Again, what am I supposed to conclude from such fuzziness? Has the factuality of an old-fashioned creating God been proven because Darwin used developmental language to describe the genealogical history of life? I thought that the God of many Christians confined this kind of creative activity to the early days of life’s history. Or is Mr. Peacocke’s God just retooling himself in the spiffy language of modern science?
We next learn that Genesis finds confirmation in the latest developments of cosmology:
The Big Bang, now believed to have taken place 15 billion years ago, accords neatly enough with Genesis.
Now what, pray tell, is “neatly enough”? Some folks insist that Genesis occurred less than ten thousand years ago. Moreover, the Big Bang cannot be touted as a description of God’s initial creation of the universe ex nihilo. The Big Bang does not set the ultimate beginning of all material things—a subject outside the magisterium of science. The Big Bang is a proposition about the origin of our known universe. This scientific theory cannot, in principle, specify what, if anything, happened before (if such a notion even has any meaning)—because any previous history gets erased when and if the stuff of the universe collapses to such an effective point of origin.
3. Plain, old-fashioned illogic. The pièce de résistance of modern syncretism, at least in almost all public accounting I have ever read, lies in the so-called anthropic principle—a notion with as many definitions as supporters, and which, in my view, is either utterly trivial in its “weak versions” (the designation of supporters, not my deprecation), or completely illogical in “strong versions.” The Wall Street Journal explains the anthropic principle as “the biggest hint” of God’s presence in the findings of science:
What this means is that complex, carbon-based life—namely us—can exist only in a universe in which the physical constants have been tuned just so. Take the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism. If gravity were a tiny bit stronger, we’d be pulled apart; if electromagnetism were a tiny bit stronger, we’d fall in on ourselves like failed soufflés.
Yes, but so what? The weak version only tells us that life fits well with nature’s laws, and couldn’t exist if the laws were even the tiniest bit different. Interesting, but I see no religious implications—and, in fairness, neither do most syncretists (thus their own designation as “weak”). The “strong” version provides my favorite example of illogic in high places. Since human life couldn’t exist if the laws of nature were even a tad different, then the laws must be as they are because a creating God desired our presence.
This argument reduces to pure nonsense based on the unstated premise—which then destroys the “strong anthropic principle” by turning it into a classic example of circular reasoning—that humans arose for good and necessary reasons (and that whatever allowed us to get here must therefore exist to fulfill our destiny). Without this premise (which I regard as silly, arrogant, and utterly unsupported), the strong anthropic principle collapses upon the equal plausibility of this opposite interpretation: “If the laws of nature were just a tad different, we wouldn’t be here. Right. Some other configuration of matter and energy would then exist, and the universe would present just as interesting a construction, with all parts conforming to reigning laws of this different nature. Except that we wouldn’t be around to make silly arguments about this alternate universe. So we wouldn’t be here. So what.” (I’m glad we are here, by the way—but I don’t see how any argument for God’s existence can emerge from my pleasure.)
Readers may have laughed at the old and absurd arguments I cited for the divine benevolence of ichneumons feeding upon live and paralyzed caterpillars (see this page). You may have wondered why I chose to devote so much space to such a straw-man violation of NOMA from a bad old past, now superseded. But will future generations view these current syncretist arguments against NOMA, and for the inference of God from facts of nature, as any wiser?
The second irenicist alternative to NOMA—too cold, too hard, and too little—requires only a paragraph or two of commentary because no intellectual argument, but only current (and lamentable) social custom, fuels the strategy. The syncretists may be silly, but at least they talk and try. The opposite irenicism of “no offense, please, we’re politically correct” adopts the fully avoidant tactic of never generating conflict by never talking to each other, or speaking in such muted and meaningless euphemisms that no content or definition can ever emerge. Sure, we can avoid the language of racial conflict if we vow never to talk about race. But what then can change, and what can ever be resolved?
And, yes, we could bring science and religion into some form of coexistence under political correctness if all scientists promised never to say anything about religion, and all religious professionals swore that the troublesome S-word would never pass their lips. Contemporary American culture has actually adopted this unholy contract for many issues that should be generating healthy debate, and surely cannot ever be brought to a fair conclusion if we don’t talk to each other. Intellectuals can only regard such voluntary suppression of discussion as a guarantee that tough but resolvable issues will continue to fester and haunt us, and as a sin—I don’t know how else to say this—against the human mind and heart. If we have so little confidence in our unique mental abilities, and in our intrinsic goodwill, then what indeed is man (and woman) that anyone should be mindful of us?
NOMA does cherish the separate status of science and religion—regarding each as a distinctive institution, a rock for all our ages, offering vital contributions to human understanding. But NOMA rejects the two paths to irenicism on either side of its own tough-minded and insistent search for fruitful dialogue—the false and illogical union of syncretism, and the perverse proposal of “political correctness” that peace may best be secured by the “three monkeys” solution of covering eyes, ears, and mouth.
The non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion must greet each other with respect and interest on the most distinctively human field of talk. To close with a rationale from each magisterium, scientists generally argue that language represents the most special and transforming feature of human distinctiveness—and only a dolt would fail to lead with his best weapon. As for religion, this book began with the story of Doubting Thomas from the end of John’s gospel. So let me take a page from Finnegans Wake, and become recursive by ending this book with the beginning of the same document. I do know, of course, that the phrase bears another meaning in its original context, but John also acknowledged the same precious uniqueness—the key to resolving our conflicts, and the positive force behind NOMA—in starting his gospel with a true guide to salvation: In the beginning was the Word.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author of more than fifteen books, Stephen Jay Gould is also author of the longest-running contemporary series of scientific essays, which appears monthly in Natural History. He is the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and professor of geology at Harvard; is curator for invertebrate paleontology at the university’s Museum of Comparative Zoology; and serves as the Vincent Astor Visiting Professor of Biology at New York University. He lives in Boston, Massachusetts, and New York City.
A Note on The Library of Contemporary Thought
This exciting new monthly series tackles today’s most provocative, fascinating, and relevant issues, giving top opinion makers a forum to explore topics that matter urgently to themselves and their readers. Some will be think pieces. Some will be research oriented. Some will be journalistic in nature. The form is wide open, but the aim is the same: to say things that need saying.
Now available from
THE LIBRARY OF
CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT
VINCENT BUGLIOSI
NO ISLAND OF SANITY
Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton
The Supreme Court on Trial
JOHN FEINSTEIN
THE FIRST COMING
Tiger Woods: Master or Martyr?
PETE HAMILL
NEWS IS A VERB
Journalism at the End of the Twentieth Century
CARL HIAASEN
TEAM RODENT
How Disney Devours the World
SEYMOUR M. HERSH
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES
Gulf War Syndrome: The War Between America’s
Ailing Veterans and Their Government
EDWIN SCHLOSSBERG
INTERACTIVE EXCELLENCE
Defining and Developing New Standards
for the Twenty-first Century
ANNA QUINDLEN
HOW READING CHANGED MY LIFE
WILLIAM STERLING AND
STEPHEN WAITE
BOOMERNOMICS
The Future of Your Money
in the Upcoming Generational Warfare
JIMMY CARTER
THE VIRTUES OF AGING
SUSAN ISAACS
BRAVE DAMES AND WIMPETTES
What Women Are Really Doing on Page and Screen
HARRY SHEARER
IT’S THE STUPIDITY, STUPID
Why (Some) People Hate Clinton
and Why the Rest of Us Have to Watch
THE LIBRARY OF
CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT
America’s most original writers
give you a piece of their minds
Joe Klein
Walter Mosley
Donna Tartt
Don Imus
Nora Ephron
Also Available from
The Library of Contemporary Thought
ROBERT HUGHES
A JERK ON ONE END
Reflections of a Mediocre Fisherman
JONATHAN KELLERMAN
SAVAGE SPAWN
Reflections on Violent Children
Rocks of Ages Page 15
