dawkins and Sagan. ... BTW, if anyone
> has read any Midgley, I'd like to hear what they they think. Though she
> doesn't avocate Christian religion (doesn't talk much about religion at all)
> her book _Ethical Primate_ brought me back from the brink of being a
> reductionist, atheist, life-is-pointless-except-for-doing-science Dawkins-esque
> view, allowing me to return to moderacy so that I now feel secure calling
> myself a Christian (at least by my definition!)
I have read "Evolution as religion" and would recommend it heartily
to anyone interested in the wider question of "What is science?" She
really has done a splendid job in demonstrating that evolutionary
ideas can take on all the qualities of a religious movement. True,
she is not distancing herself in any way from the evolutionary
explanation of life - but that was not her objective in writing.
During the last year, an organisation in London called "Christian
Impact" held an extended course on science and Christianity. It was
a historical/philosophical survey of the field with an impressive
list of speakers. One of them was Mary Midgley. I've listened to
about a dozen of the tapes of these lectures - including the one by
Midgley. She stuck very closely to issues raised in her book - and
it came over very well. She spoke as someone who stood outside the
Christian commitment of most of her hearers, but nevertheless was
very sensitive to their beliefs and interests.
> I have a lot of problems
> believing the specific myth-like stories in the Bible, but I don't think that
> is relevant to whether or not we can espouse the morals and meaning in life
> taught by the Christian faith). Hmmm, that last statement, especially, ought
> to provoke a response.
It perhaps ought to provoke a response! I am not comfortable with
taking "morals and meaning" as though these can be abstracted from
the context of God's revelation in history. However, my personal
preference is to limit my contributions to this reflector to matters
which impinge more overtly on origins.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***