杏吧原创s against God
It is fundamentalism and the imposing of dogmatic beliefs on society 鈥� and on enemies 鈥� that has been a principal cause of war and ignorance through the ages, not religion per se (November 18, p 8). It does not require a religion to create a fundamentalist sect, merely arrogance about one’s own beliefs. Ironically, it seems some quarters of the scientific community are keen to start a sect of their own.
Some of the speeches you reported from La Jolla 鈥� for instance those implying that 15 per cent of scientists are “suspect” for believing in God and reporting a plan to oppose faith-based schools 鈥� had more than a whiff of McCarthyism and will be rejected by society as such. A lay person could perhaps be forgiven on hearing an account for thinking that the scientific community is another bunch of zealots keen to impose their own peer-reviewed form of “holy scripture” on the unwilling and “uneducated”.
If science wishes to offer itself as an alternative to religion, it should do so not through attacking that which it is not, but by defending those things that science is impossible to conduct without: freedom of speech and enquiry. Neither are plausible without freedom of thought.
Instead of trying to fight religion, the community might better spend its time encouraging scientific thought and enquiry to those who feel it is closed to them 鈥� from the outside, the scientific establishment looks far more imposing than the Vatican or Mecca does to an atheist.
It is understandable that some are upset that their discoveries and theories are not believed. However, the scientific community has a responsibility to inform the public of findings without giving in to fighting talk and supporting a dogma of its own. After all, you can’t tell somebody how beautiful the science of the universe is and expect them to believe you: it’s so extraordinary that like faith, everybody needs to discover it 鈥� or choose to reject it 鈥� for themselves.
From Andy Elliot
杏吧原创s should realise that plotting the downfall of those who do not hold your own beliefs, morals, or knowledge has been proven to have a very poor long-term prognosis. In science, as with most major religions, the majority of practitioners are reasonable people with a strong conviction. However, the scientists’ cause is now likely to suffer the same damage as other causes that have a fundamentalist wing. Security agencies will no doubt soon be tracking people carrying the Bible, the Koran and copies of New 杏吧原创.
Exminster, Devon, UK
From Michael O’Hara
I read the articles about the “atheist crusade” with interest 鈥� because I vehemently disagree with most of what they say about religion. I intend to become a scientist, yet I am also a pious Jew. I believe that science and religion are compatible, that science itself is a holy pursuit. I believe that G-d created the world in an event known as the big bang and wrote the laws of science. I disagree with most of the Christian fundamentalists, and I condemn the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools.
I attend an Orthodox Jewish high school, which teaches the Torah and the Talmud in the morning, science, mathematics, and history in the afternoon. In the morning we dissect every word of the Genesis story 鈥� it took us a full quarter to get through the first five verses. In the same room we are taught modern genetics in the afternoon.
Orthodox Judaism encourages rational thinking. We have carefully examined every word of the Bible in great detail, along with every word the rabbis have written about the Bible. We accept tough questions about the received wisdom of our rabbis. This is the kind of rational thinking that is compatible with science. To attack religion as “ignorant” and “irrational” is to deny the millennia-old tradition of critical thinking in Orthodox Judaism.
Mercer Island, Washington, US
From Ron Partridge
As one who has been an enthusiast for all things scientific as far back as my memory on the matter goes (over 60 years), and who has nonetheless been engaged in religious thought, discussion and practice for just as long, I was appalled by many of the views reported in the article on the symposium “Beyond belief” in your 50th Anniversary special issue.
What a farrago of ignorance, prejudice and intolerance! If these men would behave like scientists, instead of urging a witch hunt on the scientific community, they might find that a lot of “religious” people are friends of science, opponents of fundamentalism and defenders of freedom of enquiry. They seem unaware of the full nature and significance of religious belief, blind to its place in human nature and society, ignorant of the terms of the discussion, and philosophical amateurs at best.
Anyone with an unbiased and only passing acquaintance with the social and philosophical issues involved could shoot most of what they say down with a minimum of effort. It only requires a forum in which this would be allowed.
Sittingbourne, Kent, UK
Buddha, Brahma and bundle theory
It was fascinating to see an article on the antagonism between scientists and religion (18 November, p 8) in the same issue as an article by Paul Broks describing the “bundle theory” of self (p 56). The latter seemed to be an almost perfect description of the Buddhist teaching that the Self is an illusion caused by memory and fear of death.
Of course, many would sidestep Buddhism by declaring it to be not a religion, even seeing it as a route to a special kind of atheism. Without getting into semantic tangles, perhaps it is fair to say that a desire to think about spiritual issues is not of itself inconsistent with a rational and empirical approach to life.
It’s just that in practice most religions are primitive fairytales, and what is worse, fairytales embedded in repressive social structures. Even Buddhism in practice seems to descend into ritual and magical thinking, and the philosophy of the Vedanta seems to shore up the Brahmin class tyranny. Of course science could never be used to justify a repressive social structure… could it?
Faceless fear
I have a relatively mild version of prosopagnosia 鈥� the inability to remember faces (25 November, p 34). I normally recognise people fairly easily when they are standing in front of me; my problem is that I can’t visualise them when they are not there. I don’t have a way to picture anyone in my mind’s eye.
As a consequence I experience a few nerve-racking situations 鈥� for instance waiting in the reception area of an office, to meet someone I’ve met just a few times before. Because I don’t know what they look like, I’m always worried I’ll meet their eyes and look away, and they’ll think me rude. I know one other person with the same problem, and we’ve both devised strategies to deal with it. (I get out my notebook and pretend to absorbed by it, so that the onus is on the person I’m meeting to say hello first 鈥� which is a good clue!)
Your illustration with the article was spookily accurate. When I try to imagine what someone I know looks like, their clothes are no problem; but just as in your picture, their face is foggy. Perhaps surprisingly though, I can get a much clearer image of a face if I’ve seen a photograph of it. So when I’m away from home, and trying to remember what my wife and children look like, I can’t get a clear mental image of them. But I can easily bring to mind a photo of them, and imagine them clearly. Presumably this is because memories of faces are stored elsewhere in the brain from memories of things.
From Ian Chard
Caroline Williams’s article on prosopagnosia reminded me of my own disconcerting experience. I’ve always been aware that I’m not very good at recognising faces, and no one ever agrees when I make facial comparisons, but an insight into the problem came while I was a student.
I had a friend who always wore the same black jacket, and this was one of the ways I recognised him (although I wasn’t aware of it at the time). One day I happened to borrow it, and while walking in town I happened to glance down. As I saw his jacket, I “recognised” my friend, who appeared to occupy the same space as me, and for a brief moment I felt an intense confusion of identity. When I looked up, the sensation was gone.
It was gratifying to read Williams’s article and find that my sanity, at least on this point, is intact!
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK
Platonic simulation
The conjunction of the articles by Roger Penrose, making a case for the reality of the Platonic-mathematical realm (18 November, p 32), and by Nick Bostrom, asking “Do We Live In A Computer Simulation?” (p 39), prompts me to write of a train of thought that has been lurking at the back of my mind for some time: an outline argument that the possibility of our “reality” being a simulation is evidence for the reality of the Platonic realm.
Without accepting that our reality is a simulation, let us accept that a simulated reality is possible: that is, that it is possible to write down a set of equations 鈥� “physical laws” for a simulated reality 鈥� that can be modelled on a computer and that are sufficiently rich for the model to support sentient subsystems such as analogues of animal life. Within the model, these simulated beings experience the simulated world as their reality.
If we model a world that has some correspondence with “the real world”, among the parameters of the model will be analogues of the dimensions of space and time, and we can explore the development of the model world by allowing the model to evolve as the time parameter changes. As the time parameter changes, the simulated beings subjectively experience the passage of time.
We can choose to vary the model’s time parameter so that model time passes at the same rate as real time, or passes quickly relatively to real time, or passes more slowly than real time. However it is varied, the subjective experience of the beings within the model is the same: time just passes.
Imagine letting model time pass more and more slowly: one second of model time passing in a year of our time, then one second per century, then one second per millennium, and so on. No matter how slowly we make model time pass, the experience within the model is the same. The relationship between one model instant and the next, between one model location and another, is governed entirely by the equations, by the model’s “laws”. These are independent of how the model is executed on the computer.
The experience of the beings within the model is shaped by the equations not by the speed of the computer on which they run. One could then argue that this continues to be true as we let the rate of passage of model time approach zero, and continues to be true in the limit 鈥� that is, is still true even if we stop the model. Everything that shapes the experience within the model is in the equations; the whole of the model’s internal “reality”, including the subjective experience of its beings, are in the equations, not in the execution of the model on the computer.
Thus merely by writing down the equations one has, in a sense, created the world they contain.
But if the model world is immanent in the equations, can it really be the case that they need to be written down or uttered for that world to exist?
It seems to me that if we accept that simulation of a reality is possible, then we should accept that the simulated reality is in the mathematics, not in its execution on a computer, not in its being written down by a mathematician, and not in its being conceived of by a mathematician.
It is a big step; but we seem to be led to the position that the mere mathematical possibility of the equations is enough to create the modelled reality. It then seems a small further step to think that this reality 鈥� our world 鈥� is a consequence of the existence of the mathematics that describes the world, that the physical world is a consequence of the existence of the Platonic world. We and our world are, because the mathematics that describes it and us is.
Autopsy analysis
Michael Le Page concludes that one reason doctors don’t request autopsies is fear of litigation (11 November, p 48). I don’t think that is the case in the UK, where there are two main reasons for the decline in numbers of post-mortem examinations. One is the shortage of histopathologists. The other is the near-impossible consent process 鈥� which is why I haven’t requested a post-mortem in the last 10 years.
This means that the few post-mortems now happening are being done at the behest of coroners. There are many problems with this: the clinician concerned seldom gets to hear of the result; and the decision to have an inquest or a consequent post-mortem can be capricious. We do not have the feedback, education and quality control that a culture of regular autopsies would provide.
Two things will have to change if we are to improve the current unsatisfactory situation and increase the number of autopsies. First, we need more pathologists. Secondly, the current system in which relatives’ explicit consent is required for a autopsy to take place should be replaced by a system in which consent is assumed, with an opt-out system.
Not by genes alone
As a psychologist treating people with eating disorders, I started reading your article on the causes of obesity with interest (4 November, p 34). But my disappointment increased as I found ever more examples of the assumption that humans can be represented by a series of chemical reactions.
When will writers understand that humans are programmable systems and that our individual psychological “software”, developed through lifelong learning, has a fundamental role in shaping both behaviour and underlying biological systems? Psychological science has advanced enormously in recent decades, with a new generation of effective and efficient treatment systems such as cognitive behavioural therapy. Yet many reporters seem to believe that biological science rules all.
For instance, you suggest some form of causal link between sleep and obesity, ignoring the fact that the content of negative intrusive thoughts often leads both to “comfort eating” and to sleep problems.
Genetics and biology in general may seem more “sexy” than psychology, but this is often a complex manifestation of the huge commercial interest in these approaches, and not necessarily a reflection of their ability to solve human problems. If you are really interested in understanding what is going on and finding solutions to problems, psychology is at least as important.
Galapagos gains
Your report on the Galapagos was mostly negative about the impact of tourism on the wildlife of this exceptional archipelago (14 October, p 8). In 1995, I spent six months on the islands working as a volunteer research scientist.
At that time it was not tourism that was the problem for wildlife, but corruption within the navy, and among government officials and numerous politicians, in concert with increasing over-exploitation of marine resources 鈥� such as shark fins, sea cucumbers, sea horses, lobster and grouper 鈥� by local fishers. Ten years on, has much changed?
Surely, 698 tourists on a boat are better than 698 tourists on the land, where the impact of their energy and water demands are greater, as is the probability that they will introduce disease and alien species. 杏吧原创s could use these ships (as we once did) as “platforms of opportunity” that would allow them to reach more remote areas of the archipelago to do research.
Let us stop being knee-jerk conservationists and put on our business heads. We can make conservation pay for itself. If each person on a boat has paid, for example, $6000 for their trip, would they not perhaps be able to pay another $500 to be donated to fund vital work at the Charles Darwin Research Station?
Don't give up on climate
Mike Hulme is probably quite right to be pessimistic about the ability of politicians and society at large to solve the problem of climate change (25 November, p 22). There is, however, an uncanny parallel with the issue of acid rain.
In the 1980s the politicians and vested interests said that the science of acid rain was poorly understood. After much debate, the Royal Society initiated a five-year research project, the Surface Waters Acidification Study (SWAP). 杏吧原创s from the UK and Scandinavia then proved beyond doubt that sulphur oxides are the primary cause of acid rain.
The final SWAP dinner was attended by the UK’s then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. She could not deny the evidence, especially given that she had a degree in chemistry.
So the UK joined the “30 per cent club” 鈥� of nations reducing their sulphur emissions by that much 鈥� then the 60 per cent club. The reduction must by now be 80 per cent.
And, as predicted, it has worked. Streams and lakes across the northern UK and Scandinavia are slowly recovering.
Complex trans-border environmental problems can be solved, given strong science and determined political leadership to push through necessary action. Climate change science is now well understood, and there is no excuse for not negotiating emission control targets.
Accidental gains
You point out that western industrial nations are controlling their CO2 emissions far better than the newly industrialised countries of Asia (11 November, p 8). What you neglect to mention is that this is perhaps more by luck than judgement. More and more high-emission industries are moving 鈥� together with their pollution problems 鈥� to developing countries, which often generate more emissions for the same output.
Before we pat ourselves on the back for getting rid of these embarrassing industries, let us remember the downside. For the UK that is a 拢6 billion a month trade deficit in goods, and thousands of skilled workers having to take lower-paid jobs.
杏吧原创s against God
Many ironies are well highlighted in your coverage of the atheists’ jamboree in La Jolla (18 November, p 8). I would like to add two more.
The first is that the scientific enterprise in the form we know it today, with journals, scientific societies, empiricism and specialised techniques, was started largely by people of deep religious faith in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the writings of Newton and Descartes, the very notion of scientific law was derived from the Christian idea of God’s laws. Atheists might wish to reflect a bit more on the fact that their scientific disciplines wouldn’t even exist without the impact of such ideas.
The second is that “a-theism” is defined by what it denies, rather than by what it explains. What is denied is very varied and in a constant state of flux, so atheism always allows others to set the agenda. For example, I am an atheist with reference to the god of thunder Thor, and equally with reference to the straw man that Richard Dawkins portrays as God.
From Benjamin Beccari
Creation science is nothing more than Christian belief dressed up as science. It is ironic, then, that a symposium entitled “Beyond belief” is atheistic belief dressed up as science.
What we as scientists need to guard against, and what many of these scientists have fallen prey to, is dogma. The dogmatic views put forward at this forum play into the hands of religious activists who preach that science is trying to destroy religion.
Throughout history it has been neither science nor religion that has caused the ills of the world, but those who spread their dogmatic view of either.
So what is the alternative to dogma? Here science does have a role, not in teaching people what to think, but how to think. Our morals, values and world view can be derived from religious belief, atheist or otherwise, so long as it is informed by scientific reason.
Mount Kembla, New South Wales, Australia
From Maya King
For scientists to declare unequivocally that God does not exist is to deny the possibility that, one day, technological advance may bring the capabilities to detect the presence of a spiritual being after all. If any kind of god were to exist, its presence would have to influence the Earth in a way that leaves some signature.
If that god 鈥� as religion suggests 鈥� regularly interacted with humans through answering prayers and giving guidance, then those effects should be both measurable and repeatable. How can scientists declare God does not exist without rigorous hypothesis testing?
Burntisland, Fife, UK
From David Odell
Science forgets that it too is based on faith: in particular that the universe is an orderly place with rules; and that information received by our senses is true.
Do these scientists really believe the cosmos is a replacement for God? Atheists will look at the cosmos and realise, as my science teacher says, that our lives are so insignificant; a religious person will look to the cosmos and be awed by (God’s) creation. This is not a way to defeat religion.
Many scientific discoveries only make people more awed by their God. Why do scientists want to get rid of religion, when religion has driven scientists for hundreds of years?
Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK
Gorillas' meat
You say that it is a mystery how gorillas get HIV as they are vegetarian and rarely encounter chimps (11 November, p 17). Gorillas are, in fact, not strict vegetarians. There are many instances of them hunting and exhibiting cannibalism, recorded by Dian Fossey and others.
Art and reality
It was interesting to read great scientific minds like Roger Penrose grappling with the apparent paradox of reality (18 November, p 32). We artists, at least those of a realist/representational bent, have had to confront these issues of virtual versus objective reality in our own way: pick up any good book on visual perspective, and you will have there the rudiments of the conscious field and its mathematical relationship with reality. Maybe the views of artists are beyond your brief here, but once upon a time, back in the Renaissance, we were all in the same boat.