From IVAN TOLSTOY
Atkins says that history ‘gives us reason to believe that it (science)
is omnicompetent’ – a statement he clearly offers as a balanced historical
judgment, whereas it is merely the statement of a personal, quasi-religious
faith.
Such pronouncements are not new, the earliest being in Ahmose’s introduction
to the circa BC 1800 Rhind Papyrus as ‘Rules for inquiring into nature,
and for knowing all that exists, every mystery. . . every secret’. We are
all entitled to make our own acts of faith; but to pretend that they are
anything else is disingenuous.
He speaks of ‘truth’ and ‘consciousness’ (‘the truth of the ultimate
insignificance of all human activity’ and ‘Conciousness includes a variety
of strands. . .’) as if these were transparent concepts, whereas they are,
surely, among our least understood and most contentious ones. What does
he mean by truth in this context? Isn’t this insignificance a matter of
opinion? And does he really know what consciousness is?
He blithely mentions ‘the scientific method’, whereas most 20th century
philosophers, from Karl Popper onwards, would tell him that there is no
such thing. His diatribes against religion are based on antiquated, medieval
views from which modern theologians have long been disassociating themselves
(has Atkins not heard of Don Cupitt?).
Advertisement
Ivan Tolstoy Knockvennie
