Rocks of Ages : Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life

Rating:
Summary: "The NOMA Declaration"
Review: "fie on the creationists and evangelizing atheists alike!"

Reviewer: Marc A. Schindler from Spruce Grove AB
One can tell how much I enjoy a book by how many pages I turn over. Usually a spontaneous literary tic on my part, it's a sign that there's something thought-provoking, something I want to follow up on, or merely a mile marker on the highway which shows where I had an "ah ha!" experience. Many pages were folded over in this relatively short and very easily readable book which nevertheless manages to convey some very deep concepts. This is the book where the late Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, an admitted agnostic of secular Jewish background, defines - re-defines, really - an approach to reconciling science and religion which he calls Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). This is the "NOMA Declaration," as it were.
Reconciling science and religion is a passion of mine, and when I find something that helps me, I'm enthused. I'm even more enthused when it's a book I can recommend to practically anybody to help them understand something I feel very strongly about: a) ultimately all knowledge is part of a greater truth, but while we are in this mortal existence we have certain limits placed upon our abilities to gain and understand the most transcendent truths; b) science and religion both address questions of knowledge, and they sometimes appear to conflict; c) the key isn't in trying to express one type of knowledge in terms of the others - that leads to the square pegs and round holes of fundamentalist creationism and atheistic scientism - but in learning about the meaning of the questions that each "magisterium" (realm of inquiry, as Gould defines it) poses.
And this book does that very, very well.
Reading level required: Grade IX AP (it helps to have had at least introductory high school biology, and will be easier for those with 2nd year high school biology).

Rating:
Summary: Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life
Review: Dr. Gould reconciles the separate and equally important domains of religion and science using the life, times and perspectives of some of science's great thinkers. His message of tolerance and understanding is made from an open, yet skeptical, perspective. His thumbnail biography of Charles Darwin is so touching that it can bring almost anyone to tears. As one who does not yet know enough to know the truth with respect to belief systems, I found much harmony with Gould, Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley. It is a compact book (222 5" by 8" pages of large type with large margins) and easily read in a day. It is a satisfying read that, by its very nature, leaves you ready for more.

Rating:
Summary: It's Not Science Vs. Religion
Review: For thinking people there really should be no conflict between science and religion. Science tells you how to build an atom bomb, but it can't even address the question of whether you should use it. Religion, on the other hand, grapples with serious moral questions and offers wisdom about how to live your life. Gould makes clear that only a fundamentalist (i.e Biblical literalist) views Religion and Science like "the Hatfields and the McCoys." (If you think the Bible can do a better job than science of explaining the fossil record, for instance, you won't find much sympathy here.) However, Gould - an agnostic - clearly concedes religion its domain. Reading this book could do a lot of people a lot of good. (Unfortunately, my guess is the ones who could use it most will never pick it up. Some folks aren't much for exposing themselves to contrary points of view.) The book is a good introduction for someone who hasn't really considered the separate realms and dual functions of science and religion. Gould, ordinarily a fabulous essayist, writes much more gracefully in his other volumes in my view. I might have supposed it was ghost written by Joe Friday: just the facts, mam.

Rating:
Summary: Gould hits a home run but leaves a couple bases untagged
Review: Gould argues that the apparent conflict between science and religion is an illusion, and he provides a variety of interesting, thorough, and quite readable examples that support the utility of his position. Gould's major points are certainly not new, but few have laid them out as convincingly. It should be noted that Gould fails to satiate the scientifically minded reader by offering weak coverage of an important and clearly relevant issue: whereas in theory NOMA as a guiding framework appears to have strong utility, in practice it is (and will continue to be) infrequently applied. To take one example, if the concept of NOMA wasn't somewhat lacking in practical utility, scientists would have little difficulty leaving their background in science aside when discussing issues that fall under the magisterium of religion. But the fact is that scientists and non-scientists behave very differently from one another when confronted with questions that fall outside of the magisterium of science. The reasons for such differences are likely to have critical implications for the practical utility of NOMA. Gould unfortunately leaves some of these issues unconsidered. Despite its weaknesses, this book is easily worth the time and effort, not to mention the cost.

Rating:
Summary: sdklfsd
Review: I had to write a review for this for my Biology class so I thought I might as well post it here.

Overall, even though the book has a strong thesis and idea, I felt that the book was pretty dry and almost redundant at times. There were a few enjoyable moments where Gould's voice really stood out, but other than that the book was extremely boring about a topic that shouldn't be. Gould's intentions are pretty clear over the course of the novel, but I think that he should have undertaken them in a different way. There are also times in the book where he seems to drift on and just throw in irrelevant information that leaves you wondering, "Where did that come from?" At times it seems he beats around the bush and doesn't get to his main point of what NOMA is. Although I am more or less bashing the book, some of the accounts in Rocks of Ages were pretty interesting, including the Christopher Columbus and William Jennings Bryan portions of the book. For example, I learned that back in the 1400's, it was not perceived that the world was flat. Instead, this was just an overblown exaggeration that went along with the story of Columbus discovering the Americas. The problem about my liking towards these sections of the book is that they are not really the basis and meat of Gould's argument. Also, another problem that I have with this book is the construction of sentences. There are times in the book where it is almost torture to read the amazingly long, run-on sentences. On top of this, the author adds in thoughts or other tidbits of information mid-sentence, making the already dizzying text even harder to get through. Gould is definitely a skilled writer but I believe that he misuses his talents at times in this book. In general, the book is an interesting read on a thought provoking subject that has been around for several centuries. Gould makes his solution pretty simple, and overall gets his point across about the matter of religion and science. However, the manner that he does this in is very dry, and at times, just flat out boring to tell the truth. To conclude, I would probably Rocks of Ages a C+ or B- just for the valid points and suggestions that Gould brings up, but it could have been done a lot better in my opinion.

Rating:
Summary: A Cudgel for creationists
Review: We must be gentle with Stephen Gould. He has stood on the brink of the abyss, confronting the Great Mystery. It is his good fortune [and ours] that he was able to step back and remain with us to continue exercising his fine research and writing for our benefit. ROCKS OF AGES is an expression of his gratitude for the reprieve; a highly personal statement resulting from a crisis. In the past, such thoughts committed to paper usually remained in someone's journal, locked away in a drawer to be retrieved by later generations. Perhaps Steve Gould would have been wiser to follow that example.

This book contains so many flaws that in listing them it's difficult to know where to start. Or stop. Above all else, it's impossible to answer the fundamental question posed to any author: who is this book written for? Scientists? Gould wants science and religion at peace. So which scientists are at war with religion? Did he really write this book solely as an assault on Richard Dawkins, the only truly outspoken critic of religion in the scientific community? One book, one man; a slogan reminiscent of kamikaze pilots.

Is 'religion' the target audience? Gould takes 132 pages [of 222] to admit he knows nothing of Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Aboriginal worship or other 'non-Western' religions. Doesn't leave much to choose from, does it? Judeo-Christian tradition remains the last available readership for ROCKS. And 'Rock of Ages' isn't a Jewish hymn.

By deduction then, we surmise he's addressing Christianity in seeking a peace. Good luck to him. Darwin didn't attack religion in Origin, but the Church put it on the Index before the ink was dry, yearning for a pole and some dry branches with which to 'redeem' the author. It was religion that launched the war against science, not vice versa, no matter how deviously Gould evades that fact. He cites the long history of theologians dabbling in natural phenomena as a sign of the merger of science and religion he seeks. The position, like most of this book, is false. Like many artists and composers of earlier days, 'scientific' theologians existed for one reason - no-one else had access to an education. Even Darwin entered university intending a clerical future. If you didn't subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles, you didn't get through the porticullis. SAT tests don't challenge the soul.

So why did Gould produce this poorly conceived volume? In HOW WE BELIEVE, Gould's friend Michael Shermer gave 'consolation' as the chief reason for Americans' adherence to christianity. 'Consolation', however, remains a vague term. Presumably, the root issue is what happens After? Gould, having faced that question, has given us this book as the result. Never mind all the pap about ethics and morals he drags us through. Who gave Christians a monopoly over what is ethical and moral? Or even beautiful?

The real issue is the Great Mystery and how we face it. Gould cites Mark Twain on comparing natural versus christian morals [the ichneumon wasp episode]. He should have delved more deeply into Twain, who described Christian mothers imparting a Moral Sense to their children and 'soiling their minds'. Twain, too, considered the After, finding it sterile, devoid of meaning unless human values were introduced. He described the dichotomy of Sheol and Paradise as 'heaven for climate, hell for society'.

Gould has once again handed the creationists a cudgel to use on the research community. To his iconoclastic assault on Darwin's natural selection, he has added an apologia for religion, urging Christians to keep snug within their own magisterium. Unfortunately, Christians feel that bailiwick includes public school boards and the tax office. The result will be an enlarging of the disparity of resources expended on church facilities versus research institutions. It is money that keeps research going, and if those funds are diverted into the magisterium of religion, there will be even less for paleontological field research. Snug in his office of semi- retirement, Stephen J. Gould will not feel the loss.