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

This is the third time in as many weeks that I haven’t received the books I paid for. Buyers beware!

Truths and facts deal with different areas of life and different styles of learning. This book helps sort them out. It is an aetheist's book written for Christians.

Gould (I admit) is probably my favorite writer of science. His breadth and scope and odd comparisons combined with a witty, erudite literary style make for excellent reads. But here we are tackling the great Bugaboo - science and religion. Considering all that could have been said and has been said about the subject, SJG admirably rises to the occasion. Gould points out that despite his own theological doubts, Darwin never used evolution to to crusade for atheism or the non-existence of God or, I should add, a political agenda. He, like Gould, was a liberal who thought coexistence was possible between the two spheres. Gould defines something called Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) - that provides for separate arenas of activity. As long as they do not venture into each others fields they can not only exist but flourish. His own views tended toward the agnostic/atheist but he shows a wise appreciation for not only the strenght but role of religion in society. This idea is naturally rejected by what Gould calls the Fundamentalist Darwinians - Dawkins, Dennet, Smith, et al, who see no need for any kind of spiritual sphere in human existence. Indeed Dawkins calls on readers not to respect religious ideas - the very opposite of the tolerance Gould (and Darwin) preach. The "Fundamentalists" view morality, emotions and psychology in deterministic terms, as nothing more than mechanical outcomes of the interaction of genes guided by natural selection. The fact that Gould is a non-believer and frequently uses religious terms and imagery is all the more galling to this group. Inside, we have the usual essays wherein he dispenses with creationists, literalists and fundamentalists. As some have noted, his idea of religion is a liberal one that has dispensed with such things as miracles, saints and ghosts. He deals extensively with Darwin's own struggle revealed in his letters and writing. We read of his doubts, his inner conflicts and search for some type of resolution. He speaks of the Pope's acceptance of evolution (which was mocked by Dawkins). In the past he has written of that feeling of grandeur as he sang in a Requiem Mass. He may not believe in God but he definitely feels that mankind is more than a collection of chemical processes, gene machinations and adaptation. After all, only we have the ability to understand such grand ideas.

As with the other recently published works by Stephen J. Gould, this book has contempory essays from "Natural History" a monthly journal.I don't subscribe to "Natural History" but I am intrigued by the author's intellect and inquisitive nature. Taking dissimilar topics like religion and science and intergrating, dissecting, analyze, and interpreting as only those familuar with Gould know how he does it.There is exploring and elaboration through thought-provoking prose, as Gould guides you though his thought process. Huxley, Darwin and Galileo are all part and parcel, formost as individuals, but how they wrestled with matters of science and faith, much as Gould questions. Resolved as an experience of being human and the riches it provides, knowing that they can coexist, profound as they are and the dichotomy they pose.This is a quick and fast read...enjoyable in that the author is elegant in his clarity of the work.This topic could be a real quagmire, but the author is fleet of foot or is that fleet of pen...and gets us on his train of thought and resolutions. I recommend this book... if for nothing else the whit and humor albeit tongue and cheek... of the author.Excellent writing and easy reading...enjoy it as I did.

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.

Gould is a master of clear and concise presentation. This most recent effort keeps his record on that score pristine. As a reviewer writing from Kansas, a state racked by the most recent example of the long history of conflict between science and religion, this book could not be more timely or more on point. Gould deftly defines the line between the magisterium of religion and the magisterium of science and demonstrates that it is a line which is crossed all too often. Gould reminds us all of the absurdity of looking to religion to define the physical world around us. However, he just as effectively warns us of the danger in using science to provide answers to questions of ultimate meaning or morality. That is not to say that Gould's clarity makes for easy acceptance. Much of what I found most convincing in Gould's presentation was also a source of greatest personal challenge. It seems unavoidable and natural that the "truths" of science will lead people to draw implications that affect personal answers to those ultimate questions about "truth" that are the usual domain of religion or philosophy. Many in our society can easily dismiss the biblical fundamentalist who clings to "Creation Science" as being hopelessly blinded by misplaced religious fervor but Gould's presentation challenges everyone to become aware of the assumptions and "facts" that are often silently inherent in our religious beliefs. Many will bristle, as I did, at Gould's apparent mitigation of the magisterium of religion to simply questions of morality but in the end, I can not disagree with such a characterization and it is not out of alignment with even the most personal of religious belief. More importantly, good faith application of Gould's "solution" should encourage a little more humility in that very vocal community of individuals who hold out science as being the foundation of an athiestic or naturalistic view of the world. On a very basic level, Gould's division of the domains of religion and science is just common sense but the value of this little gem of a book lies most surely in its ability to make each of us examine ourselves honestly. Gould is absolutely correct; we all must deal with the facts of the physical world just as surely as we all must make decisions about how we will live our lives and, indeed, what values we give to our lives. Shouldn't our foundation for answering such questions be on solid rock, instead of shifting sand? Gould's presentation provides a clear path for avoiding the sand and finding the solid rock.