Gould's Separate 'Magisteria': Two Views. - Review - book reviews

We present two independent and contrasting reviews of Stephen Jay Gould's latest book Rocks of Ages. - The Editor

MARK W. DURM

The quotation in the inset is an excellent description of this fascinating book by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould proposes "an eminently sensible solution to the nonproblem of supposed conflict between science and religion." I think not only that all scientists and religious leaders should read it but also lay people, school teachers, Sunday school teachers, and counselors to name just a few. Gould writes that even though his "sensible solution" is supported by most major thinkers in both science and religion, it is usually resisted and poorly comprehended. Gould, in his lucid and lively manner, explains why.

To begin with, Gould believes this supposed conflict exists in people's minds and social practices, not in the logic or functioning of these "entirely different, and, equally vital, subjects." He proffers that people of good will want to see religion and science at peace together and for both to enrich, enliven, and enhance people's existence. Gould offers the analogy of the human body that requires both food and sleep, "the proper care of any whole must call upon disparate contributions from independent parts."

The proper care of the whole is NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Gould carefully explains that the term magisteria is not akin to majesty or majestic but instead is defined as a "domain where one form of teaching holds appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution." That is, people debate and exchange dialogue under a magisterium. Even though the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap, even though one studies the age of rocks while the other proclaims the rock of ages, even though one pursues knowledge of how the heavens go while the other of how to go to heaven (paraphrasing Gould here); both can be independent, can be NOMA, and yet still contribute to the essence of life of the whole person. Is not the whole worth more than the sum of its parts?

In the first section titled "The Problem Stated," Gould passionately writes of Charles Darwin and presents a picture of this man that few know. He writes of Darwin's despair at the death of his young daughter Annie. And even though he permanently lost a personal belief in a caring God, he did not become hostile toward religion nor did he try to impose his belief upon others. Why? Because Gould argues that Darwin "understood the difference between factual questions with universal answers under the magisterium of science [as compared to] moral issues that each person must resolve for himself." That is, the magisteria do not overlap, the "causes of life's history could not resolve the riddles of life's meaning." Darwin knew this, accepted it, and went on to live a happy life.

In the second section, "The Problem Resolved in Principle," Gould defines and defends NOMA. He writes that since the two realms of science and religion cannot fuse, each of us must integrate them into a coherent view of life with the result of something "more precious than rubies" - wisdom. This integration into a coherent whole requires equal status for each, but the religion described here need not be formal, but may instead be a magisterium of moral ethics and meaning.

Further in chapter two, Gould summarizes the first commandment for NOMA: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science" - that is, a miracle. Writes Gould:

NOMA is no wimpish, wallpapering, superficial device ... NOMA is a proper and principled solution - based on sound philosophy.... NOMA is tough-minded. NOMA forces dialogue and respectful discourse about different primary commitments. NOMA does not say "I'm OK, you're OK - so let's just avoid any talk about science and religion."

Section three describes "Historical Reasons for Conflict" and its content is enlightening. Gould documents that prior to Columbus most scholars, even Christian scholars, believed that Earth was round. Why then the flat Earth problem? Well, according to Gould, there was not a fiat Earth problem prior to 1870 in America, but after 1880 almost all history texts featured the problem! It was this time, roughly between 1870 to 1880, that warfare between science and religion started in America and became a guiding theme for Western history. That is, science was gaining and religion (particularly Catholicism) was retreating. According to Gould, two nineteenth-century authors, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, started the war - Draper with his History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science published in 1874 and White with his 1896 publication A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Draper's text was strongly anti-Catholic, anti-Rome. What better way, thought Draper, to weaken the Vatican's hold than to say the Catholic church believed in a flat world, and science had proved them wrong.