Science And Creativity

There seems to be a general consensus among many educated and reasonable people that science is a dull process while art is a creative endeavour. ( I’m in danger of creating straw man and can offer no direct examples of the kind of prejudices I wish to fight against except the remarks and comments of friends. Nonetheless, I hope this short post will be dimly illuminating. For an article on the errors of Edgar Allan Poe in a similar respect, click here) In many people’s eyes, science is something that may well research into artistic creativity but is an enterprise bound by dry statistics, data analysis and mathematical formulae.

The opening distinction between science as a process and art as an endeavour summarises this bias nicely. But at its heart it is a misnomer. Both the arts and sciences involve processes at different stages, but the scientific process is often more pronounced. Consider the creation of a work of art; a novel for instance. There are two deeply creative moments in the ‘lifetime’ of a novel. The first is its artistic creation; where the novelist slaves over their manuscript until they are content with what they’ve written. The second is the act of reading it. Whilst interpreting a novel, the reader must actively partake in some creative activity. No book worth reading requires no effort from the reader. But something must happen after the writer has written and before the reader has read: the book must be made. This will be done in a publishing house (assuming the book is not a hand-crafted limited edition) by machines following a computer programme. Even before this, the novel will have to be typed up: what would otherwise be a long and dull process except for the typist being able to simultaneously read the work.

The image most people have of science corresponds to this section of the publication process. The school or university work us young freethinkers are engaged in generally involves decoding problems in order to insert numbers into the relevant equations, or identifying a particular chemical and describing its effects which have been learned from a textbook. This, though many people’s experience of science, is not science itself, anymore than the printing of a book is art itself. In exactly the same way that a good book requires an author to have made creative steps, a good equation requires a scientist to have made similar conceptual leaps. And in just the same way that a book is physically created, a willing student pumps numbers into an equation. The creativity on the part of the student requires an understanding of what the equation entails. The student must make the same creative steps the originator of the equation made. It’s all very well to know that E=mc² but unless it is grasped what the letters here stand for, nothing can be gained – it would be like allowing your eyes to fall over the pages of a book without actually reading it.

Now would be a good time to focus on E=mc². Einstein’s famous equation is a consequence of the theory of special relativity, a theory I don’t pretend to understand. Despite my lack of knowledge, the following thought experiment (Einstein devised a great number of thought experiments to illustrate his ideas, or Gedanken, auf Deutsch) excites me no end. Here is a well known one in Einstein’s own words:

"...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: if I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

Aged 16. I hope all young readers are taking note! If chasing lightbeams isn't your thing, this video illustrates another of Einstein's Gedanken:

Although some may disagree, I like to view thought experiments such as these as a form of scientific poem. Much like a poem, a thought experiment must distil an idea or theory into a short form that can be approached and considered time and time again. Unlike a poem, a thought experiment is not a stand-alone work of science in the way a poem is a stand-alone work of art and, of course, the analogy breaks down when we consider longer poems such as Wordsworth’s Prelude or Pound’s Cantos. Despite the occasional exceptions, poetry and thought-experiments can be considered counterparts. Just like a novel may fully explore ideas a poem can only hint at, a physical theory examines the consequences of a thought experiment. Both are attempts at new insights and both are capable of producing much discussion and mental sweat.

There is really no need to remind people that the arts and sciences are obviously distinct. They cannot be fully totalitised and nor should they be. Shakespeare never claimed Hamlet was a series of factually accurate events (interestingly, there is a name for a group of people who believe in the factual accuracy of fairy tales: they’re called religious). Science is an attempt to discover truth, but this in no way means it cannot be creative. The universe is too marvellous to allow itself to be revealed through dull ideas and concepts. So if you find yourself in the presence of an artistic sceptic, just hand them some of Einstein’s Gedanken and challenge them to say it was the labour of a dull scientist analysing stats as opposed to a paradigm-shifting creative genius.

Pope Ratzinger - A Failed Letter Of Apology

Today’s letter published by the Vatican, written by the current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, is a subversive excuse for a true apology and an honest acknowledgment of guilt on the part of the pontiff . Issued in response to the growing media furore around grievous child rape carried out by the Church, the document doesn’t go nearly far enough. Addressed “To The Catholics Of Ireland”, Ratzinger directly writes to each party affected, whilst accepting no personal responsibility for the ‘scandal’ he knew more about than anyone else.

As prefect of the Inquisition, rebranded in 1983 as “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, for 23 years between 1981 and 2005 when he was elected Bishop of Rome, he was responsible for overseeing child abuse allegations from 2001 onward. In May of that year, he sent an (separate) infamous letter, in secret, to all bishops, that is now public, after the Cardinal’s successful election (I’ve been unable to find a copy in translation, but for those of you who study Latin, the original letter can be found here [edit: see comments for details. Ratzinger's letter is separate to the one containing the phrase 'restrained by a perpetual silence' which was issued in 1962 and written by Alfredo Ottaviani]). Its contents are well known by now, and graces blogs and websites all over the web. I’m only happy to add to this number. It states that investigations into child abuse allegations should be “restrained by a perpetual silence” and “conducted in the most secretive way”. The penalty for leaking? – Excommunication. Ratzinger’s despicable letter ends “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret”. It also states that all investigations are to be conducted within the Church and that such jurisdiction ends 10 years after the victim turns 18 years old.

At the time, there was outcry from all decent commentators. Daniel Shea, a lawyer for two victims of priestly molestation, stated it simply showed “an obstruction of justice”. All cases were to go through Ratzinger’s desk, and could be then be sent to ‘private tribunals’ where the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative [could] validly be performed for these cases only by priests”.

Today’s letter is further evidence of Ratzinger’s continued evasion of his own conscience (a conscience he must possess, I’m sure). Recently, the altogether more palatable Father Hans Küng demanded that Ratzinger at last pronounce his own "mea culpa". In today’s Independent, abuse victim Colm O’Gorman lays out his own demands for Ratzinger: that his letter not dump blame elsewhere; that he own up to his knowledge of events; that he cease to be patronising; that he ends “the denial and deceit”; and that he take responsibility for the cover up. Mr. O’Gorman will be severely disappointed.

The Pope writes throughout that “the Church in Ireland” or “the ecclesiastical authorities in your country” are to blame for institutional failures, which indeed they are. But, as Mr. O’Gorman asked of him, Ratzinger never acknowledges his own heinous activities, not once admitting any personal responsibility. This evasiveness is perpetuated throughout. At one extraordinary point Ratzinger mentions the “new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularisation of Irish society” and that “all too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected”. At no point does the letter even suggest (and it never was going to) that the Catholic obsession with sexual repression had anything to do with the dysfunctional acts committed. In other words, it was not that the priests in question were too engrossed in oppressive Catholic pathology, but that they weren’t being Catholic enough. In no way, Mr. Ratzinger, is confession, prayer or daily spiritual chastisement a suitable response or prevention to the rape and torture of children. Time and time again, this Pope has sentenced those guilty of the worst crime imaginable, in the case of Marcial Maciel, to “a lifetime of prayer and penitence”. This is no adequate punishment handed out by anyone who takes seriously the basic rights of innocent children.

In today’s letter, Ratzinger even outlines what he believes to be the contributing factors to molesters being ordained in holy orders. He includes “inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for priesthood and religious life” (it would be reasonable to interpret this as a surreptitious swipe at homosexuality – as Christopher Hitchens once phrased it, the policy is really not to let “fags” into the Church), “insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation” (something the Church is particularly proficient at) and most worryingly “the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties...”. The “canonical penalties” in question were those contained in Crimen Sollicitationis. The only penalties handed out were for leaking sex abuse stories, not for committing the acts themselves. And what of legal penalties? Ratzinger once again, avoids such language. It is clear he wants to see none of the guilty tried before a criminal court.

Hypocrisy too, is rife. In a more sincere section of the letter (the sincerity lasting for around one sentence), the Bishop writes to the victims of abuse “you have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry”. He rightly goes on... “many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen”. That “no one” who didn’t listen is the very same author of those words. The sliminess of his language is only surpassed by his actions. Cardinal Bernard Law, ex-Archbishop of Boston (through resignation I might add), was sitting in conclave, voting who the next infallible human being would be in 2005. He currently lives a comfortable existence under the protection of the Pope in Rome. If the Church were truly serious about such cases, Law would be not only excommunicated, but in front of a jury and swiftly locked in a prison cell.

However, the most disturbing effect of these years of abuse endured by those unfortunate individuals seems to have been the psychological torment. In the article by Colm O’Gorman mentioned earlier, he acutely describes how his “faith was so strong, and [his] need to believe in the goodness of the Church and its priests so powerful” that he blamed himself for what had happened – “...turning my hatred of the act of his abuse inward where, for decades, it poisoned my sense of myself”. In today’s letter, Ratzinger offers nothing but moral deferment in response. “It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ” he writes, “Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering”. Jesus is constantly employed in the same manner. His suffering is nothing but a scapegoat for Ratzinger, forcing the victims, who most certainly have every right to be furious and distraught, to remember Christ and how worthless they are in comparison. How their suffering will always be less than his. This can only diminish the sense of self-worth and justice these innocent men and women deserve. Unfortunately, it will not be under this Pope that appropriate actions are taken. It seems likely it will never happen. It is for these reasons that this Pope and his accomplices, belong not in the wealth and splendour of Rome, but before a jury being held to account for their failings as moral human beings. ‘Human beings’ – a worrying thought.

- Michael Campbell

Technical Problems

Young Freethought is currently having some technical problems. The more observant of you may have noticed a lack of activity over the last week. Things are due to get sorted by next week, when all will be back to normal. Please continue to send submissions to youngfreethought@googlemail.com

The Right to Offend versus the Christian Privilege

In this examination, Eric Stockhausen covers the difficulties in the spectrum of first amendment rights in regard to religion; from offensive but legal, to illegal, and presents his opinion on some recent news.

Lately there has been a lot of news where the freedom to express ones religious views has been at the forefront. With the growing importance of such issues, I think it would be prudent to review some cases which have gotten onto atheist websites.

Exhibit A: Settlement clears way for Kerrville Cross

In my home state, Texas, a non-profit organization called The Coming King Foundation is putting up a 77 foot huge metal cross near neighbourhoods and access to Interstate 10. Not only would this be near residents but everyone would have to see it, on those grounds residents litigated against the foundation. This cross offends residents because A) Giant crosses remind people of lynching and other terrible connotations B) Crosses tend to give the message that God owns this land (Columbus-esque). C) Not everyone is Christian and the community does not want to give outsiders the wrong idea. D) A giant metal cross is just bad taste! I believe this Christian organization has the right to free speech, this clearly being an example of symbolic speech. These Christians have the right to offend people, but there is the clear problem of visual pollution (many people have to see it). So if atheists have the right to put up billboards that offend Christians, should Christians have the right to offend atheists? On a case to case basis it is really hard because from the perspective of a Christian who gets offended at the smallest reference to atheism on a public street corner, it can get fuzzy about whether or not the majority have the right to censor someone based on offence. I personally think that the law gives precedent to protect the foundation’s free speech no matter how much I disagree with their message. If there was a good way of deciding what constituted as visual pollution (aside from obscenities), I would have a different opinion on the legality of the foundation’s cross.

Exhibit B: Federal judge rules teacher can display patriotic banners mentioning 'God'

This time in California, a judge ruled that is was unconstitutional for a school to censor a teacher who had banners with Christian nationalistic messages. (See here)

One should really read the opinion the Judge gave. It really goes into detail of why the judge would protect such banners. These are obviously offensive to my atheistic tastes and I disagree with the mixing of God and country. The teacher is being unprofessional by putting his religio-political beliefs on display. The biggest problem is that they are all quotes of things that already have national protection. The judge referenced the Michael Newdow case where the Supreme Court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance recognizes the importance of God in the history of the United States. Though I disagree with both the Supreme Court’s ruling and belief on the importance of God, I can hardly blame the Judge. I suggest reading the Judge’s opinion and forming your own.

Now the important problem with this case is ‘Christian Privilege’. If the teacher had something like “Are you moral without God? Millions are!” or the like from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it would have probably been censored because atheistic speech is very limited. This is an unacceptable double standard. I want atheist teachers to have equal protection under the law. If that means personal, political and religious views are prohibited for public school teachers because it is an abuse of power given to them by the government in order to teach kids, so be it. If the sign had said “In Jesus We Trust”, I would think it would be censored too because it is not politically correct enough for the classroom since it implies we believe in Jesus. People realize the importance of political correctness a little bit better when something is restated in a way that makes them understand the atmosphere in which it is presented. Implying Americans believe in Jesus excludes the Jewish Americans and implying Americans believes in God makes Atheist Americans a second class. I’ve gone through some commonly used rhetoric, make your own decision on the case.

Until the wall between church and state is repaired, we will just have to deal with things like Prop 4 on the GOP ballot in Texas (scroll to the bottom).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

An Evening With The Archbishop

Have you heard the one about the theoretical physicist and the archbishop?

Last night saw an evenings conversation between theoretical physicist and Faraday Prize recipient Jim Al-Khalili (a man who sparked my own fascination in physics with ATOM – an excellent 3 part documentary, the first part of the first episode can be found here) and Dr. Rowan Williams, academic and the current Archbishop of Canterbury. As head of the Anglican Church, you’d expect the Archbishop to perhaps provide an insightful contribution to any debate pitting religion against science. In this respect, you’d be disappointed. You would find an approachable and intelligent human being though; and most importantly, one with a sense of humour. The Archbishop is a shining example of the kind of Christianity, and religion more generally, that even the most militant atheist would find hard to pick a bone with over a great range of issues. The sinister nature of a figure like Ratzinger is, thankfully, absent.

The ‘nicety’ of the conversation (an interview in essence) was added to by Al-Khalili’s reluctance to push the Archbishop when he slipped into poetic language to try and answer difficult questions. It was apparent from Al-Khalili’s manner, he was uncomfortable with many answers given in response to questions of miracles, divine intervention etc. When asked to comment on the rise of creationism, the Archbishop rightly disregarded it as nonsense. But his account of the supernatural, which religion demands a certain degree of belief in, was equally nonsensical.

A God, postulated the Archbishop, who is constantly “anxiously fiddling” with His creation, suggests He did a botch job in the first place. A clearly logical and fairly uncontroversial statement. But Dr. Williams also argues for a God that’s “bubbling” under creation, occasionally bursting through and causing miraculous events. “That’s not the same thing as tinkering with the works?” asked Al-Khalili. Of course not, replied the Archbishop. Once this logical void had been brushed over, the Archbishop continued with his ‘bubbly-god model’. In an interview with Richard Dawkins (whose name came up often), the Archbishop offered a similar argument which Dawkins was less reluctant to voice his concerns about (to view this, watch this video from about 29 mins 50 secs until 32 mins 59 secs) .

As well as this questionable lyricism, the Archbishop uttered comments on morality which, under examination, reveal a deep suspicion of humanity. Al-Khalili put it to the archbishop that his “moral compass” was perfectly in tune without the need of God or gods. Williams questioned how that moral compass could be set in the first place. Why is it even there at all? Now, although Williams denied that he was advocating a 'God of the gaps' earlier on, he seemed to be doing just that. We don’t know why we have “moral compass” so God must have done it. No, in fact. There are many fascinating evolutionary explanations of altruism that don’t rely on commandments or grand tinkerers. The belief that humanity wouldn’t know right from wrong without a God is theistic fatalism. Quoting Etty Hillesum writing of the Nazi Occupation of Amsterdam, the Archbishop said “somebody’s got to take responsibility for God”. This statement is revealing in more ways than the Archbishop considered.

There was a great deal more content to this talk I haven’t offered my thoughts on, and it’s all worth a listen. I’ll post a link to the event as soon as I find one.

[Edit: And found one I have! All be it, of poor quality. Enjoy. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/media/audio/n/p/100302_ABC__Jim_Al-Khalili.mp3 ]