You are hereArray / Dethroning human arrogance with an evolutionist
Dethroning human arrogance with an evolutionist
The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.
- Stephen Jay Gould
My first reaction to this quote was to notice the irony. An evolutionist concerned about the dethronement of human arrogance was a combination I had not considered. In thinking about Gould, I decided to read a little. In my internet research, I happened on this article regarding NOMA. NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria. That is non-overlapping teachers. It is Gould's reflection on a statement by John Paul II's address Truth Cannot Contradict Truth in which he supports the view of neo-darwinian evolution and the idea that science and religion are two distinct domains and that the church only has authority to teach in religion.
I must say that I was surprised by Gould's grace. So-called Christians could learn by reading a Jewish agnostic on how to deal with opposing or nearly-opposing views. While I suspect Gould might have had a less tender tone with creationists in my own country, I suspect an honest inquirer would have received a generous welcome.
In many ways, Gould's tone reminds me of on of my favorite professors, Dr. Charles MacKenzie. Dr. MacKenzie is of Gould's generation, and it makes me wonder if there were be any room for real dialog if I ever reach the academy.
If I had the opportunity to talk with Gould about this quote, I think my first point would be that while one might think that the history of science would have dethroned man, it has actually had two effects in the opposite direction. In one sense, human life is regarded very lowly. Abortion, abuse, rampant materialism in the face of world poverty, high rates of suicide and depression all show the low estate of man's appraisal of himself. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a society more dedicated to the human individual than western 21st century culture. Francis Sheaffer gives great insight into how this came about in his Escape from Reason. Ironically, NOMA is in some sense a product of the fundamental problem in modern philosophy.
I would say that in the above quote, Gould is delving into the magesterium that he most often back away from. He was commenting on religion. For it is only in light of God, that man can be both properly humiliated and glorified as a creature created in the image of God. And, it is only in the light of God that creation can truly be seen for what it is.
<!-- technorati tags start -->
Technorati Tags: Evolution, Gould, Theology
<!-- technorati tags end -->
If Gould were alive and you had a face to face discussion you may be dissappointed Heath. Gould was known to have frequently infuriated enemies as well as comardes during his academic career. Well, as much as someone can be known from reading his work, debates, and others opinion of him. He seemed to have little room for those that didnt accept his starting point. What do you think of his NOMA? The reason I think he sounds fair minded in this essay is that he is drawing the boundaries and is happy to keep objective truth about reality in his corner and letting religion deal with anything that doesnt affect physical reality.
- I definitely agree the irony of the arrogance statement is pretty deep. SJG, along with other evolutionists made grand pronouncements well beyond the available evidence, which proposed to account for virtually everything in biology(just for starters).
- Man's appraisal of his own position would be an interesting historical study. Like you mentioned there are modern day things that both show low opinion of mankind and high opinion of itself. I wonder what a study of the past 3000 years would reveal. Did man think higher of himself in the past and science has "dethroned" that. My guess would be that history was probably a mixed bag like today, probably from both similarities and differences with today.
-A question I have is: is SJG condemning arrogance then? If so, by what foundations?
I too had this question, and it was the original direction I was going to go with the post, however, when I read his essay I decided to go in a different direction.
An atheists foundation for judgement are quite thin. Very few under scrutiny. Those that do require leaps of faith no less than religious foundations.
Post new comment