|
Seminar notes below prepared by Andrew Newell and
Cynthia Cudaback
Summary
Stephen Jay Gould is a leading Darwinian theorist
and the pre-eminent popularizer of evolution. His long-running series
of scientific essays in Natural History, which ran to the end of 2000,
have provided the material for several books. The subject of Rocks of
Ages is best summarized by Gould himself: ``NOMA [Non-Overlapping Magisteria]
is a simple, humane, rational and altogether conventional argument for
mutual respect, based on non-overlapping subject matter, between two
components of wisdom in a full human life: our drive to understand the
factual character of nature (the magisteria of science), and our need
to define meaning in our lives and a moral basis for our actions (the
magisterium of religion).''
In the first two chapters, Gould cites examples
to support his claim that NOMA is accepted by leaders of both sides.
He then inquires into the reasons that many people have found the principle
difficult to accept. Historical reasons include reluctance of religions
to withdraw from previously held territory and attempts by scientists
to draw moral conclusions from their work. Gould also describes two
psychological reasons based on attempts to find meaning in nature. One
interpretation is that nature exists to serve the needs of humanity.
The other is that nature is inherently good and can serve as an example
for morality.
Questions
1. Science increases our knowledge and power and
thereby seems to create new moral problems. (For example, how important
is it to protect species from extinction? Should we clone humans? And
how hard should we try to keep a patient alive?) Are such problems new
twists on old problems that religion can adapt to new facts, or does
religion need the help of science to devise new approaches?
2. Gould criticizes forays of scientists into morality.
However, perhaps a moral rule such as the Golden Rule is adopted because
our practical intuition tells us that it promotes the greatest good.
Our practical intuition is based to some extent on experience, and therefore
on fact. Some scientists thought that evolutionary theory contradicted
the Golden Rule, but that may have been just poor science. In game theory,
the Golden Rule is often an effective strategy (although not all the
time). Ecological studies have demonstrated that altruism can have evolutionary
benefits. And studies have shown that displays of generosity influence
third party observers, who tend to be kinder towards people who they
see are generous. Can good science enrich moral debates and increase
our insight into moral principles?
3. Is science really just the magisterium of fact,
or is it profoundly influence by philosophical questions? Many great
scientists have a philosophy that guides their investigations. Sometimes
questions based on scientific discoveries seem at first to be purely
philosophical and undecideable, yet by asking them scientists eventually
find a way to answer them. One example is the fundamental nature of
the wave function in quantum mechanics. By asking questions about an
apparently unobservable phenomenon, scientists found ways to observe
atoms occupying two quantum states simultaneously.
Top of page
|