a bit of conflict ain't so bad

As a bit of a Gouldian (I’m talking about the late, great Stephen Jay Gould: paleontologist, natural historian, philanthropist, moralist, writer, baseball fan, and overall awesome guy), I’ve heard a lot of objections by other atheists, spurred on by writers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to one of Gould’s more famous pet ideas – NOMA. It’s an acronym for Non-Overlapping Magisteria, and it basically says that religion has its field of expertise, science has its own, and if only people would let them, they could stand on their own respective sides of the line without any conflict.

To a certain extent I agree with this, which makes it a greater extent than many. I mean, both sides’ refusal to draw a mutually agreeable line doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there. There are questions any atheist out there will agree only religion will touch; questions such as whether limbo exists, or whether a new soul is created when embryos split to become twins (or when two embryos combine to become a chimera). I’d be the first to state that such “dilemmas” are completely uninteresting and above all intellectually vacant, but nonetheless some are concerned by questions like these, and this is a chill that the purview of science has no warm blanket for.

Fact is, though (and I think Gould realized this too), we never are going to agree on a dividing line. There’s so much intellectual lebensraum neither would want to give up; such a line would get stepped over constantly. Christians always delight in the odd bit of “hard evidence” interpreted to corroborate Biblical claims (such as the occasional incompetent, crackpot geologist claiming the Grand Canyon could possibly be created in one catastrophic flood event, you know which one I’m talking about), and would hate to give it up. Similarly, many a scientist, filled with feelings of intense awe over the beauty of the universe (the “numinous;” go read Sagan if you're curious how this feels), would not readily concede that such feelings are necessarily spiritual.

NOMA's a nice idea, in a way. It's one of the many things that have separated Gould from the vitriol and teeth-gnashing that's characterized atheist prose for the last little while. And yet I have to think: no more conflict? No more debate? Fuck that. Where's the fun in everyone agreeing to disagree? I could go on about a lack of debate dulling the intellect and all that stuff, and it's all true, but the fact is if NOMA was actually realized, I'd miss the God-no God debate. I think Christopher Hitchens said as much at one point, I'm not sure.

Bottom line is, as long as we keep the boxing gloves on and things stay above the belt, I say keep tossing the punches. It's one of the many benefits we enjoy as a free society.

getting the ball rolling

I'm not going to bother with any long-winded, self-absorbed, I-like-this-and-this-and-that introductions. I've read enough blogs to know that's not what anyone needs to hear.

Just know what you'll expect to hear from me if you come back here at all (please do... and bring on the replies, I love 'em): responses to whatever happens to delight or enrage me in the morning newspaper; musings on atheism and science (particularly evolution and natural history), particularly if I pick up another book on any of them, which is often, and finally comments on music albums I buy. I'm talking mostly folk, roots and world music. And again this happens often.

In other words, I'm into where the world has been, where we we as humans have been musically, and where I think we're going based on all the cool stuff/bullshit I see us doing today. "Remains of the Eon" is based on this and the title of one of my favourite books, Remains of the Day, by Kazuo Ishiguro.

So if you're into any of these things, I hope my stuff will be entertaining enough to keep you coming back. Even if not, I'm tired of not having written down thoughts or rants I've had. Hopefully this will change that.