Us Navy Hornet Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Part Two (Combat Aircraft 58)

Book Description

This book explores the role of the US Navy Hornet units in the northern Iraqi campaign. These units were the first Navy Reserve unit to be mobilized since the Korean War, and their attacks were launched from carriers off the coast of Turkey. The conflict for these squadrons was very different from the campaign fought in southern Iraq: they worked almost exclusively with clandestine Special Forces teams from the US Army, Marine Corps, Navy SEALs, British and Australian SAS and Kurdish guerrillas. First-hand accounts accompany the indispensable role these units had in the battle to liberate Iraq.

Customer Reviews:

Hornets over Iraq - The Saga Continues!.......2006-10-14

Tony Holmes scores another direct hit with this account of Navy Hornet drivers in combat over northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Hornet's air war over northern Iraq was totally different in nature than that waged by F/A-18 units committed in the south. These Hornet units supported Special Operations Forces and Kurdish units tasked with pinning down Iraq divisions heading south to aid their comrades. Close air support was the name of the game for the Hornet units deploying from carriers Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt.

As with part one of this set, Holmes' text benefits from the unparalled access he had to Hornet pilots who flew over Iraq. The book is chock full of combat stories that put you right in the cockpit.

The text is complemented by dozens of photos, most in color, and five pages of F/A-18 side-views by Chris Davey.

If you enjoy fast movers in action, you'll want to get this book - and the others in the series.

Book Description

Subhas Chandra Bose and his elder brother Sarat were among the most important leaders of the Indian struggle for independence from the British and were active from the 1920s through the 1940s. Brothers Against the Raj is the definitive biography of the Boses, placing them in the context of the Indian freedom struggle and international politics of the period. Leonard A. Gordon uses materials gathered in Europe and Asia from archives, records, and 150 interviews he conducted with the brothers´ political contemporaries and family members. The author makes use of hundreds of unpublished letters and other previously untapped sources as well. Brothers Against the Raj brings these two controversial leaders and a significant epoch in India´s history to renewed and explosive life.

Customer Reviews:

A thorough and thought provoking examination of brotherly love in the face of adversity!.......2007-05-17

Leonard A. Gordon, an erudite professor of history at Brooklyn College, has presented to the Western world a dramatic reexamination of the lives and struggles of two brothers who made a significant impact in the independence movement of their beloved homeland, India. Gordon masterfully shows how brotherly love can be an unbreakable bond in the face of adversity and overwheming challenges.

This book is really two biographies in one - Sarat and Subhas Bose were brothers who shared a common desire to rid their nation from the yolk British colonial bondage. While the former chose nonviolent struggle and joined Mahatma Gandhi in his campaign of civil disobedience, the latter decided that armed struggle could be employed with the assistance of England's two main adversaries during World War 2, Germany and Japan, in driving out foreign occupation.

I would highly recommend this book to people interested in learning more about the history of modern India, particularly now when this great nation is celebrating the 60th anniversary of its independence. It is an objective presentation of the lives of two brothers who made a significant contribution to India's freedom struggle, but have not until recently been given their proper recognition. How interesting to note that Calcutta's main airport has been renamed Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport!

A very good book until the end.......1999-02-05

Before I read this book I had great expectations for it. Looking through its list of people interviewed I expected a good read. It was a good read, though I think the author has overlooked few complex issues, though given the complexities the Indian Subcontinent historians face it is not suprising that a foreign author would face even more questions. Yet his(author) conclusion I find sad, he say that he believe S.C.Bose was 'short sighted ' in supporting British Enemies, but is it really short sight, when the Polish under Germany occupation they supported the British at war with Germans, nobody call them(The Polish) shortsighted, yet S.C.Bose is shortsighted when India under British occupation and he support Germany at war with Britain.One must see the irony, both Poland and India fight for their freedom, they must support the "enemies of their enemies", and if it is alright for one country to support the enemies of its enemies then it is alright for another country(India) to do same. IF not, then I don't know what it is. Apart from this it was okay book.

A well researched and insightful documentation!.......1998-04-13

Leonard A. Gordon has presented to the Western world a dramatic reexamination of the lives and struggles of two brothers who made a significant impact in the independence movement of their country, India. Gordon masterfully shows how brotherly love can be an unbreakable bond in the face of adversity and overwheming challenges.

This book is really two biographies in one. Sarat and Subhas Bose were brothers who shared a common desire to rid their nation British rule. While the former chose nonviolent struggle and joined Mahatma Gandhi in his campaign of passive resistance, the latter decided that armed struggle could be employed with the assistance of England's two main adversaries during World War 2, Germany and Japan, in driving out foreign occupation.

I would highly recommend this book to people interested in learning about the history of modern India. It is an objective presentation of the lives of two brothers who made a significant contribution to India's freedom struggle, but have not until recently been given their proper recognition.

A well researched biography with a few overlooked points.......1997-11-01

This is a brave attempt by a western biographer to gauge the life and times of two of the foremost leaders of Bengal. Usually most western biographers tend to 'build' up Subhas Chandra Bose and then in the end 'condemn' him for 'rising' against the British. This author is different. Mr Gordon does, to a certain extent, take a neutral viewpoint when trying to map out the political battles of Subhas and Sarat Bose. To be sure, it is a difficult task, trying to understand their motives and intentions through the 1920s, 1930s, and finally 1940s for Bengal and India. Subhas Chandra Bose naturally takes centre stage as the struggle against British occupation starts to reach new heights during the axis effort against the English. Mr Gordon mentions a reporter's comparison of Subhas Chandra Bose with the Republic of Ireland's leader De Valera, calling Subhas Chandra Bose "the Eaemon de Valera" of India. Although then the question is who was the Indian Subcontinent's "Michael Collins"? We actually come back to Subhas Chandra Bose, because no one else in the whole subcontinent at that time even comtemplated physical force as the only way of removing British despotism in the Subcontinent other than 'Netaji." Subhas Chandra Bose's journeys abroad are described in some detail. Especially the summit meetings with axis leaders in their bid to hammer out a common goal and objective. Mr Gordon begins one chapter with the question Axis collaborator? This is too harsh, Subhas Chandra Bose represented the Subcontinent, a people fighting for their independence against British tyranny. To call this freedom fighter an axis collaborator or even ask such a question would be calling for example, Charles de Gaulle a 'collaborator', if collaborator is used in the negative sense. When mentioning the I.N.A (Indian National Army) in Europe , Mr Gordon says that they didn't fulfill the dream that Netaji had of their (I.N.A) fighting the British. H.N. Pandit, however, in his book "Subhas Chandra Bose: From Kabul to the Battle of Imphal" says that these INA units did infact take part in the Normandy Campaign. I felt that Mr Gordon again didn't go into the campaigns of the INA in Burma with greater detail, and especially their tenacity against British occupation forces despite overwhelming odds. When partition came, and when Bengal was partitioned, a lot of people voted the way they did for various expediencies, our author again, perhaps with diplomatic tact, didn't go very deep into the reasons of the principal actors in that tragedy. The author could have also stressed that eastern Bengal would have inevitably clamoured for independence from a totally alien country to whom she was joined in 1947, with or without western bengal. Today, she rejoices as the independent Republic of Bangladesh. Our author, with great dexterity, presents some of the anguish felt by all the people in 1947. Subhas Chandra Bose was dead before he could return to the Subcontinent, if he had come back, maybe the partition of Bengal would have become doubtful, let alone her being fragmented into pieces. That is unfortunately an academic question. With his death, Sarat Bose lost an illustrious brother and sadly he also died seeing his beloved Bengal divided. At the end, it has to be said that Mr Gordon's work is an important insight into the subcontinent's struggle against British despotism. It deserves applause for its well researched and well balanced view of not only Subcontinental politics, but also for a well balanced picture of those two brothers against the raj, Subhas and Sarat Bose.

A Beacon Across Asia: The Biography of Subhas Chandra Bose

Average customer rating:

A Beacon Across Asia: The Biography of Subhas Chandra Bose

Manufacturer: Sangam Books Ltd
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 086311654X

Gandhiji, Subhashacandra o Banalara biplabira

Average customer rating:

Gandhiji, Subhashacandra o Banalara biplabira
Sukumara Mitra
Manufacturer: Pharma KeElaEma
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

Bengali | More Languages | Foreign Language Books | Specialty Stores | Books
ASIN: 8171020968

The lost hero: A biography of Subhas Bose

Average customer rating:

An Outstanding biography of a complex and brilliant Leader

The lost hero: A biography of Subhas Bose
Mihir Bose
Manufacturer: Quartet Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

South Asia | Asia | History | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 070432301X

Customer Reviews:

An Outstanding biography of a complex and brilliant Leader.......2002-01-22

This is one of the best biographies of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose that I have come across in recent times.
It is neither a hagiography nor one of those twisted character -assasination books written by, as author Mihir Bose calls them, "the raj warriors". This is the story of the Indian subcontinent's independence struggle, at a time when many inside India were busy collaborating with the British to perpetuate their empire and their own enslavement, one man was abroad planning an independence war to liberate it. The man of course was Netaji Subhas Bose. This book traces the steps of Subhas from a child growing up at the turn of the century to his rise in the national movement. The author shows with great precision that of all the leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, it was only Subhas who had the foresight and vision to not only think of a viable liberation struggle, but to plan for the country's development in the post-independence years. The author also goes into the details of the 1939 Congress Presidential Elections, and how a defeated and vindictive Gandhi managed to destroy Subhas's presidency.(following the defeat of Gandhi's candidate) [it is interesting to note of course, that one of the things that Gandhi vehemently opposed was Subhas's call for the British to withdraw from the subcontinent, however those who know Gandhi's past history will not be surprised; he had actively supported Imperial Britain's war against Imperial Germany during 1914-1918, and had tried to get volunteers to join the Imperial British Army, not only was this against the freedom fighters who were operating from Europe and elsewhere to further the Motherland's cause, but was also a hypocritcal act on the part of Gandhi himself. The man who preached non-violence against an illegal and violent occupation of the Indian subcontinent was trying to get young Indian men to commit violence against a European power which at the time was sympathetic to the Indian Independence Movement and fighting against the very power occupying India! Not surprisingly, in places like Gujrat, Gandhi was received very coolly when he tried to recruit for the British, and rightly so, for his double-standards, which only furthered British ends. To crown it all, Gandhi did receive a medal from the British for his efforts on their behalf, in addition to getting Indians to join the British army he also managed to wean away many nationalist freedom fighters from the effort against British occupation.That is of course another story. ] Imprisoned by the British after the success of his own party, the Forward Bloc,[and its program for complete independence] and knowing full well that the leaders of Congress and other parties were about to tread on the slippery slope of collaboration, he decided to leave India:that escape from british-occupied India in 1941 is now part of popular legend. What is more important is that the author goes to great lengths to show that while Subhas did go to Britain's enemies, he never sympathized with their more sinister motives, all Subhas was willing to do was to wage a common war against britain, nothing more. The Free India Radio for example, never sympathized with Nazi Germany's activities in Europe nor with their war against Soviet Russia, a fact noted by British propagandist during WWII, George Orwell. In fact, Subhas openly denounced the Germany invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941, even more significant, when the Free India Government declared war on Britain on 21 October, 1943, they did not declare war on Soviet Russia or China, showing the Indian movement was a free agent, and as said before, only interested in freeing its occupied Homeland. The fact that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose had maintained his independence from both the Germans and the Japanese was in itself a feat, but the establishment of a Free India Government and an Indian National Army while fending off suspicious, encroaching and at times antagonistic Japanese attention was all the more outstanding. His personal courage and self-sacrifice were shining examples during the terrible retreat from Burma following the defeats of the Japanese and Indian forces at Imphal in 1944.Ultimately, although the INA was defeated, his vision came true; his belief that the presence of soldiers of a Free India Army on the soil of the Homeland would finally have an effect on the Indian mercenaries of the British army materialized during the INA Officers Trial of 1946. The final chapter was of course the INA inspired revolt of the sailors on board British Navy ships in the subcontinent's ports during february of the same year. Instead of taking the opportunity, Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi sided with the British and urged the sailors to surrender. As Nehru would tell a British author years later that he and his colleagues did not have the stomach any more for the independence struggle and thus meekly gave in: and in addition accepted the fatal British partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and its horrific implications. The one man who would have most definitely opposed Jinnah,his partition and British machinations was no more. On 18 August, 1945, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, while flying to Manchuria to ask for Soviet Russia's help[following Japan's surrender] in the war against the British died in a crash.
Although Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA had not driven the British out of India, they had nevertheless created a revolutionary situation like the one during the First War of Indian Independence during 1857, which made it impossible for the British to hold on to their rule. In 1956,former british premier Clement Attlee who had supervised Britain's withdrawal from India, said in a discussion with Pani Bhushan Chatterjee, the acting governor of West Bengal, that it was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army who had rocked the very foundations of British rule in India and made the situation impossible to sustain, when asked what role had Gandhi, his movements or his disciples [Nehru etc] had played in the British decision to leave,Attlee had suppressed a smile and said 'minimal'.
Thus it followed that the one man who should have been on the scene during the fateful years of 1946-47, was tragically not there.
Without a doubt[and I agree with the author] he would have created a more stronger and united India then his lesser and ineffectual successors. Most certainly the tragedy of partition would not have occured, he would have definitely opposed Jinnah[Jinnah was seen as the 'Hitler of India' by British author Michael Edwards, an eyewitness of those events],by force if necessary, to resist the breakup of the subcontinent and would not have allowed the partition of his own native Bengal and the subsequent slaughter of 3 million defenseless Bengalis during fascist Pakistan's systematic genocide in East Bengal during 1971.(After committing some of the most barbaric crimes against humanity, fascist pakistan's officers and soldiers who perpetrated those crimes remain unpunished to this day. For that matter the collaborators in Bangladesh today run free as well. Neither international organizations like the United Nations nor any government of Bangladesh since independence has undertaken this pursuit of justice.) Finally I liked the conclusion of this book; that though Netaji Subhas did not live to fulfill his vision,"the revolution that he had eloquently championed",[although he did do it in part by forcing the British to leave India] many people in the subcontinent are still hopeful, that somehow that vision may one day be fulfilled. One thing is certain though, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose remains the outstanding leader of the Subcontinent, and he will live forever in the memories of his people as a shining example of genuine leadership, integrity, self-sacrifice and a farsighted visionary nationalist.

The Mahatma and the Netaji: Two Men of Destiny of India

Average customer rating:

The Mahatma and the Netaji: Two Men of Destiny of India
Samar Guha
Manufacturer: Stosius Inc/Advent Books Division
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

South Asia | Asia | History | Subjects | Books

Gandhi | Hinduism | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

The mystery of the disappearance of Netaji Subhas Ch. Bose

Average customer rating:

The mystery of the disappearance of Netaji Subhas Ch. Bose

Manufacturer: Lokmat Prakashani
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

South Asia | Asia | History | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 8190087908

Average customer rating:

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
S.R. Chakravarty , and M.C. Paul
Manufacturer: Har Anand Publications,India
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Asia | History | Subjects | Books

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, the last phase in his own words

Average customer rating:

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, the last phase in his own words
Subhas Chandra Bose
Manufacturer: Har-Anand Publications
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The great war for political emancipation

Average customer rating:

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The great war for political emancipation
Harihara Dasa
Manufacturer: National Pub. House
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

South Asia | Asia | History | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 8186803610

Average customer rating:

Netaji, a biography for the young
Krshna Basu
Manufacturer: Rupa
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding

Average customer rating:

Important History of this Dialogue. Weak Analysis.

Not ultimately persuasive, but so much more to offer than Dawkins et al

Weak Central Argument, Overall a Tough Read

Could Have Been 5 Stars, But...

Up from snopes

Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life
Stephen Jay Gould
Manufacturer: Ballantine Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Religious | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Philosophy | Theology | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
Psychology | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
General | Science | Subjects | Books
General | Reference | Science | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin

The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanities

Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History

I Have Landed: The End of a Beginning in Natural History

ASIN: 034545040X
Release Date: 2002-02-26

Amazon.com

Revered and eminently readable essayist Stephen Jay Gould has once again rendered the complex simple, this time mending the seeming split between the two "Rocks of Ages," science and religion. He quickly, and rightfully, admits that his thesis is not new, but one broadly accepted by many scientists and theologians. Gould begins by suggesting that Darwin has been misconstrued--that while some religious thinkers have used divinity to prove the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would have never done the reverse.

Gould eloquently lays out not "a merely diplomatic solution" to rectify the physical and metaphysical, but "a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds," central to which is the elegant concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould defines magisteria as a "four-bit" word meaning domain of authority in teaching.) Essentially, science and religion can't be unified, but neither should they be in conflict; each has its own discrete magisteria, the natural world belonging exclusively to science and the moral to religion.

Gould's argument is both lucid and convincing as he cites past religious and scientific greats (including a particularly touching section on Darwin himself). Regardless of your persuasions, religious or scientific, Gould holds up his end of the conversation with characteristic respect and intelligence. --Paul Hughes

Book Description

Writing with bracing intelligence and clarity, internationally renowned evolutionist and bestselling author Stephen Jay Gould sheds new light on a dilemma that has plagued thinking people since the Renaissance: the rift between science and religion. Instead of choosing them, Gould asks, why not opt for a golden mean that accords dignity and distinction to each realm?

In his distinctively elegant style, Gould offers a lucid, contemporary principle that allows science and religion to coexist peacefully in a position of respectful noninterference. Science defines the natural world; religion our moral world in recognition of their separate spheres of influence. In exploring this thought-provoking concept, Gould delves into the history of science, sketching affecting portraits of scientists and moral leaders wrestling with matters of faith and reason. Stories of seminal figures such as Galileo, Darwin, and Thomas Henry Huxley make vivid his argument that individuals and cultures must cultivate both a life of the spirit and a life of rational inquiry in order to experience the fullness of being human.

In Rocks of Ages, Gould’s passionate humanism, ethical discernment, and erudition are fused to create a dazzling gem of contemporary cultural philosophy.

Customer Reviews:

Important History of this Dialogue. Weak Analysis........2007-08-15

`Rocks of Ages' by recently deceased historian of science, paleontologist, and essayist, Stephen Jay Gould, is a departure from his many collections of essays, although much of the material presented in defense of his contention is drawn from many of his earlier essays. This is much more like his most important popular book, `The Mismeasure of Man', in that it deals exclusively with a single concept.
Gould's great subject in this volume is the relation between science and religion throughout history, most especially since the time of Galileo. His contention is that these two great realms of discourse are `non-overlapping magisteria' or NOMA for short. The defining characteristics of these NOMA are that they are equally important to our lives and they are logically independent. In spite of Gould's great range of expertise, he is the first to admit that he is poaching on the grounds usually handled by members of the Philosophy faculty. He is also quite generous in citing some of his most famous philosophical antecedents, especially the great English philosopher, David Hume and the more contemporary and somewhat less original G. E. Moore, whose 1903 book, `Principia Ethica' is the most famous presentation of the NOMA hypothesis. As is his usual forte, Gould's greatest contribution to the dialogue, as a historian of science, is his citations from both sides of the dialogue between science and religion, most especially from `Darwin's Bulldog', Thomas Henry Huxley and the encyclicals of two modern, and very conservative Popes (Pius XII and John Paul II).
I am a long time fan of Professor Gould's essays, and I have rarely found anything among his popular essays with which I would disagree. So, I am just a bit surprised when I find several points in this book which are just a bit misleading. This is in spite of the fact that I totally agree with his general statement, especially since virtually every great philosopher since David Hume (and probably several before him) took this position. Thus, I have no respect for those I've read who dismiss Gould's argument as `politically correct positions to mollify one or the other camp. One needs to address Gould's arguments and not do an ad hominom attack on his motives or credentials.
After that rant, I confess my first point does regard style of presentation more than the content of the argument. Ludwig Wittgenstein's way (Philosophical Investigations) of presenting exactly the same point is to say that in the toolbox of human discourse, there are several different kinds of tools, each of which works in different ways to accomplish different objectives. Not only is this simpler, the metaphor in itself broadens understanding by comparing discourse in science and religion with easily understood objects. Gould is far too `high faluttin' with his invention of `NOMA'. Happily, Wittgenstein's image suggests an important matter of substance. While it is easy to focus on a simple dichotomy, in fact, there are not two, but several different kinds of discourse, each with its own rules. Three of the most important are the realms of morality, law, and politics.
At this point, I'm sure you are saying `Wait just one minute here Mr. Know-it-all! Doesn't Gould cover morality in religion?' Yes, dear reader, he does, and that is a mistake. While most religions (I can only speak with some knowledge about Christianity and Judaism) do make a big thing of moral behavior, there are two points which show that Christianity doesn't own morality. The first is that `moral' behavior is of only secondary importance to being in a state of Grace with God. In fact, one of the most important aspects of the Reformation was to devalue the role of behavior in attaining salvation. There is no question that `good' behavior is important, and that Jewish and Christian thinking has contributed an enormous amount of good to ethical theory, but it is simply not the most important game in town. The second fact about morality is that what is `morally right' is `morally right' for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, atheists, Druids, and Wiccans. Period. And, what makes something morally correct is independent of the value systems of any one of these religions (or non-beliefs). If you're a Christian and find this hard to take, just read chapter 3 of Paul's letter to the Romans where he cites our natural intuition of what is right and wrong, totally unconnected with belief in God.
The only other issue for which I have room in this short review is Gould's emphasis on the equal importance of the two realms of discourse. In fact, I believe that while the practice of science rarely affects most people's everyday life, the values of religion come into play not only daily, but literally hourly, assuming you are around one or more people in the course of the day, and assuming you are not a practicing scientist. And, being that pervasive, people are far better prepared to cope with life if their values are well organized by a coherent doctrine which they share with a close-knit community.
While Gould's powers of writing to a popular audience are as strong as ever, his arguments and his tendency toward pomposity weaken this book.

Not ultimately persuasive, but so much more to offer than Dawkins et al.......2007-08-14

If you've read any of the clutter of recent books on evolutionary science or popular atheism, you'll know that Stephen Jay Gould - and particularly this book, Rocks of Ages comes with something of a health warning: Gould, despite great eminence and magisterial publishing history, is seen by a certain clique of like-minded authors within the biological community as being damaged goods and this attempt at popular philosophy, with its central thesis of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" ("NOMA") - an attempt at peaceful mediation between science and religion - is given short shrift by such authors, and elsewhere tends to be put down to Gould's compromised situation when he wrote it (terminally ill with cancer). Since his death a few years ago, Rocks of Ages has lost an able champion and as a result looks set to disappear quietly beneath the waves of the current, squally debate.

Which is a pity. While I didn't find Gould's particular formulation entirely convincing, his starting point: that it would be a great shame if neither of the two greatest intellectual traditions on the planet could rest without destroying the other, seems to me to be thoroughly pragmatic and worthwhile, since each has an awful lot of merit and utlity if only they could agree a means of peacable separation.

The likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, of course, will have none of that, and while the great majority of the liberal religious happily would, this only furthers the militant atheists' conclusion that they are therefore right, and the god-botherers must be crushed. Very childish indeed, if you ask me. For the record, I'm not religious myself: just more pleasantly disposed to religious people than some of my atheist confreres.

All the same, I'm not persuaded by NOMA, because, like all the participants in that pointless debate, Gould believes he can hold onto transcendental truth, and is therefore hoist by the same petard: using NOMA simply as a means of deciding which truth is the province of which discipline is as forlorn as the forensic search for any kind of transcendental truth, and worthy of the same criticisms that Rorty, Kuhn, Wittgenstein and others make of that idea.

But enough of what I think. NOMA is, at least, a good try and along the way Gould has written an elegantly phrased, beautifully learned, contemplative, reflective book and made some very pithy observations, that Richard Dawkins might have done well to note.

In particular, the observation that hardly any of the modern religions take young-earth creationism literally. Once it is seen as metaphorical (and this may be heresy in the deep south, but it's been taken as read in all of the churches I've ever been to), the atheistic thrust of Darwin's Dangerous Idea (a wonderful book in other respects) comes to nought. Gould notes that it can only be taken figuratively, if for no other reason than that it makes no sense whatsoever otherwise: the literal text refers to the making of the sun on the fourth "day" - but it's difficult to see how days 1-3 could have been measured! Additionally, pretty much the only place where religion strays more than nonchalantly into the scientific magisterium (certainly the only one you'll find Dawkins obsessing about, since it is his chosen field) is in the creation myth, which as far as I know is over and done with in about ten pages, which leaves much of the balance of the Good Book unscathed.

Erudition of Gould's sort (absent without official leave in the The God Delusion) lives on every page, and the book is worth its value for these alone. The myth of the flat earthers is similarly surprising: read it and see.

Lastly, I found Gould's book valuable because it faces up to and accomodates what, for fundamentalists (of either stripe) is a rather uncomfortable fact: there are millions, if not billions, of thoughtful, well educated, scientifically literate, liberal people who are able to hold to religious devotion and scientific practice contemporaneously, without unease or mental torment. Dawkin's best guess is that these people are systematically deluded: hardly a useful or scientific approach, you would think. Gould's more mature reaction is to say: these are the facts: science has not supplanted religion; these ideas can co-exist in our heads; now how can we reconcile that.

There are better explanations, I believe, of the particulars, but Gould's book is a worthwhile and charming entry all the same.

Olly Buxton

Weak Central Argument, Overall a Tough Read.......2007-05-31

I found Gould's book to be generally difficult to read. From the beginning, I had difficulties really understanding his thesis, that religion and science don't have to be at odds, nor do they even have any implications on one another. One reason for this is Gould's definition (or lack thereof) of what exactly constitutes "religion." Gould says that by religion, he doesn't mean some dogma taken literally, and he says that he recognizes that one doesn't need religion to have ethics or morals. However, the way he uses the idea of religion seems to be some mishmash of ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy, rather than the way religion is generally thought of today, as a distinct set of beliefs. I felt this to be a fatal flaw that made the reading of the entire book frustrating. He uses ethics and religion interchangeably, but would anyone ever really argue that science and ethics are at odds, or that one can have a "wise" or "full" life with just science or with just ethics (and not both)? I don't know that anyone ever does make this argument, and thus, I felt that Gould was wasting his time with much of the book.

Much of Gould's time is spent explains NOMA, non-overlapping magisterium, and explaining why science shouldn't enter into the realm of religion, and vice versa. However, I could think of some arguments against this. For example, under Gould's NOMA theory, one might say "sure, science makes abortion possible, but science can have no say in answering whether it is ethically or morally acceptable." However, utilizing science, I feel that one can make a more ethically informed choice as to their decision. One could look at a fetus and decide developmentally how far along it is, what features it has, etc. I belief this could help decide whether it would be morally acceptable to abort. Would it be equally as immoral to kill a fetus 3 hours after conception as it would to kill it 3 hours before birth? I think most would agree that it is not. Science can help inform decisions of this type that aren't as clear cut as to help come to an ethical decision; as in this case, I am not insinuating that science can come to a formulaic answer as to what might be moral decision, but it can certainly inform a moral decision. To say that science and ethics (what Gould calls religion) shouldn't have any bearing on one or the other is simply absurd.

Furthermore, Gould seems to think that religion brings some sort of divine knowledge of what is right and wrong, some sort of enlightenment that one cannot have without it. Once more, his examples aren't that convincing to me. He gives an example of the scientist who develops some sort of process involving gene cloning, then desires to continue research on it without thinking about the ethical implications. Gould presents the scientist as someone seemingly with no regard for ethics, intoxicated with the thought of further scientific development. He says that people without scientific knowledge should be able to debate about the ethics of the procedure before the scientist continues. I would argue that the majority of people have a sense of right and wrong, the scientist included. Why should the masses have a better moral opinion on the issue? Secondly, people without scientific training could misinterpret the implications of the procedure. They might hear the word "cloning" and immediately become skeptical, imagining in their minds an army of identical robots. The scientist would have a better grasp on the true nature of the research, and what the ethical issues are that it implies.

Finally, and most exasperating for me, Gould seems to be assuming that the "big questions", (ie why am I here, what's my purpose) can't be answered without religion. Just because I don't imagine a white-bearded deity in the sky, does that make a quest for truth in life (my personal philosophy) any less meaningful? By "quest for truth" personally, I mean bringing a little more scientific knowledge to the world, but obviously this would mean different things to different people. Is a lover's kiss any less sweet or meaningful because I see it as the result of billions of little reactions being triggered in my brain, rather than some sort of cosmic fate realized? No, it's not, and I don't see why it should be. Whether one chooses to think of themselves as a "tool of some greater good" or just someone who sees beauty in a random, chaotic world, all people have an understanding of what is right and wrong; you don't need religion to have this understanding.

Could Have Been 5 Stars, But..........2007-04-16

...Gould's writing style in parts of this work is a bit difficult to wade through. His premise, that science and religion can coexist peacefully, is well thought-out and presented logically. And his atheism doesn't show through as a distaste for religion. Rather, he recognizes the deep human desire for faith as somewhat of a given. He argues that science and religion operate in separate spheres of influence. Nature is the domain of science, while religion concerns itself with ethics and morality within the framework of a constantly changing world. Of course, our world would probably be a better place if all of us could accept Gould's proposal. But, in all likelihood, that day is far off.

Up from snopes.......2007-01-22

Truths and facts deal with different areas of life and different styles of learning. This book helps sort them out. It is an aetheist's book written for Christians.

Rocks of Ages - Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life

Average customer rating:

Rocks of Ages - Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life
Stephen Jay Gould
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: 0965760219

Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.(Review): An article from: American Scientist

Average customer rating:

Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.(Review): An article from: American Scientist
Ursula Goodenough
Manufacturer: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

General | Science | Subjects | Books

Science & Technology | Subjects | e-Docs | Formats | Books

Average customer rating:
CONSERVATION FOR SURVIVAL AN ECOLOGICAL STRATEGY

Manufacturer: William Morrow
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000HZVLTM

Average customer rating:
Conservation for Survival: An Ecological Strategy
Kai Curry-Lindahl
Manufacturer: William Morrow
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Conservation | Outdoors & Nature | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 0688000185

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books