Gould, Religion, and Science

There is a great desire to avoid liminatilty and favor the binary. That is, we want straightforward answers based on unquestionable dogma or laws. The prospect of finding purpose through reflective thinking is too high of a burden, and perhaps too dangerous a one, for many. However, that, appears, to be the route Stephen Jay Gould, in Rocks of Ages, would like us to take in approaching science and religion.

Often time’s people try to frame the mechanisms and phenomena of nature in moralistic, meaningful and purposeful terms. When one sees a Kangaroo eat a penguin, because that happens, they attempt to find a deeper meaning behind it. The naïve might say, “Look, this is representative of how man is to live his life. Using the flightless and undaring among us for sustenance.  Viva la the ubermesch!” When in reality the kangaroo eats the penguin because the penguin is food that provides the nutrients it needs while being an easy catch in the sky.

Gould would argue, however, that nature is indifferent to us. It has not preferences for morality or meaning. It does not tell us, as conscious and Intentional humans, how to live our lives. It ought not be used as a blanket for our comfort. Something to provide us definite answers to our difficult questions. If we do this, we ignore the horrors of nature. We make out the amoral actions, those that we might find disgusting and cruel, as positives, lest we face what we think would be a dark existence. But it need not be dark, for we need not, or rather, should not rely on nature for meaning. If we did, if were relied on it for human constructions of life, then it is likely that we would have to accept that rape and murder and other similar atrocities are necessary facets of life. Instead, we must attain an understanding or our worth how we should live our life through the capacities of our mind, which includes religion, according to Gould. 

But we also must be humble with our conceptions of life’s meaning. We ought not be so aggrandizing to think that mans intellect is capable of devising a ostensibly correct understanding of life. Although we may have our suspicions, we cannot know for certain and it is not necessary for us to know for certain for humans to be able to live meaningful lives.

I think Gould has made some strong points in this last chapter. I agree, it is not so much religion itself that I am against; rather it is what people do with it. When the religious use their beliefs to promote dogmatism, environmental degradation, economic impoverishment, socio-cultural deprivation, irrationalism, philistinism, superstition, and ignorance. However, Gould seems to be making a circle out of a square in this situation. Sure, when religion is stripped of all the facets which he condemns, when it is prevented from making the claims it does, religion can exist without overlapping science. However, it is only after shaving off the edges that Gould is able to get religion to this position. His first step in reconciling the two is conflict. 

Please leave any comments below. We appreciate any and all feedback.