Throughout history, by far most of my fellow-intellectuals (idea-mongers) had so little authentic intelligence, emotion and moral strength that they used to adjust to the most bizarre traditions, the cruellest cultures and the most irrational religions. They simply massively practised more abstract variants of ‘Befehl ist Befehl’ (an order is an order). What’s wrong with me if I feel superior to them?!
Five arguments that each separately demonstrate that our current Western establishment, too, is not really in good faith
Whistle-blowers, after having been fired or otherwise forced out, far more often than not, will have great difficulty in finding a new job. Inescapable conclusion: employers overwhelmingly prefer those solidary with ‘local vested interests’ to people who deem the common good and moral principles to be even more vital.
In by far most cultures tradition, the law and religion did more to frustrate or taboo rather than help as to satisfying the individual’s sex urge, that probably is in principle the major source of happiness. In this context, also think of the social position of women. Even in modern ‘liberal’ society repression is so radical that hardly a few people realize the two single most important sources of frustration of sex: scarcity of ‘sexy’ people and a ‘market’ in partners that hardly evolved since the Batavians, looking away from internet dating.
In the course of history, man never had much problem with other people’s lives or deaths. Think of (cruel) wars and death penalties, unfit ships and other ‘money-making instruments’, death by neglect (hunger, medical care,…) . But about all governments and ‘moral authorities’ have extraordinarily many problems with dead for mercy: euthanasia.
Evidently, our current leaders often deem technicalities leading to a defendant’s release, privacy and many other rights of the accused more important than justice in the moral sense being done. Also, inter alia, lawyers often make prevail the interests of their clients on the truth being found, without ‘the ruling class’ objecting; a similar thing holds as to endlessly setting free multi-repeaters (who commit most crimes). Such formalism is far from the community being an ally of good and straightforwardness against evil and suffering. Our leaders acquiesced in all of this, one of the consequences is a complication that makes calling on the justice can only be paid by the rich and the (subsidized) poor.
Even less than in integrity, our authorities as well as our intelligentsia are interested in the most important thing there is, i.e. the average genetic quality of relevant populations from which, in the last resort, all other qualities and their opposites in a society stem from, just as the qualities of ape communities are ultimately highly defined by the animals’ genes. Such disinterest is evident from the relevant authorities’ passiveness as regards, say, the procreation of habitual criminals and anti-socials. Neither the authorities, nor the intelligentsia, for the rest, will show any but very incidental enthusiasm with respect to genetic engineering intending to accelerate an evolution that otherwise will require extreme sacrifices (compare biological and social histories)..
Two main causes by which the world is so immoral and represses integer thinking
The American philosopher John Dewey observed: ‘If people once would start thinking, nobody can predict the consequences, except that many persons, ideas and institutions would be certainly doomed’. My conclusion: many in our society have a vested interest in people not at all engaging in such activity (thinking), and try to see to its being reduced to what’s necessary for practical purposes.
In by far most cultures or communities, there is an integrating socio-religious complex of ideas that not only integrates but – it’s a mere one step away – conforms too. It offers safety and hope to the masses or public and status and (more) inviolability to the power elites. Both anti-enlightened tendencies – the ‘Dewey variant’ and the religious-ideological one – join in censoring reason and conforming the public. Let’s not allow them to overwhelm truth, value and quality!
Historically, we see the relevant socio-religion or ideology appear in the superstitions, taboos, etc. of primitive tribes, poly- and monotheistic classical religions and ideologies such as nationalism, traditionalism, fascism, and many variants of socialism. As far as they are dominating, they will function as the mainstream way of thinking that at the same time shields and integrates the main leading interests in society, of which they are the ideological ‘component’. And, of course, they gave and give much comfort and hope too.
In any case society (‘the world’) will not be reasonably moral if important tendencies in it turn against substantial thinking and foster conformism. Generally, we can even say that the evils, and failures in solving problems, in a society will mainly be due to the unenlightened features of its solidarity ideology. That is, the evils of the Middle Ages were mainly implied by the irrational aspects of the Church and its pseudo-truths, those of the past century by nationalism and similar ideologies, and those of the Third World by its innumerable irrational values, traditions, vested interests, taboos, inefficiencies etc.
Currently dominating in the West: the egalitarian, other-directed form of solidarity religion
In our democratic, affluent and anti-authoritarian era, hardly any else solidarity ideology can maintain itself but precisely the one meant above: the egalitarian other-directed one (the concept other-directed has been introduced by David Riesman). It is characterized by relativism, the idea that man’s faculties, ideas and preferences are mainly defined by his environment rather than genes and that culture is the rightful source of values, purposes and partly even truth. This causes such solidarity religion to not much underperform authoritarian brands (such as orthodoxies) as to conforming effects.
The core theses of the egalitarian-other-directed kind of solidarity ideology that now calls the tune are that, genetically and as to moral value and quality, all people are roughly of the same value and, second, that values are a matter of socio-cultural agreement. Because this position implies Nazi-Germany’s values to be irrefutable by objective rational argument, and also has the consequence that a universe in which I am tortured and another one in which I am not – all other things being the same – cannot be discriminated by the latter being objectively better, I deem the position of moral relativism untenable.
We see current ‘religion’ clearly expressing itself in emotional opposition against eugenics and genetic manipulation applied to man (both are seen and opposed lnow as a devaluation of real, existing man). Also, it manifests itself in the emotionally based objections to curtail immigration from low-IQ regions, or at least their radical selection.
Note here that in most sections of this website we also discussed the antithesis of pro- and anti-red thread (pro- and anti-enlightened) tendencies in culture and society. We even concluded that the relevant antithesis was and is at the core of socio-cultural dynamics, already so because of the circumstance that it can explain simply and coherently more phenomena from fewer causes than other theories. We now even more articulate this frame of explanation.
Current egalitarian solidarity religion is ‘simply’ a major component of current anti-red-thread (anti-enlightened) forces more generally; a similar thing held with respect to other cultures and historical periods. That is, solidarity religions (ideologies), far more often than not, will be part and parcel of the anti-enlightened socio-cultural established forces in a relevant society. The solidarities in question have their good sides, too, but the world has/had more to expect from Galileo, Spinoza and Voltaire than Aquinas and anti-Enlightenment.
At various occasions we emphasized that it is a major strength of our socio-cultural theory, that aims at explaining about all important socio-cultural phenomena by their role (function) in the conflict or antithesis of pro- and anti-enlightened interests in the relevant society. We implicitly summarize the theory in question by showing how it widely outperforms others as to simplicity and coherence; that is, in explanatory power:
It explains ‘rightist’ sexual taboos throughout history as an analogue on the level of the emotions and instincts – of Freud’s Es or Id – of what traditional censorship is on the level of reason and the intellect. Or, such taboos aim at frustrating ‘free trade in emotions and instincts analogously to how traditional censorship aims at frustrating free trade in ideas. In both cases the censorship comes from the desire of authorities to keep people dumb, inexperienced, inarticulate and, therefore, easier to manipulate.
It explains – as a second disguised anti-enlightened tendency in present society – a massive wave of irrational (incoherent) art and philosophy. We see the first as ‘modern’ or ‘abstract’ art and the second (existentialism, postmodernism, structuralism,…) as no longer discriminating between good , evil, truth and lies. Most modern philosophers posit or suggest that the world is incoherent , man is irrational, whereas art and philosophy should not at all bring us nearer to some understandable model of the universe.
As a third disguised anti-enlightened tendency in the modern world we can see anti-semitism that fits in our theory as an ideological opposition against the many innovative and progressive ideas that were disproportionally often introduced by Jews (think of physics, psychology, socialism, international banking, film,…).
One more specimen of a reactionary force (tendency, idea, mentality,…), that also disguises itself as ‘progressive’, we remind of the rather general sympathy, particularly among ‘progressive’ intellectuals, of Third-World civilizations, anti-individualism and anti-rationalism included. Note that the anti-enlightened tendencies summed up here more generally purport to be liberal-leftist. For without such disguise they would not be accepted in modern society.
Further, we mention what will be called ‘progressive educational reforms’ that actually boil down to a far from progressive substitution of the primacy of the intellectual dimension by that of the social one. That is, by a primary role of the egalitarian-other-directed solidarity religion that is now our mainstream ideology.
Finally, note that the so-called ‘new way of thinking’ in quantum mechanics (QM) – that contains the abandoning of imaginable models in micro-physics, just as that of the Aha-Erlebnis as a condition of explanation and insight – fits in the above series of reason-devaluing positions too. That is, the standpoint that the only thing a good quantum theory should do is produce formalisms correctly predicting the outcome of experiments (statistically). This is abandoning the idea of understanding itself: coherence and, therefore, science. This joins with postmodernism, existentialism and ‘the ‘absurd’ in the domain of art. Indeed, Shakespeare was right: ’There is a tide in the affairs of man’...
Reminding of our above remark about solidarity ideologies being the main cause of problems remaining unsolvable in a relevant society, we refer to our list above: most ‘unsolvable’ problems related to the list remain unsolvable [think of poverty and other social problems, such as crime, education (comprehensive school,…),…] because ideology taboos eugenics and more extensive euthanasia on account of ‘inviolability of human life’. Otherwise, eugenics, genetic engineering, euthanasia, also as to the seriously handicapped newborns would much more easily be applied. Also, aiming at more equality in education is the source of many difficulties there.
Actual take-over of sociology by current solidarity religion
It characterizes the state of sociology that it failed in drawing our conclusion about the establishment from the five points with which we started, and no less failed in producing anything comparable with our explanation of the above six major phenomena (sexual taboos,… ) as disguised anti-enlightened unconscious ‘conspiracies’. What’s even more, hardly anyone is interested in any demonstrations about the moral level of our establishment or in deep coherence in social forces or actions that obviously deserve the name unconscious conspiracies in cases of negative implications for whomever.
We see, therefore, that we cannot speak of anything like explanatory power of current socio-cultural sciences because they fail as soon as relevant explanations would expose something. Note here that possible ‘conspiracy theories‘ are nothing else but theories that prove or make plausible that cooperation of (un)conscious interests can indeed appear to some degree in society.
The foregoing shows that our current egalitarian-other-directed solidarity ideology is so much more influential than was thought up to now that interest-defined taboos, inter alia, make it impossible that anti-egalitarian positions in sociology could maintain themselves like these:
Third-World countries should reproach their evils to their own non-individualistic and non-rationalistic value systems, and to the average IQ of their populations. Or:
Leftist political parties will (unconsciously?) foster Third-World immigration into the West because ‘disadvantaged’ immigrants will disproportionately tend to vote leftist. Note here that generally politicians will be driven by self-interest.
As an implication, conformism and ‘other-directedness’ even in social science are so radical that none of the ideas that make this website particular could indeed ever emerge in the current climate of mainstream thought. Not those about sexuality, not those about anti-semitism or those about ‘progressive’ education.
On the general-philosophical basis of my thought
The best of the worlds is one in which those who are in the right are put in the right too. It cannot be denied that the Founding Forces of the world themselves made evil inevitable by their co-basing evolution on conflicts and competition that often imply the defeat of those who are in the right. Or, the suffering of both losers and winners. My hypothesis is that those Founding Forces had no choice: the best of the worlds cannot but emerge from evolution, it cannot from sorcery.
There is an objective basis of values: compare a world in which I am tortured for an hour and another one in which I am not, all other things being the same in the two worlds. Then the second one is objectively more desirable, that is, better. Exit relativism.’
Moral relativism is so much crazy that its large-scale appearance cannot but (hiddenly) serve some interest. I suggest it is this interest: the option of choosing those values and/or truths that are most favourable for ourselves. That is, relativism is a philosophical tric attuned to disguisedly eliminate from the discussion the concepts of truth, the morally good and the idea of quality.
In my The Scientifization of Culture (Van Gorcum&Co., 1994) and on this website so much has been said about our philosophical basis that a mere list of (almost self-evident) summarizing theses will suffice here:
‘Nothing exists but facts and relations between facts’ (Hippolyte Taine);
The model of the world that is the simplest and most coherent most deserves the qualification ‘best approximation of truth or reality’.
Acting morally just is acting in such way that to the best of your knowledge the total (joint) happiness of all conscious beings is optimum; here unhappiness should figure as negative happiness. In cases in which it cannot at least approximately be surmised how to optimize total happiness, your choice or decision is morally indifferent: Act as you like. Note in particular that such ethics has seldom been in the interest of the powerful. Therefore, we don’t hear much about it
Recent major development
In the latest half-century we saw a tendency of serious, scientific, thought or philosophy in the traditionally most advanced countries being abandoned at all and substituted by practical advice about how to live and by interest in amusement, the here and now and the incidental. Note that this and many inanities of everyday life – that, for the rest, is experienced as a series of coincidences – actually boil down to abandoning serious thinking in the first place. This was precisely the central purpose of those ‘doomed’ in Dewey’s argument we started with above.
To make things worse, currently dominating solidarity religion – the egalitarian-other-directed-postmodern (incoherent) one – breathes the same spirit, so that various kindred tendencies reinforce each other, and that in an anti-enlightened spirit. We may hope that the forces of coherence and reason will clearly regain the upper hand on the ‘chaotists’, inter alia, by their results being cumulative.
Illustrative is NRC Handelsblad, the liberal-intellectual establishment media organ in Holland for more than a century. On March 6, 2013, it started as follows: p. 1 completely devoted to the doping affair around Michael Boogaard; p. 2: editorial on the same affair; pp. 4 and 5 were also completely devoted to the same item..
Our recent economic problems: recessions, inflating debts and banks not lending sufficiently
Already in my book Vooruitgang, cultuur en maatschappij (Stafleu &Co., 1959) I devoted a chapter to fighting economic recessions. The core of its content was that
At the core of recessions, of inflated debts (with the state, of house buyers [mortgage debtors], of consumers or business,… is that some people or other instances have less buying power than corresponds with the full-employment national production capacity. Then, such buying power should be increased. That is, increased to a level the production capacity can optimally ‘bear’. This is so much evident that it should be at the start of all textbooks. (For details see this website Secs. 4.3 and 2.5, Chapt. 6 point 13.
It is obvious that the non-application of the relevant remedy (artificially increasing buying power) very probably has the same reason as social evils will always have, viz. the inordinate power and the mentality of vested interests. Most politicians feel that they should be approached with great respect and care, rather than to be forced efficiently, swiftly and by all available means to put first and foremost the public interest. Unions, business, farmers, the medical and educational establishments et cetera should all do so. This implies that, say, if wage or price controls are necessary organised groups should conform to this priority of inflation fighting. In World War II in the US they worked well under the direction of economist J.K. Galbreath. Rather recently, my remedy against buying power falling short and against inordinate debts (e.g., of the Greek government) has been applied on a large scale by Ben Bernanke of the American FED and by the EU. The difference between my application and theirs is that I aimed at benefitting consumers and they did so with respect to governments, banks and various debtor categories, to which many billions of ‘created’ money were transferred, rather than to consumers. Still, the money helped the credit side of the national budget and, therefore, reduced the national debt , thus benefitting the public.
It has been endlessly repeated that creating additional money increases inflation. A simple argument suffices for demonstrating that this need not be true precisely in the relevant situations in which public buying power should increase in order to end or prevent a recession. The argument reads as follows: Start from a situation of recession; print just as much additional money (distributing it among consumers) as is needed to restore the general buying power that was effective at the top of the preceding boom period. Then, no inordinate inflation will appear after the money distribution since both the production capacity and the demand will now be what they were at the preceding top of the boom: supply and demand will continue their previous equilibrium.
One asks oneself what the motives are at the background of the long-term non-application of our anti-recession proposal. There may be mainly two. First, there may be an instinctive aversion of the rich as to creating more money. That is, more of the ‘asset’ they have a quasi-monopoly of. This leads to ‘the inflation sentiment’. Second, application of my proposal will indeed sometimes imply the subjugation of group interests to the common good. Think of possible wage and price controls my approach may imply in some cases and the reactions of unions and business. This means that in the last resort our economic project – just as most others among our approaches of social evils – find various group and vested interests opposing them, openly or more often indirectly.
Our approach of recent or current problems – such as banks radically reducing lending – is that with all of them the state should see to it that buying power is managed ‘by all means available to a rough full-employment level. In, say, credit-crunch conditions one should do so by completing the banks’ relevant ‘lending capacity’. In sum, the core of government policies should amount to keep the economy in a state on the brink of what mainstream economists will call ‘overheating’. Or, to formulate things somewhat differently: we need a continuous war economy in which the guns and planes are substituted by broadly varied techno-science. That is, research and development. That’s progress-oriented economic policy. In the present practice, purely capitalistic or socio-capitalistic, we see both government and the rich overspend at the cost of long-term investment, this corresponding with a hedonistic here-and-now mentality. It is not merely in ‘progressive’ education (postmodern, incoherent) philosophy and literature, politics and questions of the meaning of life where man’s priorities shifted to the inane, the incoherent and the short term. Those meant in our Dewey quotation will also encourage this variant of anti-enlightenment.
It is increasing the coherence of the general argument above if we realize that the sad condition of Third-World countries rather completely stems from their own un-enlightened (non-rational and non-individualistic) value systems, in addition to their respective average IQ’s.
Remark: In actual fact, I proposed extensively and predicted at least three major ‘revolutions’. That is, the Bernanke financial one and the sexual one, rational sex markets in the shape of internet dating included. Finally, for various decades I publicly proposed giving the right to the parents of seriously handicapped newborns to opt for euthanasia for the latter. I now read in NRC Handelsblad of March 8, 2013, that ‘off the record, such euthanasia is rather frequently practised by Dutch doctors.
Continuing predicting, I foresee for this century
Massive embryo selection, genetic engineering to improve intelligence, corporal beauty et cetera. Obligatory sterilization applied to chronic offenders and genetic problem cases will complete this.
I predict a radical change of our model of man in the sense of demystification and disenchantment or scientifization of man because of the increasing stream of bio-psychological discoveries about man from the laboratories. Advanced dating services that offer much more dependable information about their participants will complete the quality and efficiency of the sex market and, therewith, co-implement the sexual revolution by even more putting the qualities of individuals first and foremost rather than whatever other factors. The bio-generic revolution will ‘secularize’ man also in the sense of undoing his irrational and/or romantic status in the current, also post-christian, solidarity ideology. This will also have repercussions as to, say, our approach of, inter alia, the hopelessly mentally ill and euthanasia applied to them.
The meaning of life and of the world
Most people derive their convictions about the ‘great things’ – such as the meaning of life and a possible survival after death – from their social environment. This implies meaninglessness of our existence to be the leading assumption as to man’s destiny in an egalitarian-other-directed ambiance as ours. People are not on their ways to something important in a relativistic culture but aim at enjoying consumption and the coincidences of life. James Burnham observed that in the Middle-Ages many more people than now were ready to die for something. The sad thing, however, was that most among the sacrifice-ready were manipulated into such state by ‘special interests’ – kings, churches, war lords, fanatics, … – selling ‘ímponderablesi in the nth dimension’ (Veblen).
The experiences that living organisms will seek lust or well-being – integrated in a more comprehensive evolution or not – are very subtly coherent by such very evolution and other laws of nature. Therefore, it is rather obvious that we start from the preliminary working hypothesis that the meaning of existence – of life, the world and everything – is expressing truth and positive values in a subtle and coherent way. Man and his expressions are hypothesized to be special instances of such ‘God in the process of evolutionary construction’. Individuals and groups should be much animated in cooperating in the relevant construction. Progress, science and our personal and collective evolution are part and parcel of it.
Seeing around us, we observe that only a small minority is interested at all in the relevant meaning of life. On the contrary, far more emotions and strivings are invested in the strife of special interests (think of politics etc.) or the draining of emotions by the utmost irrelevant that sports is. For, is it more relevant to compete as to the time in which one can run 100m than it is to do so with the one needed to paint 100 standard stones blue? Meaningful dynamics is indeed not in its heydays now. And what to say about so-called ‘novels’ describing how largely arbitrary individuals get at largely arbitrary final situations via also largely coincidental interactions with others on their ways to nowhere. Overseeing greater socio-cultural contexts, there is indeed a message: ‘Let’s stop thinking and feeling coherently.’ That is, our present point again fits in the more comprehensive anti-enlightened pattern we discussed above (that of educational reforms, sexual taboos,…). Indeed, John Dewey’s ‘doomed’ do not surrender without fighting back.
General conclusion: One vital choice in our lives decides about both the moral quality of such lives and about whether we are in a position to practise sound social science .That is, the decision whether to identify ourselves with either the truth and moral quality (authentic integrity) or join with what we see around us: being a‘realist’ and only pursue the successful. The latter may mean a career as a sportsman, a social or physical theoretician (mainstreamer) or integration in a social group (intellectuals….). Realize here that, inter alia, current preoccupation with sports (results) comes from the wish to identify himself with winners, just as preferring mainstream standpoints or snobbery do so. And, we should add, just as massive preference as to dominating solidarity ideologies or clothes’ fashion does. Or, conformism is massively popular because it is the most dependable way to success.
At the same time, our identification with truth and enlightened values – with faith, hope and love – also essentially defines our position and results as a scientist in vital respects.
Though the preceding paragraph actually amounts to an appeal to my fellowmen to take pure religion seriously, my personal religiosity is far from the current humility passing for devotion. For – only late in my life, I have to admit – I came to the insight that, whatever power, intentions and mentality the Founding Forces (‘God’) might have or have not, it cannot be denied that on a factual basis this planet is very similar to a concentration camp in which, it is true, a minority of the inmates lives reasonably well but that as a core feature shows that ‘the Leaders’ to all appearance distribute death, tragedy and anxiety quite arbitrarily without any shadow of responsibility or explanation of this suffering. As only ‘excuse’ as to ‘the cruel regime‘ allowed us to understand that death is inevitable because of the mere laws of chemistry. Further, all information as to the purpose of all of this is lacking. Would it be endangered if we knew?
Neither the true Christian believers, nor typical modern chaotists (probabilists, postmodernists, and the typical adherents of our egalitarian-other-directed current ideology have much difficulty with this moral abyss. Their respective solutions: ‘God has His own reasons’ (compare Job of the Bible) and ‘the universe is incoherent as it is, and why should it bother about us and our problems?’
My answer to both the religiously orthodox and the ‘chaotists’ (‘the universe has no meaning’) boils down to demonstrating that some kind of physical-scientific’ Supreme Being cannot but exist including intelligence and conscíousness. That is, a Supreme Instance that we humans indeed can in principle judge by the standards of reason and moral consciousness. My argument reads as follows:
Before any possible Creation or Big Bang there was in any case truth, such as 3+ 4 = 7 and, not independently of it, 4 + 5 = 9, and all logical, mathematical and other facts, truths and the innumerable mutual relations and connections among them. Now, as to such relations, there are two possibilities: they hold by coincidence or not. The probability of the first case is zero because of the extreme number of relations. Then, the only remaining option is that the network of relations between truths, already before any possible Big Bang or Creation, was coherent intelligence. It was just as coherent and intelligence-based as the network of myriad logical, mathematical or whatever relations between truths that order the present world. Now note that not merely intelligent but even consciousness co-orders our present universe. For, if a huge network of coherent truths appears to exist, its very coherence implies that some truths and their relations experience something like Einstein in his discovering Relativity in his experiencing Aha-Erlebnisse of the character or quality ‘Things telly if I hypothesize their relations to be so and so! ‘Nature, additionally to Einstein’s ‘passive’ Aha-Erlebnisse about them, even realized or produced the coherent relations. That is, the relevant relations should at least be as conscious as the revolutionary physicist in his ‘merely’ recognizing various relations of truths by consciously recognizing: things telly if I hypothesize their satisfying the relations the Special Theory assumes. In sum: real conscious insight is needed for nature to cause relationships and intelligent patterns they constitute to be no mere a coincidence, a possibility already disqualified.
In actual fact, the above is a kind of ‘demonstration of God’s existence’. As to the concept of consciousness see also my paper Consciousness and the coherence of natural law (Physics Essays, Vol. 19 , pp. 200 – 224.) In essence, consciousness is recognizing truth; not in the way a computer or AI instrument can (they derive the relevant recognitions from man), but in the way nature itself can, in us such as in Einstein in his Aha-experiences.
The essence of consciousness is such very experiencing. Concluding, we can say that by the very nature of logic a state of the world without intelligence and consciousness is impossible, just as, say, a three-dimensional reality is inherently impossible. (A state without consciousness is impossible because reality cannot do without relations among truths and the mere recognition of truths needs the conscious Aha-Erlebnis .) In addition, the nature of consciousness implies: if elementary or compound particles are without consciousness (‘dead as a doornail’), they remain so if generating (larger) compounds. This is directly related to the fact that consciousness has to do with relations among truths rather than compounds of component particles (such as computers).
On the relevance of the above to our view on life
If logic, mathematics and natural law left open even the slightest latitude for concepts such as ‘fundamental uncertainty’, ‘free will’ and whatever kind of irreducible ‘fuzziness’, I would feel abandoned to basically troubled waters: I would no longer experience the Laws of the universe to be on my side if I would fell victim to evil or untruths. Anxiety of death could not but return to my life. And I could not but reproach it to ‘God’.
The forgoing has consequences for our general attitude to life in particular as to whether there is a scientific basis in the nature of the universe that points to one purpose, one ethics and one comprehensive coherent model of all that exists on which man should base his ultimate choices instead of the case that no arguments can be found that cause one set of choices to be objectively better than others. Compare here our earlier example of comparing my being tortured or not.