Orthogonal is better than the term Gould chose to distinguish between reason (and its realm of influence, science) and the spiritual dimension --- "non-overlapping magisteria." At least orthogonal shapes intersect.
In Gould's proposal a conflict arises. Invariably for him science occupied the deep end of Truth and religion was relegated to the separate, "non-overlapping" shallow end of Meaning.
Meaning must intersect Truth, else it wanders meaninglessly in the void.
These are challenging times for thinking, rational people who nonetheless recognize the limitations of reason. Theories of remarkable explanatory power are revealing us to ourselves in unprecedented ways. It sometimes seems as though we've got the puzzle of life knocked.
Insane criminals waging war in the name of faith make matters more difficult for people of all faiths. Sometimes --- oftentimes really --- it seems as though we are at the end of the Religious Age.
But for me the mystery of existence has proven profound enough to keep my pride in check. I take counsel from Santayana's description of Hegel: "He described what he knew best or had heard most, and felt he had described the universe." The same tendency surfaces often among many of our learned public intellectuals, especially in the sciences. I hope to avoid their condition. On rising each day --- this is strange, and probably foolish to admit, but quite true I assure you --- I ask myself as I stand before the mirror: "How did we get here? How did all this come to be?" After many years of starting my day with those questions, and much investigation, I can safely say that I'm no closer to the answers than I was when I first started asking them.
I then say my morning prayer.
One of the traps people occasionally fall into is that of scientism, the notion that only science can tell us that which is truthful or valuable, or that the methods of science are equally valid and applicable across all fields of inquiry. I don't think it happens all that often, but I think I would agree that Gould was occasionally prone to the affliction. It's a specific form of a general human failing - when the best tool you have is a hammer, everything around you starts looking an awful lot like a nail, if you follow my meaning.
That's not the worst of Gould's sins, though. IMO, "The Mismeasure of Man" represents one of the greatest sins in science and rationality - the distortion of the truth in order to pursue a personal political agenda. The potential damage from such poisonous perversion is immeasurable. Thanks, Steve...
I ask myself as I stand before the mirror: "How did we get here?"
Do you then tell yourself that this is not your beautiful house, and this is not your beautiful wife?
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was... ;)
But for me the mystery of existence has proven profound enough to keep my pride in check. I take counsel from Santayana's description of Hegel: "He described what he knew best or had heard most, and felt he had described the universe." The same tendency surfaces often among many of our learned public intellectuals, especially in the sciences. I hope to avoid their condition. On rising each day --- this is strange, and probably foolish to admit, but quite true I assure you --- I ask myself as I stand before the mirror: "How did we get here? How did all this come to be?" After many years of starting my day with those questions, and much investigation, I can safely say that I'm no closer to the answers than I was when I first started asking them.
And beckett as well is in rare form! This company might even give me that added dash of humility some would say I sorely need!
And this to me is what's important, and why I liked general_re's description so much.
beckett, it's interesting that Gould chose to distinguish between reason (i.e., science in his view) and the spiritual dimension, and then to characterize them as "non-overlapping magisteria," such that "Truth" (science) and "Meaning" (faith) are entirely discrete. People may tell you Gould is correct in this; but nobody actually lives as if he believed it. So there must be something fundamentally wrong with this formulation.
Gould himself seems to have unfailing faith in science. At a very deep level, he seems to betray his own formulation. More superficially, his relegation of faith/meaning to the "shallow end" of the spectrum of truth should perhaps be seen for what it may very well be: a desire to rid science of any sort of "rival" or effective "competition" that could place his preferred world view at risk. But the point is, to my way of thinking, the two are not "rivals," but equally valid approaches to Truth that necessarily work in different spheres (i.e., time orders).
general_re's insight into matters "orthogonal," and stuartcr's wondering what the hail that could be all about, brought to mind an image that, to my way of thinking, is the symbol sine qua non of a crucial fact of the human condition: That man lives at the intersection of two orders of time.
That image is the Cross. Its "X" axis, to my mind, stands for Eternity, the realm of Spirit, the timeless, of the Eternal Now. The "Y" axis stands for the unilinear, serial time that is the time sense in which human beings directly experience their existence in the world: i.e., in terms of past-present-future. The time sense of the "X" axis can be accessed only indirectly, through meditation, contemplation, prayer.
It seems to me that science can only deal with the "Y" axis. It has no tool or method to deal with "X".
Yet at the end of the day, the "Y" axis is folded into "X." It's difficult sometimes to find the language to express the content of a graphical image. So I don't know how much sense the above will make to the reader.