Science Without Spiritual Morality IS Dangerous!

Dear Reader,

Albert Einstein said: 

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.

But did Einstein mean the kind of religion of simply going to church once a week? I very much doubt it, judging by his many statements about the philosophy of religion. For him, 'religion' meant something like a constant system of values: unchangeable and immutable. A writer on Einstein has said, "What he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

In fact, Einstein himself clarified what he meant:

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.

It is a great pity - nay, a disaster - that science has not taken his words seriously enough given the direction in which science is going in partnership with commercial and social developments, as will now be discussed. However, if Einstein had used the word 'dangerous' instead of 'lame' in the first quotation he might have attracted more attention and would also be nearer to the truth.

The ITV4 'Despatches' programme this week gave details of just how much profit the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is making out of Covid. And how it is trying to dominate the world market along dubious but accepted business lines that have evolved over the past 100 years or more.

Just how did we get to the position where business rules the health of people - particularly in the poorer nations?

Let us take a look-see at the years since World War Two.

Way before the now-common cry of "Sale - Everything Must Go!" and BOGOFs, the phenomenon known as consumerism really took hold as recently as the 1950s, though its roots go back to the 19th century, of course. Within the time since - little less than my own lifetime - that 'ism' has lain at the root of today's climate change and environmental problems, particularly with regard to CO2 emissions and the over-dependence on plastics. And in attitudes to other matters as well, including health and education which are now generally considered to be areas for market development. 

These two core needs are 'up for grabs'. In other words, in the name of making money. Combined with access to healthy water, these facilities should be (according to moral thought) outside the realm of making money. They should be freely available to all who need them but used responsibly.

The 1950s was also co-incidental with the more general letting go of the old world of firm reliance on religion to act as one's guide as to right and wrong. In fact, the holy books did not and do not say anything about how to behave in the face of the welter of attractive and affordable products that became available to purchase, and world travel. Except, that is, the precepts of the Ten Commandments and the cautions of other scriptures too, including the Qur'an.

Perhaps the OT knows (knew) more than we do? Perhaps we misunderstood it and threw it aside without proper examination. We threw away so much of the old wisdom as 'old hat'. Using an everyday matter as some form of comparison, perhaps just the same loose-thinking and short-termism was employed when trams were thrown away in favour of buses and later re-introduced.

At any rate, the mode of popular thinking has always been to go with the flow and short-termism rather than trying to look at the consequences of our actions. People like Einstein knew different.

In any case, people were persuaded that more production meant more jobs and the gradual abandonment of dependence on charity and government support to (try at least) keep one's family healthy - and alive. The old workhouse system in the UK finally ended in 1948, almost in tandem with the start of the National Health Service, which has helped since to alleviate much suffering though, indeed, its success and easy accessibility perhaps generated an over-reliance on it instead of looking at preventative methods. We are what we eat, they say. And anything else we consume, for that matter.

But illness is good for the profits of the pharma companies.

Then, just at the time when we all need to understand our natural surroundings in order to come to terms with it and adjust our treatment of it, we have got to the pitch now that most people are divorced from nature. The countryside these last 60 years or more has all too often been regarded with disrespect as though it was just something to be trampled over. Our knowledge of the countryside has mostly evaporated, yet we depend on it for our food. 

This has all happened since the time when I was a boy when most of us got around by foot, bike or 'bus. Back in the 40s my mother walked me in my pram across town to visit her parents - a good two hours' walk. TV was then unknown by probably as much as 90% of the UK. The Chippy was virtually the only form of takeaway and football was a major preoccupation of virtually all working people. Footballers were paid by a fixed wage system. Neighbours were still welcomed as though the front door was always open, and the local parks were well cared for. Children were allowed to play outside.

But yes, many cities were then fairly unattractive - and generated smogs, which killed. 

When comparing with the old times they frequently said "that's progress" - but it's not, as we view the catastrophe that's now ahead of us unless we're a lot more careful.

There's no doubt about it, the 1960s decade, in particular, has a lot to answer for. It was the decade when our ancient human notions of decency started to go by the board - if you were to ignore the prejudices perpetrated against black immigrant people. However, it can also be said that since then we have become more broad-minded and have accepted minority and large immigrant groups into our fold perhaps more easily than was the case before, and women are now more equal.  

In the 1960s everything started to be made available too easily and standards of behaviour were allowed to drop. The teenagers of that period began to lose their bearings - particularly as the formerly pre-requisite 2-years' National Service had lately been dispensed with. It was the decade of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and then Free Love. But at least England won the World Cup! And smoking started to be questioned as lung cancer came to be heard of more frequently.

Aided by the then mind-blowing books by Jules Verne and H.G. Wells - and even the futuristic space travel adventures of Dan Dare in the Eagle comic (from the late 1940s) - science and technology became hugely respected by all. In the ordinary person's mind, it was probably assumed - unquestioned - that every aspect of scientific research would lead to a form of economic and lifestyle advantage. Therefore more jobs as well as more ease of living. The simplistic conclusion that was generally arrived at was: 'Why the need for religion if science can provide the answers to the problems of living?' Einstein clearly thought otherwise.

But gradually the downside of science began to reveal itself.  Birth deformations through the application of the Thalidomide drug horrified the UK but it was not long before it was put in the back of our memory bank. Then came the increasing awareness of the harmfulness of pesticides in agriculture, and the arrival of CJD and other diseases also came around - all as a result of scientific development of one kind or another. They have come and gone with only some sporadic protest against science. Genetically modified crops and other tampering with foods to increase shelf-life have attracted more attention, though.

At least scientific experimentation with animals is now much, much less than it was.

But we now have Covid19. There is a strong suspicion that this disease first emanated in a laboratory, but the official line is that it was not - or is not proven. And we are now left with its very sad legacy where it seems like all energy and finance is being directed towards keeping its spread and effectiveness at bay, to the enormous financial benefit of Pfizer, which (the above-mentioned 'Despatches' programme suggested) was using innuendo and leverage to gain entry to the rich markets at the expense of Astro-Zeneca, and others. At the same time, Pfizer is not helping the poorer countries and claims that it can't. 

Oh, and the UK is paying the highest price to ensure that the UK is served first. Good for us, but aren't we all (everyone in the world) entitled to receive the protection? The UK has also agreed that if there is any dispute about the Pfizer drug that such a dispute cannot be held in a UK court.

Hasn't the UK sold its soul? Why did the UK government keep these facts quiet? They presumably assumed that we would all prefer to be selfish and grab whatever might save us under the guise that the government is looking after its citizens.

But, seriously, what about the rest of the world, the poorer nations in particular? Don't tell me that the UK is happy for other, poorer, nations to be seriously affected by pandemics. Wouldn't serious infection affect other nations in their ability to support themselves economically? And what about inoculating everyone in the world so that the disease has a better chance of being wiped out?

Pfizer does not seem to be much concerned about this question. And the UK - just like Pfizer - is treading on dangerous ground. Selfishness has gone one very long step too far in my view.

Now, apart from alarming my readership by these statements about the potential harm that comes about through the unquestioned reliance on science and lack of control on the commercial aspect, what - it may be asked - is the point of this article? The point, dear reader, is to look into the statement by Einstein that I opened with.

The situation that has developed more intensively over the last 60 or 70 years calls for a closer look at Einstein's ideas in my view. Instead of us taking an atheistic or agnostic view (which tends to cause us not to think about values in our way of life unless science or 'they' says otherwise), isn't it time that we reminded ourselves that perhaps there are immutable values that exist in humankind and that we may have no option but to examine them more closely, given man's current plight?

Think of what we now face - not only disease but climate and environmental issues that threaten the existence of the majority of the world's human population, and many other species.

Instead of solely worrying about what's 'PC' and the needs of our nearest and dearest, let's get to the crux of what we are here for, as stewards of what is really a beautiful planet. 

We can fix it - but first we need to fix our own thinking and consider that we are each part of a whole with (despite appearances) a common identity and a common set of essential ideals.

Isn't the re-discovery of wisdom a good idea? As T. S. Eliot put it:

Where is the Life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? 

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

We are not to be bossed about and made to think that short-term material benefits are our aim! Life should have a worthwhile purpose, a direction, in order to stand a chance of finding true happiness, or self-satisfaction.

The answer really does lie with us and our attitude to what is around us. Prayers do help, but only to gain strength to accomplish the deed.

The remarkable educator Helen Keller said, “True happiness… is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” 

T. S. Eliot backed this up by saying:

I say to you: Make perfect your will.
I say: take no thought of the harvest,
But only of proper sowing.

We that have grown old can only do what we can. The future can only be dealt with by the proper education of our children. This will be the subject of my next article.

Thank you for reading this.