Note: I held fire on completing and posting this piece when I heard that Richard Dawkins had recently suffered a stroke. I don't like to hit people when they are down, even if they're never going to read what's been written about them. Anyhow, he is on the mend, it would seem, a process I hope may continue. And this piece has been finished.
'Any model we make does not describe the universe. It describes what our brains are capable of saying at this time.' Robert Anton Wilson. A very important quote, readers. Very important.
On his occasional appearances in Pale Green Vortex, Richard Dawkins has got a rough ride. He is, in my view, a leading exponent of 'scientism' as opposed to what I might consider the genuine scientific method. Science, as I understand it, is the open-ended and open-minded investigation of the natural and physical world. Scientism, however, is an ideology, a belief system. It states that a phenomenon is real, or is to be taken seriously, only if it can be verified through the means currently available to scientists. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. It is closely aligned to philosophical materialism and, by confounding and attempting to coalesce 'scientism' with 'science', intends to convert the populace to a materialist, reductionist view of the world. It is a dogma defended and promulgated enthusiastically and viciously by its band of believers. In common with other dogmas, it is poison.
Homeopathy I have found to be a classic litmus test of the scientistic mindset. Homeopathy doesn't work because I cannot see how it works. How many times have I heard this protest, especially from those who consider themselves learned, rational beings? The homeopathic substance is diluted to such a degree that it doesn't exist, according to our view of the world at least: this is the gist. Let's just examine this for a moment. The doubters are saying this: I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist. Is this scientific, rational? I think not. It assumes that we humans have attained the apex of understanding, we know everything there is to know, and there are no surprises around the corner any longer. I suppose this has been the stance taken by the ignorant throughout the ages, always to be proved wrong. The enlightened, properly scientific approach is this: hmm, homeopathy. Seems a bit strange to me. But there are many who claim its efficacy. Maybe there's something in it. Let's put it on the back burner for now.
Homeopathy can work because I know it works. I have personally experienced its beneficial effects in the same way that I have experienced the effects of antibiotics. Anybody who says that my experience isn't real because it doesn't fit in with their own view of how the world works is not going to get much time from me.
Richard Dawkins is also to be taken to task for the shabby way he has treated Rupert Sheldrake on more than one occasion in the past. Sheldrake, I submit, is a more rational, scientific man by far. But even in the case of Dawkins with his jihad-like campaign of (not very) rational humanistic materialism, life is not all black-and-white. I propose three ways in which he is to get the thumbs-up.
Firstly, Dawkins has given us a very useful word: 'meme'. The word has even appeared on Pale Green Vortex. My dictionary informs me that 'meme' is 'a behavioural or cultural trait that is passed on by other than genetic means e.g. by imitation.' And Dawkins came up with it in 1976.
More centrally, Richard Dawkins has stood firm in his criticism of monotheistic religions, particularly Islam. As I have mentioned before, it is one of the modern world's great mysteries. On the one hand, the official story tells us that the modern era of fear and control was brought into being by a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims hijacking some planes and crashing them into highly prestigious sites in the USA. The official story also tells us that all over the Near and Middle East, and in north-east Africa, different factions of Islam are blasting each other to pieces in an orgy of hatred, this giving rise to a vast number of refugees fleeing the horror and trying to elbow their way into Europe. Yet, despite all this, we criticise Islam at our peril. It's not a good thing to do. It's fine to take a potshot at a white European simply wanting to protect her or his own culture; but to say something critical of Islam - steady on, there.
So Richard Dawkins has defied the monster of political correctness and ploughed his furrow regardless. For this, he is to be applauded, I feel. Belief-based religion; faith based upon blind belief ; religion based on a book, be it a Bible or a Koran: what a low level for the divine human experiment to have fallen to. I am considerably less charitable to Christianity in its various forms than my oft-times inspiration Neil Kramer. Words of wisdom may be encoded in the Bible; Christianity may have acted as a cover for mystics of times past, in order to escape persecution. Nevertheless, I feel we would be better off without both these pesky religions and their pesky books.
I am reminded of the songs I had to sing at primary school. 'Jesus loves me this I know/ 'Cos the Bible tells me so.' Believe in the book, little children, believe in the book. They like to get you young - they do it with the new religion of global warming nowadays. Another song:'Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war/ With the cross of Jesus, going on before'. Ah yes, the God of love, love, love. Going to war in the cause of love. Even at the age of eight, I was not taken in by this nonsense. Why should I believe in the words of this book any more than in the words of 'Noddy goes on holiday'? Nobody ever pointed out to me why, probably because they couldn't.
The third reason to say 'thanks' to our venerable pseudo-scientist concerns an incident that happened in his youth. Whatever one might think of some of his viewpoints, Richard Dawkins is to be praised for saying what he thinks without being cowed by the looming spectre of political correctness. In 2013 he related an incident that took place while a pupil at boarding school. One of the masters 'put a hand inside my shorts', as he did with several of Dawkins's schoolboy friends. Our jolly atheist's conclusion was that, although the experience was unpleasant and embarrassing, 'I don't think he did any of us lasting harm.'
A number of people, especially connected with anti-abuse agencies, expressed their outrage at Dawkins's comments: giving the wrong message, condoning abuse, 'evil is evil' etc. Er, hang on a minute. Dawkins was merely expressing his personal experience. The truth is the truth, and that's that. I don't think he was putting forth a particular programme or agenda, simply saying what happened and how he felt it affected him. Following on from that, I gain the impression that he would have liked some kind of dialogue on the topic. Pedophilia: such an emotional word that discussion becomes impossible. But is a rock start having his rock'n roll way with a fifteen-year-old girl fan after a concert the same as some of the acts committed by Jimmy Savile? Without condoning the former, I would say 'no'. But much of the mainstream media treats all and sundry as the same, and encourages all variety of pedophile to be viewed identically. The hysteria and histrionics stirred up by the word 'pedophile' prevents a reasoned view. My problem is that, whenever I see hysteria and histrionics acting as agents of confusion, I think it's deliberate - there's something else going on there.....
So, Richard Dawkins: a man with whom I am at variance over many things. Nevertheless, may he continue to speak up. Speak up. Speak up.
