Peter Atkins Quotes

Taking care of yourself means finding a balance that works for you, then having the discipline to maintain that balance.

The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.

If the elements are the alphabets of chemistry, then the compounds are its plays, its poems, and its novels.

The emergence of consciousness, like the unfolding of a leaf, relies upon restraint.

We are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

When one door closes, another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.

Lack of activity destroys the good condition of every human being, while movement and methodical physical exercise save it and preserve it. - Plato

With the fearful strain that is on me night and day, if I did not laugh I should die. - Abraham Lincoln

Something else," he told Atkins. He stood with his nose an inch away from the sergeant's, hands stuffed deep in the pockets of his coat. "What does Lucifer mean?" "Light Bearer." "And what is the stuff of the universe?" "Energy." "What is energy's commonest form?" "Light." "I know." And with that, the detective walked away, listing slowly through the squad room and down the stairs. He didn't come back.

Whereas chemistry reaches down into physics for its explanations (and through physics further down into mathematics for its quantitative formulation), it reaches upwards into biology for many of its most extraordinary applications. That

The trick is people who are most productive tend to say no to things that are unimportant to them and focus on what they believe matters.

Focusing on what matters means saying no to things that don’t matter. Otherwise, your life becomes cluttered with distractions.

All change...arises from an underlying collapse into chaos...what may appear to us to be motive and purpose is in fact ultimately motiveless, purposeless decay.

The lesson to me is that you can focus on something going well, or something beautiful, or something interesting -- even amidst terrible times.

Life, at root, is molecular bumbling.

Proceeding when there are obvious issues is a dumb thing to do. Even if it’s inconvenient or painful, I’ve learned, I’m better off doing nothing when the only available choice has glaring issues.

When asked by Rod Liddle in the documentary The Trouble with Atheism "Give me your views on the existence, or otherwise, of God",Peter Atkins replied "Well it's fairly straightforward: there isn't one. And there's no evidence for one, no reason to believe that there is one, and so I don't believe that there is one. And I think that it is rather foolish that people do think that there is one.

I’ve found you can choose to let all the things that go wrong in life depress you. Or, you can accept that things will go wrong, try to laugh, and then look at what you can do. There’s a Japanese proverb that gets right to the point: We’re fools whether we dance or not -- so we might as well dance.

The chemist Peter Atkins correctly observed, “Natural selection was a revolution and a stepping-stone to fame; so was relativity, and so was quantum theory. The sheer thrill of discovery is the spur to greater effort. All young scientists aspire to revolution.” The same can’t be said for theologians (Martin Luther is a rare exception), who either bear their heresies in silence or aspire only to trivial reinterpretations of church doctrine.

Someone with a fresh mind, one not conditioned by upbringing and environment, would doubtless look at science and the powerful reductionism that it inspires as overwhelmingly the better mode of understanding the world, and would doubtless scorn religion as sentimental wishful thinking. Would not that same uncluttered mind also see the attempts to reconcile science and religion by disparaging the reduction of the complex to the simple as attempts guided by muddle-headed sentiment and intellectually dishonest emotion? ...Religion closes off the central questions of existence by attempting to dissuade us from further enquiry by asserting that we cannot ever hope to comprehend. We are, religion asserts, simply too puny. Through fear of being shown to be vacuous, religion denies the awesome power of human comprehension. It seeks to thwart, by encouraging awe in things unseen, the disclosure of the emptiness of faith. Religion, in contrast to science, deploys the repugnant view that the world is too big for our understanding. Science, in contrast to religion, opens up the great questions of being to rational discussion, to discussion with the prospect of resolution and elucidation. Science, above all, respects the power of the human intellect. Science is the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Renaissance. Science respects more deeply the potential of humanity than religion ever can.

1. Create space. 2. Try not to worry. 3. Don't do really dumb things. 4. Build character and make friends. 5. Care for yourself and others. 6. Laugh. 7. Do what you love. 8. Embrace change. 9. Learn from experience. 10. Have dreams and work towards them. 11. Epilogue. 12. Afterword - the world beyond us. 13. Acknowledgements.

Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of a joy, you must have somebody to divide it with. -- Mark Twain

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. In other words, just because something happened once doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen again in the same way.

denial – is common. Most of us ignore reality in some facet of our lives. It’s often easier to believe things will somehow solve themselves,

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

As Winston Churchill said: Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

Four basic principle 1. Do what you think is right 2. Don’t follow other people blindly 3. Be honest and keep your word 4. Admit your mistakes

Life, at root, is molecular bumbling.

This matters. Real friends - people you trust, respect, laugh with, and can rely on - are a vitally important part of life. No matter how much wealth or fame you accumulate, if you don’t have true friends it’s unlikely you’ll be happy. Sadly I know too many people who have achieved their material goals, but have no friends. As the expression goes: greed is a hole you can never fill

To allow yourself time to think, there are many non- technological tricks to managing information. All of them require you to make choices to focus your energy. I like to set aside blocks of time for specific activities - even to read or chat.

see also positrons; virtual particles Aristotle, 172–73 Atkins, Peter, 191 baryons, 76 Big Bang, xvii, 95, 107, 150, 173, 189 CMBR left from, see cosmic microwave background radiation dating of, 3, 15–16, 77, 87 density of protons and neutrons in,

Of course, activity by itself doesn’t equal accomplishment, and certainly not success -- being busy just means being busy. I know many people who work super hard to fill up the spaces in their lives, so they won’t have to think. A wise colleague calls this “numbing out”. They may accomplish their goals, but they’re unlikely to be fulfilled or do truly creative work. I know other people who fill their free time with meaningless activities. They’re also busy, but they neither achieve much, nor are they satisfied.

How many movies have you seen where the hero or heroine quits a job they hate to pursue their life dreams? These movies wouldn’t be made, and they wouldn’t resonate with so many people, if they didn’t contain an important desire that most people deny themselves.

Laugh. We’re all going to be dead anyway some day. So while you should try your hardest to make the most of your life, when something funny happens, when you make a mistake, or even (and perhaps especially) when bad things happen, it’s easier if you can laugh about yourself and the world.

I try to put things into two buckets: one I can do something about and one I can’t. The things I can’t do anything about, I try to ignore. There’s no use, for example, being jealous of other people’s success or good luck; it won’t make me any happier. Nor is there any upside in worrying about a bad situation in which I find myself. There is, however, a lot to be gained from considering how I can move to a better place.

When we encounter tiny groups of atoms, interesting questions and special rules come into play. Take water, for instance: what is the smallest possible ice cube? It has been discovered that you need at least 275 water molecules in a cluster before it can show ice-like properties, with about 475 molecules before it becomes truly ice. That is a cube with about eight H2O molecules along each edge. The importance of this kind of knowledge is that it helps us model the process of cloud formation in the atmosphere as well as understand how liquids freeze.

Know yourself. To be happy, you need to pay attention to who you are, what you want, and how you feel, versus staying busy just doing ’stuff,’or doing what other people want or expect you to do. This requires both self awareness and introspection: if you pay attention to how you feel, what you like and what you want (as well as what makes you feel sad, angry, fearful and confused), the world is likely to look quite different. Many people are afraid of being introspective because they feel vulnerable. But without a willingness to open up, you won’t understand yourself and you can’t ultimately be truly happy.

One of the most powerful tools for discovering structure is ‘X-ray diffraction’ or, because it is always applied to crystals of the substance of interest, ‘X-ray crystallography’. The technique has been a gushing fountain of Nobel prizes, starting with Wilhelm Röntgen’s discovery of X-rays (awarded in 1901, the first physics prize), then William and his son Laurence Bragg in 1915, Peter Debye in 1936, and continuing with Dorothy Hodgkin (1964), and culminating with Maurice Wilkins (but not Rosalind Franklin) in 1962, which provided the foundation of James Watson’s and Francis Crick’s formulation of the double-helix structure of DNA, with all its huge implications for understanding inheritance, tackling disease, and capturing criminals (a prize shared with Wilkins in 1962). If there is one technique that is responsible for blending biology into chemistry, then this is it. Another striking feature of this list is that the prize has been awarded in all three scientific categories: chemistry, physics, and physiology and medicine, such is the range of the technique and the illumination it has brought.

Perhaps nowhere is modern chemistry more important than in the development of new drugs to fight disease, ameliorate pain, and enhance the experience of life. Genomics, the identification of genes and their complex interplay in governing the production of proteins, is central to current and future advances in pharmacogenomics, the study of how genetic information modifies an individual's response to drugs and offering the prospect of personalized medicine, where a cocktail of drugs is tailored to an individual's genetic composition. Even more elaborate than genomics is proteomics, the study of an organism's entire complement of proteins, the entities that lie at the workface of life and where most drugs act. Here computational chemistry is in essential alliance with medical chemistry, for if a protein implicated in a disease can be identified, and it is desired to terminate its action, then computer modelling of possible molecules that can invade and block its active site is the first step in rational drug discovery. This too is another route to the efficiencies and effectiveness of personalized medicine.

Thermodynamics, like much of the rest of science, takes terms with an everyday meaning and sharpens them—some would say, hijacks them—so that they take on an exact and unambiguous meaning. We shall see that happening throughout this introduction to thermodynamics. It starts as soon as we enter its doors. The part of the universe that is at the centre of attention in thermodynamics is called the system. A system may be a block of iron, a beaker of water, an engine, a human body. It may even be a circumscribed part of each of those entities. The rest of the universe is called the surroundings. The surroundings are where we stand to make observations on the system and infer its properties. Quite often, the actual surroundings consist of a water bath maintained at constant temperature, but that is a more controllable approximation to the true surroundings, the rest of the world. The system and its surroundings jointly make up the universe. Whereas for us the universe is everything, for a less profligate thermodynamicist it might consist of a beaker of water (the system) immersed in a water bath (the surroundings).

This makes a mockery of real science, and its consequences are invariably ridiculous. Quite a few otherwise intelligent men and women take it as an established principle that we can know as true only what can be verified by empirical methods of experimentation and observation. This is, for one thing, a notoriously self-refuting claim, inasmuch as it cannot itself be demonstrated to be true by any application of empirical method. More to the point, though, it is transparent nonsense: most of the things we know to be true, often quite indubitably, do not fall within the realm of what can be tested by empirical methods; they are by their nature episodic, experiential, local, personal, intuitive, or purely logical. The sciences concern certain facts as organized by certain theories, and certain theories as constrained by certain facts; they accumulate evidence and enucleate hypotheses within very strictly limited paradigms; but they do not provide proofs of where reality begins or ends, or of what the dimensions of truth are. They cannot even establish their own working premises—the real existence of the phenomenal world, the power of the human intellect accurately to reflect that reality, the perfect lawfulness of nature, its interpretability, its mathematical regularity, and so forth—and should not seek to do so, but should confine themselves to the truths to which their methods give them access. They should also recognize what the boundaries of the scientific rescript are. There are, in fact, truths of reason that are far surer than even the most amply supported findings of empirical science because such truths are not, as those findings must always be, susceptible of later theoretical revision; and then there are truths of mathematics that are subject to proof in the most proper sense and so are more irrefutable still. And there is no one single discourse of truth as such, no single path to the knowledge of reality, no single method that can exhaustively define what knowledge is, no useful answers whose range has not been limited in advance by the kind of questions that prompted them. The failure to realize this can lead only to delusions of the kind expressed in, for example, G. G. Simpson’s self-parodying assertion that all attempts to define the meaning of life or the nature of humanity made before 1859 are now entirely worthless, or in Peter Atkins’s ebulliently absurd claims that modern science can “deal with every aspect of existence” and that it has in fact “never encountered a barrier.” Not only do sentiments of this sort verge upon the deranged, they are nothing less than violent assaults upon the true dignity of science (which lies entirely in its severely self-limiting rigor).

Metal atoms are bound together by metallic bonding. That is not just a tautology. The clue to its nature is the fact that all the metals lie towards the left-hand side of the Periodic Table where, as we have seen, the atoms of the elements have only a few electrons in their outermost cloud layers and which are readily lost. To envisage metallic bonding, think of all these outermost electrons as slipping off the parent atom and congregating in a sea that pervades the whole slab of atoms. The cations that are left behind lie in this sea and interact favourably with it. As a result, all the cations are bound together in a solid mass. That mass is malleable because, like an actual sea, it can respond readily to a shift in the positions of the cations in the mass when they are struck by a hammer. The electrons also allow the metal to be drawn out into a wire, by responding immediately to the relocation of the cations. As the electrons in the sea are not pinned down to particular atoms, they are mobile and can migrate through the solid in response to an electric field. Metals are lustrous because the electrons of the sea can respond to the shaking caused by the electric field of an incident ray of light, and that oscillation of the sea in turn generates light that we perceive as reflection. When we gaze into the metal coating of a mirror, we are watching the waves in the metal’s electron sea.

In broad terms, the Second Law asserts that things get worse. A bit more specifically, it acknowledges that matter and energy tend to disperse in disorder. Left to itself, matter crumbles and energy spreads. The chaotic motion of molecules of a gas results in them spreading through the container the gas occupies. The vigorous jostling of atoms in a hot lump of metal jostles the atoms in its cooler surroundings, the energy spreads away, and the metal cools. That’s all there is to natural change: spreading in disorder. The astonishing thing, though, is that this natural spreading can result in the emergence of exquisite form. If the spreading is captured in an engine, then bricks may be hoisted to build a cathedral. If the spreading occurs in a seed, then molecules may be hoisted to build an orchid. If the spreading occurs in your body, then random electrical and molecular currents in your brain may be organized into an opinion. The spreading of matter and energy is the root of all change. Wherever change occurs, be it corrosion, corruption, growth, decay, flowering, artistic creation, exquisite creation, understanding, reproduction, cancer, fun, accident, quiet or boisterous enjoyment, travel, or just simple pointless motion it is an outward manifestation of this inner spring, the purposeless spreading of matter and energy in ever greater disorder. Like it or not, purposeless decay into disorder is the spring of all change, even when that change is exquisite or results in seemingly purposeful action.

That collapse gives an impulse to what we think of as the vacuum that surrounds the atom, and the impulse generates a pulse of light, a photon. The colour of the photon depends on the energy released in the collapse, with high-energy collapse giving a pulse of ultraviolet radiation and lower energy pulses giving visible light.

Know yourself. To be happy, you need to pay attention to who you are, what you want, and how you feel, versus staying busy just doing ’stuff,’ or doing what other people want or expect you to do. This requires both self awareness and introspection: if you pay attention to how you feel, what you like and what you want (as well as what makes you feel sad, angry, fearful and confused), the world is likely to look quite different. Many people are afraid of being introspective because they feel vulnerable. But without a willingness to open up, you won’t understand yourself and you can’t ultimately be truly happy.

Observe. It’s incredibly hard to have a dispassionate view of the world, even if you try your hardest. Humans are emotional animals, and we all come at the world with our own point of view based on our experience. It’s impossible in many ways to get outside that frame of reference, although with diverse experience, a lot of reading, honest self-reflection on your failures, and some thinking, it’s possible to stretch our perspective. Data and patterns matter, and you should pay close attention to them. But they’re not enough to deeply understand the world, since history doesn’t repeat itself exactly. Judgment and wisdom matter a great deal. To acquire them, and to be creative, it’s important to slow down enough at times to notice what is going on around you.

The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.

Petroleum is, of course, an extraordinarily convenient source of energy, as it can be transported easily, even in weight-sensitive aircraft. Chemists have long contributed to the refinement of the raw material squeezed and pumped from the ground. They have developed processes and catalysts that have taken the molecules provided by Nature and used them to cut the molecules into more volatile fragments and reshape them so that they burn more efficiently. But burning Nature’s underground bounty might by future generations be seen as the wanton destruction of an invaluable resource, akin to species extinction. It is also finite, and although economically viable new sources of petroleum are constantly, for the time being at least, being discovered, it is proving hazardous and increasingly expensive to extract it. We have to accept that although an empty Earth is decades off, one day it will arrive and needs to be anticipated.

The crucial consideration, however, is where reliable solutions to the world’s problems will come from if it is not further development of chemistry. Chemistry holds the key to the enhancement of almost every aspect of our daily lives, from the cradle to the grave and all points in between. It has provided the material foundation of all our comforts, not only in health but in illness too, and there is no reason to suppose that it has reached its zenith. It contributes to our communications, both virtual and physical, for it provides the materials along which our electrons and photons travel in the complex network of patterns and interactions that result in computation. Moreover, it develops our fuels, rendering them more efficiently combustible and through catalysis minimizing their noxious products, and helps in the migration from fossil fuels to renewable sources, such as in the development of photovoltaic substances. Chemistry is the only solution to the problems it causes in the environment, be it in earth, air, or water.

While we are in this embarrassingly negative corner of chemistry, I cannot avoid that other great pointed finger, the one directed at the environmental damage laid at the subject’s door, or at least at its drains. It is impossible to deny that the unwanted effluent of the chemical plant has wrought ecological havoc. Ever since Perkin’s factories turned the nearby canals red, green, and yellow according to the manufacturing priorities of the day, mankind’s aspiration for its own betterment has been at an environmental cost. In fact, the green shoots of environmental pollution, if that is not too ironical a term, can be traced back to the Greeks and Romans, for analysis of ice cores laid down in those eras show traces of the consequences of metal working. The way forward is either legal or chemical. The legal constrains by the prospect of punishment; the chemical avoids by elimination at source. The latter, always the better mode of action, depends on developments of chemistry itself and has inspired the politico-environmento-chemical movement of green chemistry. In broad terms, green chemistry aims to minimize the impact of chemical manufacturing processes on the environment by strict guidelines about the use of materials and the elimination of waste.

Through chemistry we can unravel and comprehend the once inscrutable mysteries of the natural world. We can understand the green of a leaf and the red of a rose, the fragrance of a herb and new-mown hay. We can understand, in a halting but increasing way, the intricate and complex reticulation of processes in the natural world that constitute the awesome and multifaceted property we know as life. We are beginning, even more haltingly, to understand the chemical processes in our brains that enable us to perceive, wonder, and understand.

I want to share with you the thought that chemistry provides the infrastructure of the modern world. There is hardly an item of everyday life that is not furnished by it or based on the materials it has created. Take away chemistry and its functional arm the chemical industry and you take away the metals and other materials of construction, the semiconductors of computation and communication, the fuels of heating, power generation, and transport, the fabrics of clothing and furnishings, and the artificial pigments of our blazingly colourful world. Take away its contributions to agriculture and you let people die, for the industry provides the fertilizers and pesticides that enable dwindling lands to support rising populations. Take away its pharmaceutical wing and you allow pain through the elimination of anaesthetics and deny people the prospect of recovery by the elimination of medicines. Imagine a world where there are no products of chemistry (including pure water): you are back before the Bronze Age, into the Stone Age: no metals, no fuels except wood, no fabrics except pelts, no medicines except herbs, no methods of computation except with your fingers, and very little food.

Whereas chemistry reaches down into physics for its explanations (and through physics further down into mathematics for its quantitative formulation), it reaches upwards into biology for many of its most extraordinary applications. That should not be surprising, for biology is merely an elaboration of chemistry. Before biologists explode in indignation at that remark, which might seem akin to claiming that sociology is an elaboration of particle physics, let me be precise. Organisms are built from atoms and molecules, and those structures are explained by chemistry. Organisms function, that is, are alive, by virtue of the complex network of reactions taking place within them, and those reactions are explained by chemistry. Organisms reproduce by making use of molecular structures and reactions, which are both a part of chemistry. Organisms respond to their environment, such as through olfaction and vision, by changes in molecular structure, and thus those responses—all our five or so senses—are elaborations of chemistry. Even that hypermacroscopic phenomenon, evolution and the origin of species, can be regarded as an elaborate working out of the consequences of the Second Law of thermodynamics, and is thus an aspect of chemistry. Some organisms, I have in mind principally human beings, cogitate on the nature of the world, and the mental processes that underlie Chemistry and are manifest as these cogitations are due to elaborate networks of chemical reactions. Thus, biology is indeed an elaboration of chemistry. I shall not press the view, whatever I actually think, that all matters of interest to biologists, such as animal behaviour in general, are also merely elaborated chemistry, but confine myself to the assertion that all the structures, responses, and processes of organisms are chemical. Chemistry thus pervades biology, and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of organisms.

Closely allied with the contribution of chemists to the alleviation of disease is their involvement at a molecular level. Biology became chemistry half a century ago when the structure of DNA was discovered (in 1953). Molecular biology, which in large measure has sprung from that discovery, is chemistry applied to the functioning of organisms. Chemists, often disguised as molecular biologists, have opened the door to understanding life and its principal characteristic, inheritance, at a most fundamental level, and have thereby opened up great regions of the molecular world to rational investigation. They have also transformed forensic medicine, brought criminals to justice, and transformed anthropology.

The shift of chemistry’s attention to the processes of life has come at a time when the traditional branches of chemistry—organic, inorganic, and physical—have reached a stage of considerable maturity and are ready to tackle the awesomely complex network of processes going on inside organisms: human bodies in particular. The approach to the treatment, more importantly the prevention, of disease has been put on a rational basis by the discoveries that chemists continue to make. If you plan to enter this field, then genomics and proteomics will turn out to be of crucial importance to your work. This is truly a region of chemistry where you can feel confident about standing on the shoulders of the giants who have preceded you and know that you are attacking disease at its roots.

Then there is the dark side of chemistry. It would be inappropriate in this account of chemistry’s great achievements for no mention to be made of its ability to enhance humanity’s ability to damage and kill, for those achievements have come at a cost, in some cases to human life, in others to the environment.

Although what makes you passionate generally doesn’t change over time, what you want to do sometimes does.

Then there is the extraordinary marriage of observation and mathematics. Mankind, and for some perhaps sociological reason it has been mostly man kind, has developed a sinewy language of the utmost rigour and austerity that has proved to be the perfect tool for teasing out objectively the consequences of an imaginative qualitative leap or of adding spine to a whim so that it can stand up to the harshness of quantitative comparison of prediction with observation. I hasten to add that mathematics does not appear explicitly in this book, but it does lie as a hidden deep foundation beneath it.

Life is easy to identify but remarkably difficult to define. Too tight a definition excludes what looks like life and too loose captures too much. The capacity to self-replicate is a component of the definition, but not without its problems, as a mule is alive but sterile, and computer software can replicate itself, but we do not, in all honesty, think of it as being alive. It might be tempting to ascribe livingness to an entity that has emerged by evolution, but that would exclude the first living entity and any that we might synthesize from scratch in future. Organisms are organized structures; but so is an integrated circuit. Organisms are organized structures built and sustained by the flux of energy through their interiors and its dissipation into the surroundings; but so are the patterns of convection that can arise in heated liquids and, indeed, the atmosphere, to give rise to the weather: think tornado and hurricane. All known organisms are built from compounds of carbon; but if we succeeded in building a replicating, conscious, self-sustaining, energy-dissipating entity from silicon, would we deny that it was alive? Is a virus alive?

Like greater understanding coming from giants standing on the shoulders of earlier giants, the information in our genes has grown through the ages with information pitted against information, serendipitous junk waking up to discover that it is information, in an ever-changing arena. If you favour deep understanding without relinquishing wonder, or more positively and strongly, favour doubling wonder through deepening understanding, then bask in the illumination of that extraordinarily potent idea, that all living things have merely stumbled into their brief interlude of life. Not only are we stardust, we are the children of chaos.

Creationism, though not a science, is of interest to science. Just as a dead frog pinned to a dissecting board is a legitimate object of study (and once done in schools when real science, rather than its sociological shadow, the scientific method, was studied), so Creationism can be pinned down and studied. Instead of the frog’s entrails, we need to study the psychological and cultural viscera of faith’s attack on reason. What drives individuals away from rational investigation? What drives whole groups of individuals to embrace faith, and specifically this peculiar distortion of faith, in place of the intellectual appreciation of the cosmos? How is it that faith can overpower intellect? Maybe it is fear; maybe it is cultural conditioning; maybe it is simple mental laziness; whatever, it is something not particularly admirable in the psyche.

The question is: who or what moves the created order `forward', to its destiny, God, or a surrogate? On a theology which takes into account both the `horizontal' and the `vertical' structuring of relations, we are free to treat evolution with a little more detachment. Evolution may be the way by which the Spirit perfects the creation by relating it to God the Father through the Son; but equally, it may not. It is well known that, as Basil Willey said, deism represents a kind of cosmic toryism: what is, is right; and in that respect, Darwinism as represented by such triumphalists as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins is a form of modern rationalist deism. But if the Spirit is the Spirit of God the Son who was crucified, creation may move towards its perfection as much through the enablement of, or merely acts of love for, the severely handicapped - to take one example - as by the evolution of so-called higher forms of being. It must be remembered here that those who have turned Darwinism into an ideology - the ideology of the escalator - have far departed from the work of Darwin himself, who saw evolution more in terms of a tree, with branches going out in many directions, rather than an ascending series. If the Spirit is the Spirit of him who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, then the question of what represents `progress' - the movement of creation to its true destiny - becomes a far more open one. Further, if the end of creation is the reconciliation of all things with their creator, any particular evolutionary `advance' may or may not bring about that end.

Albert Einstein said: It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.

To learn from your experience and the experience of others it’s important to try to be dispassionate in looking at the world and analyzing it.

I try not to obsess on the past, but to learn from it. I try not to worry about the future, but to prepare for it. And while it’s difficult sometimes, I try to take pleasure in the moment, even when bad things happen.

I try to put things into two buckets: one I can do something about and one I can’t. The things I can’t do anything about, I try to ignore.

There are many things that are not nearly as dramatic, but can have a similarly negative long-term impact.

No matter how much wealth or fame you accumulate, if you don’t have true friends it’s unlikely you’ll be happy. Sadly I know too many people who have achieved their material goals, but have no friends.

I’ve found you can choose to let all the things that go wrong in life depress you. Or, you can accept that things will go wrong, try to laugh, and then look at what you can do. There’s a Japanese proverb that gets right to the point: We’re fools whether we dance or not -- so we might as well dance.

You may not have the parents or the siblings you’d have chosen. You may not look the way you’d have picked. The people you love may not always love you back. You may not live where you’d like. You may not have the job you want, or get the promotion you believe you deserve. If you get married, it may not work out the way you thought it would. If you have children, they won’t always do what you’d like, and they may disappoint you sometimes. I’ve found you can choose to let all the things that go wrong in life depress you. Or, you can accept that things will go wrong, try to laugh, and then look at what you can do. There’s a Japanese proverb that gets right to the point: We’re fools whether we dance or not -- so we might as well dance.

There are but three events in a man’s life: birth, life and death. He is not conscious of being born, he dies in pain, and he forgets to live.

Ideally, you want a job you’d do even if you weren’t paid to do it. That’s not an economic reality for most of us, but it’s the right goal to shoot for.

Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

To build trusting friendships, I’ve learned, it’s critical to be true to my passions, and express how I feel and what I want. If I weren’t open and honest, I wonder what sort of friends I’d have?

The second law has a reputation for being recondite, notoriously difficult, and a litmus test of scientific literacy. Indeed, the novelist and former chemist C. P. Snow is famous for having asserted in his The Two Cultures that not knowing the second law of thermodynamics is equivalent to never having read a work by Shakespeare. I actually have serious doubts about whether Snow understood the law himself, but I concur with his sentiments. The second law is of central importance in the whole of science, and hence in our rational understanding of the universe, because it provides a foundation for understanding why any change occurs. Thus, not only is it a basis for understanding why engines run and chemical reactions occur, but it is also a foundation for understanding those most exquisite consequences of chemical reactions, the acts of literary, artistic, and musical creativity that enhance our culture.

The first law is essentially based on the conservation of energy, the fact that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Conservation laws—laws that state that a certain property does not change—have a very deep origin, which is one reason why scientists, and thermodynamicists in particular, get so excited when nothing happens. There is a celebrated theorem, Noether’s theorem, proposed by the German mathematician Emmy Noether (1882–1935), which states that to every conservation law there corresponds a symmetry. Thus, conservation laws are based on various aspects of the shape of the universe we inhabit. In the particular case of the conservation of energy, the symmetry is that of the shape of time. Energy is conserved because time is uniform: time flows steadily, it does not bunch up and run faster then spread out and run slowly. Time is a uniformly structured coordinate. If time were to bunch up and spread out, energy would not be conserved. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is based on a very deep aspect of our universe and the early thermodynamicists were unwittingly probing its shape.

We are within a whisper of arriving at the first law. Suppose we have a closed system and use it to do some work or allow a release of energy as heat. Its internal energy falls. We then leave the system isolated from its surroundings for as long as we like, and later return to it. We invariably find that its capacity to do work—its internal energy—has not been restored to its original value. In other words, the internal energy of an isolated system is constant. That is the first law of thermodynamics, or at least one statement of it, for the law comes in many equivalent forms. Another universal law of nature, this time of human nature, is that the prospect of wealth motivates deceit. Wealth—and untold benefits to humanity—would accrue to an untold extent if the first law were found to be false under certain conditions. It would be found to be false if work could be generated by an adiabatic, closed system without a diminution of its internal energy. In other words, if we could achieve perpetual motion, work produced without consumption of fuel. Despite enormous efforts, perpetual motion has never been achieved. There have been claims galore, of course, but all of them have involved a degree of deception. Patent offices are now closed to the consideration of all such machines, for the first law is regarded as unbreakable and reports of its transgression not worth the time or effort to pursue. There are certain instances in science, and certainly in technology, where a closed mind is probably justified.

Character, I’ve found, is one of the most important things in life. Reputations can be manipulated in the short term, but people tend to get the reputations they deserve over time. Reputations are your personal brand. They’re influential in how well you do in both your professional and personal lives.

It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. -W. Edwards Deming

Alexander Graham Bell said: “When one door closes, another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.

A lot of apparently ’successful’ people believe they should delay enjoying life until later. First they work incredibly hard to get into the ’right’ schools; then they work even harder to get a coveted job; and then they work harder still for years to get to a certain position, or make a certain amount of money. The net of this whole adventure is that frequently it’s not until late in life, when a person’s health may be going, and a lot of their life is behind them, that they stop to think about what they want. And, by then, there may not be much they can do about it. They can't recover the time. And many people don’t even stop to think.

Oliver Wendell Holmes noted: Many people die with their music still in them. Why is this so? Too often it is because they are always getting ready to live. Before they know it, time runs out.

As far as relevant myths are concerned we are in the world of ‘eschatology’, the discourse on Last Things (from the Greek words eskhatos, last, and logia, discourse). Eschatological matters are of the highest importance to some, for they illuminate the whole point of being. The faithful take the view that matters of the First Importance are illuminated by the discussion of Last Things, for they, the latter, are the consummation of being and the apotheosis of existence; in short, things not to be sneezed at. To the more sceptical, there is the suspicion that nowhere else in speculative discourse has so much endless nonsense been written. The sceptical, I suspect, consider that if normal theological discourse and myths in general are the Himalaya of nonsense, then eschatology is the Martian Olympus Mons, towering miles above petty terrestrial Everests.

As might also be suspected, there are equally conflicting absolute certainties about the precise timing of the Rapture. The choice here is between the unarguable certainty that the Tribulation will precede the Rapture and the equally unarguable certainty that the opposite is true and that the Rapture will precede the Tribulation. Historically, compromise has usually been far from theological debate, where hands typically have been found to lie itchingly closer to swords, but so important are Last Things that happily one is available here, for it is also held to be absolutely certain by some that the Rapture will take place exactly in the middle of the seven-year Tribulation. Spoiling for a fight, though, equally certain to others, brooking no dispute, is the fact that the Rapture will come close to the end of the Tribulation, with a rump of the latter still to run. Happily for the Born Agains, it is also absolutely certain that for them, but not for the unprescient chumps who have not got themselves Born Again, the Rapture will enrapt true believers just in the nick of time at the start of the Tribulation leaving the erstwhile chumps the chance of quickly getting Born Again and being rapt at the end of the Tribulation.

My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate. Its revelations and insights add immeasurably to the pleasure of being alive. My faith respects the powerful ability of the collective human intelligence, which initially groped for understanding through myth but now gives us the capacity to comprehend and, optimistically, given time and given cooperation between brains, will do so without limit. The scientific method is a distillation of common sense in alliance with honesty, and its discoveries illuminate the world. Unlike myth-making, which is entertainment in alliance with the desperation of sought but thwarted understanding, that illumination is the sound and firm foundation for the joy of true comprehension.

In preparation for our journey in which we shall nose around among the myths that a collaboration of ignorance and deep concern have jointly inspired, I would like to establish in broad terms my vision of the nature and limitations, if any, of the scientific method. I suspect that few would disagree that science is competent when it comes to the fabrication of novel stuff and novel applications of stuff in general. That, I believe, is not an issue to delay us. Nor shall I linger on the argument about whether these novel stuffs, including better medicines, better and more abundant foods, better fabrics, better modes of communication and transport, better modes of entertainment, and so on, weighed against the social costs, including better ways of killing, injuring our environment, and accidentally or intentionally maiming, add overall to the sum of human happiness. I focus instead on the ability of the scientific method to illuminate matters of great human concern and drive out ignorance while retaining wonder.

So to make the most of your life, say no to things that don’t matter, work hard at what you love, and occasionally take time away from your core focus to rest so that your mind can be quiet for great insights to come.

Our bodies were designed by evolution to thrive on the African savanna. Twenty thousand years ago, people didn’t sit in forests or caves staring at computer screens, talking on telephones, or watching television. We were made to move, and our brains were made to think while in motion.

There’s a Japanese proverb that gets right to the point: We’re fools whether we dance or not -- so we might as well dance.

There are but three events in a man’s life: birth, life and death. He is not conscious of being born, he dies in pain, and he forgets to live. - Jean de la Bruyere

They’re incredibly well prepared in their fields -- they become masters of their domains by practicing for many years, day after day. They spend time deeply focused on solving a key problem or key set of problems, no matter the obstacles. They allow themselves to step away from the problem(s) on which they’re focused, so that insights can come to them in activities such as walking, or looking out on a beautiful scene. To get great insights absolutely requires hard work, but it also requires space. This is the case because the human mind is not a linear machine. If you don’t put in the required effort, you won’t be capable of generating good ideas; you won’t understand the subject matter. But if you don’t give yourself space from the problems on which you are working, you likely will be so worn

When I was growing up, someone told me to live as if I was going to die in ten years and had no immediate financial needs. That’s great advice. If you can do that, you'll be happier and more successful.

Ideally, you want a job you’d do even if you weren’t paid to do it. That’s not an economic reality for most of us, but it’s the right goal to shoot for. If you can get paid to do what you perceive as play, you have a great job.

If you focus on what other people expect of you, you may impress your friends, family and colleagues, but it’s unlikely you’ll be satisfied with yourself over the long term.

Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of a joy, you must have somebody to divide it with.

have little doubt you’ll feel better if you have chosen to give something back. Our time on earth is limited, but you can extend your influence by helping

so

We’re fools whether we dance or not -- so we might as well dance.

None of these quotes are by me. Except this one. (All the others are by noted chemist and atheist Peter Atkins - or, as I like to call him, The Other Peter Atkins. I don't know how they got here. I'd say it was evidence of God's sense of humor, but I don't want to offend The Other Peter Atkins.)

If I’d had more time I would have written a shorter letter