Re: The Washington Post "Dissing Darwian"

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 12:46:41 EDT

On 6/3/05, Ted Davis <> wrote:
> As for Gould, which Gould are we referring to? His NOMA partly contradicts
> some of his more famous utterances about religion; and the NOMA concept
> itself is insulting to many religious people, since Gould's NOMA is just
> AD
> White's warfare thesis: religion has ethical value, but no ability to make
> statements about actual reality. Thus religion must be shorn of theology
> in
> order to be acceptable to modern minds. That's White all over again, and
> Gould knew it.

And thus we are not Gouldians. Part of the conflict can be relieved by
properly identifying the MA. Natural Theology and Special Revelation overlap
and thus Special Revelation touches actual reality. Science and Metaphysics
(where both Natural Theology and Special Revelation live) don't overlap.
Gould would undoubtably have rejected this construction. Nevertheless, NOMA
has value in that for both of these constructions also limits the
applicability of science and keeps it from roaming where Dawkins wants it to
go. For the people who are not just using NOMA for posturing purposes, NOMA
can be used to illustrate the Cosmos hypocrisy. I believe Terry Gray had
some interactions with Gould before he died and I would be interested in his
opinion of this aspect of Gould's thought.
Received on Fri Jun 3 12:47:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 12:47:49 EDT