SCIENCE needs SPONTANEITY to rescue DARWIN

Overview

DO YOU SUFFER FROM A BLIND-FAITH IN SCIENCE? It’s easily done. Science and scientists make claims which are neither logically nor philosophically tenable. But, just as 400 years ago, if you don’t believe in the prevailing dogma, then, ipso facto, you are excommunicated, without further thought. This happens routinely today, in psychiatry. Indeed, this paper outlines 6 elusive facets that are indispensable for sanity – but which are automatically anathematised by an over-scientific medical ethos. Can philosophy save us in time?

DARWIN oblated the religious doctrine that some sort of ill-defined entity (commonly labelled “God”) had created the world, and all its living inhabitants. He pointed out that, on the contrary, there was abundant objective non-theological evidence that every single living organism had evolved under its own steam. This was a “Shock-Horror” from which few religions have ever recovered. Certainly, Scientific Dogma hasn’t even begun. Has the time come for a Second Reformation?

“Science” abhors spontaneity. At its very inception, it was intended to replace un-thought-through assumptions, often disguised as superstition, with logical, mathematical, non-subjective reasoning. It has therefore been compelled to assume that we continue to live in a Clock Work Universe – in which maths is the supreme science – and we subjective humans are far too prone to daydreams.

Do you honestly believe we do live in a Clock Work Universe? Or are we endowed with some measure of spontaneity, that enables us to alter the environment around us in ways which contravene the over-sanctified “Laws” of physics?

For, just when you thought it was safe to put all your faith into the purity of mathematics – and leave all lesser mortals to bite the dust – here is an epochal contest been Real Life and Theoretical Numbers. It all turns on a simple chemical, without which you couldn’t even begin to think, let alone wake up in the morning. Yet you can buy it in any health food store. But mark this well – no scientist on this earth will ever be able to synthesise it, reliably and consistently in a test tube – certainly not with a purity rate that even begins to approach 2%.

At this point eyes tend to glaze over, and interest to fade away – it’s probably some weird and wonderful Quaker notion that can readily be dismissed as being grossly unscientific. Well, if you’re prepared to unpick today’s scientific hegemony, then this paper offers a common enough omega-3 fatty acid which can only be synthesised with 100% reliability in living unicellular organisms, especially plankton, in a consistent manner which no scientist now, or ever, can.

And it matters. If you think war is insane, which as a consultant psychiatrist (retd), I do – then you are going to need a philosophy (or religion) that allows at least most of the 6 elusive values mentioned herein, to thrive. My personal choice is Non-Theist Quakerism – but feel free to experiment – just as long as you prioritise integrity of reasoning, over “Scientism”, and thereby ­begin to feel the need for a Second Reformation.

What to Expect

The Lit & Phil Philosophy Forum is a space where serious ideas meet joyful exploration. Whether you are a seasoned philosopher or a curious newcomer, our discussions are designed to foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry. We prioritize respectful dialogue, intellectual curiosity, and the shared pursuit of understanding over adversarial debate. This is philosophy as it should be—dynamic, inclusive, and profoundly engaging.

Practical Details

The focus paper will be available for attendees at the event.

Note on Attendance: Due to the popularity of these events, places are often fully booked. If you reserve a ticket but later find you cannot attend, we kindly ask that you cancel promptly to allow others the opportunity to join.

Disclaimer: The paper reflects the author’s personal opinions and interpretations. It is based on his own research and on a previously published paper referenced herein. The Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society does not endorse or verify the content and accepts no responsibility for its veracity, accuracy, completeness, or for any outcomes arising from reliance upon it. All statements and conclusions are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Society.