Print

Print


Dear Brian,
 
                 You may be right: atheist and agnostics may be put off - but I do not see I am asking them to swallow any uncongenial contention at the outset.  On the contrary, I would think they would be sympathetic to the idea that the traditional God should be cut in half in the way I propose, our fundamental problem then being to see how the two halves can be put together again.  (How our human world, imbued with meaning and value, can exist and best flourish embedded as it is in the physical universe.)
 
                 On the other hand, being overlooked is nothing new to me.  My 1984 book From Knowledge to Wisdom (Blackwell, 1984) got many glowing reviews - and some lousy ones, it is true, mainly from philosophers who criticized me for holding views I explicitly rejected in the book - but was, by and large, ignored and forgotten.
 
                 The point I have been trying to get across for over three decades now, in and out of print, is summarized at the end of my new book like this:
 
"The basic point is extremely simple.  If we are to make better progress towards as good a world as possible, we need to learn how to do it.  That in turn requires that we have in our hands institutions of learning rationally devoted to that task.  It is just this that we do not have at present – although there are hints that such institutions might be struggling to be born.  What we have at present is academic inquiry devoted to the pursuit of knowledge which, as we have seen, helps create as many problems as it solves.  We urgently need to transform our universities so that they come to put wisdom-inquiry into practice."
 
                 If what I have been arguing for all these years had been taken up and put into practice by academia in 1990, let us say, I really do believe we would now be actively and effectively grappling with the problems of global warming, population growth, habitat destruction and extinction of species, war, and poverty, in ways which we are, at present, so lamentably not doing.  The damaging irrationality of our institutions of learning is the crisis of our times, the one that is behind all the others.  I try to put the argument across in as lively and eye-catching a way as possible, but no doubt I have failed, yet again.
 
                 But anyone who wants a summary of the argument without any mention of this "Cutting God in Half" stuff can easily get it from my website:
 
From Knowledge to Wisdom: The Need for an Academic Revolution (Published in R. Barnett and N. Maxwell, eds., Wisdom in the University, Routledge 2008. See also London Review of Education, 5, 2007, pp. 97-115.)
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk/Essays.htm#abstract
 
Do We Need a Scientific Revolution? (Published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, vol. 8, no. 3, September 2008)
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk/Essays.htm#the
 
                                Best wishes,
 
                                           Nick Maxwell
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Brian Orr
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nicholas Maxwell
Cc: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Published Today - Cutting God in Half – And Putting the Pieces Together Again: A New Approach to Philosophy

Dear Nicholas,

Your thesis would seem extremely inviting - but I'm afraid I'm stuck at the basic level of linguistic interpretation of the fourth paragraph in the review below and in particular with the last sentence.

Paraphrasing you slightly to allow you to see why I can't read it:-

"We've cut God in half: the first half is(???) the underlying unity in the physical universe..........

The second (half of God) is(???) what is of most value associated with human life.........."

How about "We live in a physical universe which Science has set out to try and understand but which most ordinary folk just take as given and give no further thought to it. (e.g. Mrs Newton). But 'values' determine much of the way humans behave and give philosophers much to ponder over, despite the fact that the vast majority of ordinary folk give no thought to question their values or ask where they come from, except where some of them go to church.?

More fundamentally, we live in a secular society, so many possible readers will be put off by your imbedding the concept of God in your central thesis - and further, as atheist philosophers abound 'everywhere', might they also strongly resist engaging with your thesis because they would seem to be being asked to first swallow a fundamental contention before addressing your main argument. 

Best wishes,

Brian Orr

On 17 Mar 2010, at 10:51, Nicholas Maxwell wrote:

Cutting God in Half – And Putting the Pieces Together Again: A New Approach to Philosophy
by Nicholas Maxwell
This book, published today, might be of interest to those concerned about ultimate questions – the nature of the universe, the meaning of life, the fate of humanity. 
Cutting God in Half argues that, in order to tackle climate change, world poverty, extinction of species and our other global problems rather better than we are doing at present we need to bring about a revolution in science, and in academia more generally.  We need to put our problems of living – personal, social, global – at the heart of the academic enterprise.
How our human world, imbued with meaning and value, can exist and best flourish embedded in the physical universe is, the book argues, our fundamental problem.  It is our fundamental philosophical problem, our fundamental problem of knowledge and understanding, and our fundamental practical problem of living.  It is this problem that we fail, at present, to recognize as fundamental – to our cost.
It can be understood to arise as a result of cutting God in half – severing the God of Cosmic Power from the God of Value.  The first is Einstein’s God, the underlying unity in the physical universe that determines how events occur.  The second is what is of most value associated with human life – and sentient life more generally.
Having cut God in half in this way, the problem then becomes to see how the two halves can be put together again.  This book tackles outstanding aspects of this problem, and in doing so throws out original ideas about science, education, religion, evolutionary theory, free will, quantum theory, and how we should go about tackling our impending global crises.  It transpires that bringing our basic problem into sharp focus has revolutionary implications.  It becomes clear how and why many aspects of our social and cultural world urgently need to be transformed. 
Cutting God in Half is written in a lively, accessible style, and ought to be essential reading for anyone concerned about the future of humanity.
“Maxwell is advocating nothing less than a revolution (based on reason, not on religious or Marxist doctrine) in our intellectual goals and methods of inquiry ... There are altogether too many symptoms of malaise in our science-based society for Nicholas Maxwell's diagnosis to be ignored."
Professor Christopher Longuet-Higgins, Nature
Cutting God in Half – and Putting the Pieces Together Again: A New Approach to Philosophy, by Nicholas Maxwell, Pentire Press,London, Pp. x + 370,  Ł8.95,  $14
ISBN: 978-0-9552240-2-7

 

www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
 <Nicholas Maxwell.vcf>