Can a religious person head the National Institutes of Health?

Francis Collins is an unusual scientist. A physical chemist and doctor who rose to prominence as the leader of the Human Genome Project, he has recently been appointed by President Barack Obama as head of the NIH, the largest biomedical funding and research organization in the country. Collins is unusual because along with this undoubtedly distinguished scientific credentials he brings another kind of background to the job; that of a pious, church-going Christian. A few years ago Collins published a book that argued for a scientific basis for belief in God, and not just a theological one. Needless to say, his views have caused concern among a number of atheist scientists and secular scientists in general…

…more on Desipundit

WHERE ARE ALL THE ENLIGHTENED MUSLIMS?

This poll result from a recent Science article should make any reasonable, rational person shudder

Copyright: Science, 2008

Neglecting the rather pleasantly heartening observation that the ‘backward’ Kazakhs are more enlightened than their fellow Muslims, the fact delineated in the article that there apparently are virtually no Young-Earth creationists is hardly soothing in light of these results. After taking a look at this, is it surprising that the ‘moderate’ Muslims are not stepping forward in large throngs to condemn their fellow Muslims’ killing of innocents? The problem is not of moderates versus extremists. The problem is of mindsets that fan irrational behaviour based on rejection of world-views which are bolstered by mountains of evidence. The question we have to ask, not just of Muslims but also Christians, Jews and other deeply religious people, is whether they will truly be able to condemn their fellow religious travelers’ acts of terrorism based on a reasoned and rational response? They may possibly do it for reasons of pragmatism, perhaps reasons related to political expediency or perhaps related to survival itself. But that is still a quite different stance from condemning such acts because they are as far from reason as we can imagine. Believing in evolution is not necessary for deploring these acts. But I think that a world-view as firmly grounded in reason and evidence as evolution can be a convenient yardstick to map out the general mentality of a population. Of course such surveys turn up disconcerting results in the most advanced country in the world too, namely the United States. Christians are no less ignorant than Muslims. But even in secular countries like Turkey, the Muslims seem to beat the Christians in terms of sheer numbers.

The concept of the moderate Muslim is dealt another blow by polls taken in the Muslim world regarding suicide terrorism. As Sam Harris documents in his book The End of Faith, polls regularly show that 20% of people even in Turkey answer “Yes” when asked “Is suicide bombing in defence of Islam ever justified”. Given the population of Turkey, this is a huge number in terms of absolutes. Are we to believe that 14 million Turkish Muslims are Jihadi fundamentalists? That would stretch the imagination of even the most paranoid person. Indeed, probably 13.8 million out of these 14 million call themselves ‘moderate’ Muslims and live peaceful and pious lives. And yet they readily agree that suicide terrorism in the service of Islam can be justified at least under some circumstances. The proportion of such people in other Muslim countries is unspeakably high. There is a genuine problem here that transcends political, educational and socio-economic disparities.

Now it’s also true that there is a substantial proportion of the population cited as “not having thought about evolution”. To me it seems that members of this population would be of two kinds; those who basically just don’t think about the topic and think it’s irrelevant to their lives, and those who have given it some thought and are genuinely undecided about it. One may then think that the latter group stands a good chance of emerging as the next faction of progressive, moderate Muslims who would institute reform. But how can this happen? This latter group is going to be a weak-voiced minority in a majority that won’t allow them to get an influential platform for their views. Much has been said about how Islam can only be reformed “from the inside”. While this statement will always ring true, what exactly would be the source of this inside reform? It’s not that there is suddenly an influential springboard which will serve as a political or social vehicle for transformation. For example, a moderate Muslim who believes in evolution and stresses its acceptance is probably not going to be elected to high public office, just like in the United States. Even if he wants to spread his message, how will he do it? The schools are mostly religious ones, with few secular ones that are going to take on the task of solidly educating their students about evolution. Even if the schools wanted to do it, there would be a pronounced backlash from many parents. Thus society itself would be largely hostile or passive to such a moderate Muslim’s views.

As Harris says, the progressive position is also perceived as being theologically bankrupt; after all they are trying to argue against Muslims who are more devoutly following the Holy Book and therefore have already assumed the high ground. We have seen what has happened to progressive and secular Muslims like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Such enlightened Muslims are simply not in a position to stay in their respective Muslim countries and bring about reform from inside; in fact they have already been condemned by many of their fellow Muslims. Their stories would clearly discourage any potential progressive recruit from treading the same kind of path. So to me it seems that the safest strategy for a so-called progressive and moderate Muslim would be to either silently suffer and tacitly accept the trappings of his culture and society, or to completely break out and defect to more secular countries, in which case his role in own country becomes meaningless. It’s a catch 22 situation in which moderates have to either accept the opinion of the majority, or become pariahs. In this light, I don’t see a large-scale revival, let alone revolution, spearheaded by moderate and progressive Muslims anytime soon.

The point again is simple; as long as people have more or less blind and unquestionable faith in their Holy Book, as long as they more or less worship their favourite Invisible Man in the Sky, the distinction between moderate and extremist is bound to turn cosmetic. Moderates who may despise the details of the execution of the fundamentalists’ actions may nevertheless at least tacitly agree with their stated goals. Even moderate Muslims (or Christians and Jews for that matter) would think that the world would be a better place if everyone in it was Muslim. And as long as this attitude persists, we cannot rid the world of religious fundamentalists.

THIS JUST KEEPS ON GETTING BETTER!

I don’t know how many heard of the ludicrous tale that is being woven around a Christmas nativity scene in the Washington State capitol. In short, someone put up a little exhibit illustrating the baby Jesus Christ (born from a virgin mother of course)as part of the Christmas celebrations in the state capitol. After a couple of days, atheists put up an atheist sign which basically said that religion is senseless and that there is no God and there are natural causes for everything etc. etc. The sign was then duly stolen by someone and later reinstalled.

I personally think that there was no need for atheists to do this; there are much better ways in which they can make their point. At the same time the Catholic League went off on its own deluded trajectory. But anyway…as was expected after this, an entire troupe of ranting loons, pious evangelicals and people with their own agendas have essentially lined up with their own signs. The implication is clear; if you respect Christianity and atheism and give them a platform, why not respect every other worldview out there? Foremost among the loons were members of the viciously anti-American, anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-virtually everything Westboro Baptist Church who brought a sign saying “Santa Claus will take you to Hell”. Let them put it up I say!

But the creme de la creme was a Festivus pole that someone brought to the capitol and demanded that they be allowed to put it up. That’s right. Festivus. The fictional annual holiday invented in a famous Seinfeld episode. My jaw muscles are really hurting from all the laughing.

This is what happens when you mix church and state. Everybody wants to be heard then. I personally am still on the side of the FSM. The capitol should be draped in his noodly appendages.

RELIGION AND THE LAND OF THE RICH

A few years before Charles Darwin’s birth, a theologian named Bishop William Paley advanced what was then seen as an ingenious argument for the existence of God, now familiar as the “argument from design”. Just as an intricately designed watch that you may stumble upon signifies the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’, so does the magnificent diversity of life and the workings of the human body signify the existence of an intelligent and all-encompassing God. Darwin faced this argument squarely and demolished it by showing precisely how complex systems can arise spontaneously, guided by the laws of physics, chemistry, and natural competition. In one fell swoop Darwin did away with Paley’s argument, and it lay buried in its grave when it was resurrected and dusted off a hundred and fifty years later essentially in just one country, suprisingly the most developed country in the world. No other developed country has so forcefully advocated this regressive argument known by the (oxy)moronic name of “intelligent design”. Only in the United States have people sought to go back in time and so ardently embrace ignorant and outdated ideas about the existence of God. Why the United States? Why this glaring discrepancy involving the citizens of the most technologically advanced nation believing in the most backward-looking ideas?

New York Times columnist Charles Blow has a discussion on his blog where he wonders why the US is the only country where religion is so rampant in spite of great wealth and technological development. He points to a graph that denotes religious fundamentalism to be roughly inversely proportional to technological development, with one exception- the United States. Why is that so?

It’s definitely a very interesting phenomenon to muse about, and three main reasons have always come to my mind:

1. The Argument from Great Resources:

One might argue that as much as fundamentalism seems to be widespread in today’s America, it has been a strain endemic in American culture and belief ever since this country was founded. The reason why its effects were not felt so much earlier is because Americans largely managed to separate church and state partly because of great natural resources and access to technology that could keep the engine of scientific and economic progress running while keeping the engine of religious fundamentalism independently humming.

2. The Argument from Fear of Technology and Love of Money:

Ironically, the same technology that makes the US the most developed country in the world may be partly responsible for people’s gravitating towards religion. These days much of technology seems incomprehensible and we must remember the well-known adage that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

For many common Americans, space exploration, the Internet, modern medicine and genetically engineered crops are black boxes whose fruits they enjoy while not completely understanding their inner workings. Religion tosses them some similar tidbits; to them creationism seems no more fantastic than evolution and so they don’t have any problem believing in Biblical accounts of events. Since many technological advances seem like miracles to them anyway, they might as well believe in miracles in the Bible. The fault here lies not in technology of course but in the educational system and media of this country which frequently obfuscate the features of science and technology, either reducing them to oversimplified metaphors (comparing atoms to watermelons for example), or rooting them in a mass of complicated, confused jargon. Many surveys indicate that a disproportionate number of Americans don’t understand evolution. If science education and the media do a better job of educating the public, they will start to see the difference between phenomena based on evidence and phenomena which were divined by prophets through personal faith.

The same kind of argument rings true with money. Money buys you comforts and technology whose origins- and limitations- you don’t understand. The current morass on Wall Street is just another indication of Americans’ love affair with green. Money also created a false sense of hubris and the belief that all this acquisition of wealth was somewhat related to the Christian ethic (or a perverted version thereof). Forgotten were the equally important Christian ethical notions of charity, moderation and stewardship of nature. Islamic fundamentalism brought a whole new aspect to such beliefs. The oil wars are also seen by some as the ultimate conflict between superior Christians who deserve only the best of wealth and technology, and backward populations, either godless or belonging to inferior make-believe religions, who deserve to be denied such technology and resources. The destruction of the environment that accompanies such an explosion of technology and wealth are seen by some fundamentalists as leading to the second coming of Christ. They would gleefully revel in excesses before they are catapulted to the wonders of the promised land. This is a good example of how technology, wealth, resources and religion feed off each other’s products and ideas.

3. Argument from Clever Reaganite Proselytizing:

More than any other modern President, Ronald Reagan was responsible for bringing about the current inextricable meld of politics and religion, a paradigm taken to unprecedented heights by his less intelligent and more pernicious ideological descendent George W Bush. His appeasement of religious fundamentalists made even hardened Republicans like Barry Goldwater cower in revulsion. Reagan realized that he could shape the entire social and political structure of this country by making religion an essential part of political discourse and mobility. In doing this he violated a fundamental tenet of the constitution laid out by the Founding Fathers, who must have died a second time in their grave hearing him speak. Reagan’s legacy is malignant and long-lasting, and it was furthered with conviction by his neo-conservative acolytes. Its effects are extremely far-reaching because it set in motion a vicious cycle; conservatives would woo religious fundamentalists and fundamentalists would vote for conservatives and infiltrate the While House and other public agencies. It is hard to see how this vicious cycle could be broken, especially after Bush honed its strong points to such a degree that religious fundamentalists could seriously swing elections. Unless conservatives and Republicans get out of appeasing religion, religion is marked to shape much of the political discourse and thus alter the fundamental legal and social landscape of this country. The end cannot be anything but disastrous.

The question at the end, one that is always the most difficult to answer, is what can be done? For one thing, moderate Republicans must take the lead and break this essential connection that has been formed between the Republican party and right-wing religion. John McCain with Sarah Palin is certainly not going to do that. As noted above, public education also has a very important role to play in convincing people that science and technology are not magic, and that religion undermines the basic process that brought them all those comforts that they enjoy so much and take for granted. And as for resources, we don’t have to worry; they will run out by themselves and will force people to choose between a lifestyle of moderation and prudence and an eternity of desperation, civil strife, and longer lines at the gas station.

GUY FROM CANADA, OLD GUY, PROVIDE SOME HOPE

It seems that the world could be saved by Canadians and old guys after all. Mark Muller, a car dealer in Missouri is giving away a free gun with every car that he sells. Eager customers flocked to his dealership and chose the gun over the alternative- a gas card for 120$. Only “one guy from Canada and an old guy” chose the gas card over the gun.

In addition, the dealer says that his generous offer is inspired by Barack Obama’s statement about feeling compassion for people in the Midwest who are driven to religion and paranoid self-arming. In an admirable reinterpretation of this statement, Mr. Muller found it offensive:

Owner Mark Muller said: “We’re just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want to…Barack Obama said all those people in the Midwest, you’ve got to have compassion for them because they’re clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive. We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns”

Way to go. While Muller and most people who bought cars from him will be huddled in a corner in their church, clutching their guns and bibles, becoming paranoid every passing moment while gas runs out, hopefully the guy from Canada and the old guy would have bought enough gas with their card to make a speedy getaway before all these people start firing their beloved weapons at each other.

TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT

There’s a discussion going on in the Acorn’s comments sections about the heinous attacks and bloodbath in Jaipur that occurred yesterday. Nitin says that we are left with two options; accept things as they are or take the battle to the terrorists. As many point out in the comments, the latter action is convoluted, uncertain, and for one thing eminently politically incorrect (which is perfectly fine). While this or that political action may or may not mitigate things, let’s not forget the elephant in the room- religion. It’s religion that infuses these men with such fanatical zeal. If we could wave a magic wand and banish religion, would such attacks instantly stop? No. Not unless we can also banish human nature. But at least desperate men would not be infused with a fatalistic ideology from childhood. At least they will not instantly acquire a convenient handrail to hold on to by way of which they are guaranteed a quick passage to martyrdom and a non-existent heaven. Eliminate this insidious religious influence and things will be much better even if not perfect.

I have discussions with friends who often point out that in places like Saudi Arabia the problem is not religion per se, but poverty, lack of opportunities and the resulting desperation. I agree that these factors surely influence the inevitable march of young, poor and disillusioned men towards religion, which superficially provides comfort and a sense of brotherhood. But if it were not for these readymade emotional outlets, it would be much harder, both in principle and in practice, for these young men to vent out their anger and frustration. It’s religion that provides a convenient target for that frustration, and endows youngsters with not only faith and inspiration, but high-quality grenades and explosives. The bottom line is; men will keep on committing crimes for various reasons. But religion makes it much easier than we can ever imagine. Let’s not ignore this.

And our government of course, with its extraordinary commitment toward cosseting the “feelings” of minorities (and not infrequently the majority) at any cost with no regard for the greater good, would condemn the attack, visit the hospitals, call for peace, and go back to business within a day.

THERE GOES ANOTHER TEMPLETONIAN

Richard Dawkins has quipped that the Templeton Prize- a stupendously expensive honor tagged at 1.6 million$, more than the Nobel Prize- is given to someone “who is prepared to say something nice about religion”. The Prize, whose motive I have never understood, is awarded each year to people who “have made progress in science and religion”. Apart from satisfying the personal whims and perspectives of its wealthy patron, I am not sure why a prize should automatically be awarded to someone who is willing to praise religion.

But even that kind of opinion would not do harm, because after all it would be an opinion. Stranger is the viewpoint of those who try to reconcile science and religion in weird ways, and their words can even be damaging because of their misleading meaning. Michael Heller, who is both a priest and cosmologist, unfortunately seems to come from such a breed. The Polish Catholic priest who has been awarded the prize this year says some strange things, not quite unprecedented in our times, but causing more trouble than good in my opinion:

“In an interview with Ecumenical News International the day before the 12 March announcement, Heller reiterated his belief that the oft-described “two worlds” of religion and science are not at odds, saying that without the meaning afforded by religion, “science would be meaningless”…

I certainly don’t think science is meaningless or even lame without religion, at least the kind of religion that is practiced by followers of organized religions. What does the “meaning afforded by religion” even objectively mean? There may be some perceived connection between some of the more abstract notions espoused in the Eastern religions, but again, it is dangerously easy to see connections between science and spirituality where none could exist- Fritjof Capra has done this, and Deepak Chopra has taken it to pathological levels.

Now I am no “fundamentalist atheist”. I do take objection to some of the more one-sided sounding views on religion held by Dawkins and others. But that’s ok. Rational thinkers usually don’t agree completely with each other and that’s how progress is collectively made possible. In any case, I do agree with the gist of what the “new” atheists say. My problem is not so much with whether it is “right” or “wrong” but with whether it will work. Whether we like it or not, we will need the help of both moderate atheists and religious moderates to get a handle on religious fundamentalism. No matter how right atheists are, it is quite likely that it would be religious moderates who would be able to more or at least as much effectively fight fundamentalists on their own ground. Religious beliefs or the lack thereof are just like other strongly-held opinions. To change them, one needs to adapt to the need and situation, and different approaches are needed with different kinds of people. Some people needed to be scolded, some need to be cajoled. No matter how bang-on-target atheists’ arguments are, aggressive attitudes simply don’t work with everyone, it’s just human nature.

NO DICHOTOMY

I watched Juno yesterday and thought it was a fine movie with some great acting by Ellen Page. Due to its story and theme, it’s not one that would be considered in the category of “great” sweeping movies, but it is probably the best that could have been done for such a movie.

During the movie, I joked to my friend sitting next to me that I hoped that this was not a plug by the pro-lifers. When I was discussing it further with him later, I realized that there is something very simple that pro-life people don’t understand. It’s one of those facts that’s simple but that cannot be emphasized enough.

That fact is that “pro-choice” people like me are not “anti-life”. It’s not that we are advocating killing embryos or fetuses. We are simply on the side of a woman’s right to choose. We would prefer anyone not having an abortion; it’s a painful choice for anyone and it does not usually reflect prudent behavior. But we would support someone who wants to nonetheless have it, especially if her circumstances are not favorable for the conception and bringing-up of the child. On the other hand, it’s interesting that those who are pro-life are emphatically “anti-choice”. I think this is a good illustration of how only something like religion can force people to deal in absolutes.

On a somewhat related note, many religious people also think that people who are pro-contraception are “anti-abstinence”. That’s not true too. I think abstinence- if you can practise it- is a good way to not unexpectedly become pregnant or catch a STD. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with promoting abstinence, especially as advice to young people. But the way the church does it is miserably evil- warning that people who don’t abstain will go to hell, and that contraception will also get them on a fast track to the realm of brimstone. People like me can be pro-abstinence, it’s just that we are also pro-contraception. We realize that one should make all contingency plans, given how fickle human nature is. Religion on the other hand wants to not only change human nature, but subvert it.

DINESH D’SOUZA LOVES OAT, BARLEY AND RYE

No, seriously. Otherwise why would he be so fond of straw men? In the case of D’Souza, there’s the added complication that he doesn’t even understand the purpose for which he erects those fine men of straw.

Consider his endearing latest attack on Daniel Dennett in which he lambasts Dennett for making the contention that children should be handed over to secular educators rather than their parents for a more balanced and secular education. While I don’t completely agree with Dennett’s generalisation- after all parents can also be marvelous secular educators like mine were- the essence of his argument is very important. Many if not most parents invariably even if with well-meaning enthusiasm foist their religion upon their children. Even if parents don’t wish to indoctrinate their children in a fundamentalist sense (although many still do), the religion of the parents inevitably becomes the religion of the children.

Dennett clearly wants to wean children away from such a religious atmosphere at home. Now I agree that this is a complicated issue, because a “religious atmosphere” at home entails much more than worship and rituals; it introduces some values and elements of culture which are important for molding the individual. But irrespective of the complications, Dennett’s fundamental thesis is spot on, that parents have no right to foist their religion on their children, and that most schools are secular schools that could inform the child better.

But the straw-loving D’Souza does not understand this fundamental thesis, or he probably willfully dismisses it. Instead, he launches into a strategy commonly used by anti-secular religious people these days; to brand secularists and atheists as worshipping their own brand of dogmatism (“Darwinism” being a favourite label to describe this “religion). That is hogwash. Secularists want children to keep an open mind. There’s no “secular fundamentalism” that encourages keeping a closed mind. Unlike religious people, secularists would discard their ideas if the evidence proved otherwise. Except for a very few, no secularist or atheist wants to completely avoid exposing their children to any religious ideas. In fact atheists would be happy to present both religious and secular ideas in front of children and ask them to judge. The point is that most children are quite intelligent. If they are truly exposed in an unbiased way to religious ideas and informed that there’s no evidence for most of them, they will have the sense to reject religion and embrace an open-minded way of thinking. All secularists want to do is to teach the children to keep an open mind.

Perhaps people like D’Souza are afraid of this, that children will actually have the good sense to reject religion if its tenets are laid bare in front of them with all their gory limitations. In fact that’s why I think creationists are more intent on finding flaws with evolution than declaring evidence for creationism that’s nonexistent. They want to create reasonable doubt in the minds of children because they know that if both ideas are presented in a truly balanced way to children, if children are flatly told that there’s no evidence whatsoever for creationism, then most children would reject it as they would many other religious dogmas. Maybe that’s why they want to keep children away from the “secular fundamentalists” by branding them as such in the first place. Many times I think it’s just a political ploy. But then, given his growing misunderstanding of issues and his spouting of erudite gibberish, I wonder if D’Souza is just stupid as opposed to politically shrewd. I am leaning towards thinking the former these days.

Previous posts on D’Souza’s boring “scholarship”: 1, 2

WHICH IS THE “MOST RELIGIOUS COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?”

A couple of weeks ago, The Economist published a series of articles detailing the rise of religion at various places in the world. While all that was said in those articles was depressing by any standard, there was one particular article on India whose title I found a little irritating; according to The Economist, India was the “most religious country in the world”. Later, I also heard this phrase enunciated in some other references, and it again struck me as strange. The Western media in my opinion has rarely demonstrated a mature and insighftul understanding of Indian culture, let alone the Hindu religion, but this belief about India being the “most religious country in the world” seems to persist like a stain of turmeric on a smart white shirt.

Let me give The Economist the benefit of doubt and assume that they simply meant that India with its billion plus population and with most of them Hindus, by sheer number can be called the most religious country in the world. But in other places, the epithet did not simply seem to relate to number. To me it seemed to be a polite euphemism for saying that India is the most superstitious country in the world. Even now, images of India in the minds of Westerners inevitably include those of sadhus, tantriks, astrology, horoscope-matching, “red dots on women’s foreheads” and a multitude of other things which may or may not have to do with superstition, which nonethless are dumped into the common category of superstition by the Western press. Somehow India with its myriad gods, festivals, and festival-related elements of culture gives that impression.

But is this impression really true? First let us admit that some famous Indians don’t seem to exactly help dispelling our image as a superstitious country. Holding yagnas before cricket matches and people marrying trees doesn’t exactly conjure images of India as a progressive nation. But is the situation really limited to India? And is it really not prevalent in other countries?

Let’s consider another country half a world away, founded on secular principles, forged in the furnace of democratic thought and freedom and ostensibly the most technologically advanced country in the world today. In this country:

45% people believe that God created the earth as it looks today about 10,000 years ago
37% believe that while evolution did happen, it was orchestrated by God
52% believe in Astrology
22% believe that aliens have landed on earth at some point in the past
33% believe that dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously on Earth
67% genuinely think they had a bonafide psychic experience sometime in their life
35% believe in ghosts

(Source: Michael Shermer, “Why people believe weird things“, Freeman, 2002)

Now perhaps we can ask the question again; which is the most superstitious country in the world? Which is the most religious country in the world?

I do agree that the influence of such opinions of people as listed above has been largely kept out of the political sphere quite effectively in the US. But given the current atmosphere, I see no guarantee of this continuing to happen. Also, my thoughts are really a response to people who are either simply ignorant or who try to distance themselves by announcing Third World countries as especially religious or superstitious. But to me this conclusion is by no means assured; at the very least it depends on how you look at the issue. By many standards and especially if we include the influence of religion on political discourse and action, I think that in the developed world, it is clear that the United States is the most religious country around.