This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Prince Charles blames world’s ills on 'soulless consumerism' and Galileo

Prince Charles blames world’s ills on 'soulless consumerism' and Galileo - Comments

Oberon's Avatar Comment 1 by Oberon

If the prince of wales is so concerned with population growth, perhaps he should extol the virtues of contraception and the benefits of having fewer children to his Muslim brethren.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:03:40 UTC | #478741

msloane's Avatar Comment 2 by msloane

Methinks too much inbreeding of the royals. Either that or he should get out more.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:10:17 UTC | #478742

Dax's Avatar Comment 3 by Dax

The argument in favour of monarchy has always been that you educate a person from early childhood in everything needed to become a ruler, so that the ruler is knowledgeable, reasoned. Prince Charles, however, shows that all a monarchy does for us is give credence and tax-money to someone who is unable to even make a reasoned argument.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:13:19 UTC | #478744

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 4 by godsbelow

This is the man who is to be the next monarch, not only of the UK, but of Australia, Canada and NZ as well. I can't be the only person who is alarmed by the thought. He clearly wishes his future subjects were as incapable of critical reasoning and as titillated by Islam as he is.

It would be a nice bit of historical symmetry if the republican revolution which began with the execution of one King Charles were finally completed with the deposition of another.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:23:37 UTC | #478747

dbunker's Avatar Comment 5 by dbunker

Earth to Prince; you can't blame the discoveries of science for the things people do with that knowledge.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:25:51 UTC | #478750

spotlamp's Avatar Comment 6 by spotlamp

It is alright for the prince who is given all the money he wants by those of us who have to earn a living. Someone has got to fund research and the people funding it often want to see at least some of that money back. So if the prince wants to setup a foundation that funds research projects that do not need any commercial bias then feel free Charlie Boy.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:14 UTC | #478751

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 7 by Crazycharlie

The lugubrious Prince Charles gives us his thoughts about what's wrong with the modern world.

Someone please tell him to shut up & go dedicate a hospital wing somewhere.

One thing that's right with the modern world is that the divine right of kings has been tossed into the dust-bin of history.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:30:21 UTC | #478752

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 8 by Bonzai

A good reason to abolish Monarchy finally.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:31:07 UTC | #478753

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 9 by MarkOnTheRiver

Comment 4 by godsbelow :

It would be a nice bit of historical symmetry if the republican revolution which began with the execution of one King Charles were finally completed with the deposition of another.

Don't bank on that gods. He has indicated privately that, upon succession, he will adopt the regal title of George VII. Probably for that very reason.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:32:27 UTC | #478754

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 10 by godsbelow

Comment 6 by spotlamp : So if the prince wants to setup a foundation that funds research projects that do not need any commercial bias then feel free Charlie Boy.

That would at least be a better use of tax-payers' money than keeping Camilla Parker-Bowles fed and watered.

One would think that someone who has never had to earn a penny in his life would shy away from demeaning the "desire for financial profit" that the rest of the world has to live by. The hypocracy.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:34:49 UTC | #478755

alfonsoarmenta's Avatar Comment 11 by alfonsoarmenta

And here is how a lot of 'soulful' 'thinkers' see the earth:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth..."

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:36:16 UTC | #478757

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 12 by Mark Jones

Whereas the orgy of consumption that is the British Royal Family is soulful? I think my soulless lifestyle is likely to be more sustainable than just one of the family's equerries.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:37:35 UTC | #478758

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 13 by godsbelow


Aw. Kinda disappointed by that.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:38:47 UTC | #478759

Skeptic Jim's Avatar Comment 14 by Skeptic Jim

This idiot is going to be our King soon.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:40:32 UTC | #478760

Ohtar's Avatar Comment 15 by Ohtar

The annoying thing is that he could have easily argued his case (for NOT "objectifying" Nature) without invoking a "soul" and without vilifying Galileo, two actions that are guaranteed to alienate lots of humanists and scientists.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:41:04 UTC | #478761

Net's Avatar Comment 16 by Net

He said he found it “baffling” that so many scientists professed a faith in God yet this had little bearing on the “damaging” way science was used to exploit the natural world.

The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticising the profit imperative

Is he saying that these scientists use science in this way? I wonder if he means that some of the products of science are being used in this way by non-scientist types such as politicians? And as for the so-called profit imperative, I wonder, too, how much of his enormous, unearned wealth is spent on the environment, the poor, and trying to counteract the misuse of science??

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:43:09 UTC | #478762

jel's Avatar Comment 17 by jel

Why do the pathetic mumblings of Mr. C. Windsor even get noted?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:43:41 UTC | #478763

chameleonpete's Avatar Comment 18 by chameleonpete

I wish I'd not used that 25lb lump hammer to drive my tent pegs in, they're all bloody bent now.

Bloke is a dick, on no account should be be allowed the job. I think his mum knows it, and is trying to keep alive as long as possible. Lets hope she's got her mother's longevity. Which given a life of pampering and a choice of comfy palaces to live in, she might well have.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:45:19 UTC | #478764

Reginald's Avatar Comment 19 by Reginald

So what's the answer, more hymns and prayers, and donations to the Churches?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:47:12 UTC | #478765

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 20 by Jos Gibbons

Prince Charles blames world’s ills on ... Galileo

So he’s still religion’s punching bag in its war with science, then. Hasn’t he had enough yet? The Catholic Church moved on in 1992. Charles is behind them, but not by all that much.

The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world’s environmental problems

Surely people who think this is it will be keener to protect the planet.

he found it “baffling” that so many scientists professed a faith in God yet this had little bearing on the “damaging” way science was used to exploit the natural world.

Where in any religious text does it say you can’t overuse natural resources?

The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticising the profit imperative behind much scientific research, he said: “This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo’s assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.

So he’s confusing Galileo’s observation that the world obeys equations for wanting lots of money?

Nature has been completely objectified — ‘She’ has become an ‘it’ — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme.

Galileo’s scheme was to understand nature, not to do anything with it. And nature is an it, not a she. And our problems are specifically material problems.

“green technology” alone could not resolve the world’s environmental problems. Instead, the West must do something about its “deep, inner crisis of the soul”.

We need to cut consumption. That’s not the same as believing a magic mind escapes death to go party with a cosmic space ghost who caused the Big Bang.

the West had been been “de-souled” by consumerism.

Same mistake.

the present approach to the environment was contrary to the teachings of all of the world’s sacred traditions. The desire for financial profit ignored the spiritual teachings.

Quote scripture to prove it.

our environmental problems cannot be solved simply by applying yet more and more of our brilliant green technology ... It is no good just fixing the pump and not the well

Consumerism is the well.

Talk of an “environmental crisis” or of a “financial crisis” was actually describing “the outward consequences of a deep, inner crisis of the soul”.

If we remain as irreligious as we are, or even all become atheists, but we stop ruining Earth, the problem won’t be there. It’s nothing to do with “souls”

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:47:46 UTC | #478766

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 21 by Rodger T

The man who would be a tampon,thinks the peasants give a rat arse about what he thinks?

Who elected him prince anyway?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:55:31 UTC | #478769

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 22 by Cartomancer

Would that be the soul in the Platonic sense of an immaterial entity that thinks by participating in the eternal forms, or in the Aristotelian sense of the substantial form of the body? Would that be Alexander of Aphrodisias's soul, which arises from the complexion of the bodily humours and perishes with it, or Avicenna's soul which communicates with higher intelligences, is the perfection of the body and survives it? Would it be Averroes's soul he's on about, which is eventually subsumed into the Intellectus Agens, or the soul of Empedocles, and in Mahayana Buddhism, which is reincarnated endlessly? Is he talking about the Zoroastrian or the Manichaean soul, which is in cosmic opposition to the body, or the Roman Catholic soul which is tailored specially to operate it? What about the soul of the Amauricians, which will be joined by a spiritualised body at the end of time and lose its numerical identity to exist as part of god? Is all this talk of environmentalism really a reference to the World Soul of Plato's Timaeus and the Neoplatonic tradition, which Thierry of Chartres identified with the Holy Spirit? Is he talking about Descartes' soul, entirely shut off from the physical world, or the soul of Democritus and the Pythagoreans, which is made up of extremely fine physical matter? Does he think that trees and animals and the planets have souls, or that the former are moved by instinct and the latter by angels or crystal spheres?

I am most keen to hear our excellent philosopher-would-be-king share his considered opinions on these deep and profound questions, given his expressed familiarity with the world's great intellectual traditions.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:15:43 UTC | #478770

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 23 by Ivan The Not So Bad

This is what happens to someone who has spent his entire life surrounded by the most grovelling sychophants imaginable squeezing the tooth paste onto the toothbrush for him and telling him how brilliant his every thought is. Sad.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:13:39 UTC | #478774

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 24 by Cartomancer

For an excellent article on the inadequacy of our philosopher-would-be-king, see Johann Hari, here

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:17:28 UTC | #478776

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 25 by Cartomancer

oh, and I couldn't resist

Blockquote “And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state.” - Galileo Gallilei

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:27:16 UTC | #478778

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 26 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Re. Comment 22 by Cartomancer

As this ibecile wishes to assume the throne with the title "Defender of Faith" as opposed to "Defender of the Faith", I suspect the answer to all of your questions will be "yes".

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:25:22 UTC | #478779

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 27 by irate_atheist

I blame upper class twits with big ears and small brains.

Not wishing to name any names, of course.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:33:15 UTC | #478781

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 28 by helen sotiriadis

what a dunce.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:38:52 UTC | #478783

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 29 by Richard Dawkins

I don't know which I despise most: his anti-Gallilean appeal to the 'spiritual teachings' of 'the world's great sacred traditions', or his patronage of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. But in any case, the views of this particular dolt should be irrelevant. He is unelected, and unqualified to have his views taken more seriously than anyone else's.

Incidentally, he is arrogant, and surrounds himself with arrogance-reinforcing sycophants, as the following anecdote, told me by a close friend, indicates. My friend is a major authority on one of Prince Charles's bee-in-bonnet subjects. The prince approached him at a cocktail party and attacked him on the subject concerned. My friend said, "Sir, with respect, I think you'll find that the facts are not quite as you state" (or words to that effect). Without another word, the prince turned on his heel and walked off, whereupon an equerry said to my friend, "One does not argue with the prince."

Long live Queen Elizabeth. Actuarially she has a reasonable chance of outliving her air-headed heir, and Prince William would be an undoubted improvement. But the fact that so much hangs on the longevity of one old lady is, in itself, testimony against the entire principle of a hereditary monarchy.

Go to and join 'Republic', an organization dedicated to abolishing the British monarchy.


Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:26:12 UTC | #478786

headspeed's Avatar Comment 30 by headspeed

Comment 21 by Rodger T :

The man who would be a tampon,thinks the peasants give a rat arse about what he thinks?

Who elected him prince anyway?

he wasn't elected as prince... he inherited it... nepotism...


His Highness The Prince of Wales has weak reasons about blaming the said people...

I agree on what Mr. Dawkins said...

except the "abolishing the monarchy" part.. XD

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:56:04 UTC | #478792