On America, Science and Fundamentalist Christianity...
Probably the one thing I understand least about America is its relationship with religion. American is a country that (i) is particularly known for not being hide-bound by convention in science or business and (ii) often demonstrates an astonishing (and often laudable) amount of bombast and rule-breaking in both domestic and foreign-affairs. How then can it be that so many elements of American life can be held so firmly under the sway of religious fundamentalism?
You'd think this kind of thing would be more of a problem for countries like the UK - old European powers whose organisation includes no inbuilt distinctions between church and state. I mean - look at the facts - in the UK, the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The same woman is also the country's Head of State and has been for over fifty years. The UK also has - by law or convention - several representatives of the Church of England in our Upper House (The House of Lords), although there is considerable discussion ongoing about whether they should be there or whether all religions in the country should be represented.
But in fact the UK's religious right has radically less power within the country than in the US. Presidents of the United States essentially have to be church-going Christians. Church-going in the UK is simply considered a bit odd. We have anti-abortion campaigners just like in the US, but nowhere near as many and nor are they so overtly religious. And while it would be naive of me to say that there are no schools in the UK in which creationism or intelligent design are taught, I can't find any evidence that it's even mentioned in the UK's National Curriculum or that any religiously-tinted competitors for evolution are presented as of equal plausibility.
It's the effects of religion on science, I think, that most appals me. I don't believe - never have believed - that science is a completely value-free space. Decisions are made every day about what to study, who to study (and what not to study as well). Initial hypotheses are almost necessarily built upon assumption, intuition and the influx of current mainstream political consensus. But the idea that challenges to theories like "evolution" can circumvent the entire academic peer-review and testing process by way of the courts - inspired by people who want to find ways to equate the world with their religious beliefs... Well, it's scandalous! Totally, utterly scandalous!
The Guardian is running an article in its new Life section today on exactly this subject: The Battle for American Science. It's this article that part-inspired me to write about this subject today. Here's a quote from it:
Critics speak with similar alarm about other theories that have been getting a new airing recently, on Aids and abstinence and global warming, for example - theories presented as rival scientific ideas asking only for a "fair hearing". "It's a very good rhetorical strategy, because it appeals to the very American sense of openness and fair play," says Miller. "But there's something called the scientific process, you know - involving open publication, criticism, and rejection of things that aren't convincing. We don't teach both sides of the germ theory of disease and faith-healing. Evolution isn't in the classroom because of political action or court decisions. It's in the classroom because it made it through, it stood up to scrutiny and became the scientific consensus. It fought the battle and won."
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
One thing you have to understand about the US... for most of us our ancestors came here because of religious persecution in Europe. They came here because they wanted to practice their religion openly without the proverbial heavy hand of gov't watching over them.
The thing I think most Europeans, at least the ones I know, fail to grasp is that the First Amendment doesn't us free from religion, it just makes us free from the gov't telling us to practice this or another religion.
It's a bit abstract and I'll freely admit we're all still working it out after 225 years and we usually don't get it right.
→ Posted by: david at April 10, 2003 1:17 PM
Like David said, I think it's partly historical. You tell Americans they have the right to say what they want, practice what they want, print what they want, and we go off the deep end--just like we eat and consume excessively, we practice religion excessively, too. If the First Amendment did't specifically say religion, but just implied it, I don't think there'd be so many fights to get Creationism or prayer in schools, or such fervent support of it. You give Americans a right, and we'll exercise it until we're blue in the face. We'll pray until our knuckles bleed.
It's party cultural, too. A lot of Americans view the US (albeit subconsciously) as loved by God, or even Righteous. Hell, we're taught that: "In God We Trust;" "One Nation, Under God;" "God Bless America." Somewhere along the line our earlier leaders thought that America was created as a Godly place. And there's not as much support for higher education in the US either, for many reasons, which I think leads to more people being very religious. It's anecdotal, but most of my friends at least *believed* in God before they went to college.
The third part is social/governmental: besides the New Deal era, when government work programs and benefits helped Americans during the Great Depression, we don't have a great history of providing a good safety net for our citizens. Europeans--even Canadians--have a much more decent level of social programs, from health care to child care to maternity/paternity leave. Part of that's the American notion of the Puritan work ethic and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps." In the US, you take care of yourself, you don't look to anyone else. Asking for help is considered shameful. So when you fall on hard times, who do you look to for guidance and help? Not the government; it doesn't have the programs or tax base to help you. Not others; you've got too much pride for that. But will help you and always will? God. So, with the increasing (and ever-existing) level of social and economic stratification in the US, where the top 1% owns 21% of the wealth, and the top 10% owns 65% of it, there's going to be a lot of hard times for the majority of the people. And thus, a lot of people are going to be looking for Someone's Help and Love.
→ Posted by: Graham at April 10, 2003 4:11 PM
You should give a read to Wired magazine from a few months ago. Pretty much the whole issue was dedicated to the Science vs. Religion debate.
It's available online here.
→ Posted by: Bryan at April 10, 2003 6:04 PM
In economics American conservatives have an essentially Darwinian vision: the perfect society can best be built by unfettered "red in tooth and claw" competition between individuals; central control, planning and intervention by the state (even through welfare or healthcare) always fails.
In biology, however, there's a 180-degree turn. Here, its competitive Darwinian forces which must fail, Stalinist central planning (by God) which is necessary to achieve biological perfection.
You wonder if they can see the contradiction between their "don't tread on me" attitudes to government, and their Kim-Jong-esque personality cult approach to religion...
→ Posted by: Nick at April 10, 2003 9:45 PM
I think its also important to remember that American is essentially a country divided. Take a look at the last election results, Gore won the east and west coasts while Bush took the center of the country and the south coast. Religious fundamentalism sits squarely into the territory won by Bush. Head to Boston, Portland, New York or San Francisco and you'll find a situation pretty akin to Europe. Nebraska, that's another story. Of course there are pockets of the coastal America scattered through the interior, Austin, Bolder, Chicago...
Interestingly both the computer industry and the entire entertainment industry (movies, music, art, advertising, etc) are headquartered on the coasts. A bit telling perhaps?
→ Posted by: William Blaze at April 10, 2003 10:18 PM
Caveat emptor: I look at the US from the outside, not the inside.
Last summer I drove through the states of New York and Pennsylvania. For a while I was trying to find something to listen to on the radio. I could locate weak signals that were interesting - but they would rapidly fade away. There were lots of strong signals: and each one of them was a religious station preaching hell fire and damnation. I wasn't in the heartland by any means.
There was an article in the New York Times a while ago telling the story of an NPR (National Public Radio) station forced off the air by a religious station that had a better understanding of how the FCC worked.
The religious right has the money and time to get what they want.
In an related/unrealted vein: something like 25,000 Baptist missionaries from the US have announced that they will be setting up shop in Iraq. Pouring gas on fire I guess.
→ Posted by: Bill Laidley at April 10, 2003 11:59 PM
Bill, people in Pennsylvania have a saying about their state. "In the east is Philadelphia, in the west Pittsburgh, and in between there is Alabama". For those not familiar with US States, Alabama is a southern, "bible belt" state that's about as fundamentalist (and racist) as they come.
You don't need to get far from the coast to experience the effect. 20 miles or so inland and you are into redneck fundamentalist territory. But a huge percentage of the US population lives in those 20 miles bordering the ocean. NY, LA, SF, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, DC, Seattle, Baltimore and Portland are all coastal.
And one of the worst parts of US style winner take all democracy is that 50% of the time you are going to be governed by someone whose ideas you oppose. And yes the right wing, including the religious part of it, is far better organized then the left at this point in US history. Sad stuff. Going to take us a long time to erase the scars that Bush takes such glee in inflicting on the international community.
→ Posted by: William Blaze at April 11, 2003 10:31 PM
Bill--While the rest of the civilized world seems content to go with the flow of history, that is, into the future, we Americans seem to be determinedly regressing--scientifically, philosophically, religiously. I do not have a coherent theory to explain this, but I, as an American, find it accutely embarrasing.
→ Posted by: eric collier at February 29, 2004 3:20 PM
Ironically, America being unconventional and "demonstrat[ing] an astonishing...amount of bombast and rule-breaking in both domestic and foreign-affairs" is exactly what feeds a fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalism is presenting itself as David to the establishment's Goliath, as it were--a grassroots, "peasant" revolt against the mainstream ministers, college professors, scientists, and schoolteachers who represent the "elite." Many fundamentalists are highly educated people despite their clumsy beliefs, and what drives them is their ambivalence, which has been stoked by the present Administration into outright resentment, that they have against the people who they see as occupying the pinnacle of the class system. Americans have and have always had an ambivalence about education, scientific rationalism, and artistic endeavor, which, being "worldly" and perhaps snobbish, conflicts with the "folksy" image that we like to project. To quote Vine Deloria, Jr., "it is their goody-goody projections of themselves, which they call Christ." America may be going through a phase with evolution, but this ambivalence that Americans have toward that which is counter-intuitive and process-driven (i.e., empirical) is likely to continue.
→ Posted by: Kristine Harley at May 4, 2005 6:38 PM
In short, you must, through your imagination, raise yourself up to religion, not lower religion down to your intellect. To do this you must close one “I” and open another.
READ ONE COSMOS
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
→ Posted by: simplyhere at October 29, 2005 8:42 PM