Just Finished Reading: Rock of Ages – Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life by Stephen Jay Gould (FP: 1999)

OK, this is likely to turn into a bit of a polemic so bear with me….

I’d heard about the author’s idea of NOMA – Non-overlapping Magisteria – some years ago and pretty much shrugged my shoulders at the time. The idea that Science and Religion operated (and should indeed operate) in different spheres didn’t really interest me much but somehow I picked up the book somewhere (I can’t remember where or when) and I finally got around to reading it. Fortunately, at just over 200 pages, it was a quick read – especially as it had just two central ideas. The first is that the war between Science and Religion doesn’t actually exist. The second idea is that, because of what each side deals with, such conflict cannot actually take place unless those involved hold ideas that are essentially contrary to logic. I actually agree with his first assertion and took a great deal of exception to his second.

The so-called ‘war’ between Science and Religion is indeed a myth – but not for the reasons the author briefly outlined. The reason why no war exists is that Science won – decisively. Any ‘battles’ that periodically erupt are nothing of the sort. Personally I wouldn’t even classify them as rear-guard actions. Ransom acts of sniping maybe but essentially inconsequential – much like firing paintballs at battleships the effect might be briefly colourful but is neither entertaining nor illuminating. I do, however, understand why the author made the early assertion that he did – which is embedded in his overall argument. Those proposing either a Young Earth or who propose Creationism in opposition to Evolution are crossing the domain boundaries between Science and Religion. There boundaries are, the author mains clearly defined. Science deals with all aspects of the physical world and Religion deals with all aspects of Morality. In the authors paradigm religion should never attempt to explain the physical world and science should never attempt to explain or intrude upon the moral world. This includes people like Richard Dawkins and others from the scientific world who have attempted to weigh in (badly in my experience) on religious or moral issues. If these clear boundaries are respected, the author maintains, then all would be right with the world. I do not agree – at all.

As a scientist the author should be very well aware that attempts to limit the scope of science have never gone particularly well. Scientific investigation has a century’s long habit of going where it wants. Indeed it is more often attracted by ‘No Entry’ signs than repelled or even slowed down by them. Naturally there have been areas (indeed eras) where the scientific method has struggled or even failed to take purchase – the Supernatural (if such a thing actually exists) is, by its very nature anti-ethical to the methodology of science. But is morality likewise outside the remit of science? I think not. Just off the top of my head I can think of several areas of scientific enquiry that would make distinct inroads into our understanding of the human moral animal: the evolution of empathy, neurophysiology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, cultural anthropology, primate studies and so on. So moral studies are clearly not outside of the scientific ‘magestria’ by a long shot.

The author makes, I think, a common error in thinking in binary – either/or. In so many minds things seem to be either x or y. Existence is, I think, a ‘little’ more nuanced than that. Personally I don’t believe in the either/or scenario of science *or* religion. The authors thinking seems to go like this – morality is not a physical phenomenon therefore does not rest within the scientific sphere *therefore* must rest in the religious sphere – as if only two possible positions are possible. I did think, at first, that maybe the author had not heard of a substantial body of work called Philosophy. But apparently he had and briefly mentioned that field and seemed to believe that it was a sub-category of Religion. Personally I would consider religion to be a sub-category of philosophy, not the other way around. This is, I think, where the author’s whole argument falls apart (even more so than it had already). I think that’s its undeniable that at least some aspects of morality can be informed from a scientific standpoint – at least to the extent that we could discover where at least some morality comes from and understand how morality changes over time and from place to place. Also undeniable is the fact that other – possibly the majority – aspects of morality are indeed outside the remit of science. For example, science can show the benefits of genetic engineering but its usage – especially in the human genome – are political and moral issues not scientific ones. But I cannot believe that the author would honestly expect to ask religious leaders or religious leaders alone to decide how to proceed. It’s entirely possible for their input to be solicited before any policy decisions are made but that would not be the only advice sought nor would they have a veto on the decision to go ahead or not.

Personally I think that Morality sits firmly within the sphere of Philosophy and not Religion – indeed that religion itself sits within philosophy rather than completely separate from it. Far from being any kind of expert in religion (which should be obvious by now) I fully agree that many aspects of religion are WAY outside the scientific paradigm – God gene or no God gene! Certain aspects of religion can be studied scientifically but that’s really as far as it goes. But at the same time I believe that the author is fundamentally wrong in all of his assertions and presents us with yet another example of an expert in one field completely out of his depth in another. Whilst I cannot honestly recommend this book it was an interesting example of someone trying to square a circle that doesn’t actually exist – so no wonder he failed (at least in my estimation). Oh, if you’re interested I think ‘The God Delusion’ was a really poor work too!