Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould Read Free Book Online Page A

even makes claims later recognized as incorrect in his one citation of a supposed fact (about the grieving of apes) to illustrate a position that can only be decided by moral discourse (the greater value of actions based upon consistent principles rather than feared consequences). Huxley, the supposed scourge of God, is evidently quite content to base hisrejection of a rote Christian doctrine on a higher principle that he accepts as religious in essential nature. So let us acknowledge the necessity and centrality of dialogue within this magisterium (on vital questions that science cannot touch), and not quibble about the labels. I will accept both Huxley’s view and the etymology of the word itself—and construe as fundamentally religious (literally, binding us together) all moral discourse on principles that might activate the ideal of universal fellowship among people.
    As a second and more general implication, am I not more subtly denigrating the entire magisterium of ethics and meaning (or whatever name we choose) by implicitly stating that moral questions cannot be answered absolutely, while only a fool would deny the revolution of planets or the evolution of life? On this point we can only return to the principle of apples and oranges—that is, to NOMA itself. This inaccessibility to absolute resolution must be viewed as a logical property of the form of discourse itself, not as a limitation. (The vitality of this magisterium lies largely in the transcendent importance of moral issues, and questions of meaning, for all thinking and feeling people, not in the style of available resolution—based more on compromise and consensus in this magisterium than on factual demonstration, as in the magisterium of science.) One might as well denigrate the magisterium of science becauseits powerful offspring, technology, can perform such wonders, while all the resources of this great magisterium can hardly cast a flicker of light upon the oldest and simplest ethical questions that have haunted people since the dawn of consciousness.
    2. I NDEPENDENCE OF THE MAGISTERIA . H OW can anyone take this vaunted claim for non-overlapping magisteria seriously when the last few centuries of human history can virtually be defined by claims for deep and inherent conflict between these domains—from the evangelist (and former baseball star) Billy Sunday, who stated that any minister believing in evolution must be “a stinking skunk, a hypocrite and a liar” to Disraeli’s rather more eloquent appeal:
    The question is this—Is man an ape or an angel? My lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence the contrary view, which is, I believe, foreign to the conscience of humanity … Man is made in the image of his Creator—a source of inspiration and of solace—a source from which only can flow every right principle of morals and every divine truth … It is between those two contending interpretations of the nature of man, and their consequences, that society will have todecide. Their rivalry is at the bottom of all human affairs.
    The resolution of this key question will occupy the second half of this book (effectively all of chapters 3 and 4 ), so I must defer discussion until then. For now, and as a placeholder in the logic of my argument, I will only state that I am trying to analyze the inherent logic of a case, as viewed with some historical distance from the heat of most intense and immediate battle—and that I am not making any claim about the realities of our intellectual and social histories. (I should also reiterate, as stated up front in the beginning of my Preamble, that NOMA represents a long-standing consensus among the great majority of both scientific and religious leaders, not a controversial or idiosyncratic resolution.) In brief, and as a caricature of an epitome for this book’s second half, no institution ever gives up turf voluntarily. The magisterium of science is a latecomer