Mad Science, Bad Science and the Cure for Everything

The polemic against religion seems to depend on an assumption concerning the makeup of the world. A popular assumption seems to be that there are three basic realms the political, the religious and the scientific. Depending on one's personal preference, one establishes an "if only." For instance, those of us with a religious affiliation might say, "If only Constantine had never got involved with the Church, then Christianity would not be tarred with all this political corruption." For any one of the supposed realms, one of the others can be used as a scapegoat for the evils of the world. Here is the advantage for those who favor the notion of a pure scientific realm. Laying the blame for corruption and evil at the foot of religious or political institutions is easier than blaming scientists for the evil of the world. Nevertheless, in popular movies and fiction, there is the image of the mad scientist alone in his laboratory unleashing evil into the world through his unholy experimentation. (See I am Legend for a recent version of this narrative and the interaction of the three realms.)

The advantage of anti-religious polemicists over those who find themselves firmly entrenched in politics or religion may be an advantage of perspective. If we think of the three realms in terms of their relation to time, the religious realm has a tendency to be married to the past (especially the Jewish and Christian traditions which are tied to historical events), the political realm is primarily concerned with the present and the crises of the moment, while the scientific realm has the future as its target. In this way, anti-religion polemicists can pit religious past against the scientific future. They lay claim to all the positive discoveries of the past and all those as yet undiscovered. For instance, the scientific realm can lay claim to both contemporary treatments for cancer and finding the cure for cancer without, of course, taking responsibility for the development of chemicals, devices, and circumstances which increase the risk of cancer.

Yet, when the history of the world is told in a way that pits science against religion, the scientific realm has the advantage of having no living history, no tradition. That is, the anti-religion polemicist can divorce himself from the errors and atrocities of the past in a way that neither the politicians or the religious can. The scientist can forget the practice of bleeding as a cure for fever in a way that the Church cannot divorce herself from the Spanish Inquisition. Since science is concerned with a certain type of knowledge and technological development, all mistakes of the past can be presented as "We now know..." or "If only, they had known..."

What if we wrote a history of science that focussed only on the "bad" science? Would science fair so well? If we focussed our attention on such things as bleeding, Thalidomide (or other modern birth related experiments), the disparaging and persecution of midwives, DDT, the atomic bomb, machine guns, biological and chemical weapons, racial profiling etc or focussed only on evils done in the name of science like vivisection or profiled only figures like Joseph Mengele, then would science lose some of its shiny veneer. Yet, scientific history has a way of dissociating itself from its errors (experiments) and faulty assumptions because in many ways the ends justify the means. The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best through experimentation on dogs would be one sided if we only focussed on the rights of the animals without due attention to the incalculable benefits to diabetics.

Many people tend to accept that evils done in the name of science were "bad" science and so don't really belong to the history of science. Yet, when Christians claim that evils done in the name of Christ are "bad" religion, the same acceptance is not so forthcoming. For Joseph Mengele was not doing science, he was doing Nazi politics and, of course, we all are supposed to know that Hitler was a Christian and his religion was the source of his anti-semitism. The advantage of the scientific realm with its future orientation is that the future remains pure. The future is not muddied by politics and religion. That is, the future is not muddied by reality. Scientific errors of the past can be shifted onto the backs of politicians and priests and science herself can remain pure and free from sin.

The truth is while these realms exist they have never been and can never be separated. There is no pure science that stands outside religion and politics. Science cannot be performed in a vacuum. Christianity has always taught that sin poisons everything. So, that the Church and State are corruptible does not come as a surprise to most Christians nor is the reality that scientific knowledge can be used for good or evil.

For those who are interested in reading about the relation of religion and science and the rise of the religion versus science myth, I would recommend either the short chapter in Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry by Vincent Carroll or for a more in depth academic treatment of this subject with lots of footnotes see Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. Stark also tackles the questions of Christianity's relation to the Inquisition, Witch-hunts and Slavery. Carroll grapples with many of the popular arguments against Christianity including the Inquistion, Nazism, and the environment.

The Skeptical Christian

Since my previous blog entry did not refer to any books in particular, perhaps, it should have been posted in my other more general blog Where the Sidewalks End. However, the content was inspired some years ago by an issue of Skeptic Magazine with the title "The God Question," published sometime in the 1990s. At least, the editors of Skeptic Magazine approached the topic as a "question." Nevertheless, the same arguments come out every few years in bestsellers. Most recently, one could look at Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. For a punchy four-part critique of Hitchens see biblical scholar J. Edmund Anderson's blog Resurrected Orthodoxy. As Dr. Anderson suggests, one needs only a little knowledge of church history and biblical scholarship to find that the portrait of religion that the Dawkins and Hitchens paint is cartoonish.

Now, I can empathize with the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world. In my youth and much to the frustration of my parents, I enjoyed inviting Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses into our home to debate. The JWs were especially eager to engage me in debates concerning evolution and creation and returned for more. Further, I seemed to have an innate animosity toward organized religion. It seems that I imbibed the messages of popular Canadian culture at a young age.

To my surprise and out of the ordinary course of things, I was born-again in my first year of University. The ordinary course of things is that Christians lose their faith in college when they are confronted with "hard questions" that challenge their received tradition. On the other hand, I was quickly disillusioned of my notion that the University was a higher place of learning. In my orientation and first week of classes, I discovered that my fellow students were not concerned with "hard questions" but hard liquor.

Further, I discovered that my chosen field of Psychology was the wrong discipline to develop what I saw as a fundamental question with respect to understanding human beings. "Is there a spirit realm, do gods exist or do most human beings suffer from a delusion?" At the time, this hypothesis was open ended. Further, I wondered, if there are no gods, then has belief in a spirit realm served some positive evolutionary function? These questions still seem quite simple to me and relevant to Psychology but Psychology being a rather "young" science is trying very hard to play with the big boys like the physicists and biologists. So, the human being is reduced to numbers. Methodology is reduced to quantifiable questionnaires rather than probing questions.

While I learned some fascinating information about human development and sense perception (N.B. both these topics could fall under biology), I found that the films I viewed in my film courses and the novels I read in my literature course offered more insight into human nature than my psychology textbooks. Further, I noticed that the more I read the Bible (that backward, primitive book full of archaic rules and bizarre tales), the better I understood the literature I was reading. Whether it was Franz Kafka, Margaret Atwood or Stephen King, biblical literacy was not a hinderance to my intellectual life but an advantage. Further, I discovered that the biblical authors were not afraid to ask the "hard questions" about human existence and even encouraged the moderate consumption of hard liquor. So, once again out of the ordinary course of things, my faith in Christ led me to enjoy the occasional beer with my fellow students.

If only Qohelet had thought to write Ecclesiastes in the form of a survey. On a scale of one to ten (one being gathering stones and ten being scattering stones) which best describes your current state. Do the same with the following pairs: loving:hating, living:dying, silent:speaking. . . Instead, what did he write?

"A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is mist, a chasing after the wind." Ecclesiastes 2:24-26

Do Atheists Form Communes?

I believe it is safe to say that materialists tend to accept the basic claims of Evolutionary Theory. Are there any who don't? Is it possible to be an atheist and reject evolutionary theory? Further, I think many of us are familiar with the basic claim that a world shed of archaic, primitive and backward belief in a spirit realm would be a better place. The planet earth would be more peaceful because religion and violence are irrevocably linked. Our collective health will improve because we won't waste our time on prayer and our money on tithing. Instead, we can spend our money and energy on finding cures through scientific research.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant the basic assumption that there is no spirit realm. There is no god. There are no gods, angels or demons. Let us also grant the basic claims of Evolutionary Theory.

Okay, now I am for this blog entry an atheist who also accepts the basic claims of theory of evolution. Wow! I feel better already. Anyway, do I now promote my new world view with as much vigor as those religious types? Will the truth set the world free? Hold on a moment.

Given that human beings evolved, why is it that homo religious outnumbers homo atheist? Is there some evolutionary benefit to believing in a spirit realm? That is, if there once were "pre-theistic" human beings, then what happened to them? Did the more violent theistic human beings wipe them out? We don't know. All we know is that "theist" human beings have dominated and continue to dominate.

Now, as an atheist (for the sake of this blog entry) and a human being, I find myself (for entirely instinctive reasons) concerned for the survival of human beings. However, given the record, I suggest that it might be detrimental to the survival of human beings to know the truth about the material nature of the universe. That is, we atheists don't seem to have a good survival rate.

Moreover, what evidence do we have that we can educate people out of their religion, anyway? Given that our "pre-theist" ancestors didn't fair so well for the sake of the human race, perhaps, we atheists ought to keep quiet. Perhaps, atheism is a quick road to extinction. Therefore, let's not be too hasty in our proselytism.

Instead, we can test our hypothesis. I suggest that in the "spirit" of scientific research and the good of humanity that atheists put their claims to the test. We can take a page from homo religious and gather ourselves together in an attempt to form a utopian community like the Puritans, the Benedictines or the Branch Davidians. We can find a plot of land or someone can donate an island to us. I am sure I could find a wealthy theist who would pay to have all atheists shipped to an island. On our island, we can demonstrate living together in atheistic harmony. In the unfortunate event that someone develops theistic tendencies, we can peacefully return them to their own kind (not burn them like those theists). Alternatively, we can ask them to volunteer to argue with us to see if indeed they can be returned to the fold. Once the world sees how well we get along, how advanced our technology is and how healthy we are surely our kind will grow in number.

Now, as I imbibe the spirit and once again become a theist, I can't wait to see what atheists have to say when they no longer have to waste their energies on those of us who are under the god delusion. I hope it's pithy.

Good luck, atheists.