Comments, News, Essays, Articles
Comments, News, Essays, Articles
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.
Everyday Radiation and the Brain
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.
The strangeness of living things
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.
Cures deadlier than the 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.
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.
Satanic Cults - New Magnet For Our Drifting Youngsters
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.
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)?
Its all in the genes, or maybe not
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Re: A kick in the cosmos
Letter to The Guardian for the attn. of Dr Duncan Steel, 12 Jan 2005
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
www.why-we-exist.org
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.
Avoiding the unpleasant - we are all guilty
Re: Free thinker muses on the missing Almighty
(Letter to The Age, 10 Jan 05)
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
(Letter to The Telegraph, 09 Jan 05)
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.
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?
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.
God is not the puppet master??
(Letter to The Guardian, 08 Jan 05)
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.
Neither Science Nor Religion Has The Answers
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".
[
Atheist discovers 'the science of God' - Daily Telegraph 12-12-04]
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."
[
Of course this makes us doubt God's existence - Sunday Telegraph 02-01-05]
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.