Spiritual Nonsense

I've just belatedly seen Richard Dawkin's latest 2 part TV rant. The first one, 'Root of all Evil', was aimed at organised religion and a rather fabulous book, 'The God Delusion', followed. This program, 'Enemies of Reason', looked at irrational supersticious practices such as tarot, faith healing and spiritualism.

The main thrust of Enemies of Reason was that these practices are unproven and based on personal assertation rather than evidence. This is harmless enough on the surface, but it has the knock-on effect of giving false hope, debasing science and scientists, proliferating potentially dangerous conspiracy theories, turning science into a dirty word and causing distrust of medicine and progress.

Now, there's something that doesn't sit quite right about these programs, and many people level accusations at him and his beliefs such as "he's as fundamental as the people he attacks" or "science is the new religion". I admit that this was my initial response, too. But having watched the programs and read the book and really thought about it, boy does he have a point. This point is timely and salient, and this is probably why it causes such a strong, defensive reaction.

First off, although Dawkins is not the greatest presenter, it's about time we had learned, highly intelligent individuals on the telly. Just about any dimwit can get their face on the box these days, so to have perhaps the most celebrated evolutionary biologist since Darwin grace our screens is a step in the right direction. Surely if The Sun is the most read British paper, and half a million people regularly read the inane, weekly drivel in Heat magazine, then a 2 part series by a bonafide Professor is a welcome addition to our cultural pool! It's a shame that he only speaks to one or two similarly learned people - listening to great minds debating is a fulfilling and wonderful thing. Listening to a professor slaying a sweet lady who believes angels are watching over her is cringeworthy. Ah well, such is the state of our media.

Amyway, what he has to say is, perhaps, harder to accept than his mere presence on the screen. He appears to be having a go at normal people, living their lives the way they choose and believing in harmless things that probably benefit them more than they hurt them. Take faith healing for instance. If it works for some folk, even if it is merely a placebo, who cares? Does it matter if it's 'real' or not? I don't think so, and Dawkins at least pays lip service to that point. His main point, however, goes deeper than this and involves the frivolous, un-checked column space and airtime given to unsubstantiated practices such as astrology and alternative healing. For a scientific discovery to be published or broadcast, long and rigorous procedures must be followed in order that the discovery can be backed up with evidence. However, just about anything goes when it comes to practices that are based on personal belief, or faith. Such wanton spreading of the unscientific word belittles science and makes it out to be the bad guy, some kind of malevolent force that is going to ruin the world and take us further away from some perceived but wholly imagined golden age of innocence. Experts become untrustworthy monsters and progress is deemed unnatural.

However, science has probably kept you or someone you love alive. It's probably got you to exotic climes for a holiday. It's enabling you to read this blog (for whatever that's worth!) It's the fuel of what we call progress. And lets be realistic and leave romanticised images of living at one with the land aside, I think we all cherish and wholly rely upon at least parts of Western progress to survive. Granted, it's not always been like that and people do live with the land (albeit in desperately poor conditions for the most part), but where we're at now in the West is not going to be swept away by wishful thinking and naivete, and the answer to the problems that do exist is not to discard science outright as a bad idea.