The Religious Assault on Rational Thought

This morning, I find myself reading an article from Saturday's Globe and Mail entitled "No Faith in Science". This, combined with listening to a story in the local news about a rally in "support" of Bishop Fred Henry and his so-called Pastoral Letter, leads me to today's topic.

It isn't particularly news that there is an ongoing dispute between science and religion. Whether one talks about the infamous debate of creationism versus evolution; the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo; Bioethics, Sexuality, whatever the topic, science often seems to come up "at odds" with religious dogma.

Listening to the article about Bishop Henry, it occurred to me that the protesters are fundamentally unwilling to consider the content of the psychological literature on human sexuality. The claim is made that a homosexual couple cannot possible constitute a family. Yet, on the other hand, the number of children being raised by gay couples is surprisingly large. Due to a variety of social pressures or their own desires as people, many homosexual people are active parents raising children. If, as the religious argument goes, marriage is all about procreation and raising children, then I find it difficult to see how you can argue that a same-gender couple raising children is not a family unit.

Of course, in response, the religious turn around and argue that the children of these families are clearly missing the all-important second gender role model. The psychological studies of the social outcomes for children raised by same-gender couples does not show any unusual deviations from the greater population. There is no increased probability that these children will be homosexual themselves, nor is there any unusual behavioural differences. It would appear that a good parent is a good parent - regardless of sexual orientation, skin colour, hair colour, or whatever.

Groups like the so-called 'Traditional Values Coalition' protest loudly the idea of even studying human sexuality. In response to a sociologist studying the behaviours of truck-stop prostitutes and truckers, the TVC wrote a particularly vicious letter to a congressman referring to the prostitutes as "lot lizards" and other slang. According to the "TVC", studying AIDS is "questionable" use of taxpayer funds. I for one cannot believe that understanding the disease that is currently wiping out an entire generation in Africa is a bad thing.

Of course, the TVC, along with Ted Byfield, believe that everyone should turn to prayer whenever they are "tempted" by something as "evil" as sexuality. Of course, this merely reflects the ages-old misunderstanding of humanity that has been reflected time and again by scripture, with a uniquely misogynistic attitude towards women.

Under George Bush, the various religious groups are dictating the membership of the committees that are supposed to guide the regulation of ethics in the practice of science and medicine. Anyone who is even marginally "liberal" in their positions is being removed from these organizations. Policy is coming out that is largely derived from those that misunderstand the rationalism of science as somehow in direct conflict with their particular faith.

Science is not inherently anti-religious. In general, it tends to pursue explanations of the world around us. Those explanations may call into question current religiously-derived belief, but they are not inherently anti-religious per se. For example, if one reads either Darwin or Galileo carefully, you will find that their writings very carefully make it quite clear that they are not challenging theology itself. Their writings may well question beliefs derived from certain interpretations of scripture, but certainly do not preclude the scripture itself. (This sounds almost contradictory, until you classify scriptural interpretation into two views - literal and allegorical. Because of its age, it is necessary today to start treating scripture in a more allegorical fashion. Otherwise, we find ourselves trapped in a situation where most of the world is so much at odds with what was written over 2000 years ago that there is no solace to be found in the scripture itself)

Those who believe that rational thought has a place in the world have a very tough challenge before them. The extreme groups of the Religious Reich are now organized with substantial funding behind them. Their propaganda campaigns are something that need to be countered. I am not entirely sure how to go about countering these organizations - certainly not "head on". As others have pointed out before, arguing with a fanatic is like mud wrestling with a pig - sooner or later you will start to figure out that the pig is enjoying it. The "faith" argument is very powerful for many people because it provides solace in the form of redemption. Science, and knowledge in general, is a bit cold in this regard. For many, this makes rationalism unappealing.