Sunday 29 December 2013

And so 2013 Comes to an End

The year is nearly over and also coming to a close is my first year of blogging, which is an activity that in 2014 I will continue, for I have much to say about many things of importance to the sustainability of contemporary civilisation, both in terms of that which makes it unsustainable, and that which needs to be done to make it sustainable.

In 2014 I want to continue with my analysis of aspects of science, engineering and technology that need to change, particularly concerning values and beliefs that lead to processes that are no longer fit for purpose. There are matters too relating to what I have called the Prometheus syndrome that I want to explain from a theoretical perspective. I also intend to start introducing that which is being done to transform scientific, engineering and technology development processes into ones fit for the circumstances that humanity now faces. And when I encounter more nonsense from these worlds, and that also of free market capitalism and religion, then these too will find a place in my commentaries. I will also be dealing with matters, such as the meaning of the risks can be managed, that I mentioned in blogs during 2013.

I repeat here that the process of understanding what sustainability truly means is a journey of discovery, and the more people who begin to see the wider meaning of sustainability, the more those that only have an incremental change agenda will be seen to be out of touch and irrelevant – people to be ignored.

Have a good new year – one that is better by not having to put up with the same old tale of woes that those in power have clearly demonstrated themselves as being unable to resolve. Through the power of the vote, the wallet, and lifestyle changes, make 2014 the year that you send a powerful message to these people, that the time when they could maintain the status quo, is over.

Sunday 22 December 2013

Another Mind that has closed in on Fixed Opinions

Our conversation was going well. We agreed about some quite radical thoughts, until I touched upon sacred ground. Then …

The conversation started with a condemnation of Russell Brand for encouraging young people not to vote as a way of protesting against current political systems. Neither of us accepted that this was the right way forward. We both agreed that we should be using our vote to protest, by giving our votes to (reasonable) parties that are closer to understanding that the current system is broken and needs reinventing.

I also suggested that people need to use their wallets and life style choices to start building a different kind of civilisation because the one we have now has no future. And there was full agreement about this. Modern free market capitalism, controlled as it is by large global corporations who seek domination and are driven by greed, is destroying us and our planet – agreed. We need to build a new system within the structure of the old, because we need something to replace the old – agreed.

Then I mentioned science, and the need for this too to change. Here I found the sacred ground, that subject which the mind does not want to discuss – it seems that everyone has such a topic, sometimes even more than one. And the reaction was just like that which I wrote about in a previous blog, when I encountered, via Twitter, an atheist whose mind had closed in on fixed opinions.

There is apparently nothing wrong with modern science, and given all the problems in the world, science is the last thing we should be questioning. No thoughts here that science may be partly to blame for these problems, that it has become the servant of a destructive global free market system, that it has highly questionable ethics, that scientists have dangerous and damaging delusion. And worse, there was no desire to explore the matter and to consider that science can easily go wrong, for science is but an invention of human mind, from which come all the woes of the world.

I could see now that the shutters were coming down and that the person, just like the atheist I wrote about, no longer wanted to continue with the conversation, so the person with whom I was speaking, made an excuse, and walked away.

This reaction I could have encountered with someone whose sacred ground was free market capitalism, or religion, or something else, for it seems there are countless ideologies and dogmas that clutter peoples’ minds, and lead them to having minds that are closed in on fixed opinions. The only difference would have been the subject matter that would trigger the walk away. And, while we might think that this is harmless, it is only so if the social, economic, and political circumstances are such that the dogma remains within the cage where it needs to be kept. The problem is that globally we are creating the social, economic, and political circumstances where cages are opening, and the wild beasts of dogma are beginning (once more) to bring hatred, misery and suffering into the world. Do not be deluded into thinking that science is not among these.

This we must stop, which is why there should be no sacred ground, why we should begin to address those aspects of our civilisation that are creating the conditions for its destruction. We must not allow people to declare subjects like science as being something not open for critique and questioning and reform. One can also say the same thing about free market capitalism and religion. And what if we cannot reform that which our modern world is founded upon? Would we not then end up discussing and improving nothing? And the metaphorical gates of hell that I refer to at the end of my book Encounter with a Wise Man would indeed be closed and we would be condemned to live in a world where no improvements would be possible.

My focus is on questioning science, engineering and technology, but also free market capitalism and religion. I do this, not because I want to see these things abandoned or because I am opposed to them, but because I want to improve all of them, for all are in need of such. And it we do not address these matters now, future generations will condemn us for not doing so, for they are the people that will have to live with the consequences.

Sunday 15 December 2013

A Tale of Two Deserts

A Tale of Two Deserts, which carries the sub-title, Enigmatic Christmas Fables for the Modern Age, is the fourth of my Christmas books. Here I want to explain how I came to write it and its relevance to contemporary civilisation.

I began this work in December 2012 and I actually wrote first, the second story in this book, the one that is called Another Desert. And at that point in time I had no intention of writing what eventually emerged as A Tale of Two Deserts, being only concerned to write a story that moved beyond my previous Christmas tales, which are all based on Father Christmas. Once more I was experimenting with writing a different type of story, one somewhat strange in character, but which makes a powerful point about contemporary civilisation.

Just before starting this book, I had read Arthur Koestler’s thought provoking book, The Sleepwalkers, which is a history of man’s changing vision of the universe, starting in ancient times and ending with Newton. It is a well researched book that debunks a lot of the myths that have developed around people such as Copernicus and Galileo. And is was with Galileo’s words “yet it moves” in mind – those words that people believe Galileo uttered at his trial, but actually did not – that I set about turning these words around and back on the modern scientist. Thus I began writing what was to become the tale Another Desert. And the phrase I dropped into the story was “Yet they watch”, and what the tale does is demonstrate the ridiculously stupid beliefs of many modern scientists as well as exposing how in fact they operate. You can observe in the story, why simultaneously so smart yet so dumb. If you read my blog entry from a few weeks past (The God Delusion or The Science Delusion?), you will recognise that the story is very much related to matters covered in that blog, although at Christmas 2012, I was not aware that The God Delusion book well illustrates the points I was trying to make in Another Desert.

I can say here also that Another Desert is strongly linked to the theme of another book, Encounter with a Wise Man, building on this by exploring in more detail the damaging attitudes of scientists that are mentioned in Encounter with a Wise Man.

My writing of Another Desert was interrupted just before Christmas 2012, when my elderly mother died, and you can see this sad event reflected in the story. And there it lay for several weeks untouched, but in early February a change took place, for I became fascinated with answering the question that I had posed, about exactly what I was able to do as a writer. A vague idea of writing two stories then started to develop, which suddenly took on a final form while speaking to a friend in Brussels, the same person in fact who I had spoken with in 2011 about The Alchemist, which was an important step towards conceiving the story in Encounter with a Wise Man.

This is the moment when I realised that there would be a book consisting of two tales, both set on Christmas Eve, but separated by 2000 years, with the first taking place in a desert literal, and the second, in a desert figurative. And thus one book, two tales, one story was born, but it did not happen immediately, for I was busy with other matters. I actually wrote the book over Easter 2013, and like Encounter with a Wise Man, it just appeared on the pages, and once more, I could see that it did not need further work, and here too was the answer to the question about what exactly I was able to do as a writer.

Now I turn to the matter of its relevance to contemporary civilisation. Here I am not going to say much. I will point out that the book is highly allegorical and also spiritual in nature. It is also a book full of obfuscation.

I do not want to say too much about the meaning of the tales because the book is an invitation to people to begin to reflect upon their lives, what they believe, and what those beliefs are doing to our world. The book is also an invitation to people to begin to walk a different path, one where their minds have not closed in on fixed opinions, where there is room for mystery, and where there is an acceptance that they have not found the sole source of truth, nor has anybody else, and it is not just destinations that are important, but also the journey – life’s journey, one of discovery and adventure, a journey of the soul and the mind. And this, finally, leads me to make one more comment about the stories in A Tale of Two Deserts: they both deal with what I call the battle between the soul and the mind, and when the mind wins you know what follows.

The book is available open access, which means that you can read it for free, online, via my web site – A Tale of Two Deserts: EnigmaticChristmas Fables for the Modern Age.

Sunday 8 December 2013

Encounter with a Wise Man

Encounter with a Wise Man, which carries the sub-title, A Christmas Tale of Wisdom, is the third of my Christmas books. Here I want to explain how I came to write it and its relevance to contemporary civilisation.

This book is actually a re-publication of a short story which is the third of three tales about Father Christmas which first appeared in my book Father Christmas Adventures. I published Encounter with a Wise Man on its own for it marks a milestone in my journey as a writer and also because it turned out to be the beginning of something that I call my literary project most unusual.

By Christmas 2010, I had completed the first two short stories that were eventually to appear in Father Christmas Adventures. I did not start the third story, but had the intention of dealing with the wise men in the nativity story, so I wrote down the words Wise Man and then did nothing more until Christmas 2011.

During the course of 2011 I had a conversation with a friend and discovered we both had read Paolo Cohelo’s book called The Alchemist, which is a marvellously inspiring tale about what happens when you follow your dreams. I can highly recommend this book. During the same year I was also involved, not for the first time, in some work that involved quantum physicists, and the one word that stuck with me from that encounter was, entanglement.

So when Christmas 2011 arrived and I resumed writing the final tale for Father Christmas Adventures, my thoughts were shaped by two words: entanglement and alchemist. Entanglement immediately suggested to me the idea of entangling the new story with my first published book, A Father Christmas Story. Alchemist was also instrumental in shaping the story for the wise men in the nativity story would probably have been alchemists and astrologers as well.

Once the foundational concepts were in place, what happened next came as a surprise to me for I just wrote the story, and when I looked at it I realised what I had written was a tale that needed no further work for I had done all that I could with the theme, and it was just as I wanted it to be.

Now I come to the matter of its relevance to contemporary civilisation. The tale is in its essence an observation about the increasing lack of wisdom in the world, and, at a time when we should be stepping back to reflect and seeking to walk a different path, we are instead pushing ahead and doing more of the things that are responsible for our present predicament, which is very unwise.

Central to this lack of wisdom is the observation of the increasing tendency in the world towards people being ideological, and the growing number of people who are living their lives according to some dogma, and that there are many dogmas to choose from. In particular, I highlight three: religion, science, and free market capitalism, and how these are now acting together to destroy our world, yet most are blind to this. My blog entry from last week (The God Delusion or the Science Delusion?) well illustrates this point, in particular the dogma and delusions associated with modern science, and the quest of some, to replace religion with science, which kind of demonstrates what I mean by the growing lack of wisdom in the world, and how also, religion and science are bound together, which is another point that I make.

In essence the book is a warning about the consequences that will follow, as people believing that they know the truth, build for us all, a hell on earth from which there will probably be no escape, for there is nothing more difficult to address that the prison cells that people construct in their minds. And there is nothing more dangerous for the wellbeing of humanity than such mental prison cells. History clearly shows what follows when deluded people, knowing the truth, become compelled to deal with those others who do not share this truth, and indulge in barbarism and wickedness, with their dogma providing the necessary justification. All it takes are the right social, economic and environmental conditions, and these we are now creating on a grand scale. We can already see this madness in the form of Islamist extremism, but this is just the first – more such ideologically driven extremists will undoubtedly follow, each seeking to impose their will on the world. A wise civilisation would recognise this and begin to change, to walk a different path, and in doing so create the social, economic and environmental conditions where such extremism cannot develop and cannot find a home.

The good news for you, the reader, is that the book is available open access, which means that you can read it for free, online, via my web site – Encounter with a Wise Man: A Christmas Tale of Wisdom.

Sunday 1 December 2013

The God Delusion or the Science Delusion?

This entry is a book review, but one that is, so to speak, most unusual. The book that I am writing about here, which I read in the early summer of 2013, is called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is a book about delusions, for the book is full of them from the very beginning till the very last word on the final page.

On the front cover of the paperback version that I read, there is a quote by Ian McEwan ending “…a magnificent book, lucid, wise, truly magisterial.” It is none of these things. It is an abysmal book, incoherent, foolish, and truly undignified. It is highly damaging to the image of science and scientists, being also a book totally devoid of any merit – scientific, philosophical, literary, religious, or anything else! Yet it is a book with a specific value, which I will comment upon at the end of this review.

Much is made in this book of the violence, killing, hatred and the damage to people that is associated with religion. But, as no attempt is made to place this in context, I will do so here. Look around and look back across history, and what do you see? Killing, violence, hatred, exploitation, slavery, cruelty, and much more, and sometimes on a colossal scale, and often without any link to religion. This, it seems, is the way of men (it would be unfair to blame the world’s woes on women), and finding an ideology on which to ground this barbarism, only helps in the process of self-justification. And there are many such ideologies: atheism, science, socialism, capitalism … The list seems endless, and I have not even mentioned religion, so now I will. Some religious people do some very dreadful things, but this is not a reason to reject religion. Science also does many bad things, but no sensible person would want to reject science.

The point is this: if not religion then something else! And, a matter often overlooked – most times all the bad things come forth from a small minority of highly deluded people seeking to impose their will on the world, and, sadly, many good people are led astray, which should also serve as a warning about the content of this book. I do not underestimate the potential of religion to deliver that which is terrible, but I also do not underestimate the potential of science to do the same. Both also have the potential to deliver that which is good, and both do – the challenge is to make both better, so that there is less of the bad and more of the good!

So what is The God Delusion really about? After reading it I came to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a poorly informed tirade by an angry person who sees evolution at work in everything and, being caught up in the world of science, thinks that he is rational, but is unable to see that the book is highly irrational for the very reason that it is nothing more than a tirade, and one that is masquerading as a piece of rational work. The agenda is clear – religion is no longer needed for now we have science to explain the universe and what it contains, and given what (the author thinks) religion does to people, it is time to wage war on it to rid the world of this remnant of the past.

If this book represents science then we are in trouble! But it does not represent science – it misrepresents it, misuses it, and applies it to that which it is not applicable, seeking, in doing so, to set up science as being the one best of way of engaging with the world, which, self-evidently, it is not.

In many respects what is offered in this book illustrates one of the inherent problems with science – its hubris and its tendency to result in the delusion that the limited aspects of reality that science can handle, is the totality of this reality. Against these things we must respond, for what is offered in the pages of this book is far worse than what it seeks to replace. And I will now endeavour to highlight aspects of the book which should be setting alarms ringing in the minds of thoughtful and reflective readers.

To begin, I note here that towards the end of the book, when discussing the topic of inspiration, the author states “… the method of argument I must employ (in addressing inspiration) is rhetoric rather than logic.” The author, it seems, is implying that throughout the rest of the book he has used logic, rather than rhetoric, but actually the whole book is a discourse based on rhetoric, mostly using pathos (appealing to the emotions – look at these terrible things that religion does) and ethos (I am scientist dealing only with evidence and that which can be proved – so trust me). Logic is also occasionally deployed as part of the rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with using rhetoric of course, but let us be clear that this is what it is, and not science.

Should I here say something about literalism? I think I should for this is often mentioned in the book. Dawkins criticises literalists, who do take what are often allegorical stories, literally: people are free to see the story of David and Goliath in a literal way, but what is important is not whether there was a giant called Goliath and a boy called David, but the interpretation of the story as a metaphor – it is a way of explaining something else (as many know for it is an often used as metaphor in the modern world); people are free to see the story of the Tower of Babel in a literal way, but again, it is not important whether there was ever a Tower of Babel – what is important is the deeper meaning of the story (and this tale in particular is one that Dawkins and other scientists need to learn from, for it seems as though he and others like him have become likes gods, and seek to assail the heavens).

Many of us know that Abrahamic holy texts often only make sense if seen as being allegorical, and that they should not be taken literally, and so one would expect, should Dawkins. Apparently not though, for after criticising literalist, the author then becomes a literalist himself and proceeds to characterise God based on literal interpretations of the Torah (or the Old Testament if you are more familiar with Christian texts). But of course he has no choice but to do this, for when the stories that lead Dawkins to this erroneous conclusion are taken as allegorical, then the foundations of his arguments crumble, and his perspective on religion is exposed for what it is – just another dogma.

That Abrahamic religions have failed to communicate more widely the allegorical nature of these holy texts is true, but looked at in context, this is not surprising given that one is here dealing with the human mind, which struggles with the complexity underlying religion, as the author well demonstrates by writing such a book as The God Delusion. I note here also, that until recent times (early 20th century), the Christian churches were mostly faced with uneducated and illiterate masses, so it is not surprising that messages and interpretations were simplified. Perhaps one problem is that religion has not moved on sufficiently to recognise that today they are dealing with more highly educated people who have a greater inclination not to just accept what they are told?

This now leads me to briefly mention the tone of book, which focuses on belittling and ridiculing religious people. The phrase people who live in glasses houses should not throw stones comes to mind for there is plenty to ridicule in scientists as well, which I do in my fiction writing to illustrate the point that most humans have beliefs that are open to ridicule, and none more so than scientists, engineers, and technologists, but unlike Dawkins I do this in the spirit of opening peoples’ minds to this and to help them find better ways of being scientists, engineers and technologists (www.cheshirehenbury.com), and not to turn people away from science, engineering and technology. I have the same approach to religion and free market economics as well.

The God Delusion well illustrates that it is easy to ridicule, for on pages 195/196 of the book there is something relevant in the form of commentary about the sophisticated knowledge that Australian aboriginal people have that allows them to survive in a very unforgiving environment, but with this goes (it is claimed) stupid beliefs when it comes to matters spiritual. The question (posed by an Australian philosopher of science) is how can we be simultaneously so smart and so dumb? The God Delusion (and some other things found in modern science) demonstrates that the comment is also relevant to scientists and their beliefs. In this case one can also observe, relatively advanced knowledge but stupid beliefs, so how can they be simultaneously so smart yet so dumb?

And this leads me to comment about Dawkins’ coverage of the purpose of religion. He writes about its potential, in a rather derisory tone, to offer comfort to the bereaved (and the dying) and to give meaning to life. Yet there is one matter, central to religion, which Dawkins does not explore in his book, in terms of its meaning, purpose and value, and that is spirituality. I noticed this on reading the paperback version. I thought this a rather strange omission and assumed that I had perhaps missed this discussion, or perhaps misunderstood it, and seen it as a discussion about something else, which is easy to do. So I bought an eBook version and used the search facility to find how many time Dawkins mentions the words spirit, spiritual and spirituality and in what context. First the numbers: spirit is mentioned 19 times, spiritual on 5 occasions, and spirituality is referred to 5 times. But there is no discussion about what spirituality means and how spirituality can be developed, its value, or that this concept can be found outside religion as well.

So I am left wondering about this colossal omission and the possible reasons. Perhaps it did not suit the author to refer to it or to use it to help account for the behaviour of some religious people where it can be observed, religion has clearly gone wrong, or has failed to have the impact that it is supposed to have. But perhaps there is another reason why spirituality is not explained and explored?

On pages 58 and 59 there are insights into a possible explanation. Here you will encounter the rather surprising statement (concerning Buddhism and Confucianism) “there is something to be said for treating these not as religions but as ethical systems and philosophies of life.” I say surprising because that is just what religion offers: ethical systems and philosophies of life. Moreover, say and think what you like, but Buddhism is a religion and one that is worth studying and understanding, for it helps to explain human behaviour, and what we need to do to change that behaviour. Here I will not go into explaining Buddhism, but it is an eastern religion and in many ways alien to the western mind, for it deals with the delusions that stem from the mind and the results. Dawkins is in effect advocating a religion that sees him, and everyone else, as suffering from delusions of the mind!

So I think a picture is starting to emerge of a certain lack of knowledge about religion, which is reinforced by the statement on page 58: “For my purposes the differences (he is referring to Abrahamic religions) matter less than the similarities.” Really? I suppose in one sense he is right, that the complexity of three very different religions does not matter if one is engaged in a negative and incoherent assault against that which one does not understand and does not likes – facts and evidence have little relevance when minds have closed in on fixed opinions.

What I would also like to point out here is the invalidity of the methodology. The author of the book is doing what all scientist do, reducing that which is highly complex, to something quite simple in relation to the unmanageable complexity of that which science seeks to understand – the universe and all that it contains. This is called reductionism, which involves massive simplification and, you may be surprised to learn, ignoring things that do not fit with current paradigms. I am here referring to matters well understood by those who observe science as a process, but which sadly, are often not well understood by scientists themselves. To discover more about this I suggest that you read Thomas S. Kuhn’s seminal work called The Structure of ScientificRevolutions – it is a real eye opener in terms of understanding the true nature of science, and, opening eyes is one of the reasons I write.

Here I will illustrate the point concerning validity. In criminal prosecutions, scientific evidence is used, but the method followed by the court is not a scientific one. Can you imagine how well justice would be served if a complex criminal case was simplified to make it more manageable? Science has its value, but it is not the sole source of the truth.

Briefly I mention that Dawkins states on page 320, when discussing creationism and evolution, that: “… we would abandon it (evolution) overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it.” Please note that here I am not implying that evolution is wrong (wrong is actually not the correct word to use, but that is another matter), but would Dawkins or any other scientist so easily change their minds? History suggests not. You may be aware that Einstein was unable to change his mind about quantum mechanics, which he opposed, despite the evidence of its power in dealing with the complexity found at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. If you want understand more about this, and find an answer to this question for yourself, then I suggest you read the aforementioned work of Thomas S. Kuhn.

So now I come to another key point about the validity of The God Delusion – actually its lack of validity. Dawkins in his book sets out to prove the improbability of God’s existence and fails in this task in a most public way – such is the price of hubris! His argument in its essence is this: life evolves from simper to more advanced forms, so there can be no designer. This is not a case against the existence of God as such, but one that undermines the creation myth that Dawkins has encountered because he engages in arguments with creationists, and their views are a particular literal interpretation of the Genesis story. So all Dawkins manages to demonstrate, so to speak, is that, what is literal, is in fact allegorical, which of course it is, but without providing an explanation for this allegorical story, which is a pity because by interpreting the Genesis story one can gain insights that science might benefit from.

What one can say here is that, evolution demonstrates itself to be a more powerful paradigm for understanding how life on earth came about, than the other paradigm of creation. That some people still hold to the older paradigm is of no surprise, for this is also found in science as well, when paradigm shifts occur. Darwin himself referred to the issue, well anticipating that his work would not be accepted by the scientific community of the time. In The Origin of Species, he states: “I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine.” So, scientists will change their minds overnight when presented with evidence that disproves their theories? I do not think so!

But to continue with the point about validity, Dawkins also raises the question of how a designer could come about. Good question, but no answer is provided. The implication is that because life evolves … Actually there is no implication, just a statement that God as perceived as a designer, in the context of what many humans understand as design and designing, does not exist, but not that there is no God, which leads me to make some very important points. What follows now lies at core of what is wrong with Dawkins’ book and the arguments, if they can be called such, that lie within it.

First I point out a fact about the theory of evolution. What I want to question here is the universal validly of a theory of evolution that is earth bound. Yes, it provides an explanation of how life on earth developed (at least life that has so far been discovered), but it is based on observations and research of life as it exists on earth. One can hypothesise about its wider applicability, which actually in this case means speculate, and propose that life also developed in similar ways in other part of the universe, but there is no evidence to suggest that Darwinian evolution, as we understand it here on earth, is fully valid elsewhere, and no realistic possibility of undertaking any research at the far reaches of the universe to investigate if life, if there is any, developed in the same way. In other words, Darwinism is not a universal law of nature, and to claim it as such is a delusion. One might say also that to accept it as such is an act of faith, so Dawkins, here becomes like a priest, and is saying: “I believe”. One might also say that there is something insidious about believing in something (the universality of current evolutionary theory) for which there is no evidence.

Second, interested readers will find in the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, accounts about how scientists over the ages have stepped over the boundary and began to apply their paradigms to that which they are not applicable. And this leads my to my final observation that Dawkins is doing just that, forcing something to fit into the box that is defined by the current scientific paradigm, and finding that it does not fit, concludes that this thing called God does not exist. However, imaginative scientific minds, ones that are not closed in on fixed opinions, would recognise in God, a being that does not fit with the current scientific paradigm. This is what is called an anomaly and ultimately such anomalies eventually lead to scientific progress, because at some point a person with the right mindset and a lot of courage, will develop a new paradigm that takes account of these anomalies, and then past work will have to be reassessed: some of it will be reinterpreted and some of it will be discarded. So this is not a matter of creationism versus evolutionary theory, but of a failure of evolutionary theory to account for all life forms which points at some future time, to the development of a more sophisticated theory.

Please here note that neither proposition is provable: that God fits into the paradigm of evolutionary theory, or that God does not – these are just matters of belief, and the problem with scientists is that they are not prepared to admit such and then engage in  dressing-up belief as something else that fits with their self-image of science and scientists.

What I have described in the preceding paragraphs is part of what I call the Science Delusion.

I would like here to say that I share a concern in common with Dawkins: it is easy for science to be damaged and subverted, which is a point he makes in The God Delusion. And here you have an example of a scientist damaging and subverting science, which, if you care (and many do not want to) to look more closely elsewhere in the world of science, you will find to be quite a common occurrence. I did say that the book was full of delusions, for science, like all aspects of human endeavour, is founded on some delusion. Delusion you see, is part of what it is to be human, and when we forget that, then madness follows, as Dawkins well demonstrates.

I now turn to the matter of the value of the book and to do this I want to ask a question for you: Why, you ask, has not anyone else pointed out these flaws in The God Delusion? Now we are back to the question: why simultaneously so smart and so dumb? Perhaps it is human, for although some people like to think they are rational, the truth is that all people, including scientists, are very irrational, which perhaps is a very good thing. But there may be more insidious reasons why the nonsense that is The God Delusion is not recognised for what it is: a bag of bones and entrails dressed up with a little good meat.

The first of these reasons is collective denial and delusion, or to put it another way, the tale of the emperors’ new clothes, which is part of the explanation why scientists are simultaneously so smart and so dumb. Scientists, and those that lean towards science, are caught-up, just as most people who subscribe to a belief system are, in collective beliefs that blind them to the truth about how they behave and the relevance, usefulness and applicability of their beliefs. Many scientists cannot see that science is just one of many ways that humans engage with life, the world and the universe. Moreover, collective delusion is a very dangerous thing, and in Dawkins’ book one can see collective delusion on a grand scale and also strong hints where this will ultimately lead, for this is no innocent and harmless piece of work, but the first steps towards … These are matter that I explore in fiction.

The second reason is fear – few are now willing to be the little boy telling the deluded that the emperor is wearing no clothes, for to do so is to commit a heresy and to be seen as opposing progress, to be seen as anti-science, and so forth. This is a very familiar story and it always ends badly for humanity when this happens.

I could go on, but this blog entry is already quite long, so I will now make a final point, which is this: Dawkins and The God Delusion represent an old paradigm based on conflict between science and religion. It is time to create a new paradigm that brings the two sides – religion and science – together once again. Let therefore Dawkins continue with his preoccupation in deriding creationists – they probably deserve each other – for his relevance and value only lies in highlighting the need for a new paradigm. And one can be fairly confident that Dawkins will not be part of this new paradigm, and, for the development of this we should be looking for a new breed of scientist. Once more I quote Darwin, who, continuing on from the point already quoted above, wrote: “I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.”

In another of Dawkins’ books, The Selfish Gene, he states, “If superior creatures from space ever visit earth the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilisations is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’” A person obsessed with evolution and seeing it at work in just about everything, would of course state such a thing. Myself, I think that these aliens, being more advanced than humanity, would ask a far more sophisticated question: “Have they realised yet that science and religion are one?” This is perhaps a clue that there is truly, as Rabbi Sacks states, a Great Partnership to be forged by bringing science and religion together.

This is a matter which I am also exploring in my fiction writings, but from 2014 onwards I will also be addressing the matter in my non-fiction writing (initially on my web site – see This is the Journey …), but only slowly, for I know the value here of being slow, of allowing time for people to absorb and reflect upon the journey and what is encountered along the way. The mind obscures the truth.

Written in the spirit of love for humanity, the earth, and the universe, and everything contained therein, as well as that which lies beyond it, which so far, is little understood. Perhaps the time for a small increase in this understanding has now arrived?