Directory of Lost Causes (By Quentin S. Crisp)

Science - The Rohypnol of Philosophy

In the 50th anniversary issue of New Scientist, there is an article on a recent symposium of scientists at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. The symposium had the title, "Beyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival", and those gathered were to discuss three questions: Should science do away with religion? What would science put in religion's place? And, can we be good without God?

I found the article to be very interesting and well-balanced. It starts off in a lightly satirical tone:

It had all the fervour of a revivalist meeting. True, there were no hallelujahs, gospel songs or swooning, but there was plenty of preaching, mostly to the converted, and much spontaneous applause for exhortations to follow the path of righteousness. And right there at the forefront of everyone's thoughts was God.

It then proceeds to give a precis of the main points under discussion with quotes from prominent speakers and reactions from attendees. Overall, the writer seemed to attain a distance and self-awareness that, if the quotes attributed to them were anything to go by, seemed absent in some of the speakers.

Sometimes I get a yearning myself to write something that is calm and well-balanced. I do feel that my writing on this blog tends towards the rant-like, and I don't suppose that such a fact can enhance my image in the mind of the reader, or increase my powers of persuasion. But then again, what is it that I am hoping to achieve? I certainly don't want to pull the wool over your eyes. Persuasion is not really my game. And I'm not especially writing to inform, either. I think more than anything, I simply desire to express a point of view that I don't see being expressed elsewhere. So, I will apply to my writing no cosmetics, and let you judge for yourself whether or not it is balanced, and whether, indeed, it should be balanced.

So, let us proceed to my POV:

There did seem to be some fairly moderate voices at the symposium, to counteract the fanatical voices that were also much in evidence, but even the author of the article didn't pick up on one glaring point that I found rather disturbing. The point is this: if scientists really want to ditch the whole scheming-megalomaniac image, they've got to be a bit more self-aware when they ask questions like, "Should science do away with religion?" Let's examine the wording here for a minute. I really have a problem with this. First of all, the big one, the obvious one, the bloody risible one: What makes them think that it's in any way up to them? There seems to be the assumption in the question that science can actually do this, and has just been rather avuncular and indulgent so far. "All right. We've been running this religion lark for a while now, just to try and persuade people with the old reverse psychology that there really is nothing to compare to science, but perhaps it's time we did away with it. Dicky, how are you fixed for four o'clock tomorrow? We should be able to get the job done before seven, I'd say."

I'm reminded of how Germaine Greer, really deep thinker and star of Celebrity Big Brother, once stated on Have I Got News For You? that, if it were up to her, men would not have access to their own sperm. To which Ian Hislop made the very simple response that, actually, it wasn't up to her.

Now, secondly, what's all this "do away with" about? What's going on there, exactly? It makes it sound as though they're planning to hire a bunch of thugs with poisoned stiletto knives and have them waylay religion in the catacombs or something.

Okay, change the wording! Would the human race be better off without religion? There, easy! I have no problem with that. It's a question that should be asked, a bit like the question, would the human race be better off without science, which the scientists are, perhaps understandably, less eager to debate at symposiums. Once you say "Should science do away with religion?", though, well, that sounds exactly like what it is - arrogant interventionism. "Hey, you, ordinary unscientific folk, we've been watching you from up here on Olympus, and we've decided it's time to change your ways!" How are you going to do that, exactly? Oh, I forgot, humans are all just machines. We can be reprogrammed, and it's up to those with the greatest depth, understanding and morals to do so. And who could that be? Why, of course - the scientists! Come to think of it, perhaps it’s even a good thing that scientists are so socially naïve as to pose this kind of question, because at least it gives us an insight into their true psychology, and, just as with my ranting on this blog, while, being unbalanced, it is less persuasive, it is also, inadvertently or otherwise, more honest.

I have a number of problems with science, and I have mentioned them now and then in the past. I'm not sure I can remember them all on the spot, but I shall try and recap the main ones here:

1) Arrogant technocracy - We all share a world, but there seem to be those in the scientific community who believe that only scientists are qualified to have a say in how that world should be.

2) Materialism - Science depends upon making predictions and therefore upon the ultimate reality of the physical world about which one can formulate physical laws. If anything transcends the physical to render the universe ultimately unpredictable, in other words, if the universe is alive rather than just being a predictable machine for science to manipulate, then science is fucked. Scientists know this. They have everything riding on materialism, which just happens to be... the most destructive force in the world right now.

3) Scientific Newspeak - I believe that science is bent on eradicating the possibility of spiritual experience by eradicating our spiritual vocabulary. To a scientist - I know because I've had discussions with them - unless you couch something in scientific language, it's not valid. You lose. And if you do couch something in scientific language? You're not a scientist! Why are you trying to use scientific language? How pathetic! You lose. This is the trick - define scientific language as the only language with any meaning. Make sure no one else has the right to speak it. Now your monopoly on power and authority is guaranteed in perpetuity.

4) The myth of objectivity - See #3 above. Everyone in the human race is subjective. Scientists alone have the key to objectivity. Paper wraps stone. Objectivity pisses on subjectivity. Science fucks us all up the arse.

Well, many people, I'm sure, will sniff at my attempt to deconstruct scientific objectivity there. Sam Harris, neuroscience researcher and author, tells us:

"Of course, individual scientists may or may not be privately honest or personally deluded. But the scientific method, with its institutionalized process of peer review, double blind trials and repetition of experiments, is beautifully designed to minimize the public effects of personal bias and self-deception. Consequently, science has become the preeminent sphere for the demonstration of intellectual honesty."

And this is tied in with the big one that I encounter continually if ever I do have this kind of discussion with an advocate of science, or eavesdrop on someone else's discussion: Science gets results in the real world. Science gets results. It's like a line from an American cop show. Well, he's unorthodox, beats up all the wrong people and occasionally puts a bullet in the wrong brain, but, dammit, he gets results.

But seriously, I do get the speech, you know, "Think of all the things that science has done for us: metal birds in the sky, instant communication across continents, non-stick frying pans, the ability to vaporise millions of people in a second, agent orange, CFC gases, thalidomide, catalogue babies - the list of miracles, or, should I say 'wonders'?, goes on and on."

Perhaps I wouldn’t mind so much if it weren’t for #1 above – technocratic arrogance; “You can’t do without us.” Oh, really?

Here’s Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute, Colorado, whose task it was to give an answer to the second question at the symposium (What would science put in religion’s place?):

“If anyone has a replacement for God, then scientists do.”

(That’s funny, those who defend science to me are always saying that science has nothing to do with questions of the meaning of life, or with the paranormal. But, ahem, what is this symposium all about if it’s not to prove that all you need is science in every area of your life?)

The article continues to paraphrase her:

Science provides an aesthetic view [is that what it is?] of the cosmos that could replace that provided by religion - a view that could even be celebrated by its own iconography, Porco added. Images of the natural world and cosmos, such as the Cassini photograph of Earth taken from beyond Saturn, Apollo 8's historic Earthrise or the Hubble Deep Field image, could offer a similar solace to religious artwork or icons.

I see, so science is to take credit now for inventing nature? That's really weird, because I always had the impression that science was a great and leering despoiler of nature.

You see, it seems to me that this whole 'science gets results' spiel is the same as saying "rohypnol gets results".

So, here's your date for the evening, Mother Nature. Well, philosophers have been trying to woo her - stalking her, you'd say - for centuries now, but they've got nowhere. Sitting at home in their rooms, rehearsing their lines. Actually, they're scared of her moods, her vagaries. You'll show them. You slip your concoction into her drink, all the while eyeing the object of your experiment. Because, let's face it, she is an object, not a living, thinking being like the man who is soon to be her master. The drug takes effect. Her eyelids droop. "Result!" you cry, "What did I tell you? I must be intellectually honest here and say there's no love involved. No, it's all just chemicals. Or it is with me, anyway," you cackle triumphantly.

O, noble science! We can wave aside the trauma of Mother Nature, and the fact that this relationship is utterly unsustainable. After all, your 'intellectual honesty' and your 'procedural rigour' are so admirable, and you get results time after time after time.

Well, there's so much more I could say on this subject.

Here's Richard Dawkins:

"I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion."

Me and Richard are so alike. You see, I feel exactly the same about science.

Dawkins, incidentally, has made the laughable comparison between secular scientists 'coming out' and the coming out of gay men in the Sixties. I suppose I might feel that way if I was born and grew up in America, but neither I nor Dawkins were. We're both British, and I can tell you (if you don't live here and don't know), Britain is just not like that. I can't remember anyone ever assuming that I was Christian or any other religion here in Britain. When people have assumed I'm something, it has only ever been an atheist assuming that I'm also atheist. That 'coming out of the closet', coming from Richard, seems to me disingenuous. Certainly if he just means in stating that he is atheist. He knows that we're all yawning at that. So what! Come one, shock us, Richard! Or does he mean coming out of the closet about the fact that he wants to wipe religion from the face of the Earth? Well, that's slightly more controversial. You'll sell more books with that one. The God Delusion is currently a bestseller here in Britain, I hear. Yes, it must be really hard for poor old Richard at the moment, coming out of his closet.

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, commenting on the statistic that 85 per cent of the members of the US National Academy of Science do not believe in a personal God, leaving 15 per cent who do:

"How come that number isn't zero? That should be the subject of everybody's investigation."

This statistic was also his reason for suggesting that scientists should be a bit more (rohypnol?) pro-active in re-educating the public, who aren't going to just convert themselves to the cause of science:

"How can [the public] do better than the scientists themselves? That's unrealistic."

Of course. We've already covered this above, I think. Scientists, are, in fact, superior beings.

Anyway, here's a YouTube clip of deGrasse Tyson explaining 'stupid design'. He's a good talker, and I can imagine this might have been the highlight of the symposium:



For some reason this reminded me of the famous speech from Hamlet:

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

I notice there's a Freudian slip in deGrasse Tyson's speech when he says "aborted faeces" instead of "foetuses". Hmmm.

Okay, as Mr deGrasse Tyson himself says, I'm almost done.

"We're in a one-way expanding universe as we wind down to oblivion."

These, again, are the words of deGrasse Tyson as he dwells upon why the universe is so unsuited to life, so badly designed, and so obviously proof of the meaninglessness of existence. Space is vast and hostile; we are small and transient.

Well, there's nothing there I particularly disagree with. There's nothing there that is new to me. Believe it or not (and I suppose some people who have read my stories will believe it), I have contemplated the howling void of the universe for many, many years. I feel a little, watching this kind of thing, or reading the article in New Scientist, that I am witnessing a school debating lesson. Of course, the language is, in many ways, much more sophisticated, but there still seems to be this fixation on the crude dichotomy of science and monotheism, and I can't help thinking that's because the two are conjoined twins. It's Descartes' Deus Ex Machina, basically. Descartes believed that animals have no souls, that they are merely biological machines. The world, too, is a machine, made by God, who sits outside it. The machine belongs to science, and now, since we cannot even access God, and the machine is not always to our liking, we jettison the God that we exiled to a realm beyond the machine in the first place. But the God - the ghost - returns to haunt the machine. It will not go away. And the machine of science and the ghost of religion continue to do battle.

It would be nice if we could move beyond such crudities.

For my own part, in answer to the question whether we would be better off without religion, ultimately, I don't know. In answer to the question of whether we would be better off without science, again, ultimately, I don't know. However, I do not think that the best way to get your result is with rohypnol. If we're to move beyond religion, it must be a natural process of growth, not because some coven of overgrown schoolboys have decided it's not fair that their rival and relative is getting so much attention.

And as to how I would replace religion (and science) in terms of a meaning to life. Well, look, honestly, unlike these scientists, I don't know anything. I'm a mere nobody. I only wrote this out of a kind of resentment at the actions of a bullying Goliath, and thought that, even if I lose, I might as well make my little pea-shooter challenge. And, at my best, which is not particularly good, I suppose that's my attitude. Maybe 'science' is 'right' about the ultimate reality of physical matter, the meaninglessness of the universe, and so on. Let's suppose for a moment it were possible to prove that and that it had been proven. It's not as if I've never felt that way about life, anyway, and, I suppose I'd just have to accept it. The difference between myself and the scientist is that I could never ally myself to that hostile, meaningless universe. I could never preach it. I could never take the winning side, just because it is winning. That's intellectual honesty, apparently. "Meaningless materialism is winning - quick, let's jump ship and join it." No, I don't think so. As Jorge Luis Borges said, and as I've quoted before, "For the gentleman, only the lost cause should be attractive."