حيثما يتعذر الكلام، يتوجّب الصمت................

ربيع العرب

تمخض ربيع العرب، يا للخبر السعيد

تمخّض ربيع العربِ، لكمُ البشارة:

أخبروني، الوليد؟ من هو؟ ما
ذاك الوليد؟
أ زهر؟ أ ورد؟ يحب الحياة لها مريد؟
أم فأراً يحرّم ما أحلّ الله،
يمنع ضوء الشمس،
يلعن الحياة،
يمجّد.. للآخرين.. الموت
أفأراً،ويحكم ، مليئُ بالسواد، عنيد؟

***
مدالله العبلي

Congratulation Tunisia

Very glad we lost another dictator in the Middle East. No tears to be shed. Waiting for the next dictator to flee like a thief in the Middle of the night. Our hearts and mind with Tunisia, we love you!!

Madalla Alibeli

هل نحن مستعدون للديمقراطية؟

د. مدالله العبلي

كجزء من سياسته لمحاربة الإرهاب في أعقاب أحداث سبتمبر، تعهد الرئيس الأميركي جورج بوش بنشر الديمقراطية في الشرق الأوسط وبالمساهمة في تعزيز دور المؤسسات المدنية. وتم النظر إلى هذا المسلك كوسيلة لتجفيف منابع الإرهاب والأصولية الدينية في المنطقة وبث قيم التسامح والحوار.إلا أن هذه السياسة المعلنة قد تعطلت بسبب حرب العراق التي طالت على غير ما توقعه البيت الأبيض ولأن كلفتها المادية فاجأت صانعي القرار في واشنطن. وعلى افتراض أن الأمور في العراق سارت كما أريد لها، وتم ترميم الأمن وبناء والديمقراطية فيه، فهل كان لمشروع بوش أن ينجح في تغير معالم الشرق الأوسط ونقله من جحيم النظم الشمولية إلى نعيم التعددية؟ بكلام أخر، هل المنطقة العربية جاهزة لاستقبال الديمقراطية؟الديمقراطية، كما هو معروف، نظام سياسي يوفر للمواطنين فرص دستورية متساوية بما فيها الحق في الوصول إلى سدة الحكم وكافة المراكز القيادية وذلك بحسب تعريف "ليبست 1959" إنها ألية اجتماعية تسمح للأغلبية بأن تسيطر على القرار، وتصنع السياسات بعد أن تكون أصوات الناس في الدولة قد سمعت عبر وسائل اقتراع سلمية تتوفر فيها فرص المنافسة العادلة للناخبين وتتساوى فيها حقوقهم من غير استثناء. طبعا، مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار أنه ليس ثمة عدالة كاملة أو نزاهة مطلقة. وبما أن الديمقراطية لا تخلق في فراغ، ولا يمكن الوصول إليها في ظل غياب بيئة ترعاها، فما هي إذن الشروط الاجتماعية والثقافية اللازمة لإيجاد ديمقراطية مستقرة وقابلة للحياة والاستمرارية؟ إن الثابت، على الأقل من خلال الأمثلة التي نعايشها حاليا، أن الدول المتقدمة اقتصاديا هي الأقدر على رعاية الديمقراطية والتعايش في ظلها، هذا من جانب. ثم إن الديمقراطية تحتاج إلى نظام محاسبة يسمح فيه بالنقد وبالرقابة وبتقديم المقترحات للتطوير. وثالثا، فإن الديمقراطيات المستقرة تنتعش في ظل مجتمع متعدد الأجناس والأعراق والأديان أكثر منها في المجتمعات المتجانسة المتشابهة، وأخير، فإن الديمقراطية تعيش في مجتمع ناسه متعلمون وذوو وعي بالحياة الحزبية والسياسية.إن نظرة ثاقبة على حال البلدان العربية، تجعلنا نقول بغياب معظم الشروط السابقة عنه. وهكذا فإن الأولوية، حتى يتم تطبيق الديمقراطية في المنطقة العربية، يجب أن تكون لتهيئة الظروف الكفيلة بنجاحها بدلا من محاولة البدء فورا بترسيخها. فالنبتة كي تنمو، تحتاج إلى تراب وماء ضوء وهواء. إن الديمقراطية في الشرق الأوسط تحتاج إلى أكثر من مجرد التنمية الاقتصادية. لخلق البيئة الملائمة لنمو هذا النظام العريق الذي باتت الحاجة إليه أكثر وضوحا اليوم من أي وقت مضى، نحتاج إلى عدالة اجتماعية وتوزيع أكثر أنصافا للموارد والمصادر، ونحتاج إلى تصليح النظام الاجتماعي وعصرنته. هناك أيضا حاجة ماسة إلى المصداقية والمساءلة وبناء المؤسسات المدنية والأحزاب الحقيقية. وبالإضافة إلى هذا وذاك، فإن صيانة حرية الرأي وحرية الصحافة والحق في التجمع ورعاية حقوق الأقلية هي لبنات أساسية تعبد الطريق إلى الديمقراطية.الانتخابات بحد ذاتها، لا تبني ولا تديم الديمقراطية. وعندما تجرى الانتخابات في مجتمعات غير ديمقراطية، فإنها تقود إلى نتائج غير ديمقراطية قد تؤدي إلى تعزيز الظلم وتأجيج الهوة بين طبقات الشعب وبالتالي تصبح عبئا لا فضيله
نقلها إلى العربية: حامد اليوسف (انظر المقالة الأصلية
http://www.arabwashingtonian.org/arabic/article.php?issue=15&articleID=326

متى تتحرّر مجتمعاتنا من الخطوط الحمراء؟

السبت 25 أغسطس
سّيار الجميل
الخطوط الحمراء: المعنى والتعريف لقد كنت مسرورا يوم الخميس التاسع من شهر اغسطس / آب 2007 عندما انهالت علّي جملة اسئلة ذكية واستفسارات غاية في الدقة بعد ان انهيت محاضرتي التي القيتها في جامعة لوكهييد ونقلتها جامعتين اثنتين اخرتين في كندا عبر الساتلايت، وكانت بعنوان: " التاريخ الاجتماعي للشرق الاوسط: البنية المفككة والذهنية المركبة " .. اذ دارت معظم النقاشات على الازمات القاتلة التي تعاني منها اليوم مجتمعاتنا في الشرق الاوسط.. واساليب مواجهتها والتفكير السائد ازاءها، ومعضلة السلطة والهيمنة ليس من قبل الانظمة السياسية الحاكمة، بل من قبل الانظمة الاجتماعية السائدة ، ومسألة الحريات والمرأة وحقوق الانسان والاقليات.. الخ وكان الاتهام الأكثر شيوعا وذيوعاً في منطقتنا، وعوالم شبيهة بها في العالم الاسلامي قاطبة تلك التي تسمى بـ " الخطوط الحمراء "! أنه بمجرد ان يفكر الانسان الحر تفكيرا عقلانيا، سيجد امامه حواجز وسدودا لا يستطيع ان يتخطاها ابدا، ولا يمكن له ان يكون حرا في اطلاق رأيه بصراحة تامة.. وليس له القدرة على تحّمل تبعات ما يقوله او يكتبه على الرأي العام، او حتى ما يخطط له من المشروعات.. ووصلت الحال ان ليس له الشجاعة على ان يتحدث حتى عن تجارب الاخرين في حياتهم وثقافاتهم وانشطتهم ومنجزاتهم ومشروعاتهم المعاصرة، كيلا يتهم بالاعجاب بهم!! ان شبكة معقدة من الخطوط الحمراء تلتف حول عقولنا ومشاعرنا، وتدخل في اعماق انفسنا.. وان كل ما نشهده وما نسمعه يكاد مقدار التحرر فيه لا يرى ابدا.. وتكاد مصداقية ما يعلن بصراحة بمنتهى الندرة. ان الخطوط الحمراء ـ باختصار ـ هي مجموعة المحرمات والممنوعات الصعبة التي تحول بين الانسان وحرياته المشروعة والمتنوعة في التعبير عما يريده ويفكر فيه وينجزه في حياته. ان تناقضا صارخا لا استطيع فهمه حتى اليوم، ذلك ان اي مشروع سياسي او فكري او فسلفي متحرر يعد خطا احمرا.. في حين بوركت اغلب مشروعات القتل والارهاب في السنوات الاخيرة!!
الواقع المزيّف والتناقضات القاتلة في الحقيقة، تعد مجتمعاتنا من اهم المجتمعات الحيوية والنشيطة والعريقة على مر التاريخ، وكان لها الفضل في انتاج مخزون ثقافي وابداع حضاري وتعايش انساني.. ولقد انقلبت الاوضاع اليوم رأسا على عقب، فصار ما يتداول من مصطلحات عن الموضوعية والتحليل ونسبية الامور والديمقراطية في الرأي والتحرر الفكري والانعتاق.. الخ انما هي مجرد اكذوبات لا اساس لها من الصحة ابدا في مجتمعاتنا قاطبة ، اذ ان اغلب الاطروحات مزيفة، وان معظم المواقف مداهنة لما يعج في الواقع من تناقضات لا اول لها ولا آخر! ان ثمة اسقاطات ومزدوجات وثنائيات يزدحم بها التفكير، فتضج الساحة بالتضليل والاكاذيب.. او يحاول الانسان الهروب مع اية هشاشة فكرية او الضياع في بحر من الانشائيات للتمويه من دون وضع النقاط على الحروف ومن دون ان يحارب تلك " الخطوط " بالرغم من كشفه عنها!.. وهكذا حال النخب في مجتمعاتنا التي ربما يعيش بعضها صراعا داخليا نتيجة زحمة المحرمات وبلادة الممنوعات.. انها تعيش ازمة داخلية، فلا هي باستطاعتها رفض ما يفرض عليها علنا، ولا هي بقادرة على البقاء حبيسة حياة قاحلة وفجة وبليدة.. ان مجتمعاتنا فاطبة، والتي وجدت نفسها ضمن هذا السجن الازرق، ويا للاسف الشديد، ليس لها الا ان تجد الهروب باساليب سايكلوجية تدغدغ المشاعر بالراحة المزيفة وارضاء النفس بالاطمئنان.. او انها تجد طريقا آخر بتعذيب الذات والجسد بالضرب المبرح كي تشعر انها اخرجت كبتا لا حصر له.. او انها تجد في ذاكرتها ما تردده صباح مساء وترسم الامجاد في مخيلتها لتشعر انها اكبر من كل العالم.. او انها تهرب الى اي " نصوص " دينية او شعرية او اسطورية لترددها بكل لذة من دون ان تخرج عن طور اشكالها وتزويقاتها.. في حين انها لا تفكر ابدا في مضامينها الضحلة والتي لم يعد هناك اية علاقة بينها وبين حاضرنا اليوم.!
اي فكرة نقدية خط احمر..!!ّ قال لي الروائي المغربي الراحل محمد شكري قبل 25 سنة عندما التقيته في طنجة: " ان اسوأ عبارة يرددها العرب هي التي تقول: ما كل ما يعلم يقال.. فلماذا تموت الصراحة؟؟ ". واعيد واكرر لماذا اخفاء ما يعلم؟ لماذا لا يتعود الانسان في مجتمعاتنا على المفاتحة والمصارحة والمطارحة؟ لماذا يخشى؟ لماذا يخاف؟ لماذا الكتمان؟ لماذا التآمر؟ لماذا الاسرار؟ لماذا التخفي؟ لماذا الاستعارة والاسماء المستعارة؟ لماذا التورية؟ لماذا اياك اعني واسمعي يا جارة؟ ان مجتمعاتنا لا تعرف النقد ابدا، ولا تفكيك الفكر الحر، ولا المعارضة السياسية ، ولا المخالفة الاجتماعية ولا التباين في التفكير.. ربما تجد ملاذها في التمايز، وجعل الذات فوق الشبهات أزاء الاخرين، وان خالفتهم احتقرتهم، وان تباينت معهم اضطهدتهم، وان عارضتهم كفّرتهم وجعلت الاقصاء والتهميش والاحتقار والتعذيب والموت اساليب تعامل لهم باسم الخطوط الحمراء! ان النقد المباشر للسلطة والمسؤولين، وللسياسة والسياسيين في معظم مجتمعاتنا غير محبذ وغير مقبول ابدا، وان مجرد التساؤل في الدين والعقائد والاصول يعد مروقا وكفرا ولا سبيل للانسان في مجتمعاتنا، حتى في اطلاق النقد البناء، إلا الاعتماد على اساليب اللف والدوران، او عرض نماذج خارجية لتحقيق غرضه، او تبيان رسالته التي يؤمن بها، سواء في التقاليد والاعراف الجارية، او في العقائد والايديولوجيات السائدة، او حتى في التوجهات السياسية المعروفة. معنى ذلك ان اي تجربة ديمقراطية لا يمكنها ان تعيش في مجتمعاتنا اذا كانت هذه المجتمعات مكبلة بقيود ثقيلة جدا.. وان مجرد التفكير في هذه القيود والاسلاك الشائكة يجعل صاحبها في طور الانسحاق والفناء، فيزداد كبته وغيضه وكرهه للحياة واسترخاصه روحه! لقد انتجت الخطوط الحمراء مجتمعات مسحوقة وكسولة واتكالية تؤمن بالخرافات والبدع والتمسح وتحرق زمنها بتوافه الامور!
الخطوط الحمراء.. ماذا انتجت؟ ونحن نراقب تسلسل التراجع المهول في التفكير على امتداد القرن العشرين، نجد ان مجتمعاتنا لا تتعلم من تجاربها هي نفسها، نظرا لقوة الموجات العاطفية القاتلة التي مرت وتمّر بها.. وان مجموعة تجارب ليست فاشلة، بل قاتلة مرّت على امتداد خمسين سنة لا يمكن ان نتخّيل مثلها في اية مجتمعات اخرى في هذا العالم، ما لم تتعلم من نتائجها ودروسها! ان مجتمعاتنا لم تعتمد التعبير الحر في التحرير وكتابة الواقع والقراءة التاريخية، كونها شعوب لا تقرأ المعرفة، وان قرأت فان الغلبة ستكون للخيال والاسطورة والاشعار! انها تعتمد المشافهة والمناقلة وترديد الخطاب بغير اصله، وانها تغرقه بالانشائيات والكلام العادي! انها تستسيغ السماع لمن يدغدغ احاسيسها ، ويثير عواطفها، ويهوّل الامور ويصنع لها الامجاد الفارغة.. انها لا ترضى ابدا على كل من يفكك مثالبها وينتقد اساليبها ويعالج تفكيرها.. انها بالرغم من الخطوط الحمراء المتشابكة التي تحيطها ولا تستطيع ابدا تخطيها، فانها تخلق لها المزيد من الخطوط الحمر التي تضعها في دواخلها فتقّيد حركتها تقييدا كاملا.. بل وتجعلها جامدة لا يمكنها اداء اي حراك سياسي او فكري او اجتماعي او حتى ثقافي.. انها لا تفكّر بالواقع وحاجاته بالقدر الذي يشغل نفوسها بما وراء الواقع واشتراطاته.. انها فاقدة للتوازن بين الواقع والخيال، وفاقدة للتوازن بين الدين والدنيا، وفاقدة للتوازن بين الروح والمادة.. اما بشكل عام، فان ذهنيتها مركبة يستحيل ان تؤسس فيها اي توازن يذكر ابدا.. وعليه، فهي بحاجة الى ثورة فكرية حقيقية تكتسب من خلالها الوعي والاستنارة.
الرعب من المستقبل ان الخطوط الحمراء قد انعكست بالضد على الاجيال الجديدة التي غدت منحازة للتزمت عند هذا الطرف او منحرفة وضائعة عند الطرف الاخر! ان تربية الاجيال على الخوف والرعب من الخطوط الحمر التي يستخدمها كل من الدولة والمجتمع، قد ولّدت انعكاسات خطيرة في مجتمعاتنا قاطبة، وخصوصا عند الاجيال الجديدة التي تكاد تكون ضائعة في متاهة فوضوية.. بل وان الخطوط الحمراء ساهمت في خلق الشعور بالتعاظم والقوة والمثالية الخيالية واحتقار الاخرين.. انها قد افقدت الانسان انسانيته وجعلته متوحشا وارهابيا قاتلا.. لقد جعلته ينظر الى المجتمعات السوية كونها خارجة عن اطار كل ما هو حلال واصبحت لا تعرف الا الحرام.. فيقدم على قتل الاخر من دون ان يعرفه ومن دون اي شعور انساني ببراءته!
وأخيرا: العلاج يكمن في التحرر من التناقضات ان الخطوط الحمراء من المحرمات والممنوعات وما يجوز وما لا يجوز.. التي تغزو مجتمعاتنا اليوم قد قيدّت عملية الابداع تقييدا كاملا.. وانها قد جعلت من المرأة انسانا ناقصا، وضربت كل الاعتبارات في الصميم. ان اي خط احمر لا يأخذ اعتبارات الانسان وطبيعته وحرياته وحاجاته ومتطلباته وتفكيره وصناعة مستقبله، فهو عائق حقيقي في سبيل ليس تقدمنا، بل وجودنا. فهل فكرّنا يوما ان نغّير الوان هذه الخطوط كي نحرر تفكيرنا واذهاننا من كل المركبات؟ هل نجحنا في تفكيك بنيوياتنا التاريخية؟ انه من دون ذلك لا يمكن ان تحظى مجتمعاتنا بأي تقدم وازدهار. ان هذه " الدعوة " لا تريد جعل مجتمعاتنا منحلة بلا قيم ولا اخلاق.. بل تطمح ان تغدو مجتمعاتنا حرة في ارادتها وصناعة مستقبلها من خلال مشروعها الحضاري بلا خطوط حمراء. فهل وعينا الدرس وألممنا بالتاريخ؟ وهل باستطاعتنا ترجمة الواقع بلا خطوط حمراء؟ انني اشك في ذلك لثلاثين سنة قادمة!www.sayyaraljamil.com

Environmentalism in the Middle East

Environmentalism is a continuum of ideologies, philosophies, and movements that range form the most eco-centric like deep ecology to the most anthropocentric such as conservation and shallow ecology. Environmentalism serves as an ideological worldview concerning the environment. It also serves as an environmental purposive action. As an ideological worldview, environmentalism refers to “a broad set of beliefs about the desirability and possibility of changing human relationship with the environment.” (Harper 2001: 347). As a purposive action, environmentalism includes actions intended to “change the way people relate to the environment” (Harper 2001: 347). These actions my include individuals’ and groups’ activities as they form associations and organization to change the way societies deal with the environment.
Environmentalism incorporate four types of overlapping social movements: preservation of the wilderness, conservation of natural resources, control of pollution movements (contemporary environmentalism), and grass roots ecosystem management (Weber (2000). Preservation main objective is to keep nature apart from human activities, urge humans to live in harmony with nature, and save nature for future generations. For preservation, balance of nature is easily destroyed; therefore, human interaction with nature should be restricted or avoided. For conservation, nature is basically a set of commodities that exist to be used by humans. Consequently, sustainable development and the efficient management of natural resources are among conservation main objectives. On the other hand, contemporary environmental movement focuses on fighting and controlling pollution. It is a reaction to “a society in which economic growth dominated the public agenda, consumption was emphasized, and progress was defined in economic quantitative terms” (Weber 2000: 242). Contemporary movement reflects the belief that dealing with environmental problems requires a broader perspective that focuses on degradation of natural resources, pollution control, and views the quality of life as the prime measure of progress. Finally, grass roots ecosystem management movement advocates placed-based grass roots environmental policies. GREM reflects a belief in the ‘win-win-win’ policy regarding the relationship among economy, community, and the environment. This crosscutting holistic ecosystem approach seeks to meld nature with economy and community. GREM contends that due to population growth, information technology, and the growing outdoor recreation, separation between humans and nature is not possible. This movement reflects a belief that issues related to the environment, economy, and community should be decided locally through community discussion on a case-by-case approach (Weber 2000) and through citizens participation in agenda setting, decision-making, monitoring, and enforcement activities (Chertow & Esty 1997).
Environmentalism as an enduring and collective attempt to bring about or resist social change concerning the environment has yet to develop in the Middle East. To emerge as a social movement, environmentalism needs three requirements: (1) structural strain. Social movement arises in situation in which there is some oppression, deprivation, frustration, or contradiction (Wood &Jackson 1982). (2) a generalized belief in the form of “shared target of hostility who are held responsible for hardship, suffering, and oppression.” (Sullivan 2004: 468). And, (3) a mobilization. To exist, a social movement needs to mobilize resources “Leadership must be found, money must be collected, and ways of exercising power must be located.” (Sullivan 2004: 468). In my view, all the needed requirements for environmentalism as a social movement are available in the Middle East region. First, Middle Eastern people (at least some of them) are annoyed by the systematic destruction of the wilderness, bothered by the unsustainable extraction of natural resources like water, and frustrated by the soaring levels of pollution particularly water and air pollution. Second, people are aware of whom to blame and who should be held responsible for the current environmental degradation. And finally, people are not in shortage of leadership or even of money. Therefore, why environmental movement has yet to emerge and what the factors which hinder the development of such a movement in the Middle East?
A wide range grass roots environmental movement that relies on voluntary membership and citizens participation in agenda setting, decision-making, monitoring, and enforcement activities has not yet developed in the Middle East for two sets of reasons. First, many believe that it is the people fault. People are apathetic, not concerned about public issues, and have no particular motivation to take actions. Second, many others think that some people have neither the time nor the resources to work toward gaining power. And, third, many people consider the government as the best protector, defender, or manager of the environment. On the other hand, environmentalism has yet to materialize in the region because of the structure of power, power relation, and struggle for power. Political systems in the Middle East may discourage, hinder, or prohibit many kinds of organization and public meeting. Ruling class possesses, monopolizes, and controls almost all kinds of power. Monopoly of power enables the few to ‘shape the broad social contexts in which others act,..making possible some courses of action and preventing others. [monopoly of power] enables ruling class to structure social situation in particular ways and thus shape the manner in which people view the world and define their interests.” (Olsen & Marger 1993: 5).Wide range grass roots environmental movement, though nonpolitical, may challenge, endanger, and threaten current power structure and elites privileges because of a movement potential political agenda. “People who belong to voluntary association of all kinds are more likely to participate in many forms of political activity.” (Olsen 1993:148). Ruling class in Middle East is skeptic of any wide range social movement because such involvement may lead to political participation and challenge their shaky and [illegitimate] authority. Association membership broadens individuals’ sphere of interest and concern, brings individuals into contact with many diverse people, and draws individuals into a wide range of new activities including politics, and provides those individuals with training and experience in social interaction and leadership skills. Finally, involvement in nonpolitical organization may give people multiple channels through which they exert influence on politicians and the political system (Olsen 1993).
To conclude, the absence of environmentalism as a social movement in the Middle East might be due to public passivity as well as to the oppression of non democratic governments. Public passivity, however, is a product of decades of fears, oppression, and dictatorship. People are frustrated, but afraid. Challenging a government means running the risk of losing reputation, job, freedom, or life. Corrupted, retarded, non democratic and out-dated political systems in the Middle East need to be confronted and held responsible for many of the region’s social, cultural, economic, political and environmental illnesses.
By Dr. Madalla A. Alibeli

"The God Delusion'

First Chapter
‘The God Delusion’
By RICHARD DAWKINS
The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and even - though he wouldn't have known the details at the time - of soil bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly shoring up the economy of the micro-world. Suddenly the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms and it led him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat.
In another time and place, that boy could have been me under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden. Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer. A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief. In his boyhood at least, my chaplain was presumably not aware (nor was I) of the closing lines of The Origin of Species - the famous 'entangled bank' passage, 'with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth'. Had he been, he would certainly have identified with it and, instead of the priesthood, might have been led to Darwin's view that all was 'produced by laws acting around us':
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:
Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.
Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.
Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. The dramatic (or was it mischievous?) ending of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, 'For then we should know the mind of God', is notoriously misconstrued. It has led people to believe, mistakenly of course, that Hawking is a religious man. The cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, in The Sacred Depths of Nature, sounds more religious than Hawking or Einstein. She loves churches, mosques and temples, and numerous passages in her book fairly beg to be taken out of context and used as ammunition for supernatural religion. She goes so far as to call herself a 'Religious Naturalist'. Yet a careful reading of her book shows that she is really as staunch an atheist as I am.
'Naturalist' is an ambiguous word. For me it conjures my childhood hero, Hugh Lofting's Doctor Dolittle (who, by the way, had more than a touch of the 'philosopher' naturalist of HMS Beagle about him). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, naturalist meant what it still means for most of us today: a student of the natural world. Naturalists in this sense, from Gilbert White on, have often been clergymen. Darwin himself was destined for the Church as a young man, hoping that the leisurely life of a country parson would enable him to pursue his passion for beetles. But philosophers use 'naturalist' in a very different sense, as the opposite of supernaturalist. Julian Baggini explains in Atheism: A Very Short Introduction the meaning of an atheist's commitment to naturalism: 'What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.'
Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.
Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply. This is certainly true of Einstein and Hawking. The present Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, told me that he goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican ... out of loyalty to the tribe'. He has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. In the course of a recently televised conversation, I challenged my friend the obstetrician Robert Winston, a respected pillar of British Jewry, to admit that his Judaism was of exactly this character and that he didn't really believe in anything supernatural. He came close to admitting it but shied at the last fence (to be fair, he was supposed to be interviewing me, not the other way around). When I pressed him, he said he found that Judaism provided a good discipline to help him structure his life and lead a good one. Perhaps it does; but that, of course, has not the smallest bearing on the truth value of any of its supernatural claims. There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also because of a confused and confusing willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein. They may not believe but, to borrow Dan Dennett's phrase, they 'believe in belief'.
One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.
Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
In greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own. Some of his religious contemporaries saw him very differently. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement 'I do not believe in a personal God.' This and similar statements provoked a storm of letters from the religiously orthodox, many of them alluding to Einstein's Jewish origins. The extracts that follow are taken from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (which is also my main source of quotations from Einstein himself on religious matters). The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kansas City said: 'It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.' Other Catholic clergymen chimed in: 'There is no other God but a personal God ... Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.' The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying.
An American Roman Catholic lawyer, working on behalf of an ecumenical coalition, wrote to Einstein:
We deeply regret that you made your statement ... in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America.
A New York rabbi said: 'Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism.'
'But'? 'But'? Why not 'and'?
The president of a historical society in New Jersey wrote a letter that so damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind, it is worth reading twice:
We respect your learning, Dr Einstein; but there is one thing you do not seem to have learned: that God is a spirit and cannot be found through the telescope or microscope, no more than human thought or emotion can be found by analyzing the brain. As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge. Every thinking person, perhaps, is assailed at times with religious doubt. My own faith has wavered many a time. But I never told anyone of my spiritual aberrations for two reasons: (1) I feared that I might, by mere suggestion, disturb and damage the life and hopes of some fellow being; (2) because I agree with the writer who said, 'There is a mean streak in anyone who will destroy another's faith.' ... I hope, Dr Einstein, that you were misquoted and that you will yet say something more pleasing to the vast number of the American people who delight to do you honor.
What a devastatingly revealing letter! Every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice.
Less abject but more shocking was the letter from the Founder of the Calvary Tabernacle Association in Oklahoma:
Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, 'We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from.' I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, 'Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land.'
The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist. So, was he a deist, like Voltaire and Diderot? Or a pantheist, like Spinoza, whose philosophy he admired: 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings'?
Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.
There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor. Paul Davies's The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism - for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion). . . .