ROCKS OF AGES - Book Review
15th June 2002
The next issue, Number 73, will appear on 15th July 2002.
BOOK REVIEW - ROCKS OF AGES - ISBN 0-099-28452-9
by Stephen Jay Gould
NOMA (the acronym standing for Non-Overlapping Magisteria) is the main subject of this book. The term is applied particularly to the relations between Science and Religion - which Gould holds to be non-overlapping magisteria.
This review was written before the sad news of Stephen Jay Gould's untimely death. His ideas - and any sincerely expressed comment on those ideas - remain in place.
The central idea - magisterium - is defined, by the author, as "a domain of authority in teaching". This review is highly critical of Gould's thesis; indeed, in the opinion of the reviewer, science and religion do actually overlap and neither of them is strictly, on Gould's definition of the term, a magisterium. It is claimed therefore that, the merits of the book notwithstanding, Stephen Jay Gould's main contention is not acceptable.
Clearly if magisteria, in general, did overlap then we would have to ask which writ runs in the area of overlap? To have differing overlapping authorities must result in only one of them being perceived, by any one commentator, as authoritative - no more than one of them could survive as a domain of authority binding upon that commentator. So, Overlapping Magisteria is oxymoronic and NOMA is (on Gould's definition of magisterium) tautological. So the first two letters of the acronym are obviously surplus to semantic requirements.
From a an agnostic standpoint (which Gould adopts explicitly) his definition of 'magisterium' should be amended to read "a domain of claimed authority in teaching". To make a claim does not entail its acceptance beyond the ranks of those making it. There is, to my knowledge, only one claim to magisterial status - that made by the RC Church. That claim is not accepted by millions of non-Catholics (other religionists, secularists, atheists, agnostics) and is tacitly rejected, by many people inside that Church in connection with many rulings, made under claimed magisterium. It is one thing to say that a magisterium is claimed; it is quite another to demonstrate its authenticity. It is yet another to invent magisteria out of thin air - as SJG does; he postulates magisteria of religion and science. Oddly, he does not postulate a magisterium of epistemology
To show the unsoundness of inventing magisteria at will it is useful to identify the known characteristics of a widely received magisterium. These characteristics can be identified by examining the RC model as an example - or, more precisely perhaps, as the sole member of a class of one. These characteristics of magisterium are as follows.
1) there is central core of perceived certainty. In the case of the RC Church, this certainty is thought of a as resting on Papal Infallibility, ex cathedra, in respect of faith and morals.
2) there is an overtly hierarchical organisation downwards from Pope to parishioner. The ethos of this structure is summed up in the word obedience - of the lower to the higher, of the periphery to the centre.
3) considering the above two characteristics and considering, moreover, that "faith and morals" are, effectively the commanding heights of serious thinking ...... considering that ...... there is a perception, among the faithful, of de facto reliability extending into matters not strictly within the terms of the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
4) parallel to, and all of a piece with, this structure of hierarchical obedience, is the characteristic logical feature of Roman Catholic thought. That feature is the predominant practice of relentless deduction from alleged absolutes quite irrespective of human realities. For example, the deductive mentality has no difficulty in equating the pregnancy of a young victim of gang rape with the pregnancy of a securely married, prosperous woman who has made a chaste contraceptive error. From the premise that procured abortion is absolutely wrong, it follows, deductively, that neither pregnancy can legitimately be terminated. In such cases there is often ruthless insistence that hard cases make bad law.
There is clearly no pan-religious magisterium. The many religions on offer are at best merely on speaking terms; at worst they are at war (cold or hot) with one another. The phrase 'religious magisterium' is thus void even though liberal religionists wish ardently that there might be, one day, such an entity. There is an arltess piece of double-think in Gould's insistence that while there is such a thing as religion in general, when he applauds it, there is no such thing as religion in general when anyone criticises it.
It need hardly be argued that science has features diametrically opposed to each of the four magisterial characteristics listed above. To speak of the "magisterium of science" is vacuous.
There is a throw-away phrase in the book - "the magisterium of art". There is no such claimed magisterium outside the mind of Stephen Jay Gould. What an invention! The very idea is simply laughable but, to be fair, SJG does not follow it up in this book about science and religion.
The central thrust of the book - that science and religion are NOMA - is philosophically unsound. NO is redundant and MA is not the right word.
So we need not be surprised that there is no mention in the book of a magisterium of philosophy. If such existed then it would surely overlap both religion and science. With regard to science and religion, MA goes the same way as NO - into the bin!
If 'magisterium' is quite the wrong word for a category that includes science and religion (and art?) then what is the right one? A little less homespun etymology, on Gould's part, and a little more thought as to what a magisterium is actually like, might have prompted the selection of a less unsuitable word.
When I was a boy we had 'subjects'. Science was a subject - comprising particular subjects such as biology, chemistry and what not. Literature was a subject - comprising such as prose, poetry and what not. Christianity was a subject - comprising Protestantism, Catholicism and what not. All these very familiar instances of useful classification are open to any sub-divisions, and sub-sub-divisions that might be thought convenient.
But, the relevant thing about subjects is that they overlap and where there is overlap there can be both crossed purposes and cross fertilisation. Where there is no overlap there is no chance for the inexorably non-overlapping practitioners to discuss matters of substance. Such discussion would be restricted to the childhood offer of "I will show you mine if you will show me yours".
The science/religion overlap is, I think, best seen as contested ground where their fundamental differences are exposed, and without needless rancour, mutually challenged.
Science is ultimately a matter of 'let us find it out'. Religion is ultimately a matter of 'let us make it up'. Of course science requires the making up of models (some of them rather far fetched) and religion has often had to correct itself factually by science. Not even the most devout of contemporary believers now pin their faith on the geocentric model of the solar system or the literal truth of the Tower of Babel story.
SJG's book has several things to be said for it. It has been written with the laudable intention of restricting, to a decent minimum, hostility between various sorts of thinking people - especially the mutual impact of scientists and religious believers. It suits people of goodwill to remain on mutually respectful terms - you never know when you are going to be working with someone with whom you share an important particular end but with whom you disagree profoundly in other ways. Such considerations apply particularly to 'mixed marriages' - Charles and Emma Darwin were reputedly devoted to each other, and to their children, in spite of radical religious differences between them particularly as to the truth-value of the Genesis creation stories. Similar long-term devotion is true of many an obscure couple nearer to hand - say, Eric and Myra Stockton - one of whom is an atheist while the other is an active Presbyterian. Not so well documented as the happy Darwin household but more immediately open to direct authentication!
In addition to its basic reasonableness, the book contains many references to sources - who said what and when. Moreover the writer has incisive things to say against both crude creationism and bland syncretism.
But NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) seems to me, at least in its perceived application to science/religion, to be very vulnerable to 'unpackng' and consequently the book, for all its virtues, has to be described as deeply unsound. In this book, the author has 'made it up' rather than 'found it out'.
I do not think that science and religion are NOMA. If we must have acronyms at any cost then what about ...... Science and Religion are DAFT ..... Distinct Areas of Focussed Thought. That would make a good headline in the smart Sunday newspapers!
E.S.
HOME PAGE