- Email: [email protected]
Another fundamentalism
See newscientist.com for letters on: ● Climate with care (in full) ● Saving Bohr ● Another fundamentalism ● Light my fire? ● Zombie origins
“Luddites” and “fundamentalists” who wish to stop all research. The very use of such words gives me pause. Name-calling, no matter how mild, is generally employed when one suspects that one’s position won’t stand up to informed debate. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Loveland, Ohio, US From Bryan Hatton Ray Kurzweil is right to champion technological development, but he seems to have misidentified his enemies in this pursuit. He claims it is fundamentalist humanists, secularists and naturalists who fear progress in science and technology. There is a trend at the moment of using the term “fundamentalism” as a general slur against anyone with strongly held beliefs with which one disagrees – without any consideration of the precise definition of fundamentalism. It certainly does not mean resistance to “the idea that human nature is changeable”, as Kurzweil contends. He goes on to claim that humanism is “tied to tradition and fearful of development”. That’s the last thing it can be described as: the humanist movement has a long history of embracing science, free thought and development while others were hiding in the dark. Secularism takes no stance on science and technology and concerns itself only with the role of religion in state government. Naturalism is a rejection of the supernatural and has nothing to do with “a reverential view… www.newscientist.com
070324_R_Letters.indd 27
of the natural world”. Whether or not humanist fundamentalists do or even could exist is questionable, but what is undeniable is the lack of funds, membership, motivation, unity and political influence of humanist groups compared with the wealthy and organised religious lobby. Kurzweil is a “transhumanist”. This term, coined by humanist Julian Huxley, relates to a philosophy that espouses technology to enhance human mental and physical capabilities and possibly lead to the creation of an immortal “superhuman”. If this becomes possible will it be the humanists, who believe in fully embracing the only life they have, who will oppose it – or the religionists? Cardiff, UK
Leave those kids alone From Paul Harrison I am incensed at the possibility of ethyl glucuronide testing for alcohol intake being employed in schools (17 February, p 14). Schools have no right to monitor what teenagers are doing, much less punish what they might have done, after hours and at weekends. Some parents might allow their teenage sons and daughters to drink, say, a glass of wine at dinner, and while I can understand forbidding alcohol in schools, these restrictions should not bleed into home life. More importantly, there is a fundamental fact being ignored here: teenagers are junior adults, not overgrown children. If we want them to become welladjusted and responsible – to act like adults – we need to show them that we trust them by giving them the same privileges that any adult enjoys. This is as bad as trying to enforce sexual abstinence. Sadly, though, many people seem to be obsessed with “protecting” teenagers long past any reasonable point. Toronto, Canada
God of the gaps From Ben Hoskin Bryan Appleyard claims that the “God of the gaps” argument – which says God only exists in the unknown, the areas not yet encompassed by science – is antique (3 March, p 47). But his claim that “the very success of science raises a profound and complex question that can be seen to point to the existence of a deity” is precisely the “God of the gaps”: we do not understand why the universe has rules, therefore God must have done it. This is an argument from ignorance, and does not even attempt to answer why, or how, God exists, let alone how to avoid the self-contradictions inherent in the common idea of God. It ignores the possibility that the universe has to have rules, or could not exist. Or the fact that, had it no rules, we would not be able to exist. St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex, UK
of thermodynamics (heat can only be transferred from cold to hot with external work). So the heat coming out can indeed be much greater than the electrical energy supplied to the pump. Practically, we would all be better off if those presently using electric heating were able to deploy heat pumps instead. Not only would our electricity demand decrease appreciably, but we would substantially diminish our output of carbon dioxide. Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, UK
Lewd of the dance From Jeannette Davidson Whoever laughingly informed Ron Packman that the name of his experiment in surface texture for an Essex sculpture garden, “sitooterie”, meant simply a place to sit out was surely being rather coy (10 March, p 52). In the west of Scotland in the 1950s a
From George Taylor Bryan Appleyard cannot see what Richard Dawkins is getting so worked up about. Maybe it is the palpably and visibly malign impact that Christianity and Islam have on the world today. No one is claiming that religion is the source of all evil, merely that it is the source of an awful lot of it. Royston, Hertfordshire, UK
Useful work From Peter Borrell I accept that the Aircon advertisement Feedback mocks implies something astonishing by saying their products’ “heat pumps… generate more heat than they use” (3 March). In the context of the many barmy claims which Feedback frequently, and rightly, exposes, this one is just a bit too close to nit-picking for my taste. Like refrigerators, heat pumps use electric power to transfer heat from somewhere cold to somewhere warmer – a practical manifestation of the second law
sitooterie was a wee shady corner where chaste couples could become more familiar with each other’s surface texture between dancing limited-contact reels and strathspeys. Edinburgh, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 March 2007 | NewScientist | 27
16/3/07 3:57:04 pm
“Luddites” and “fundamentalists” who wish to stop all research. The very use of such words gives me pause. Name-calling, no matter how mild, is generally employed when one suspects that one’s position won’t stand up to informed debate. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Loveland, Ohio, US From Bryan Hatton Ray Kurzweil is right to champion technological development, but he seems to have misidentified his enemies in this pursuit. He claims it is fundamentalist humanists, secularists and naturalists who fear progress in science and technology. There is a trend at the moment of using the term “fundamentalism” as a general slur against anyone with strongly held beliefs with which one disagrees – without any consideration of the precise definition of fundamentalism. It certainly does not mean resistance to “the idea that human nature is changeable”, as Kurzweil contends. He goes on to claim that humanism is “tied to tradition and fearful of development”. That’s the last thing it can be described as: the humanist movement has a long history of embracing science, free thought and development while others were hiding in the dark. Secularism takes no stance on science and technology and concerns itself only with the role of religion in state government. Naturalism is a rejection of the supernatural and has nothing to do with “a reverential view… www.newscientist.com
070324_R_Letters.indd 27
of the natural world”. Whether or not humanist fundamentalists do or even could exist is questionable, but what is undeniable is the lack of funds, membership, motivation, unity and political influence of humanist groups compared with the wealthy and organised religious lobby. Kurzweil is a “transhumanist”. This term, coined by humanist Julian Huxley, relates to a philosophy that espouses technology to enhance human mental and physical capabilities and possibly lead to the creation of an immortal “superhuman”. If this becomes possible will it be the humanists, who believe in fully embracing the only life they have, who will oppose it – or the religionists? Cardiff, UK
Leave those kids alone From Paul Harrison I am incensed at the possibility of ethyl glucuronide testing for alcohol intake being employed in schools (17 February, p 14). Schools have no right to monitor what teenagers are doing, much less punish what they might have done, after hours and at weekends. Some parents might allow their teenage sons and daughters to drink, say, a glass of wine at dinner, and while I can understand forbidding alcohol in schools, these restrictions should not bleed into home life. More importantly, there is a fundamental fact being ignored here: teenagers are junior adults, not overgrown children. If we want them to become welladjusted and responsible – to act like adults – we need to show them that we trust them by giving them the same privileges that any adult enjoys. This is as bad as trying to enforce sexual abstinence. Sadly, though, many people seem to be obsessed with “protecting” teenagers long past any reasonable point. Toronto, Canada
God of the gaps From Ben Hoskin Bryan Appleyard claims that the “God of the gaps” argument – which says God only exists in the unknown, the areas not yet encompassed by science – is antique (3 March, p 47). But his claim that “the very success of science raises a profound and complex question that can be seen to point to the existence of a deity” is precisely the “God of the gaps”: we do not understand why the universe has rules, therefore God must have done it. This is an argument from ignorance, and does not even attempt to answer why, or how, God exists, let alone how to avoid the self-contradictions inherent in the common idea of God. It ignores the possibility that the universe has to have rules, or could not exist. Or the fact that, had it no rules, we would not be able to exist. St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex, UK
of thermodynamics (heat can only be transferred from cold to hot with external work). So the heat coming out can indeed be much greater than the electrical energy supplied to the pump. Practically, we would all be better off if those presently using electric heating were able to deploy heat pumps instead. Not only would our electricity demand decrease appreciably, but we would substantially diminish our output of carbon dioxide. Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, UK
Lewd of the dance From Jeannette Davidson Whoever laughingly informed Ron Packman that the name of his experiment in surface texture for an Essex sculpture garden, “sitooterie”, meant simply a place to sit out was surely being rather coy (10 March, p 52). In the west of Scotland in the 1950s a
From George Taylor Bryan Appleyard cannot see what Richard Dawkins is getting so worked up about. Maybe it is the palpably and visibly malign impact that Christianity and Islam have on the world today. No one is claiming that religion is the source of all evil, merely that it is the source of an awful lot of it. Royston, Hertfordshire, UK
Useful work From Peter Borrell I accept that the Aircon advertisement Feedback mocks implies something astonishing by saying their products’ “heat pumps… generate more heat than they use” (3 March). In the context of the many barmy claims which Feedback frequently, and rightly, exposes, this one is just a bit too close to nit-picking for my taste. Like refrigerators, heat pumps use electric power to transfer heat from somewhere cold to somewhere warmer – a practical manifestation of the second law
sitooterie was a wee shady corner where chaste couples could become more familiar with each other’s surface texture between dancing limited-contact reels and strathspeys. Edinburgh, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 March 2007 | NewScientist | 27
16/3/07 3:57:04 pm