Comments, News, Essays, Articles
Monday, 31 January 2005
The row over Intelligent Design
The part played by American conservative Christians in the re-election of
President George W. Bush has pushed the long-running battle over the status of
Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) into worldwide media headlines. Advocates of IDT
have been
waging a campaign that goes back 10 years to get it included alongside
Evolution in the school science curriculum as an alternative theory on origins.
Opponents claim IDT is just a 'backdoor' version of
religious creationism that has no place in science.
Secular supporters of IDT (agnostic deists if you like) are exasperated that
religious fundamentalists have hijacked the debate to support a conservative
'theo-social' agenda that the former group want nothing to do with. Matters are
not helped by the media's linking of IDT with other issues being championed by
the religious right such as
Young Earth Creationism and
the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than a proven fact.
As I argue in
Why We Exist, IDT has little in common with religion's theistic
creator. It is a minimalist theoretical perspective that involves just two basic
assumptions:
a) Intelligent causes exist. b) These causes can be empirically detected. The
scientific search for empirical evidence in support of IDT covers areas such as
Anthropic Coincidences in the Universe, Specified Complexity of Organisms, Water
Anomalies and The Fibonacci Number & Golden Ratio (see chapter 5).
At the
multi-disciplinary NTSE conference held at the University of Texas in
1997, Prof. Robert C. Koons warned "if we are to pursue theistic research programs,
it must be for the sake of doing science and doing it well, not for the sake of
religion." It will be a pity if a self-serving evangelical agenda is allowed to
derail the decade-long battle on both sides of the Atlantic for acceptance of
IDT as a legitimate subject in science. That will be a major blow to our search
for meaning and purpose outside religion.
Weekend, 29-30 January 2005
Everyday Radiation and the Brain
At last my family is taking seriously my complaints of undue fatigue when I sit
in a certain area of our living room. My favourite chair happens to be directly
under a light dimmer switch -- you know the ones that give off a barely
audible high-pitched resonance. Until now I have received looks that range from
pitying to mildly amused; the kind you direct at a loved one you suspect is going
slightly loopy.
No longer so. Yesterday I triumphantly displayed an article captioned
"Scientists serious about 'electricity sickness' claims".
Enough reports have been received
of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" (EHS), with symptoms including fatigue,
severe headaches and skin problems, to warrant serious investigation by the UK
National Radiological Protection Board. The condition has been
acknowledged since 2000 in Sweden where 3.1 per cent of the population (200,000
people) are believed to be affected.
Associate professor of neuroscience Olle Johansson who has been studying EHS for
20 years at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden is quoted as saying: "If you put a
radio near a source of EMFs you will get interference. The human brain has an
electric field so if you put sources of EMFs nearby, it is not surprising that
you get interference, interaction with systems and damage to cells and
molecules." But some other scientists still say the evidence is inconclusive --
hence the call for more research by Sir William Stewart, the UK government's top
adviser on radiation.
The arguments over the effects of our continuous exposure to electromagnetic
fields mirror those provoked by claims of illness caused by prolonged exposure to
mobile phone radiation.
A Danish study at the beginning of 2004 concluded there
was no evidence of increased risks -- at least in the short-term (the first 10
years). By the end of 2004
a broader European study coordinated by German
research group Verum reported that radio waves from mobile phones do harm body
cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions. Mindful of the implications for
the US$100 billion a year mobile phone industry, the Verum report also cautioned
that more research is needed to see if the same effects are repeated in the field
(outside a lab).
Whatever the ultimate findings, I now have the ammunition I need to install
ordinary light switches in our living room (for starters) without too much
dissent from luxury-addicted siblings.
Thursday, 27 January 2005
The strangeness of living things
It never ceases to amaze how adventurous scientists prepared to venture outside
orthodox research invariably end up adding to the countless mysteries and
paradoxes of life. The emerging field of Biophotonics that studies weak
photon (light) emissions from living organisms is one such example.
Interest can be traced back to the 1920s when Alexander Gurwitsch
discovered what he called "mitogenetic radiation" from living tissue (onions,
yeast etc.) while researching cell division rates. This "ultraweak photon
emission" was rediscovered by other Russian scientists in 1950.
Italian nuclear physicists stumbled upon similar emissions much later and dubbed it
"bioluminescence". Since the 1970s, various scientific groups working
independently on disparate subjects in Australia (Quickenden), Germany
(Fritz-Albert Popp), Japan (Inaba), and Poland (Slawinski) have produced demonstrable
evidence of organic photon emission using modern single-photon counting
systems.
Latest research is being pioneered in Germany where the government has expressed
strong interest in, and designated, Biophotonics as a scientific field of the
highest priority. Germany is also the birthplace of the
International Institute of Biophysics (IIB) that has given this modern
description: "Biophotons are single quanta [packets of light]
which are permanently and continuously
emitted by all living systems. They are subjects of quantum physics and they
display a universal phenomenon attributed to all living systems." The IIB defines
Biophotonics as the scientific measurement of electromagnetic signals from
biological tissues after exposure to electromagnetic or mechanical or other
excitations.
Researchers have come up with some astounding experimental evidence:
It has also emerged that biophoton emissions from both humans and plants
follows biological rhythms (e.g. sleep in humans), and that deviation from these
rhythms and/or asymmetries is an indication of sickness.
As is usual in these matters, not all scientists agree with the science or
findings. But there are now about 40 scientific groups working worldwide on
biophoton research, including 14 governmental research institutes and
universities from China to America.
Whatever the merits of the findings, there is no doubt that this field is poised to
become one of the most important branches of the life sciences.
It is yet another reminder that we are far from understanding enough about living
things to initiate major, irreversible changes to the fabric of nature.
Wednesday, 26 January 2005
Pausing for breath !
This has been an exceptionally busy week. I have been surprised and touched
by the uplifting and intelligent feedback I have received from followers
of this blog and others that have read Why We Exist. It gives me strength
to continue. Keep visiting, keep reading and keep sending in messages.
Nothing generates knowledge like the honest exchange of ideas unfettered
by preconceptions and prejudiced dogma.
I cannot thank you enough for your continued support. Professor Antony Flew
(brave enough, at the age of 81, to renounce beliefs he held for over 50 years)
quotes Plato for our benefit: "Follow the truth wherever it leads."
We must not allow fashionable creeds and practices to deviate us from that path.
There is too much at stake.
Tuesday, 25 January 2005
Cures deadlier than the diseases?
The new tendency to view genetic engineering as a magical panacea is
being extended to viral and bacterial infections. Scientists are
working on various proposals to create new genetic versions of either
the microorganism or the carrier of some of the world's deadliest
diseases.
Prof. Donald Henderson, leader of the global vaccination campaign that
eradicated smallpox in the wild, is opposing plans submitted to the
World Health Organisation by other scientists for the creation of a
genetically modified version of the smallpox virus. Advocates believe
this would accelerate research into a new antiviral to counter
bio-terrorist attacks. But Prof. Henderson believes the supposed
benefits are not worth the risks. He said: "What I worry about is that
there is rather too much done in this area and the minute you start
fooling around with it in various ways, I think there is a danger … The
less we do with the smallpox virus and the less we do in the way of
manipulation at this point I think the better off we are."
There are similar concerns over ongoing work to produce
genetically modified mosquitoes that, it is hoped,
will be unable to host the malaria parasite.
One research team led by Prof. Anthony James at the
University of California, Irvine announced in September last year that
some strains of the new bio-bug are ready to be field-tested outside
the lab. Other examples include work to genetically alter the bacterium
carried by kissing bugs that causes Chagas disease -- an affliction
that can lead to heart disease or malfunction of the digestive tract.
A member of the team on the kissing bug project
acknowledges the risks and the need for caution.
Dr. Ravi Durvasula, medical director of
Yale University Health Services, said that the implications of
modifying bacteria are very different from those of modifying insects:
bacteria can freely exchange genes with a range of other bacteria and
even viruses leading to unforeseen consequences.
He asks:
"If we release these bacteria that are targeted toward the kissing bug
population, what if the [GM] bacteria make their way into houseflies,
ants or other insects that live in houses?"
Entomologist Fred Gould of North Carolina State University is
sceptical. Scientists, he points out, have a history of getting it
wrong.
At a conference sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
Gould said: "In the late 1940s
entomologists had no reason to doubt that DDT [a chemical spray that
turned out to have disastrous side-effects] would cure the world's pest
problems. In the 1960s, advocates of biological control did not
consider that imported predators of insect pest species might cause
extinction of rare species."
Another area of concern is that these
genetically altered microorganisms and bugs will be released in
developing countries, which are not best known for strict enforcement
of safety and licensing regulations.
The experience in Australia four years ago is instructive. Scientists
genetically modified a mousepox virus, thereby inadvertently creating a
highly virulent strain that could not be combated by vaccination. Of
course, unlike mousepox, the new GM smallpox virus being considered by
the WHO has the potential to devastate humans.
But I suppose scientists
can always produce yet another genetically modified virus to combat the
one being proposed if things go wrong.
Monday, 24 January 2005
Depression, Belief Systems and Definitions
I heard on the radio this morning that today is supposed to be the most
depressing day of the year. Apparently a combination of factors like
the weather, broken resolutions, debt and general 'after-Christmas
blues' combine to sink our spirits to their lowest ebb on January 24. I
later noticed a piece in
The Guardian that quoted "scientific proof". A
guest psychologist offered the helpful suggestion on air that we should
combat the malaise by focusing on the plight of others rather than
being introspective.
It all got me thinking about the therapeutic benefits people get from
belief systems. Whether based on notions of the inherent goodness of
an external creator like the three Abrahamic faiths, or on teachings of
the power within as in Buddhism, it is an undisputed fact that the
mental health of many people
is assisted greatly by their beliefs. Of
course, as with all therapies, there is always the danger of
"overdose", usually resulting from over-prescription by over-zealous or
unscrupulous practitioners eager to sell their spiritual wares. But
sometimes people simply lose faith and become even more depressed
because things don't work out or the system does not live up to their
expectations. George Elliott portrayed this latter side-effect very
well in her classic novel 'Silas Marner'.
Modern spiritual hunger has spawned a proliferation of new and old belief systems
with battles raging over which are "religions" and which are "cults".
Scientology has had a hard time getting acceptance as a proper
religious entity on this side of the Atlantic. Jewish leaders are alarmed
by the resurgence of Kabbalah, a movement based on
mystical interpretation of Judaism that counts celebrities like Madonna and Demi
Moore among its members. There is some consternation in the UK at the
appointment of Ruth Kelly as Education Secretary because
she is said to be a member of Opus Dei, a secretive ultra-rightist
Catholic organisation now
known to the wider public via Dan Brown's best-selling novel The Da
Vinci Code (Ms Kelly has only admitted
"spiritual support" from the movement).
Cardinal Basil Hume, former head of the Catholic Church in Britain,
was concerned enough in 1981 to warn his flock against the
organisation and lay down some very strict guidelines for it to observe
if it wished to work, especially with the young, in his diocese.
The standard definition of a "religion" requires belief in a god or
gods that must be obeyed and worshipped. But this would exclude several
belief systems that are already accepted as religions. The issue is of
much importance in schools, where decisions need to be made on
what can properly be described and taught as such.
It is also stirring controversy in the workplace, over who is
entitled to time off for faith-related activities and whether discrimination is
justified
on the grounds of sexual orientation or religion.
We can expect
much litigation in the courts as activists seek to clarify these matters.
Weekend, 22-23 January 2005
Satanic Cults - New Magnet For Our Drifting Youngsters
All sectors of modern society profess general revulsion when a child is
murdered. This is multiplied several times to generate much public
angst if the murderer is another child. We, adults, experience a
collective feeling of guilt and failure that is played out in the media
with 'experts' pontificating on every possible angle.
The case of 14-year-old Luke Mitchell is particularly troubling. In
June 2003 this Scottish teenager killed and mutilated his 14-year-old
girlfriend in a bizarre satanic ritual. Shocked Edinburgh prosecutors
said the crime mimicked the music and painting of Brian Warner a.k.a. 'Marilyn
Manson'. Warner's stage act combines the famous sexuality of Marilyn
Monroe with the notorious cultist murders of Charles Manson to preach
an intoxicating message of death and destruction to 'Goths' --
teenagers attracted to Satanic cults.
Luke Mitchell is the latest youngster to succumb to Warner's dangerous
nihilism. In October 1998,
17-year-old Jay Fieldon Howell of Fort Worth, Texas,
stabbed a 14-year-old girl at a Satanic altar in his back
yard after watching a video by Warner/Manson. In April 1999, Dylan
Klebold and Eric Harris (both Goths hooked on Manson's music) walked
into their school in Columbine, Colorado and shot dead 12 other
students and a teacher before killing themselves -- a tragedy that
still haunts America.
Even largely Catholic Italy has not escaped the spreading menace. In
June 2004, police officers were shocked to discover the bodies of a
19-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy in a wood outside Milan. They
said the hapless teenagers had been slaughtered as part of a satanic
ritual involving sex, drugs and rock and roll. They were last seen
leaving a pizzeria with other members of their heavy metal rock
band 'Beasts of Satan'. The grisly find followed investigation of
yet another band member's killing.
Satanic cults are competing with extremist religious fundamentalists to
make insidious inroads into certain sectors of our youth culture. No
amount of hot air from experts is going to stem the tide. Our failure
to articulate meaning and purpose to life outside discredited religious
dogma is providing an opportunity for amoral purveyors of unhealthy
ideas to exploit the young. We must act now to reverse the tide or face
the consequences.
Friday, 21 January 2005
When is a machine 'alive'?
Nanotechnology, the science of producing new materials or devices by
manipulating individual, or groups of, atoms or molecules, is combining
with biotechnology to create tiny machines that can fuse with living
tissue. A 'nano' is a measurement of a billionth of a meter -- about
the size of 10 hydrogen atoms or 80,000 times smaller than the diameter
of a human hair.
In the latest dramatic development, scientists at the University of
California claim to have produced "bio-bots" less than one millimetre
in length that can move solely with biological muscles grown on to
their silicon skeletons. The fascinating aspect is that the cells can
self-replicate. Professor Carlo Montemagno is quoted by BBC News as
saying: "They're absolutely alive … I mean the cells actually grow,
multiply and assemble - they form the structure themselves. So the
device is alive."
This ability to self-replicate is sure to create fresh concerns among
those already worried about the technology's potential for irreparable
harm to life and the environment; the ranks of which include Prince
Charles and Bill Joy, co-founder of US computer giant Sun
Microsystems. Already, some scientists have
raised the alarm about the threat to humans from inanimate nanoparticles
that "can get to areas that bigger particles cannot reach". The prospect of
"living" self-replicating nanomachines running amok is chilling to say the
least.
In March 2004
a BMRB survey revealed that just 29% of the public in the
U.K. had heard of nanotechnology. Only 19% were able to offer any sort of
definition of the science. A joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of
Engineering report has since
called for more information and tighter controls of the
industry in Europe.
But there are even more complex issues ahead. For example, what will be
the legal status of a 'human' that is sustained by more man-made
machine components than living tissue (whether or not it has consciousness)?
Thursday, 20 January 2005
Its all in the genes, or maybe not
Genetic engineering is giving an unwitting boost to advocates of
eugenics -- the science of improving the human race by controlling
inherited characteristics. Long discredited due to its implicit racism
(Hitler was an ardent supporter and practitioner), it is now being
repackaged as just another item of choice in the supermarket of life.
Genetic screening for hereditary diseases, in particular, is now widely
encouraged or even enforced. In some countries people found to have
certain predispositions are being pressured into long-term contraception,
sterilisation or abortions. Pressure will continue to grow as screening
is introduced for insurance cover and jobs etc.
Dr Anthony Pisano warns
that we appear to have forgotten "the lessons of World War II and the
disgraceful practices of forced sterilisation of 'feeble minded'
individuals legislated in many states of the USA and a few European
countries (1930s -1970s)." But, of course, these concerns have to be
set against the genuine suffering of people afflicted with debilitating
diseases that could arguably have been prevented by genetic manipulation,
and the distress to their caring families.
Media hype about 'behavioural genes' is not helping. The calls for serious
debate by those who worry that we are heading down a very slippery
slope indeed are being overshadowed by sensationalist claims about
so-called genes for, e.g.
criminal behaviour,
female infidelity,
female performance in the sciences and even
irrational religious belief.
These genetic
claims for mental deficiencies present a far more serious threat to
natural selection than screening for physical defects. Considering that
we are still a long way off from understanding how the mind-brain
works, it is premature (to say the least) to advocate purely genetic causation and
(and remedies) in this area. The huge complexities of the human
genome rule out such simplistic explanations.
Professor Steven Rose accuses scientists that support these notions of
"selling snake oil".
Perhaps one way of looking at it is that we may well have genetically
controlled behavioural predispositions. But the 'switch' for any one
disposition is flicked on or off by our environment (especially during
childhood formative years) and by our perception of society. In that
sense, it should be easier and safer to tackle these external factors
than to mess around with genetic factors about which we are still largely
ignorant.
Wednesday, 19 January 2005
The debate about faith-based schools misses the point
British chief inspector of schools David Bell sparked a furious row
this week when he
warned in a speech that the rapid growth of the
independent faith schools sector (i.e. those operating outside the
state-assisted comprehensive system) could undermine the coherence of
British society. He said, "Faith should not be blind. I worry that many
young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little
appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British
society." He cautioned that diversity should not be interpreted as
separation or segregation.
Mr Bell judged that "traditional Islamic education does not entirely
fit pupils for their lives as Muslims in modern Britain" and called on
Islamic schools to reform their curriculum so that pupils "acquire an
appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes
tolerance and harmony".
Some Muslim leaders are incensed that he
appears to have
singled out Islamic schools for particular criticism
(only 3% of Muslim children attend these schools, they say, and
what about Jewish and Christian schools?).
The issue of faith-based schools has long been controversial. Activist
secular groups have taken the opportunity to revive
calls for a completely secular school system where religion is simply another
taught subject rather than the doctrinaire basis of education. But the
government is highly unlikely to go down this route. As Mr Bell points
out, in just two years, the number of independent faith schools in
Britain has doubled to 300, including more than 50 Jewish schools,
about 100 Muslim schools and over 100 Evangelical Christian schools.
The entire furore misses the point. A considerable number of parents
with no particular religious beliefs are queuing up to enrol their
children in these schools, especially those sponsored by Roman Catholic
and Anglican church groups. The reason is two-fold. Firstly, all
parents (secular and religious) see these schools as a more likely
environment for their beloved offspring to acquire some measure of
moral principles and certitude. Secondly, Roman Catholic and Anglican
schools are more willing to embrace children of all faiths and
backgrounds and are not as insistent on indoctrination of dogma.
The rapid growth and popularity of faith-based schools is a reflection
of the widening moral vacuum in an increasingly godless society.
Parents, obviously, no longer trust themselves or their social
environment alone to prepare their children to be upright and useful
citizens. Over 40 years ago, Sir Julian Huxley warned in 'The New
Divinity' that "abandonment of the god hypothesis" would need to be
followed by concerted efforts to "construct something to take its
place." (See pg 156, Why We Exist). It is time to take heed.
Tuesday, 18 January 2005
Religious fundamentalism - science joins the search for understanding
I'm sure I was not the only one that felt a huge sense of relief at the
news (highlighted here yesterday) that there is to be serious
scientific investigation of the surge in religious fundamentalism and
its by-products of intolerance and terrorism.
As John Brookes,
professor of science and religion at Oxford said: "One of the
fundamental reasons why religious beliefs have to be taken seriously
... is that they are potentially very dangerous, and that can be true
of other dogmatisms too."
It is a pity that it has taken this long for this approach to surface.
Back in November 1993, former Roman Catholic priest
Oliver McTernan wrote:
"My research shows that terrorism that is religiously motivated
essentially questions the legitimacy of the society it confronts. The
perpetrators voice a common complaint about the absence of spiritual
values in a world that excludes god. Their goal is to make religion -
and, in particular, the moral code of their own sacred texts - the
foundation of a new political-social order. The belief that these texts
were dictated verbatim by a divine power allows no room for
compromise." He warned, "neither the bullet nor the ballot box will
remove the religious terrorist threat."
McTernan echoes the view
expressed in Why We Exist that "Religious fundamentalists … can see
only one way out: violent bulldozing of the entire western edifice and
a return to religious societies based on ancient rules and moral
teachings."
Anything that may help us understand how such rigid beliefs take shape
in the mind-brain is more than welcome. With luck we will learn enough
to design remedial policies that do not involve killing other human
beings.
Monday, 17 January 2005
The 'Mind' exists: Long live Duality
So a new
Centre for the Science of the Mind is being established at
Oxford University to investigate the nature of human consciousness and
the basis for religious belief in the brain. Scientists from different
disciplines will work with philosophers, theologians and ethicists on
experiments aimed at "promoting wellbeing and ultimately maximising individual human potential".
The head of the centre, leading neuroscientist Baroness Greenfield, is
quoted as saying: "I believe the time is now ripe for the machinery of
scientific method to come to bear on some of these questions … People
are realising these are the most exciting questions that anyone can
ask." Amen to that. In
Why We Exist I predicted that as "more and more respected scientists
put their reputation on the line with theories on difficult topics that were
taboo just a few years ago ... the term 'paranormal' may not survive beyond the
first couple of decades in the new millennium."
But I suspect there will be a
lot of long faces and gnashing of teeth among sceptical materialists
(e.g. of the Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins camps) that do not even
subscribe to the idea of a 'mind' that is separate from the physical
brain (concept of duality). Indeed,
Dennett will not even admit the notion of 'intangible' consciousness as a
unique experience that is unlike anything else in life. Thus, the very use of
the term in the name of the centre is bound to stir up controversy. I await the
inevitable fireworks with bated breath.
Of course, once you start investigating the mind and consciousness you
have to confront the "hard" phenomena of emotions and internal images
described by American cognitive scientist David Chalmers ten years ago.
Chalmers wrote:
"To explain experience, we need a new approach. The
usual explanatory methods of cognitive science and neuroscience do not
suffice. … To account for conscious experience, we need an extra
ingredient in the explanation. This makes for a challenge to those who
are serious about the hard problem of consciousness: What is your extra
ingredient, and why should that account for conscious experience?" I
suggest that the eminent Lady Greenfield and her distinguished group
would do well to bear this point in mind.
Dare I hope that in time this research will lead to investigation of
the exact nature and whereabouts of long-term human memory, which I
have suggested is also external to the brain?
Weekend, 15-16 January 2005
Dogma in Crisis: To be, or not to be?
In a
letter to The Times (12 Jan 05),
Canon John Burrows describes the dilemma facing the Church of England.
"If you do not follow public opinion and current trends, you become irrelevant
and out-of-date. But if you do, you lack conviction and vacillate."
The answer, he suggests, is to "present firm beliefs in a contemporary form."
In the same batch of letters, J. A. Russell offers a more radical view that
goes to the heart of the problem. He correctly assesses that although [in the U.K]
"we are clearly no longer a church-attending society ... The morality of Jesus
Christ, the greatest religious philosopher who ever lived, is very much alive in
our society ..."
Russell asks: "When will the Church realise that the old dogma has got be
expunged?"
That, as the man said, is the question.
Friday, 14 January 2005
Re: A kick in the cosmos
Dear Dr Steel,
Congratulations on becoming part of cosmic history. The launch of a
projectile from Earth with intent to alter the cosmic environment is,
indeed, a major milestone for humans
(Comment, 12 Jan 05).
You are right that there is always significant public disquiet about
the ethical and risk factors surrounding such "dabbling". For, as you
admit, "Sometimes our actions have been to the disadvantage of either
ourselves or the natural environment".
You are also right that we must seek to control our hostile environment
to increase our quality of life and expand our chances of survival. But
two questions arise: How far should we go? Who gets to make these
decisions that have such profound ramifications for life on Earth?
Frankly I have no definitive answer to the first question other than my
conviction that, given the many unresolved issues surrounding the
non-physical aspects of our being, we ought to script in the factor of
'human purpose' however abstract that concept may seem at this point
in our history. The second question is easier: if we are to continue such
landmark advances into unknown territory, principles of democracy
demand that the general public is given every opportunity (including
the necessary scientific literacy and debating space) to examine the
pros and cons so we can express informed opinions in advance.
We stand at a major crossroads in human history. It is no longer
acceptable that panels of scientists, or government policy bodies,
should be making unilateral decisions on matters in which the entire
inhabitants of the world are stakeholders.
Don't you agree?
Yours sincerely,
Eugene D. Bell-Gam
Thursday, 13 January 2005
Something is missing …
Yesterday I read two pieces in the BBC News Magazine that highlights
the growing emptiness of living wholly on a materialistic
plane, devoid of any sense of purpose.
The first by Brenda O'Neill asks: Why are we so grumpy?
(BBC, 5 Jan 05).
It lists statistics showing that we now "live longer, healthier
and wealthier lives" than our predecessors and that we "are better off
than ever before" -- in materialistic terms that is. It then goes on to
ask "so why aren't we happier? Why have we turned into a nation … who
can only see the downsides to modern life?" O'Neill concludes that the
grumpiness syndrome must stem from "old-fashioned snobbery".
Not surprisingly many viewers disagreed. Feedback posted includes
"unfulfilled aspirations have brought disappointment to many"; "Wealth
alone does not bring happiness, debt is higher than ever"; "the total
and utter lack of a social conscience … of the chav 'community' ";
"wealth has made us selfish, self centred and egotistical"; "Life
should be about quality not quantity". And this final gem from Chris
Green: "Despite all these benefits/improvements, people seem more
spiritually and socially barren than ever. So we can talk to people
anywhere in the world, we just don't seem to have anything worthwhile
to say. The boom of expectation that has come with increased affluence
has brought with it a poverty in the human experience."
The second piece discusses the growing dependence of Britons --
previously famous for their "stiff upper lip" -- on psychotherapy
(BBC, 7 Jan 05).
The charity Drugscope reports that demand has tripled the
number of qualified counsellors over 10 years. Phillip Hodson of the
British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy sums up the trend:
"Life has changed since we became a rich country. It isn't about a
struggle to survive but we may well be troubled by the meaning of life
and where it's going. These are marginal areas of relative pain. So in
the absence of an overwhelming theology or a paternal family, we look
for therapy to help us in a supportive and questioning role. It doesn't
just deal with problems, but existential philosophy as well - the
meaning of life."
Well,
Pantheists
and Humanists
are doing their best to fill the
widening emotional gap left by receding "theology". We have to wait
and see if these relatively new movements will succeed in attracting
the masses without acknowledgement of intelligent design and a
commitment to understanding human purpose.
Wednesday, 12 January 2005
Avoiding the unpleasant - we are all guilty
My 18-year old son cannot believe his good fortune. Since the start of
the New Year he has been able to watch the BBC's Match of the Day
(soccer roundup) without being bullied by his dad into switching to
late night news channels. Call me chicken, but I simply could no longer
stomach a daily mental diet of piles upon piles of dead bodies and
distraught survivors of the Asian tsunami. I've been sticking to print
news -- your mind can take this in mechanically without projecting
unpleasant images.
Hands up all those who have ever said: "Spare me the gory details". If
you are honest you should have both hands reaching for the ceiling. It
is a sad truism that the majority of the human race will always seek to
escape from unpleasant realities, especially when it is not on our
doorstep. First, we eagerly invite and accept lies from anyone
(politicians, religious leaders, news media) prepared to tell us what
we want to hear. Then, long after our intelligence has been flashing a
"that can't be right" signal, we continue to lie to ourselves. Finally,
for some of us, that giant called conscience shakes us like a rag doll
into confronting reality. But by then it is sometimes too late: the
ground has been conceded to events and the agenda of the unscrupulous.
Further avoidable tragedies have unfolded and gone unnoticed because
their reporting has been thoroughly sanitised for our consumption.
So let us add a resolve to face reality, however unpleasant, to our New
Year resolutions. For reality is all we have that is sane in our
current illusory world of spin, half-truths and outright mendacity.
Tuesday, 11 January 2005
Re: Free thinker muses on the missing Almighty
It should not come as a surprise that leaders of the Abrahamic faiths
-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are struggling to explain how an
omnipotent god who loves and cares for his creation can allow
cataclysms like the Asian tsunami to occur
(Letters, 09 Jan),
(News, 03 Jan).
Monotheists will always be vulnerable to the theodicy argument.
Polytheists can, at least, blame 'bad' gods that are engaged in a
perpetual spiritual battle with 'good' gods. But the cause of this
tsunami was a scientifically proven tectonic rupture in an area known
to have a geological fault line. It was not the malicious act of some
evil deity.
Nevertheless, the discomfiture of theists should offer scant comfort to atheists who,
after all, can only trumpet Nature's 'inherent cruelty'. There is, as
many scientists and philosophers now acknowledge, an increasing body of
evidence for intelligent design of the universe and life forms.
*****************************************************************
Re: Church leaders must provide leadership
What a pity that so many correspondents
(Letters, Jan 9) have focused
on the nuances in the Archbishop of Canterbury's article
(Opinion, Jan 2) rather than the merits of his call, albeit articulated in muddled
theology, for believers to re-examine the basis of their faith.
To his credit, the Archbishop appears to recognise that avoiding
serious questions of faith just because they are controversial is
hardly the way to guarantee church unity or reverse dwindling
congregations. But he does not go far enough. Much of scripture has
been exposed as an
elaborate assembly of frauds
Expectations of nothing but absolute goodness on the part of a benevolent,
omnipotent deity are cruelly misplaced, as is blind faith that prayer guarantees
reward and deflection of bad fortune.
With leading sceptics like Prof. Anthony Flew now admitting possible
intelligent design of the universe and life (News, December 12), church
leaders should be taking the lead in honest, open debate about the
nature, preferences and intentions of the agent or agents that may be
responsible for such design.
A radical new doctrine is required that
will forsake centuries of dogma inspired by politics in favour of the
simple moral teachings of Jesus. Otherwise our population of agnostics
and atheists will continue to expand rapidly at the expense of
Judeo-Christianity.
Monday, 10 January 2005
And the Atheist Response?
Predictably, the atheist community has been
clobbering theologists with their own almost daily confused writings
since the Asian tsunami struck on Boxing Day. I
suppose it was too much to hope that the scale and continuing
ramifications of the disaster would induce some humility and
introspection in all schools of human thought.
Rationalists are not doing their cause any favours by pushing
abstract philosophies that are incomprehensible, and irrelevant, to the
practical needs of the majority that are trying to piece together their
shattered world. People need answers in terms that they can grasp to
keep from drowning in a sea of disillusionment and doubt.
Atheists should stop
harassing poor Anthony Flew and give serious
consideration to his 'God of Aristotle' -- a utilitarian concept that I
too floated in 'Why We Exist'.
Or are we to conclude that our sceptical intellectual giants now
consider themselves supreme beings that need not concern themselves
with us mere mortals?
Sunday, 09 January 2005
Save us from religious bigots
If there can be anything more shocking than the scale of destruction
and suffering wreaked by the Asian tsunami, it is the iniquitous
suggestion from some quarters of religious extremism that the victims were
somehow responsible for their wretched fate.
What kind of people are these? How can anyone even conceive such odious
ideas in the face of such universal grief and empathy? So, the
monotheistic god that is supposed to embody universal love and
compassion has suddenly decided to
'punish' the innocent (including tens of thousands of children!) and
'warn' the cowed survivors that his "judgment is coming"?
The only glimmer of hope in all this is that would-be recruits to the ranks of
these heartless zealots will see through the hubris and beat a hasty
retreat from such inhumane ideologies.
Saturday, 08 January 2005
God is not the puppet master??
Rev. Dr Giles Fraser is the latest religious leader to tie himself in
knots over the Asian tsunami disaster
(Comment, Jan 8, 2005). If prayer
does not invoke divine power to offer us "an alternative way of getting
things done in the world" and the idea of God as the omnipotent "puppet
master of the universe" is a "great fantasy", why does the church
continue to preach these twin doctrines?
The good reverend's conclusion that "the essence of the divine being is
not power but compassion and love" is more New Age Spirituality than
Christian doctrine as prescribed in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds.
His explanation of why he is still a Christian is lame and
unconvincing.
Leading atheist Prof. Richard Dawkins has poured deserved scorn on
"religious people who give up on trying to explain, yet remain religious"
(Letters, Dec 30, 2004). But many intellectuals
(e.g. Prof. Anthony Flew) now acknowledge possible intelligent design of the
universe and life forms.
It is time for all sides to abandon discredited dogma and accept that
we know next to nothing about the nature, preferences or intentions of
the agent or agents that may be responsible for such design. Only
scientific investigation beyond this new frontier can take us further
along the path to ultimate truth.
Monday, 03 January 2005
Neither Science Nor Religion Has The Answers
We live in interesting times.
First, Anthony Flew, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University
of Reading and a leading atheist admits the possibility of
intelligent design of our universe and life after over 50 years of
vehement opposition to the idea. He has gradually been convinced, he
says, by "the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which
are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved".
Then, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury stuns his flock
with the admission that, faced with "the intolerable grief and
devastation" caused by the Asian tsunami (150,000 -- including many
children -- dead and counting), "it would be wrong" not to doubt the
existence of "a God who permits suffering on this scale". He further
admits that "traditional answers will get us only so far" and that
honest religious believers do not see prayer as "a plea for magical
solutions."
Alarmed atheists and theists have rushed to condemn these
standard-bearers as apostates. Indeed, the scathing remarks by
erstwhile comrades-in-atheism of Prof Flew that have permeated the
print and online media since he published his revised views some weeks
ago gives the impression that they would gladly have burnt him at the
stake if that extreme weapon of censure were still legal.
But neither of these men has given up their life-long beliefs. In
response to the furore, both have been forced to issue clarifications
of their positions; a sad reflection of a society that is just as
polarised by God questions as people were at the start of our common
era 2,000 years ago.
Where is the beef?
Prof Flew and Dr Williams are decent men who share a high degree of
intellectual honesty that is rare in academic circles today. Contrary
to excuses being put about by camp apologists, they did not suffer
sudden lapses in communication skills. They are both highly articulate
and accomplished writers with several published works to their credit.
The problem lies with the fast-crumbling pillars of doctrine that their
followers wish to force them to uphold. The "traditional answers"
simply have no moral or academic authority in an enlightened era of
astrophysics, genome science, and nanotechnology. In the immortal
Reagan depiction: Where is the beef? Both men have accepted that
there is nothing between the hamburger slices. It is time to move on.
A new frontier for knowledge
To make progress in the debate, science needs to accept that there is
now overwhelming empirical evidence for intelligent design. Stubborn
dissenters need to understand (and quickly) that they now stand in
great risk of discrediting science to the detriment of all humanity.
This great body of knowledge that has informed our development is now
in danger of becoming another religious cult. We need scientists to
stand up and follow the lead of Prof Flew in dumping old dogma and
embracing new challenges in the search for ultimate truth.
Religion needs to accept that we know nothing for certain about the
nature, preferences or intentions of the agent or agents that may be
responsible for such design. Much of scripture has been exposed as
an elaborate assembly of frauds. We have not been divinely instructed to
impose our belief systems and way of life on others. Expectations of
absolute goodness on the part of a benevolent deity are cruelly
misplaced, as are exhortations to prayer and 'giving' for reward and
deflection of bad fortune. This scandalous exploitation of human fears
of what (if anything) lies beyond our ephemeral existence must stop.
What is at risk
We have arrived at a major crossroads in human history. The relentless
march of science into areas that can alter the very nature of our being
and our environment urges a speedy reassessment of old ideas, beliefs
and inquiry methods. The life-altering potential of genome and
nanotechnology science in particular is all too real and changes may
well be irreversible.
Everyone is a stakeholder. We must elevate well-reasoned philosophical
argument to the same status as theory worthy of empirical testing.
After all, it is the testing of theoretical argument that leads to the
discovery of factual knowledge.
Contemplation of human purpose in a scientific context is no longer a
sterile academic exercise. For, as I have argued elsewhere: "no one
will attempt (or even propose) alterations to a complex piece of
machinery, or to its production
process, without first ascertaining its purpose". If the universe and
life appeared by design then there must be a utilitarian purpose,
however remote that may appear to our present powers of sentience.
Whether we are hyper-intelligent robots or 'spiritual' entities, I believe we
urgently need scientific investigation of the issue of purpose to guide
decisions on the sort of future we want for our being and our
environment.
Letter to The Guardian for the attn. of Dr Duncan Steel, 12 Jan 2005
www.why-we-exist.org
(Letter to The Age, 10 Jan 05)
(Letter to The Telegraph, 09 Jan 05)
(Letter to The Guardian, 08 Jan 05)
[
Atheist discovers 'the science of God' - Daily Telegraph 12-12-04]
[
Of course this makes us doubt God's existence - Sunday Telegraph 02-01-05]