Matter Can’t Make Mind: Part One

There are many excellent reasons why materialism is likely to be false. Let us start with the nature of matter itself.

What is ‘Matter’?

(1) The man-in-the-street usually claims to ‘know by experience what matter is‘. Dr Johnson is famous for impersonating the man-in-the-street by kicking a stone. He thought this showed that solid matter was indeed solid. But what did he actually prove? Nothing. The pain he got in his foot merely shows what we all know, namely that ‘Matter’ is simply the way mind perceives its surroundings as they appear to us through our senses, namely as hard / soft, cold / hot, noisy, painful, colourful / dark, etc. In this case it appeared as hard and painful. In other words, matter is appearance.

The quantum physicist Nick Herbert very nicely says that we human beings resemble King Midas. Everything he touched turned into gold – including his daughter and his food, so that he would have starved to death both emotionally and physically had the god Dionysos not taken pity on him. Herbert says we ‘can’t directly experience the true texture of reality because everything we touch turns to matter.

(2) So now let’s put this question to the physicist, for it is popularly held that he knows what matter is. When facing this same question, Sir Arthur Eddington gives the example of an elephant sliding down a grassy slope. So as to handle this situation in science, he explains, you turn it into pointer readings or their equivalents. You turn the elephant into a weight (mass), the grassy slope into an angle of 60o, the grass into a coefficient of friction – and so on. As Eddington carefully explains, concrete reality disappears, and abstract measurements take its place.

Thus we are, I fear, again disappointed, for the physicist does not claim to ‘know what matter is‘. Science is humanity’s most majestic creation. On the one hand it has taught us rigour, on the other it has magnified our sense of wonder. But it neither replaces nor replicates reality. It merely gives us an abstract account of reality, which enables us to manipulate it better. That is to say that the physicist deals, not with ‘matter itself’ (whatever that might be) but rather with those aspects of appearance which can be quantified, reduced to measurements, and thereby modelled and manipulated. And of course modern science has enabled us to do this to a remarkable degree.

(3) What do we conclude? Well, for the man-in-the-street ‘matter’ is the impression given of it by our various senses. Moreover there is a natural tendency to assimilate the notion of ‘matter’ to the harder and more impenetrable side of our experiences with the outer world. For the scientist it is rather different: ‘matter’ is those aspects of the world that he can measure or model. For him, there is a natural tendency to see matter, measure it, test it, judge its nature via the exceedingly successful tool of mathematics. For the scientist, the living reality of the experienced world thus literally disappears into abstractions.

The ‘true nature‘ of matter is absent from both these views, nor is it possible to ascertain what that ‘true nature‘ might be. There is nothing very surprising about this outcome, since everything we know about the outer world is actually indirect: it is transmitted and transmuted to us through our senses, and interpreted through the conscious and unconscious areas of our minds.

Help from Berkeley

Now it is essential to observe the subject of discussion properly, and to define it as accurately as we can. One must admit that clarity is not always attainable, and that mystery is frequently unavoidable. In this case however I believe that the definition I shall propose will not only provide some clarity but also a degree of enlightenment.

Let us therefore take the philosopher Berkeley’s view of matter. I do not accept the final conclusions of Berkeleyan philosophy, but his starting point embodies a remarkable insight. For him, there are basically two elements in nature: (1) percipere (what perceives and cannot by its nature be perceived), i.e. consciousness, and – its reverse or polar twin: (2) percipi (what is perceived and cannot by its nature perceive), i.e. matter. This is quite close to the view which Indian philosophy has always taken, namely that the division is not between soul and body, or mind and matter, but between consciousness and appearance. We shall see that this makes all the difference to our way of thinking about reality.

(Let me at once point out, before proceeding with the argument, that materialists entirely agree with Berkeley’s definition of matter: that is, they entirely agree that matter can be perceived but does not perceive. We shall return to this issue in a moment.)

I shall immediately say that I take this view of the question to be, observably, correct. It is quite literally a matter of observation, and any dispassionate person can see at once that this is the way things are. The material objects we observe in the world around us are quite evidently perceptible by consciousness, yet themselves devoid of consciousness; whereas the living persons we also experience around us are (pace arguments about solipsism ) evidently observing beings. Yet it is impossible for any consciousness to enter another consciousness and perceive the latter’s own perceptions. This is one of the most important lessons we absorb in early childhood when learning how to understand the actions of people around us. Importantly, nobody can perceive my perceiving. The scientist can open up my brain but he still cannot perceive my perceiving. Yes, he can fix a device to my skull and see where in my brain certain impulses are happening. But that is still not observing what and how my experiences are. We must be thankful for this, because otherwise we would soon have totalitarians, fascists, communists, and in due course no doubt Iranian ayatollahs, all seeking direct mind-control of their subjects. As Genoud writes in the JCS,

Can consciousness be sought out by seeing? Can it be known by hearing, touching, or thinking? If that were so, consciousness would be a shape and colour, a sound, a tactile sensation, a thought. None of which is true.

As I say, impartial experience shows that the Berkeleyan claim as to percipere and percipi is the way to define the fundamental split between matter and mind. The two poles – which I shall continue to call by their Latin names percipere and percipi — what perceives and what is perceived — are mutually exclusive. To put it another way, one might say that (1) consciousness is an inside without an outside, and that (2) matter is an outside without an inside. To state it this way is to enunciate an apparent paradox. But clearly this is because consciousness and matter are paradoxical when taken separately. Taken together, they are complementary.

Percipere and percipi are two mutually exclusive categories. Each is everything the other is not; and each is nothing that the other is. Consciousness and matter are thus reverse or polar twins. I am reminded of one of Jorge Luis Borges’s short stories, where he speaks of the Disc of Odin. This impossible object is a disc with only a single side. It follows therefore that, if you drop it and it lands face down, you’ll never find it again. Consciousness and matter are, I would suggest, a pair: two Discs of Odin.

There is one exception to this absolute law. It is a single exception, yet we all experience it every minute. The perceiver is never the perceived and the perceived is never the perceiver, except in one case. For everyone’s personal consciousness can of course perceive itself. So the impassable gulf is resolved in one case and in one case only, with subject and object knowing each other reflexively. Consciousness is the only thing that knows itself, i.e. only consciousness resolves the ultimate ontological chasm between perceiver and perceived.

Here an important metaphysical claim may be made. Nor is this step (except in the fashionable view of our contemporaries) daring at all: it is merely the sort of thing that many great philosophies of the past believed in. Consciousness may be an element of the Ultimate. The World, we may guess, is the result of splitting apart from each other the two fundamental principles or elements, percipere the perceiver & percipi the perceived.


Note: Consciousness is abbreviated throughout as ‘css’,
Universe as ‘U’.

Tools for Thinking


A writer has a duty to be so clear that you can see when he’s cheating.


What is stupidity? Thinking you can’t be wrong.


‘In Science, you can have as many dimensions as you want, provided none of them contains ghosts, life after death, God, or contradicts Charles Darwin.’
You can also have as many Universes as you want. (Adapted from Scarlett Thomas, The End of Mr Y, p 19.)


Some thinkers prefer straitjackets to ideas.


Science has satisfied our yearning for magic. All the ancient spells (7-league boots, far-seeing mirror on the wall, etc.) except the cloak of invisibility have been created.
But does that mean it can tell us everything? That it not only disproves all religions but replaces them?


Even clever people make mistakes. The cleverer they are, the more ingenious their mistakes and the more wary we must be of being deceived.


Are emotions necessary for intelligence?
Yes. People who lack emotions don’t seem to be intelligent in quite the right way.


If you forbid mysteries, then no-one will ever again discover anything.


Academics practise a closed shop. Free speech in academe is allowed only within frontiers, not across them. They build impenetrable walls around their “fields”. Anyone who blithely trespasses on someone else’s field must never be mentioned again.


Some philosophers find language such a powerful tool that they began to think it was the test of every truth.
And some find science such a powerful tool that any question it can’t answer can’t be a real question. (“Arrest that question! Gag it! Forbid it to speak!”)


The psychologically insecure, who insist on certainty;
The psychologically secure, who can tolerate doubt.


As in the lecture hall. Understanding is not a word-perfect repetition of the lesson. That is parroting.
Understanding is digestion, assimilation, adaptation to one’s own purposes, living the lesson meaningfully.
Word-perfect repetition is a proof you have not understood. Machines therefore cannot qualify for understanding.


Words cannot describe, because they don’t have colour, taste, sound, shape, texture, etc. They merely POINT at things that have colour, taste, etc. It’s our minds, our remembered experience, which fills in the gaps left by those absent colours, tastes, shapes, etc.
The word “Manchester” is like a road-sign pointing to Manchester. It doesn’t “contain” or “describe” the city, it merely points at it.


The “Table-Leg Problem”. There was no word for the supports of tables and chairs. So people were forced to extend the word ‘leg’. Used this way, it’s a metaphor. It’s a forced metaphor – forced because there’s no other term for a table-leg. But because you use the word ‘leg’ of tables, it doesn’t mean they can walk, or dance, or kick you. The technical term for extensions / metaphors of this sort is CATACHRESIS.
Because of the way the modern world perpetually pours out inventions, we have endless quantities of this figure of speech. I.e. we have Galloping Catachresis. BUT did insects ‘invent’ winged flight? No. Does Radar ‘see’ a plane? No. That would be like saying your spectacles see a plane.
Similarly, Machines don’t have ‘memories’, They don’t ‘store information’, they’re not ‘intelligent’. They contain machinery which produces a small number of the effects of these human capacities, but only when we are using them. Computers are (in Raymond Tallis’s beautiful phrase) ‘prosthetic extensions of the conscious human body’.


A symbol is meaningless without knowledge of its referent. A word is meaningless without knowledge of what it ‘stands for’. Living human beings all understand the “same” word slightly differently; and it’s only the highest common denominator which can be even pointed at by dictionaries.



Just as in the philosophy of materialism, consciousness is to be explained by its contradictory, i.e. consciousness is claimed to emerge from unconsciousness — so neoDarwinians seek to explain altruism by selfishness. Like deriving a toad from a horseshoe. Like swearing that black is white.


In science, ‘matter’ simply means ‘What science, so far, is capable of measuring.’ (See Does It Matter?, Graham Dunstan Martin, Floris 2005)

What is matter? Matter is appearance.


Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker: the haemoglobin molecule consists of four chains of amino acids. One of those chains consists of 146 amino acids. The number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of thing in chains 146 long is 10190.
Dawkins agrees with us! But see his way out.

Dembski 2002 p 290: If you toss 100 pennies all together, till all are heads, then it’ll take you 1030 tosses.
One at a time, however, deliberately leaving each one lying on the carpet once it shows heads, it takes about 100 tosses. Dawkins’ device is the latter. So who or what, somewhere within the animal reproductive processes, deliberates, has planned or knows in advance what is needed, observes the correct placings and deliberately leaves them unchanged? For Dawkins (like all orthodox Darwinians) claims that the evolutionary process has no purpose, conscious control, plan, deliberation, etc.


Contrary to Dennett and others, science is not an ideology which states that everything is made of matter. Science is a method of inquiry into the mystery of Being. The true scientist has an open mind.


Why do atheists hang onto Darwinism at all costs? Because it is the very foundation of atheism. It appears to explain how the U can achieve order and complexity by sheer blind accident. So it does away with the need for a supernatural designer-creator. So it’s the one big thing that enables them to be atheists. Hence their immoderate rage and fear at anyone who questions neoDarwinism.

Of course evolution happens. BUT is it by itself sufficient?
There are good arguments for supposing that Nature and chance cannot produce either the U or the living world. For the U starts off too complex for mere chance to be at work. And for the living world to be produced by evolutionary means, Earth’s history is not long enough.
And if Nature and chance cannot produce them, then something else did!


How can being a loop produce css? No matter how strange the loop!
It can no more produce css than can setting up two mirrors facing each other make these two mirrors conscious. No matter how often or how complicatedly the light goes to and fro, it still doesn’t start seeing itself.


“If everything is physicalistic, then anything must be possible to simulate / recreate.”
I.e. it must be possible to ‘model’ anything.
They conclude therefore: ‘Anything that can’t be made can’t possibly exist’, which is the same as saying: ‘Anything I don’t understand can’t possibly exist.’

Css, Dualism, & Soul


We know neither what matter is nor what mind is. So we cannot tell whether images like ‘the ghost in the machine’ are apt or not.
But in either case, they are merely metaphoric.
Metaphors are used in an attempt to make dualism seem absurd. We are asked whether a feather can drive a locomotive. But who (in the centuries before it was done) would have believed that steam could drive a locomotive?

In other words, what is it about solid objects that makes them so solid? It’s our senses. And what are our senses? Aspects of our css.

The Religion of Materialism


What was there at the beginning of the U? An on / off switch?


Belief is embedded in people’s personalities, and held at an unconscious level. Vertigo overcomes people who are asked to abandon their beliefs. It’s like asking them to abandon their legs.


I sometimes think Europeans are atheists because Americans aren’t.


The materialist claim is that ‘Just as we can make a motor-car, so we shall one day be able to make a mind.’ This supposes that a mind is made of material bits and pieces just like a motor-car.

It’s perhaps plausible that ‘If you can’t make an X, you can’t know how an X works.’ To take a further step, however, namely, ‘Anything that can’t be made can’t possibly exist’, is to take a step too far. Besides, this amounts to saying ‘Anything that can’t be imitated can’t possibly exist’; which amounts to saying ‘Anything that I don’t understand can’t possibly exist.’ These are not rational assumptions, yet the last of these statements is the working assumption of many materialists.

Whether machines can become conscious is not a technical question, it is conceptually and metaphysically impossible.


If not only was there no happening to be had, nor was there anything for it to happen to, how did the U get started?


“God”, they claim, (or any similar creator) would have had to evolve, because the complex comes after the simple. So we can’t have him starting off the U.

Our habit of looking at things from an evolutionary perspective makes it hard for us to believe that an intelligence could be there at the OUTSET. However, Big Bang theory supposes that the U started as a huge, wound-up, energy machine. It’s been running down ever since. Entropy is low at the beginning. The U has to start with energy, complexity.

As Aristotle argued, an incompleted infinity is possible (such as the series of numbers – or an infinite future to time), whereas a completed infinity (such as an infinite past time) is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, when the U was created, Time too was created (along with Space).

The U sprang therefore from eternity, which is a different mode of time, a timeless time perhaps, not necessarily sequential as is our own familiar time. Notions of evolution are irrelevant here, because they depend on our notions of sequential time. The argument that only evolution can produce complexity is therefore beside the point in the context of the Universal Creation.

The Creator of All is not caused by a causal chain, s/he/it initiates the very existence of a causal chain.

Consciousness & the Immaterial


The cosmologist Frank Tipler believes that, eventually, an electronic heaven will be devised, in which (converted into electronic pulses) we all will achieve deathless eternity. (This’ll be a long time in the future, but don’t worry! Our electronic descendants’ll come back for us. (What unparalleled altruism!)) This is because, he claims, “css is nothing but information.”
This is untrue: information isn’t css, it’s one of the things that consciousness is conscious of.


Is css perhaps what causes, constitutes, drives, or impels Time? Certainly it is inseparable from it.
Of course if there were no css, nothing would happen. Because nothing would be experienced.
Presumably therefore css exists so as to make things happen. I.e. it’s designed into the Universe so as to make things happen. It’s therefore a part of the U’s design and purpose. An essential part. We must therefore be fragments of an essential & immortal entity.


What puts the “fire” into the equations? Hawking asks on his last page. Maths doesn’t do it (though he would love it to, for it’s his lifeblood). He means, What makes the U real? It can’t be maths.
Well, exactly. Just as a map is an abstraction from the living landscape, so Maths cannot capture the nature of what the maths stands for!


There is a basic metaphysical paradox. I.e. the World contains two kinds of things: (1) those which can perceive but not be perceived (i.e. css) and (2) those which can be perceived but cannot perceive (i.e. matter).


1) The ultimate centre of Css is empty / featureless / pure: a mirror reflecting nothing;
2) Css is unlocatable;
3) Every css is isolated from every other css. (We cannot eavesdrop on each other’s minds; we cannot see what they are seeing. Even if we could, we would still be seeing, not what they see, but how we see them seeing it.)
4) Css is impregnable. Css is the magic castle that cannot be found (Unfortunately, when within our bodies it is subject to sensory communication from outside, and can be besieged by physical torture, but cannot be taken except by acquiescence).
5) With regard to Time, css is dual: (i) We cannot tell if it is either metaphysically (a) chained to Time or (b) constitutive of Time. But it also contains (ii) a deep eternal element outside Time (to be identified with (1) above;
6) Css is irreducibly Subjective (yet the Objective derives entirely from css).
7) Css possesses free will (Css does not only perceive, it acts);
8 ) Css constitutes Identity (Css just is our identity, and that’s all there is to it);
9) Css is ineffable. (The contents of Css, and particularly the qualia, are impossible to reduce to words, mathematics or any other symbolic system.)
10) Css is the unique source of all values. (For nothing has value or purpose to an unconscious object.)
11) Css permits no doubt. (For if I do experience something, then indeed I do experience something, even if this is adjudged to be an illusion.)
12) Css is prelinguistic. One sometimes finds it asserted that we are unconscious before we learn a language. This is plainly false. (However it handily allows those who assert it to deny css to the entire animal kingdom.)
13) Css is self-knowing (thereby resolving the basic metaphysical paradox). The basic paradox is this: there are two kinds of things: (a) those which can perceive but not be perceived (i.e. css) (I shall term this percipere), and (b) those which can be perceived but cannot perceive (i.e. matter) (I shall term this percipi). Css is the only thing in nature which (within its own css only) knows itself, which perceives itself, which resolves the absolute disjunction between percipere and percipi. I repeat: css resolves this disjunction.
I posit that this disjunction lies at the heart & origin of the U.

Almost all the above features of css are (a) unique in Nature and (b) completely different in kind from material phenomena.


To confuse css with the material brain is like supposing that it’s the telescope /microscope that does the seeing, and not the person looking through it.


The behaviourists used to believe there is no such thing as css. To all intents and purposes, Daniel Dennett our contemporary believes there is no such thing as the colour ‘red’— or the smell of violets – or the sound of trumpets — or even the experience of pain — because he says qualia only ‘seem’ to exist — thereby denying that he himself has any sensations.
Maybe one should say ‘There seems to be a philosopher called Dennett.’

And these are the people who sneer at ‘folk psychology’! As Democritus said in the 5th Century BC: ‘How can I deny my senses when I get all my evidence from them?’


When asking “What is X?” questions, the answer has always to be couched in terms more basic than X. So “What is css?” has to be answered in terms more basic than css.
But what if css is fundamental? What if css (as Indian philosophy thinks) is the ultimate?
Then no analysing css down into more fundamental elements would be possible.


We don’t know what a quark “is”. Why, then, ask what css is? Knowing what fundamentals “are” is impossible.

On the other hand, it could be said that we do indeed know what css is – because we live it and experience it every moment of our lives. What else could “knowing” be?


Since perception cannot be constructed from anything incapable of perception, css (which is pure perception) must be a fundamental element of the U. Perhaps the fundamental element.


On the other hand, percipi can easily be constructed from percipere. (We do it every night in our beds asleep.)
This again suggests that css is the fundamental element.


Moore p 183: the infinitude of meaning. ‘The meaning of an expression has infinite possibilities woven into it.’ Can css therefore grasp infinity? Does it partake of it?



If the U indeed contains an ultimate spiritual power, all words used of it must be inapt and inept. The word ‘God’ is particularly feeble, since it suggests all sorts of infantile images – besides absurdly insinuating that ‘God’ is ‘male’. Perhaps we should use expressions such as ‘the Ultimate’, ‘the Divine’, ‘the All-Mind’, ‘the Ground of All Being’.
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite suggested that only description through negatives could even be approximately apt.

On the other hand, the word ‘God’ is useful shorthand, so long as it isn’t taken too seriously.


The two things are just one thing looking in a mirror. The world is the mirror.


True spirituality resembles the wild beauty of a beach somewhere on the West Coast of Scotland. Institutional religion is that same beach encumbered by deckchairs, donkeys, seawalls, ice cream vans and multistorey hotels.


Religious doctrines must be amendable, alterable, corrigible, if they are about realities. For this is the situation in science, human knowledge being always fallible. Compare the great religions with each other. What they share is, sometimes, their truths. What divides them is, often, metaphoric – or naïve, trivial and disposable – or merely ritualistic.
To the extent that religions are mutually incompatible, each is merely an allegory.

What is the heart of religion? Wisdom, compassion, personal growth.
What is the irrelevant tinsel? Doctrine & dogma – which, understood literally, is often no better than credulity & superstition.

The spirit gives life, the letter kills.


Literalists suppose that words have one clear and definite meaning, and that they know it. However, language is fundamentally ambiguous. This is a basic necessity of its very nature. It cannot be otherwise.
Consequently fundamentalists never understand their own language, and therefore cannot understand their own sacred text.


Abou el Fadl 2005: ‘Puritans’ (i.e. extremists) show a methodical disregard on principle and in all circumstances for human reason, human wishes, human happiness or misery, and even for human virtues such as benevolence and compassion. All these are to be disregarded absolutely; only what they (falsely) imagine to be the law of God is to be observed.
In short, human beings are not to be allowed to think. Nor to feel.
All their values are negative.

They forbid:
Music, singing and dancing.
All TV programs unless religious.
The giving of flowers.
Clapping the hands in applause.
Acting in a play.
Writing novels.
Shaving one’s beard.
Eating or writing with the left hand.
Standing up to show someone respect.
Celebrating anyone’s birthday.
The voice of women should not be heard in public.
Women must not mix with men in public places.

This is merely a small selection.


Wahhabism began in the 18th C. While we were having our enlightenment, they were having their endarkenment. Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb.


‘Religion, for me, is a quest – a quest of faith, of meaning.’ ( Necla Kelek)
Religions are mere lanterns in the dark. Doctrines are like reducing the Spring to a formula.



Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but it’s criticism of science. Science needs constant criticism so as to progress. So perhaps ID is science after all.


We know nothing about the world except through ourselves.
We know nothing about what other people think about the world except through ourselves.


Where, when and how does the world take place? It doesn’t take place ‘out there’. It takes place in experience, i.e. in the consciousness of living beings.


The various modalities of the qualia, i.e. the senses of hearing, smelling, tasting, seeing, touching – are unimaginably different from each other. They just present themselves to us as if they were totally different dimensions. Seeing is nothing like tasting; hearing is nothing like seeing; smelling is nothing like touching. And so forth.


The World is illusion – a dream summoned up by css. On the other hand, the only reality is conscious experience. So the World is not illusion.


The tree has information, but doesn’t know it. Neither did we before we understood about tree-rings.


Scepticism doesn’t go far enough. Heresy is the thing. Nonconformism. The only progress ever made in the world is made by people who rebel against the conventional wisdom.
As two very quotable contemporaries say, (1) ‘A “Given Fact” is a social agreement to stop thinking.’ (Dr Moerman) (2) ‘The most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.’ (Richard Halvorson)


Hawking:’[…] Questions about reality do not have any meaning.’ (Quoted in Ferguson 1995, p 132) Here we have a man who wishes to replace reality by mathematics.


Programs are rules. Therefore no originality. Originality is precisely what breaks the rules deliberately (not accidentally) and turns out better than they. It is better because it serves the purpose better, or turns it to a hitherto unimagined purpose.

It seems plain that breaking the rules is precisely what css is for. For it is easy to imagine that, without css, the rules would never be broken save by breakdown.

1) A Turing machine cannot handle meaning.
2) Intelligent aware behaviour is not following rules. Nothing rule-based will give it you. If you try to model choice and decision-making through computers, they will merely model them on more and more rules.

How certain is it that we have free will? It’s as certain that I exercize my autonomy as that I’m speaking to you now.


There is no such thing as a ‘public, objective fact’. Any so-called ‘public fact’ is always (first) observed privately by a number of individuals who (secondly) agree as to what they have witnessed, i.e. each of them privately observes him/herself as so agreeing. The phrase ‘an accepted scientific truth’ is both frank and exact. What science claims to be the truth is what most scientists in that particular field agree upon for the time being. Objectivity is the product of agreement between subjectivities.
As to what we term ‘private experiences’, these nonetheless repeat themselves in similar form in many different consciousnesses, and we can, as with ‘public experiences’) agree about them. When suffering is caused to different people on different occasions, nonetheless we can agree ‘We all experience that sort of thing.’ ‘Objectivity’ depends on subjectivity. Why then should an apple be regarded as more real than suffering?
Suffering is a much more powerful experience than tasting an apple.


There are various valid paths to the Divine. Some of these are known as “religions” but must not be taken too literally, for the Divine is by definition beyond speaking.
There are also a number of paths which – despite their religious claims –lead into dark and cruel nonsense.


I derive this word from the Latin vim (by force) and forte (by chance). For this is how materialists / determinists see the U, supposing it derives exclusively from (1) the laws of blind chance on the one hand and (2) the laws of inescapable causality on the other.
They deny all purpose, all meaning, all freedom, all possibility of a human mind interfering with mindless totalitarian determinism. In doing so they claim not to worship a god, but in effect they do – only that god is mindless.


Martin, Graham Dunstan (2005) Does It Matter? The Unsustainable World of the
Materialists, Floris, Edinburgh
(2008) Living on Purpose: Meaning, Intention and Value, Floris, Edinburgh


Of God & Science

Finite absolutes are dangerous. Only infinite ones might possibly do. (GDM)

Once you adopt an ideology, you have placed a screen between yourself and what you claim to be observing. (GDM)

First Lunatic: ‘God spoke to me!’
Second Lunatic: ‘I did no such thing!’
(Idries Shah, Learning How to Learn, p 152)

The condition of my hearing what you say, is that you hear what I say. All human communication rests upon this, and thus the one who first refuses to listen is the aggressor. (GDM)

‘Surely you don’t believe in horseshoes, Professor Pauli.’
‘Of course not. What a silly idea. But I’m told that horseshoes bring you luck even if you don’t believe in them.’

‘Logically, a scientific theory should never be believed. It is best regarded as a sophisticated statement of ignorance, a way of formulating possible ideas so that they can be tested, rather than an attempted statement of final truth.’ Donald Hebb 1972, p 4.

‘There’s a cynical saying in science. A professor’s eminence is measured by how long he’s held up progress in his field.’ (Liz Jensen, The Rapture, p 87.)

‘No position is so absurd that a philosopher cannot be found to argue for it.’ (Michael Lockwood)

‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.’ (Upton Sinclair)

‘Not everything that counts can be counted; not everything that can be counted counts.’ (Einstein)

Let us beware of the word ‘scientific’ on the lips of a materialist philosopher. It is treacherous ground. It is designed (like a bog in the Scottish Highlands) to suck your boots off you. (GDM)

G.K.Chesterton: ‘If ordinary men may not discuss existence, why should they be asked to conduct it?’

‘Anyone who isn’t confused, really doesn’t understand the situation.’ (Ed Murrow)

New Scientist, Christmas 1997, (p 100) suggested that an important headline to be hoped for in 1998 was ‘Found! The gene that causes belief in genetic determinism.’

Samuel Johnson: ‘Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.’

Goethe: ‘Everyone hears only what he understands.’

Schopenhauer: ‘The great majority of people are not capable of thinking but only of believing.’

Edward Sheldrick: ‘Most people desire eternal life, without knowing how to get through the rest of the weekend.’

William Blake: ‘What is now proved was once only imagined.’

Is there a God? John C. Lennox agrees there are no fairies at the bottom of gardens. But there’s always a gardener. (God’s Undertaker, 2007, p 39.)

Paul Valéry: ‘Ce qui a été cru partout, toujours, par tous, a toutes les chances d’être faux.’ (What has been believed for ever, everywhere, by everyone, has every likelihood of being wrong.)

Susan Greenfield, scientist, in the Independent on Sunday, 4 Aug 96: ‘If computers cannot feel, they cannot think.’

Hippocrates: ‘Life is short, art is long, opportunity is fugitive, experience is delusive, judgment is difficult.’ (ο βιος βραχυς η δε τεχνη μακρη ο δε καιρος οξυς η δε πειρα σφαλερη η δε κρισις χαλεπη)

The reason why X’s work has never been taken seriously is that X speaks plain English. This makes it impossible for academic chair-climbers to take his stuff away and turn it into mystification.

Fundamentalism derives from a misunderstanding as to the nature of language. Fundamentalists think that language represents reality clearly, completely and without ambiguity. So no fundamentalist understands the language he speaks. And therefore he cannot understand his own Sacred Book

Michel Serres: ‘Le clair qui n’avoue pas son ombre est une tromperie.’ (The light which won’t admit its shadow is a deception.)

C.P. Snow: The Two Cultures, C.U.P. 1993, ed. Collini: p 65:
‘The number two is a very dangerous number [...] Attempts to divide anything into two ought to be regarded with much suspicion.’

Novalis: ‘In reality we live inside an animal of which we are the parasites. The constitution of this animal determines ours and vice-versa.’

Of Poetry & People

What is poetry? Think of the needles used to measure an earthquake which happens in China on the other side of the Globe. That is what language is about. (GDM)

Patience (Definition by Ambrose Bierce): ‘A form of mild despair, misinterpreted as a virtue.’

Gordon MacGregor: ‘At what tipping point, we must ask ourselves, does everything become forbidden except that which is compulsory?’

‘There is no way in which two persons may meet in this world of men: we can but exchange, from afar, despairing friendly signals, in the sure knowledge they will be misinterpreted.’ (Cabell, Figures of Earth, p 121.)

David Kidd, quoted in Alex Kerr Lost Japan: “Humour is one of the four pillars of the Universe. I forget what the other three are.”

Note also: the Japanese distinction, quoted on p 99 of Alex Kerr, between tatamae and honne. The former means your officially expressed view. The latter means your actually held opinion. The former means what everybody says is true but which everybody knows to be untrue. The latter means what nobody says but which everybody knows to be true. Clearly, the Japanese have understood.

The word ‘elitist’ simply means someone who thinks some things are better than others. Now, everybody thinks this. The reason why people object to elitists is that they can tell you why.

If the only thing that makes you laugh is jokes, then you don’t have a sense of humour.

An idea that is not dangerous is not worthy of being called an idea at all.
(Oscar Wilde: The Critic as Artist)
When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong. (ibidem)

Sandy McCall Smith: ‘In Mma Ramotse, nothing happens. But this is a great relief, since in the real world far too much happens.’