I confess: I like Tom Stoppard because his plays highlight all the intellectually stimulating but somewhat pretentious (aren’t they all?) discussions I’ve had over the last 15 years. His latest, The Hard Problem, was no different. It follows Hilary, a psychology student who we meet as she applies for a job at the Krohl Institute for Brain Science, hoping to inject some humanity into their research. As always, Stoppard treats us to some witty banter, this time about altruism, animal behaviour, coincidence, consciousness, ego, evolutionary biology, morality, neuroscience, religion, and the worlds of academia and finance. The Hard Problem is perhaps less clever and fresh than Arcadia or RosenGuild, but fun and thought-provoking nonetheless. Some of the characters are true to the bone while others, disappointingly, feel typecast, but there is definitely some familiar truth in all. Overall, I’m pretty happy with the brain-lit Hytner production that we saw streamed live from the National Theatre in London – worth seeing.
A recent interview with George Ellis, from the University of Cape Town, had him confront the potential for his religious faith to affect his scientific views. (Part of) his response:
“Many key aspects of life (such as ethics: what is good and what is bad, and aesthetics: what is beautiful and what is ugly) lie outside the domain of scientific inquiry”
appears – at first glance – to concur with Stephen Jay Gould’s vision of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). NOMA demands that moral values lie in the domain of religion, a claim heavily criticised by Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. Not a huge fan of the book, but I’m definitely less of a fan of NOMA. For completeness, according to NOMA, art and beauty then belong to yet another “magisterium”. Ellis argues, rather, that ethics “what is good or bad” is “a philosophical or religious question”. [Edit: to clarify, my qualms are regarding whether this is a religious question, not whether it’s a philosophical question.]