NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... principle that all apparent struggles between science and religion really arise frm violations f NMA, when a small grup allied t ne magisterium tries t image its irrelevant and illegitimate will upn the ther's domain. This affect t NMA is, however, purely American. Guld reveals that in mst parts f the world the belief in evolution and the belief in religion d nt preclude each ther. Furthermore, even in America, creating science has nly cme t the fremont in the latter half f the twentieth-century.
Fr example, Guld's wn high schl text, Modern Big, published in 1956, had as its frontispiece a picture f a bunch f beavers. The 1921 edition f the same text had Charles Darwin as its frontispiece (Brookes). People strive fr a Gd that provides warm, fuzzy feelings but, Guld explains, mankind may have t settle fr a cld bath. Where is the warm feeling fr the ichneumnid wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar, injects her eggs inside it, and whse larvae frm the hatched eggs slowly eat the living, paralyzed caterpillar frm the inside? Where is the warm feeling fr children wh die needlessly? Guld responds that nature is nt immoral, it is april; its better t be in a cld bath than n bath at all.
We guld avid all srt's f nasty fights, Stephen Jay Guld argues, if we would stp expecting science t provide validating evidence fr religious dogmas r biblical events. Nr unit we t turn t religion t resolve questions f a property scientific nature. (Gould- 1, 148) He wants n mre natural they, n mre anthropic principle, and n mre attempts t find scientific confirmation fr religious beliefs, and n mre fundamentalist creating science. In short, science gets the age f rss, and religion the re f ages; science studies hw the heavens g, religion hw t g t heaven (Gould- 1, 178). Guld's thesis is that, at their best, science and religion copy separate intellectual spheres and have usually pursued a policy f peaceful c existence summarized in the acronym NMA. His position flw's frm an apparently straightforward claim: that science concerns itself with empirical realities, whereas religion addresses matters f meaning, ultimacy and may values. Guld argues that conflict between science and religion has mre free than nt been the result f a misdirected desire t resolve anxiety abut ur place in the universe, and that this conflict is psychologically, ethically, scientifically and religiously unnecessary (Gould- 1, 87).
Guld's argument is informed by a deep suspicion f identical appeals t nature, especially in the guise f anything resembling Social Darwinism. He insists that we unit nt t give ethical authority t science; rather, we must simply admit that nature fees n may instruction at all (Gould- 1, 192). Yet even if this is true, ur ideas and native perspectives free function t direct ur bservatin f nature and ur ascertainment f relevant facts. Consequently, Guld's dichotomy f value-free science versus value-invested religion may nt be sufficiently complex.
Guld places a great emphasis n the discussion f tw false paths t irenics (irenic cme's frm the Greek wrd fr peace). Guld firmly believes that tw current attempts at bridging science and religion are misfits. The first is the Syncratic Schl f thought that science and religion can fuse as ne big, happy family. The Syncratic Schl believes the findings f science support and validate the precepts f religion, and where Gd shw's his hand (and mind) in the working f nature.
Guld believes the syncratic path will eventually lead t the same country where the Sun replies and the Earth. The send false irenic path is the politically current ne, that is, conflict will never generate between science and religion because the tw should nt talk t each ther. Guld admits there can be n conflict where there is n discussion - but then, nothing is ever reserved either! However, despite all the evidence f Nma's benefits, this concept has its critics. Fr example, Phillip Jhnsn, press f law and author f Darwinism n Trial, attacked Guld's earlier presentations f NMA fr advocating an anachronistic and artificial separation f morality and reality (Johnson, 56). May claims are highly dependent n descriptive beliefs and assumptions regarding human conduct.
In fact, Guld's wn bk n the IQ controversy The Mismeasure f Man amply demonstrates hw dependent may psitin's are n premises abut what are purported t be descriptive realities (Gould- 2, 32). Meter, Jhnsn argues that Christian religious affirmative concerning Gd, Jesus Christ and eternal life (t name a few) clearly are nt abut sme vague meaning but refer t realities, even if revealed and deeply mysterious nes. Jhnsn is right that a great deal f religion is descriptive rather then prescriptive. Christianity, fr example, describes the way the world is - created, fallen and redeemed - nt just the way we unit t act within it.
Yet even though concepts like the fall and redemption concern what is real in sme sense, they can be classified as simply empirical, as if they guld be addressed through lab wrk r field studies. The truth and meaning f Christian beliefs can be established r even directly examined by means f scientific investigation. They are nt, however, completely independent f what neuroscience teaches us abut humanity, any mre than what we think abut creating is utterly independent f what we know frm ecological science. There are several intrinsic reasons why NMA des nt hld water. First, it is nt true that (mst) religin's d nt make claims abut the natural world. Besides the tens f million f people wh believe the Earth is 6, 000 years ld, the Bible was never meant as a bk f metaphors.
It is read that way by enlightened Christians that precisely because f the lng battle between science and religion, with the latter constantly n the line side. Send, it is nt true that religion is the nly, r even a viable, quest fr ethics. In fact, it is nt a quest at all, since it is based n arbitrary sets f rules and n the enforcement f dogmas. Philosophy, using the tls f login and informed by the discoveries f science, seems t me a much better candidate fr that magisterium. Guld als fails t address the criticisms leveled at NMA frm the ther end f the spectrum. Dawkins has been harshly critical f Guld - even accusing him f self-serving dishonesty - fr pulling his punches when it cme's t religion.
He takes Guld t task fr displaying the extent and depth f direct contradiction between science and religion. According t Dawkins, religious claims abut such things as the resurrection f Jesus r the last judgment refer t events that can be accepted by a scientifically educated person. The realities which these beliefs affirm lie within the domain f science, claims Dawkins. If Guld were t admit this he guld n longer affirm the NMA principle. Guld attempts t strike an admirable balance between his wn self-pressed agnosticism and even skepticism, n the ne hand, and respect fr the cn sciences f religious people and the may contributions made by religious communities, n the ther. He is nt, however, as strict an interpreter f NMA as ne might initially assume.
He thinks that science can act as a check n religious claims, at least inasmuch as religion makes empirical claims abut nature, human behavior and the world. NMA is a simple, humane, rating, and altogether conventional argument fr mutual respect, based n nn-ver lapping subject matter, between tw components f wide in a full human life: ur drive t understand the factual character f nature (the magisterium f science), and ur need t define meaning in ur lives and a may basis fr ur actins (the magisterium f religion). In the conclusion I would like t nte that sme scholars believe that Guld should actually have called his principle PMA, fr Partially ver lapping Magisterial - a position that would be bth mre interesting and trickier t defend. PMA is exemplified in his decision t rule ut miracles and ther frm's f divine intervention n the principle that since they are nt accessible t science, they can be true. In taking aim at creating science, he actually targets something much wider - the belief in a Gd wh cares fr and riders creating. Guld des nt think that theism is intellectually tenable, at least if taken t affirm the existence and activity f a personal, benevolent and almighty Gd whse will riders history and nature.
He nt nly accepts the standard methdlgical restriction f science t nature (science isnt concerned with Gd, nly with nature), but als denies that login r evidence gives any support fr belief in super nature r the transcendent. Yet Guld certainly communicates a series appreciation fr the functional value f religion in the lives f million f people, even if he des nt happen t share their piety. He is als aware that science can answer the big and inescapable existential questions that we all encounter. Guld's modesty in this regard is admirable, especially when contrasted with E... Wilson very confident substitution f evolutionary mythology and morality fr religion r with Dawkins dismissal f religious questions as silly anachronisms.
In a world increasingly explained by science, Guld strives mightily t make rm fr religion. However it is surprising that see as historically minded as he ignores the immense complexity and diversity f religion. Fr Guld, the term includes nt Mayan witchdoctors, Iranian Imams r Appalachian snake handlers, but nly burgess Westerners wh embrace the liberal values f compassion, tolerance and equality. There is, however, n such thing as generic religion, nly Lutheranism and Syrian rthdxy, Reform Judaism and Jainism, and s from. It is, therefore, exceedingly difficult fr any t formulate substantive global generalizations abut the related between science and religion as such. I find that I have exactly the same interpretation f NMA as Mr.
Guld, which is that either science r religion must be supreme. NMA fails fr me as it fails fr Guld because, "N ne can serve tw masters. " (Matt. 6: 24 [NRSV]) Guld des nt apologize fr his service t the rating master f science, even t the pint f claiming limits n concepts f Gd. ther's will case t serve Gd with apply, even t the pint f claiming that Gd directly rains all things regardless f whether Gd's actin is accessible t science. Bibliography: Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Dublin, Ireland: Celtic Books, 2000. 2.
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. N. Y. : Norton, 1996. 3. Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial.
Washington, D. C. : Regnery Gateway, 1991. 4. Brookes, Martin, "May the Best Man Win. " New Scientist (April 11, 1998): 51.
Free research essays on topics related to: f nature, stephen jay, science and religion, des nt, fr example
Research essay sample on Rocks Of Ages By Stephen Jay Part 2
