I DON’T often have a great deal of time for scientism, I must admit, but I wish to highlight an important distinction between two of its leading figures in order to make a political point. As most people already know, Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) has moved far beyond the realms of science to become a leading champion of Atheism and has thus transformed himself from an evolutionary biologist into an ideological materialist. I use the term ‘ideological’ to illustrate the manner in which he not only subscribes to the neo-Darwinian notion of a meaningless world in which genes simply pass on biological data without any higher motive whatsoever, but also promotes Atheism in a way that has no actual grounding in science. It is possible to contrast this confrontational attitude with the more open-minded position of his Victorian predecessor, T.H. Huxley (1825-1895).

The latter, a biologist and anthropologist who found himself disturbed by the dogmatic war that was raging between Atheism and Christianity in the late-nineteenth century, made an attempt to create a third way between the two in order to allow for a more Agnostic viewpoint within the sciences. In other words, regardless whether God actually exists or not he wished to see both sides arrive at a peaceful settlement:

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe […] Consequently, Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of non-theology.”

Dawkins, however, has absolutely no intention of adopting this less dogmatic stance and has since taken it upon himself to promote Atheism in the manner of a religious fundamentalist. This approach even drew criticism from another well-known scientist, Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), who insisted that it is futile to

“adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it. We simply cannot comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God’s method of action).”

Mrs. McInerney apparently being responsible for handing-out a rather strict form of corporal punishment during Gould’s schooldays.

Whilst Dawkins will use science as a platform for his Atheistic views, Huxley was of the opinion that when it comes to the existence of God scientists can do no more than agree to disagree.

This application of intellectual and academic integrity must be applied to Anarchism, too, in the sense that whilst Anarchism in general becomes the basis for political experimentation in the way that scientific method relies on the empiricism of the scientist, denouncing one form of Anarchism at the expense of your own because you happen to find it unpalatable represents a gross departure from the non-conformism that Anarchism offers and thus results in a rapid descent into the narrow-minded abyss of dogma.

Needless to say, only National-Anarchism offers the kind of platform that can act as the basis for a wide divergence of opinion that nonetheless retains its integrity by valuing the principle of Anarchism far more than the proliferation of forms that it can take. After all, whilst the likes of Dawkins would like science to become a convenient vehicle for godlessness Huxley has set a worthy precedent by demonstrating that the importance lies in securing the roots of the tree upon which all branches depend. Even if one is unable to agree about precisely who or what is responsible for the tree itself, the free spirit of unity in diversity will always ensure that the flowers on the branches will blossom in their own distinct way.