CRITICAL THINKING: "Clear, accurate, knowledgeable, reflective and fair in deciding what to believe or do." Robert Todd Carroll, 2007 Here we come to the nub of WHY? I am alone in the venture at the moment, but I want to share this with others. Few have seen the project yet, so I have no idea how people will react to its content or this invitation to 'join'. Since I carry banners for evolution and flexibility I am ready to make course corrections in the development of the site in accordance and in agreement with the advice of those who do join me. I'm even prepared to adjust my notion that this will not attract any but the godless if, say, John Humphrys were to decide it looks like a good idea. His attempts to find God on BBC radio 4 were, I gather, inconclusive and he seems still to have a mind open to acceptance of a deity if eventually convinced. Now had I been him, I would have been (as I was) entirely unconvinced by the religion leaders he interviewed, but his open inquiring attitude to the question seems to have been acceptably Blue-Skye. [What did you think?] Also, there's a new book out called Thank God for Evolution by an American cleric called Michael Dowd (see bibliography at READING). I'm waiting for it to arrive. Might it transpire that he, though remaining a Christian, has thought this out Blue-Skye-wise and his conclusions might enrich our discussions? I don't doubt he'll make better biological sense than Ham, Safarti, Behe, Moses et al. (or whoever it was wrote that wretched Bronze-Age scroll that's the reason for all their silliness).
The following two quotations recently caused me to realise, "That's why I've created this website; to explore with other people the questions I am constantly asking myself."
http://www.edge.org: "To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other questions they are asking themselves."
"Since the deaths of Jim Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, I've been a little short of intellectual heroes to consult on difficult questions." Richard Dawkins speaking at AAI 2007.
A website was not my original intention. Having been voraciously learning the biology of evolution, kicked into action by an encounter with a conservative Christian who preposterated: "Of course, I don't believe in evolution", I came across the notion of critical thinking and recognised a useful concept to add to rationality. I realised that was what I was doing; had been doing for years as a sometimes quite polemical writer about ecology, town waits and bagpipe history. The people I admired were also critical thinkers. I was particularly struck by the number of non-gag-telling comedians whose thought processes resemble mine and humour is my humour (see my list of critical thinkers). It was Rowan Atkinson (Blackadder) who stepped forward to defend the right to ridicule the absurdities of religion.
Since I decided to devise a new website and hatched its title pun* I've been examining my intentions and motives. Sometimes the vision is clear and, therefore, possibly risky. Sometimes I haven't had a clue why I was preparing it which, if that's not dithering, then it shows that my intentions are flexible; future adaptable, if uncertain. All the way it was meant to be a sharing resource, involving friends whose views, opinions and intellects I respect, as well as being there to satisfy my desire to be heard that was not being fully satisfied by publications. I've had many successes in that area, but I have a lot more I want to say. I have had essays rejected and book proposals ignored. I have written and binned a lot of material. But that's an excellent way to get your thoughts in order. Essays thought perfect when originally crafted might later seem rather silly and, as knowledge accumulates and understanding grows, they can simply drift out of date. It's those that don't - often rewrites of earlier ideas - that become ready for others to read.
Then you have no idea what others will think of what you write, particularly if you've had the courage to highlight uncomfortable truths or express opinions. Your supporters will pat your back whilst objectors will write letters of outrage. I have found it's worthwhile looking to see whether or not the critic has hit out at the bits that really matter to me. Objections frequently turn out to have been generated by knee-jerk reactivity (indignation), the respondent having missed your point and become angry over a passing quip or comment that has offended them personally or a thesis has been entirely misunderstood because the reader's own agenda dominated and over-rode their interpretation.
If what you write is in print it's fixed that way until, if you're lucky, you can make adjustments in successive editions. If it's online you can adjust your published thoughts as often as reconsideration and advice from others requires. If you allow new knowledge brainspace you are constantly obliged (and, more to the point, able) to make shifts in your arguments. If, like me, you think evolution is a jolly good explanation for the history and present state of the natural world, then occam's razor - the philosophical tool that enables you to accept the simplest explanation [see footnote at the bottom of another page: click] - permits you through logic to exclude God from consideration. However, if, as Douglas Adams suggested (Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) you get hold of God's telephone number and have a chat with him about what he got up to during the Bronze Age, you might want to revise the theory. I would, and I'd pretty snappily amend ideas I had in print or here on the internet.
I know a lot of people whose minds I respect; people from whom I want to learn. There are lots of free-thinking sceptics on and around the Isle of Skye, many of whom are silent (not all) and whose voices I would like to hear. I want them to join in as contributors. There are lots more beyond the Skye region and ditto goes for them. I am aware that some people will be reluctant to put their name to anything that might be contentious. I intend that association with Blue-Skye Thinkers will have several levels of involvement. To keep out of the limelight, supporters and contributors can devise a pseudonym or take the option of anonymity.
15 January 2008: The Dowd book has arrived, as have several others, so I've had a chance to give it no more than a general scan. Hyped it may have been and self-trumpeted, but to me it looks a trifle weak. It begins with six pages of endorsements, with more on the cover. Biologists are conspicuously absent from this long list, and I recognise (and respect) but one name, Eugenie Scott of The National Centre for Science Education. Her 'recommendation' is uncharacteristically non-committal, other than where her enthusiasm for evolution makes its appearance: "Dowd shows that there are many ways to be a spiritual person and that all of them are enriched by an understanding of modern science, especially evolution."
Evolution happened. Such a well established biological phenomenon hardly needs God's support and excuses for his activities made by those who consider themselves to be in touch with him won't change the way things are. Dowd's book stays a way down my important reading list whilst those by Shubin, Carroll, Prothero, Sagan, Dawkins and others more usefully take my time and attention.
James Merryweather 05-04-08
____________________________
* I can see the Isle of Skye from my computer desk (and perversely there's a glorious red sunset at the moment). Our infrequent but very special, sunny blue-sky days - as on the home page - really clear the senses, stimulate the mind and inspire clear thinking. [The sea eagle, though frequently seen in the view depicted on the home page, is, I admit, a bit of photoshop jiggery-pokery.]