Even though Christians disagreed very strongly with Dr. Gould, all of them in my experience were saddened to hear of his death at such a relatively young age. Then, and still today, we would extend our condolences to his widow, and to all his family and friends. I would hope that the effect of Ms. Shearer's response is not to cause the (to quote "Rocks of Ages") "supposed conflict between science and religion" to become an actual conflict. If writers like T.M. Moore cannot write approvingly about someone like Dr. Gould without having their own intentions severely questioned, then it seems that the divide between materialistic scientists and religious believers cannot help but become wider and more acrimonious. And according to the preamble "Rocks of Ages", that is precisely what Dr. Gould did not want.

To anyone concerned: I interpreted the original posts comments on Dr. Gould to be in line with T.M. Moore's explanation. Here's why: Quote: 1) "Stephen Jay Gould, readers will know, attempted to achieve a sort of rapprochement with religion toward the end of his life." Interpretation: 1a) This was not near the beginning of his life. 1b) His 'popular' writings dealt with the issue of science and religion - to some degree. He didn't ignore the subjects. Quote: 2) "His was an irenic effort, I think we could say, especially when compared with some more recent pronouncements on the subject from scientists here and abroad." Interpretation: 2a) Comparably, his effort was irenic. This, in my opinion, was a minor segue into T.M. Moore's main point. He never mentions Dr. Gould again. Looking at the context of this post (and of this whole blog), and this addresses Brian too, it's not unreasonable to have some filters when reading. i.e. 2 sentences are not the main point (and though not completely unambiguous, that is what we are stuck with inside living [and dead] languages), and, of course T.M. is not addressing "all" scientists, just those that insist "only what is material is real" and don't admit "that what they do in their disciplines is a form of faith". People need to stop taking umbrella statements like "Coffee mugs break when dropped" to the full extreme "All coffee mugs break when dropped"... which is what is going on here. Context. Experience. Expectation. Please read with those in mind.

As an outsider reader, and one who is not familiar with Gould's work, I was left with the impression that his last works indicated a change in position and that it happened towards the end of his life/career. I may have made some assumptions, but that's the feeling I left with, intended or not. Regardless, that's not really my point. I think this post does a disservice to stated goals of harmony. The "3 points" lump all scientists into one giant, anti-theist, and antagonistic category. There are not only scientists who are not atheists but scientists who are Christians. Farily prominent ones in fact. We do a disservice both to their faith and their work to silence and overlook them. Is there another way to approach this?

Ms. Shearer, forgive my jumping into the conversation, but as editor of The Point, I thought perhaps I should get involved when you suggested the need for a correction. I took another look at what T. M. wrote: "Stephen Jay Gould, readers will know, attempted to achieve a sort of rapprochement with religion toward the end of his life. His was an irenic effort . . ." As far as I can tell, there is no explicit statment, or implication, here regarding any sort of "deathbed" confession or conversion. "Toward the end of his life" carries a different meaning than, for instance, "at the end of his life." Nor does T. M. say anywhere, as far as I can see, that Dr. Gould changed his views on religion, but only that his book appeared to be an effort at peacemaking or at least achieving some sort of a truce between two warring factions. (This is what I take T. M.'s use of the word "peace" to mean -- it's not meant to imply anything about personal peace, but rather a peacemaking effort.) If I have any of this wrong, T. M. can clarify. But to sum up, I believe his intention was to point out an effort on Dr. Gould's part to foster greater respect and understanding between two sides of a debate, not to imply any sort of deathbed conversion. If he had tried to imply the latter, then I would see the need for a correction. But this wasn't the case here.

Dear Mr. Moore, I appreciate that your intent may be pure. However, this has nothing to do with the erroneous fact you presented. Namely, that Steve's writings on religion were last musings and fluctuated from his normal view on religion "towards the end of his life". This is an incorrect fact in two ways: one, you state, as fact, that his views changed before death and two, that he knew he was at the end of his life when he wrote the book,therefore, putting his writing on religion in the genre of lame "attempt(s)" (your words) at death bed peace making or a change in heart effecting change his mind (which is clearly an intellectual failing--if true). You say you read nearly all his writings? Then you of all people should know his position on religion was constant. His views were his views and have nothing to do with a romantic end of life causality. Are you making a correction? Sincerely, Rhonda R. Shearer

Dear lady: There was no attempt to make Dr. Gould's effort as a kind of last will and testament, not in the least. I have read almost every book Dr. Gould ever wrote, and enjoyed them thoroughly, even though I never agreed with his essential evolutionary cosmology. I was commenting thankfully on his effort - which was practically his last book - to strike some rapprochement between these "warring factions" of science and religion. I thought it a noble effort, and I don't believe my blog should be interpreted in any other way. I used the word "irenic" because I sense that was his hope, to achieve some peace. Please forgive any offense. I meant only to commend Dr. Gould's effort, not in any way to put him in a negative light. Indeed, I hoped to contrast him with some of the more shrill offerings re: this question that are currently in circulation. T. M. Moore

Here is a (rather long) article discussing "Miracles and Hume" with C.S.Lewis being a major rung in the argumentation. (It discusses such things as induction, the 'uniformity of nature' premise, and probability). http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1988/PSCF9-88Cramer.html

I'm going to try to find C.S. Lewis's comments on Hume about induction (and how Hume didn't go far enough). He (Lewis) had some good things to say in that book (Miracles) - but it'll have to wait as I'm at work.

Your comment," Stephen Jay Gould, readers will know, attempted to achieve a sort of rapprochement with religion toward the end of his life" is a complete fiction. Steve was 60 years old and in excellent health when he wrote the book you refer to. So it is only post hoc nonsense to make his writings (on the acceptance of religions) appear as if they were some sort of death bed or old age induced second thoughts. In fact, he never wavered his whole life about his views on religion. Essay after essay proves this fact. Furthermore, he was an agnostic and not an atheist--something both sides of this debate chose to ignore. I know what I am talking about first hand. I am his widow.