Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.



Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.


Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Arthur Schopenhauer speaks on Obama, religion and writing

Famed pessimist who refused to marry holds forth

The secret of good writing

Interesting interview ends with insult to the English

Arthur in a good frame of mind at the start of our interview, possibly recalling how delightful it was to be very rich and to see through the wiles of the mother of his child so that he was able to avoid the degrading effect of actual marriage to her, which he told her was only Nature's trickery and a way of ensuring that they would end up disliking each other Since, as constant readers of this obscure blog know, we have a hotline to heaven, we contacted the great philosopher and observer of human behavior Arthur Schopenhauer to ask him to make a few observations on the recent Presidential Election and his views on the Obama performance and potential to date, while we wait to see the outcome of health reform, and whether the entrenched profit interests which have ruined the performance and social justice of the nation’s medical system can stymie its repair once again.

Schopenhauer is one of our favorite philosophers because he generally ignored the accumulation of philosophical expertise from the past and thought for himself with a minimum of technical jargon. He was also someone who appreciated the worthlessness of any writer who wrote for gain, an extreme position we admit, but nonetheless still true if interpreted correctly.

Given his desire for fame was somewhat frustrated during his lifetime. we were glad to find the great man in a good mood now that posterity has recognized his genius, or rather, now that he is even further beyond worldly concerns than he was when alive.

He patiently answered our inquiries without once complaining that the answer was obvious. All quotes are verbatim from Schopenhauer’s writings except for linking phrases.

Science Guardian: So can we find out what you felt about the Obama candidacy and victory in seeking the moral and political leadership of the world?

Arthur Schopenhauer: A great departure from the norm. Because the great majority of men are in the highest degree egoistic, inconsiderate, deceitful, sometimes even malicious, and equipped moreover with very mediocre intelligence, there exists the need for a completely unaccountable power, concentrated in one man and standing above even justice and the law, before which everything bows and is regarded as a being of a higher order, a sovereign by the grace of God. Only thus can mankind in the long run be curbed and ruled.

Science Guardian: Good Heavens! So you believe along with us in the semi-celestial stature of our new political Savior, whose arrival seemed to us to be more than the result of mere vote counting, but in some way a development that sprang from the hands of the Gods? There was a need for someone who could transcend his age and act for the good of all and our descendants.

You asked for change but won't let me do itArthur Schopenhauer: If you want to earn the gratitude of your own age you must keep in step with it. But if you do you will produce nothing great. If you have something great in view you must address yourself to posterity: and then, to be sure, you will probably remain unknown to your contemporaries; you will be like a man compelled to spend his life on a desert island and there toiling to erect a memorial so that future seafarers shall know he once existed.

Science Guardian: That’s certainly comforting to many crackpots and eccentric geniuses, though it doesn’t tell them which is which. So you must be predicting failure for Obama, since he has become a world celebrity in two short years? Yet also it seems that from your logic it follows that if he stops worrying about votes and takes a firm stand for great policy changes he will achieve something great and lasting.

Arthur Schopenhauer: If he is a true genius he will win through. Talent works for money and fame: the motive which moves genius nto productivity is, on the other hand, less easy to determine. It isn’t money, for genius seldom gets any. It isn’t fame: fame is too uncertain and, more closely considered, of too little worth. Nor is it strictly for its own pleasure, for the great exercise involved almost outweighs the pleasure. It is rather an instinct of a unique sort by virtue of which the individual possessed of genius is impelled to express what he has seen and felt in enduring works without being conscious of any further motivation. It takes place, by and large, with the same sort of necessity as a tree brings forth fruit, and demands no more of the world that a soil on which the individual can flourish.

Science Guardian: By those high standards surely then no politician can succeed both in winning office and achieving great things. Or are you simply saying that if Obama compromises to get his legislation through, then he is doomed to mediocrity?

But on the other we might take Obama’s great oratory as a sign that his heart is in the right place, and that it consists of ideas he genuinely believes in which he wants to bring into being?

Arthur Schopenhauer: He who writes carelessly makes first and foremost the confession that he himself does not place any great value on his thoughts. For the enthusiasm which inspires the unflagging endurance necessary for discovering the clearest, most forceful and most attractive form of expressing our thoughts is begotten only by the conviction of their weightiness and truth – -just as we employ silver or golden caskets only for sacred things or priceless works of art.

Science Guardian: Interesting. So the average US politician and his abominable prose is condemned out of his own mouth as not meaning what he or she says, or he or she would take more care with language… And Obama is the man to listen to, with his great eloquence, and the one who should do great things.

To be honest, we have not found reading up on every little move in politics in the US to be very fruitful, so we don’t pay too much attention to the verbiage emanating from politicians. But Obama has struck us as very often clarifying the issues in ways no one can and does, although we are not forgetting that some voices on the right set out to muddy the democratic waters on purpose.

Schopenhauer as a young manArthur Schopenhauer: The art of not reading is a very important one. It consists in not taking an interest in whatever may be engaging the general public at any particular time. When some political or ecclesiastical pamphlet, or novel, or poem is making a great commotion, remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public.

Science Guardian: But we still like reading books, which we find often contain the meat of the matter these days which is not to be found in newspapers or other media.

Arthur Schopenhauer: A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones, for life is short.

Schopenhauer on how to distinguish a good writer

Science Guardian: We always think that Norman Mailer made the key distinction, that there were writers who wrote to influence others by manipulation – for example, the hordes writing self-help books and romance novels – and the writers who write from inside themselves, expressing their own inner vision and putting it honestly in front of others to influence them only if they recognize the truth of it as well. He said the only ones which deserved the title writer were the latter.

Arthur Schopenhauer: I entirely agree with this Mailer, whoever he is. There are above all two kinds of writer: those who write for the sake of what they have to say and those who write for the sake of writing.

The former have had ideas of experience which seem to them worth communicating; the latter need money and that is why they write – for money. They think for the purpose of writing. You can recognise them by the fact that they spin out their ideas to the greatest possible extent, that their ideas are half true, obscure, forced and vacillating, and that they usually prefer the twilight so as to appear what they are not, which is why their writings lack definiteness and clarity. You can soon see that they are writing simply in order to cover paper: and as soon as you do see it you should throw the book down, for time is precious.

Money and writers

Science Guardian: But surely writers have to be paid, don’t they? Samuel Johnson, the English dictionary maker, once observed that no man but a blockhead wrote except for money.

Arthur Schopenhauer: I don’t agree with him. Payment and reserved copyright are at bottom the ruin of literature. Only he who writes entirely for the sake of what he has to say writes anything worth writing.

It is as if there were a curse on money: every writer writes badly as soon as he starts writing for gain. The greatest works of the greatest men all belong to a time when they had to write them for nothing or for very small payment: so that here too the Spanish proverb holds good: Honra y provencho no caben en un saco. Honor and money don’t belong in the same purse.

Even among the small number of writers who actually think seriously before they start writing, there are extremely few who think about the subject itself: the rest merely think about books, about what others have said about the subject. They require, that is to say, the close and powerful stimulation of ideas produced by other people in order to think at all. These ideas are then their immediate theme, so that they remain constantly under their influence and consequently never attain to true originality. The above mentioned minority, on the other hand, are stimulated to think about the subject itself, so that their thinking is directly immediately to this. Among them are to be discovered those writers who endure and become immortal. Only he who takes what he writes directly out of his own head is worth reading.

Science Guardian: You seem to be describing the majority of blogs in the first group. So the outlook for great writing on the Web and its blogs is not bright, but at least the authors won’t starve?

Arthur Schopenhauer: What is the Web? I have not heard of such a thing.

Science Guardian: We’ll send you a descriptive package and what we call a laptop to view it with, and hope that you have some way of connecting with the Internet up there. All will be explained if that works.

Schopenhauer takes a short walk when Mexican workers interrupt the SG interviewExcuse us for a moment, the renovators of the house next door are making a merciless racket since it is 8 am in the morning, and they want to ensure that we are woken up. We believe you objected to excessive noise when you lived in Frankfurt.

Arthur Schopenhauer: In that case it was whips. Nothing gives me so clear a grasp of the stupidity and thoughtlessness of mankind as the tolerance of the cracking of whips. This sudden, sharp crack which paralyses the brain, destroys all meditation, and murders thought, must cause pain to any one who has anything like an idea in his head… With all respect for the most holy doctrine of utility, I do not see why a fellow who is removing a load of sand or manure should obtain the privilege of killing in the bud the thoughts that are springing up in the heads of about ten thousand people successively.

Science Guardian: Believe me, there are many in New York City, where large trucks noisily collect the rubbish in the street every morning at ungodly hours like 7am, who would agree with you fervently.

Now that the Mexicans next door are sure we are wide awake, they have calmed down, so let’s proceed.

Schopenhauer’s tolerant view of religion

Can we change the topic for now and ask you about the current phenomenon where in science current ruling beliefs seem to be turning into religions, where if you question them you are sanctioned and excommunicated? Surely religion is by definition the enemy of independent minds, and thus the enemy of science? Not to mention that the ideas it enshrines in dogma are mostly absurd.

Arthur Schopenhauer: Well, hold on a moment, if you are referring to religion in general. You have got to take religion with a grain of salt. You’ve got to see that the needs of ordinary people have to be met in a way they can understand. Religion is the only means of introducing some notion of the high significance of life into the uncultivated heads of the masses, deep sunk as they are in mean pursuits and menial drudgery, and of making it palpable to them.

Man, taken by and large, has by nature no mind for anything but the satisfaction of his physical needs and desires, and when these are satisfied for a little entertainment and recreation. Philosophers and founders of religions come into the world to shake him out of his stupefaction and to point to the lofty meaning of existence: philosophers for the few, the emancipated, founders of religion for the many, for mankind as a whole.

Philosophy isn’t for everyone – as your friend Plato said and you shouldn’t forget. Religion is the metaphysics of the people, which they absolutely must be allowed to keep: and that means you have to show an outward respect for it, since to discredit it is to take it away from them.

Just as there is folk-poetry and, in the proverbs, folk-wisdom, so there has to be folk-metaphysics: for men have an absolute need for an interpretation of life, and it has to be one they are capable of understanding. That is why it is always clothed in allegory; and, as far as its practical effect as a guide to behavior and its effect on morale as a means of consolation and comfort in suffering and death are concerned, it does as much perhaps as truth itself would do if we possessed it.

Don’t worry yourself about the baroque and apparently paradoxical forms it assumes: for you, with your learning and culture, have no idea how tortuous and roundabout a route is required to take profound truths to the mass of the people, with their lack of them.

The people have no direct access to truth; the various religions are simply schemata by which they grasp it and picture it, but with which it is inseparably linked. Therefore, my dear chap, I hope you’ll forgive me for saying that to ridicule them is to be both narrow minded and unjust.

Science Guardian: Well, thank you for the compliment of saying we are above this nonsense ourselves. But isn’t the reaction of religion to heresy, involving stakes and fire and torture and banishment, the worst, most unreasonable and unscientific example for science to follow?

As you yourself once said, isn’t it “as narrow minded and unjust to demand that there should exist no other metaphysics except this one cut to the requirements of the people’s wants and capacities? that its teachings and doctrine should mark the limit of inquiry and be the guide and model for all thinking, so that the metaphysics of the few and emancipated, as you call them, must amount to nothing but a confirmation, fortification and illumination of your metaphysics of the people? that the highest powers of the human mind should thus lie unused and undeveloped, should indeed be nipped in the bud, in case their activities might happen to run counter to your folk-metaphysics? and do the pretensions of religion amount to anything less than this? Is it proper and becoming in that which is intolerance and pitilessness itself to preach tolerance and pity? ”

Sometimes people have to pay a dreadful price to maintain a different point of view on accepted notions, don’t they?

Arthur Schopenhauer: I call on heretic courts and inquisitions, religious wars and crusades, Socrates’ poison cup and 52 year old Giordano Bruno’s 1600 and 34 year old Lucillo Vanini’s 1619 blazing pyres to bear witness!

Even if that kind of thing doesn’t go on nowadays, what could stand more in the way of genuine philosophy, of honest inquiry after truth, which is the noblest calling of noblest men, than that conventional metaphysics to which the state has granted a monopoly, and whose propositions are hammered into everyone’s head in his childhood so earnestly and so deeply and firmly that, unless it is of a miraculous degree of elasticity, it retains their impress for ever, so that his or her capacity for thinking for himself and for making unprejudiced judgments – a capacity which is in any case far from strong – is once and for all paralyzed and ruined?

Science Guardian: That is what is dangerous about religion, surely. It tries to defeat independence of mind in childhood, which then may last for life.

Schopenhauer as a youthArthur Schopenhauer: Yes, indeed. It is common knowledge that religions don’t want conviction, on the basis of reasons, but faith, on the basis of revelation. And the capacity for faith is at its strongest in childhood: which is why religions apply themselves before all else to getting these tender years into their possession.

It is in this way, even more than by threats and stories of miracles, that the doctrines of faith strike roots: for if, in earliest childhood, a man has certain principles and doctrines repeatedly recited to him with abnormal solemnity and with an air of supreme earnestness such as he has never before beheld, and at the same time the possibility of doubt is never so much as touched on, or if it is only in order to describe it as the first step toward eternal perdition, then the impression produced will be so profound that in almost every case the man will be almost as incapable of doubting his doctrine as of doubting his own existence, so that hardly one in a thousand will then possess the firmness of mind seriously and honestly to ask himself: is this true?

Science Guardian: So you praise independence of mind from all this guff?

Arthur Schopenhauer: The expression esprits forts, strong minds, applied to those who do still possess it, is more fitting than those who use it know. But for the remainder, however, there is nothing so absurd or revolting that they will not firmly believe it once they have been inoculated with it in this fashion.

If, for example, the killing of a heretic or an unbeliever were declared to be an essential condition for salvation, then almost every one of them would make doing so one of the main objectives of his life and in death the memory of the deed would provide consolation and strength; as indeed, almost every Spaniard in fact used to consider an auto da fe a most pious and God pleasing act; to which we have a counterpart in India in the religious fellowship of the Thugs.

This the English suppressed while I was alive on Earth by numerous executions: its members gave proof of their religiousness and of their worship of their goddess Kali by treacherously murdering their friends and travelling companions whenever the occasion offered and making away with their possessions, under the firm illusion that they were doing something praiseworthy and promoting their eternal salvation. The power of religious dogmas imprinted in early years is such that they are capable of stifling conscience and finally all pity and humanity.

Science Guardian: Sounds as if you agree with John Adams that religion is a pernicious influence and that if it were removed from the Earth the world would be a happier place.

Arthur Schopenhauer: If you want to see with your own eyes and from close to what early inoculation with faith can do, look at the English, nature has favored them before all other nations and furnished them with more understanding, judgment and firmness of character than all the rest; yet they have been degraded lower than all the rest, indeed been rendered almost contemptible, by their stupid church superstition, which infiltrates all their capabilities like an idea fixe, a downright monomania. The only reason for this is that education is in the hands of the clergy, who take care so to imprint all the articles of faith in earliest youth that it produces a kind of partial paralysis of the brain, which then gives rise to that lifelong imbecile bigotry through which even people otherwise in the highest degree intelligent degrade themselves and make a quite misleading impression on the rest of the world.

Science Guardian:(nervously) Well, we are English or were before we moved to the US so we are not sure whether you are right in that. The English really do not often take religion very seriously at all now, and most of them don’t go to church any more.

But perhaps we have tired you out and we should resume this conversation at another time.

Thank you very much for your participation in what is surely a historic interchange between this world and the next.

Dr Love – Schopenhauer and Love (video by Alain de Botton)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1314 access attempts in the last 7 days.