I liked Gould but didn’t think his non-overlapping magisteria idea was the best. There’s a way in which their missions are different, that’s true, and, as practiced today, they are pretty much non-overlapping in any legitimate sense. But at the deepest levels, they are natural allies instead of enemies, and I can’t imagine why any area of human behavior should be off limits to science.

As Dan Dennett says, science needs to study religion... and I think religion needs to study science!

As much as I adored Stephen Jay Gould and appreciated his contributions on punctuated equilibrium, his notion of the separate magisteria never sat well with me. I felt he was attempting to appease someone.

Since religion is about faith and not science... This whole argument is invalid!

The more sophisticated religions thoroughly embrace science. Some of the most astute and creative scientists have had spiritual viewpoints.

The real dichotomy is not between religion and science but between those with open minds and deep awareness on one hand and those with narrow, dogmatic perspectives on the other hand. Of course there is a gradient of attitudes between the two poles.

I once attended a Stephen Jay Gould talk on how development constrains evolution. Such a brilliant thinker!