Real Scientists Tolerate Religion

Just as "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche," real scientists don't get preoccupied with refuting religious ideas. While Dan Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Vic Stenger, and Richard Dawkins logically refute the tenets of religious belief, real scientists who know better are working quietly in their labs, doing real science. Real scientists understand that important things need to be done, and they are going about doing them.

Born into a religious family, I was forced to find my own way to a more logical, atheo-agnostic view of the universe. Over a period of adolescent time, I was able to build a dynamic view of the world and the cosmos that did not require an omnipotent, ever-present deity. As I was establishing my own independent perspective, it was necessary to debate the issue of religion with friends and family members. I understood how important religion was to these people that I cared for, so I did not resort to cheap shots or arguments designed to make them feel stupid.

Dan Dennet, Sam Harris, and Chris Hitchens are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. Vic Stenger is no longer a working scientist, so he is off the hook. And if Rich Dawkins ever did anything other than writing books and appearing on talk shows and at book signings, the evidence is sparse. By a strict definition of "real scientist", these authors who have jumped on the recent anti-religion bandwagon are innocent of the charge.

Religion and Politics are the two topics almost certain to generate heated arguments at virtually any cocktail party where the attendees are honest with each other. Hundreds of millions of people were killed over political ideologies in the past 150 years. The bloodiest, guiltiest ideology of recent decades has been communism--a totalitarian, quasi-religious political belief system based upon mythical socio-economic constructs. But Islamism--a totalitarian religious based system--is on track to plow just as bloody a furrow through the earth of history.

Religion has not been a topic to trifle with, through the ages. People will too often compromise their politics before they will openly compromise their religion. As deadly as political arguments can become, religious arguments lie even closer to the heart, cut deeper to the quick.

Religion is dangerous. So why would a real scientist tolerate religion? I am not saying that real scientists tolerate violence. If a religion (or political system) turns prodigally violent, scientists--like all good people--should oppose it.

Scientists tolerate religion because in secular western societies the threat from homegrown religions (Judaism, Christianity) has run its course. These religions are tamed, and not the source of violence and oppression as they were in the middle ages and earlier. But real scientists understand the moderating role that these seasoned religions have on the natural turmoil of individuals. (Islam is a different story, for another posting)

Ideally, religions serve as moderators and absorbers of violent instincts that might otherwise lead to chain-reaction, out of control impulsiveness. Religions serve as simple explanations for complex phenomena, and allow ordinary, non-reflective people to focus on other issues. Religion is not a problem for society unless it is violent and publicly insistent, like Islamism or the more violent anti-abortion movements.

By focusing on the rather obvious logical fallacies inherent in religion and god belief, these authors put themselves on a pedestrian, didactic level that does them no credit. What is worse, the true believers in the religions they attack (generally the old and quiet religions) are completely turned off by their aggressive, and at the same time, patronizing approach. In other words, if they are trying to change people's minds, they are wasting their time. Instead, they seem to be preaching to a rather dim, off-key choir.

While it may be amusing to feel superior to others whom you feel to be living on a lower plane of thought, in reality the joke may be on you. In fact, you should probably assume that the joke is on you--that way you will be right more often than wrong. Religion is certainly a crutch. But the crutches leaned on by those in contempt of religion are not exactly invisible.

My attitude toward the toothless religions of today is to let sleeping dogs lie. If the "evangelicals" were bombing schoolbuses and airliners full of children and travelers, I would understand this recent faddish craze of anti-religion. I feel quite anti-Islamist myself, everytime I read about another Islamist inspired atrocity. But I do not attack the many muslims that I know and work with. I tolerate their religion--even as I disagree with it.

Modern leftism--which unfortunately has largely taken over the US Democratic Party--has become a quasi-religion. It can tolerate no other religions--except under the banner of multi-culturalism, which is a highly patronizing form of "tolerance." Much of the current anti-religion bandwagon is based upon this peculiar "religious competition" ongoing in the west.

Of course I understand the issues of stem cell research, abortion rights, secular public education free of religious indoctrination, etc. These are all issues that can be dealt with as we go. There is no need to obliterate the deep, non-violent faiths of hundreds of millions of people in order to finance stem cell lines, or to safeguard anyone's rights. The overkill resorted to by Hitchens, Harris, et al has taken on the appearance of a fashionable public statement of non-faith, which has snowballed somewhat within particular pseudo-intellectual circles.

Personally, I could not care less. The arguments I constructed in my own personal journey from religious faith to atheo-agnosticism are more compelling and reasonable than most of what I have read from the above authors. Had I read one of their books at the time I was evolving intellectually, I would probably still be a religious believer. Fortunately, I found my own way out of the cave.

For me, life without "God" is far more interesting, with far greater potential for personal satisfaction in work, accomplishment, and spiritual/intellectual striving. But that is for me. For others that I know, much of their satisfaction in life and reason for living, lies in their religious faith. I would not take that away from them--why would I want to?

There are far more important things to do than to waste time correcting some of the less destructive delusions littering the landscape.

Personally, I think much of this compulsion to wipe out religion--besides coming from the jealous "religion" of leftism--comes from an immature need to publicly appear "enlightened" in comparison to another group. In the modern "PC/Multicultural" world, certain groups are off-limits, and other groups are declared "in season." In North America, white males and christians are definitely "in season." You can bag all of them that you want, with no limits on cruel or unusual punishments or collateral damage.

But these excesses of the PC/Multicult establishment in the media and academia have their consequences later. This declared war on religion will probably result in an energizing of the evangelical zeal, just as the PC oppressiveness in universities is resulting in more resistance, and reflexive anti-PC ideas.