Dawkins' Einsteinian not Progressive Enough

Dawkins’ main intellectual limitation is an apparent total lack of exposure to the NSM (New Social Movement) of anti-psychiatry in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He mentions Aldous Huxley briefly, but the other 3 essential writers of this period: R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz and Timothy Leary appear to be completely missing from his radar. His comment on the “New Mexico” hallucinogenic church (p22) demonstrates his lack of synthesis of the 1960s history. Else he would have recognised the hand of Dr Andrew Weil. So there is a glaring failure to appreciate the nature of any “theist” advances during that period by existential movements. Surely they must be incorporated to form any new basis of “deist” reductionism that might be called progressive? His only progressive step is to call for “atheists unite!” but only in as far as it is blessed by seeming innocence on Marxist theory. The real question he should ask himself is “could atheists ever be unified without replacing God by historical materialism?” If he were atheist, that is.

The primary key of his reductionism surrounding “deism” is to propose that no communication exists between God and life, and to try labelling this modelling “deism”. Not so. All non-pantheistic religions model a closed-circuit of two-way communications. That is some creation of a “data chunk” to carry information for judgment (be it daily or once) and an incoming signal (be that voice delivered to the living clergy or in time past). Einsteinian religion is anchored on two principles: light is the fastest thing in the universe and it is theoretically impossible for any object to be artificially propelled faster than that. Dawkins comments on his hypothetical civilization “millennia ahead of us” (p72) that maybe “they have driven themselves extinct, which is not unlikely”. At least Marxist historical materialism might consider offering us the hope of the stars but Dawkins and scientists like him are content to watch humanity eliminated as only nihilists fundamentally could be.

 The opposing “magesteria” of the NOMA he wants scientists to claim victory over advocates a simple belief “the real war is between rationalism and superstition” (p67). Great, but the famously strange personal behaviour of many great scientists clearly contradicts easy assumptions that scientists pursuing scientific rationalism, are by nature rational behaviourists. In such a convenient world, Einstein is not therefore a weapons scientist, but duped by politicians. (Dawkins might instead consider whether he is not also a dupe of historical truth manipulated done to preserve atomic secrets).

Dawkins kind of rationalism (Einstein as a religion) might actually permit MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to more easily occur in the future simply because these seeds of mankind’s destruction can be blamed as sown by others. Politicians can be assumed guilty of pushing Einstein, against a doctrine of infallibility, into that research. This scientific view takes no responsibility, has no soul to face judgement and can accept species annihilation as an evolutionary path governed by a nihilistic detachment from cause and effect. It is that very Einsteinian religion which might well probably give cause for such a disaster for mankind. Precisely because it adamantly rejects the search for any system (our future starships) which could potentially propel faster than light. The labour of Los Alamos scientists on Project Orion 1957-1965 thus dwindles into a meaningless side-show of history. 

The closest Dawkins comes to acknowledging a religious feeling is by his comment “I cannot think how to disprove it” (p73) regarding Daniel Galouye’s “Counterfeit World”. The Matrix sci-fi films also tap into that elementary subjectivity of viewpoint when questioning existence or the NOMA conflict as Dawkins sees it. Surely the Christian Bible also serves as more than myth with the words of Genesis. An ancient way of expressing the NOMA “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void.” That is to say God resides outside of what he has created. Dawkins regret is he cannot think where the simulation generators would go in the “Counterfeit World”. Again, the simplest answer is they are (for his needs) outside of the universe. That he himself cannot make that intellectual leap is good evidence that humans cannot be argued away from or into a religious feeling. Hence rallying calls to atheism will do nothing to cure the problem. Rather better “deist” arguments are required with the support of such organisations as NCSE (National Center for Science Education) to channel and convert those with religious feelings into “sensible religious opinions” (p66). Unfortunately the reformist protestant theology cannot take place without rejecting Einsteinian principles.

Dawkins' Einsteinian not Progressive Enough continued

This is because the Einsteinian principle of a “speed of light” limit perfectly denies the scientific possibility of faster than light signals. Protestantism being a non-pantheistic religion must support the model of a closed-circuit two-way communications, as stated earlier. Einsteinians will automatically reject without scrutiny all progressive communications theories (even when the complexity of data science is now vast enough to suggest many new modelling opportunities) simply on the basis communication over such distances is ridiculous. The Einsteinian principle is popular precisely because it dispenses with the intellectual demand to argue there is no “all judging data-construct outside of the universe”. While Dawkins repeatedly mentions Douglas Adams’s books, “The Restaurant at The End of the Universe” is notably absent, perhaps because he knew it would be a cheapening shot.
 
Dawkins absolutely fails to reflect on the universal condition observed through all his telescopes that no life is yet discovered outside of 1G, which is to say one unit of gravity. So on what basis would he defend the Einsteinian absolutism of the relativity effect on M of E=MCsquared from Newton’s F=MA? What about accounting for relativistic effects on A? E=AGsquared trade-offs the light speed limit and permits theoretical star travel in a few days simply because 1G cannot be exceeded in zero gravities, no matter the size of A. Relativity simply requires a non-variable and universal co-efficient to decline against. On what grounds will the speed of light do for a figure but one gravity unit be dismissed with such ease? These are the simple type of questions that a non-Einsteinian scientist should be asking himself. Such “reality checks” on his own Einsteinian religion he would vigorously criticise other religious believers for not asking.

Obviously there is no significant way to test theorised relativities on A until we have a much more significant industrial capacity in space. Gravity cannot be switched off on earth-bound laboratories. So why are scientists so unwilling to consider there are opposing relativities on Newtonian laws? Simple opposing relativity theories (much like an atheist opposes any theory of God) require control tests on the effects of relativity against acceleration. Non-scientists would recognise this as tests revolving around significant differences between the “pull” of natural gravity and the artificial “push” of propulsion, two different forces commonly aggregating as acceleration (A).

Yet having chosen Einsteinian theory to explain a universe, Einsteinians are as near dogmatic in defence of this belief as any religious zealot would be of his correctness no matter the damaging outcome for our civilisation. Truly this makes Dawkins no atheist as history would understand it because Marxist reasoning would need digesting and re-writing if he hoped to be so. R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz and Timothy Leary and the 60s experiment would not off his scope. Rather he is a man frustrated simply because Einsteinian theory is not yet formally recognised as a religion. Vegetarians do not eat fish! In that respect he shares a core belief for the destiny of mankind not that far from the American religious right-wing. Their commonality is a wrongness which offers a dangerous but not progressive future for our survival beyond the atomic era.