A fine essay by Lawrence M. Krauss, at The New Yorker: All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.
He’s reacting both to the current embarrassing kerfuffle about Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who thinks her sincerely held religious convictions trump the law she swore to uphold when she took office, and the general trend in recent years to react against the so-called “militant atheists” by finding some sort of “accommodationist” stance between science and religion. (Jerry Coyne’s latest book addresses and disposes of this succinctly.) In this essay, Krauss is having none of that, in effect calling a spade a spade, and explaining why any thinking person who understands the basis and protocols of science can not at the same time defer to ancient religious myths.
It’s not a long essay and very much worth reading. I’ll resist quoting passages except for this last one:
I see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.
If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
But I will quote this again: “Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.”
\\
Meanwhile, there are, of course, the right-wing demagogues who either misunderstand the Constitution and its principles, or are (more likely) simply playing to their ignorant base. Today’s best example (of too many to compile and list):
Salon: Mike Huckabee’s cynical zealotry: The rank opportunism in his Kim Davis demagoguery.
Too obvious to bother quoting.
On a slightly different topic, two examples, both about Rick Santorum and climate change, about how the right wing — despite their presumed allegiance to that Commandment about false witness — are happy to misrepresent, and even outright lie, about any scientific conclusion that does not fit their ideological presumptions and religious convictions. Santorum appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher a few days ago, and made a couple claims that Politifact.com has easily discredited:
Santorum: UN climate head debunked widely cited 97% climate change consensus figure
Santorum cites flawed climate change figure, and misquotes it
Actually, I’m not sure that I attribute such incidents to conscious venality. I think rather that these are examples of mental biases, specifically the confirmation bias that we are all prone to, that makes anyone inclined to interpret new information in the context of their previously held religious convictions (or provisional conclusions). It’s hard work to try to understand new information and be ready to change one’s mind (as I like to think that I do try to do). But in the cases of Huckabee and Santorum, I suspect they are smart enough to know, on some deep level, that they are lying to themselves about the conflict between their convictions and what they can’t help but perceive as reality. But they are politicians. It’s their job to lie to themselves, or to their base, to whatever extent is necessary to win an election. It doesn’t matter to them what’s real, and what that reality might affect humanity in future generations, as long as they can try to win the current election.
