Barefoot, Pregnant .. and Dead

The real conflict between science and religious orthodoxy through the ages has never been about truth. The ancient scientists understood their role as disseminators of rational empirical knowledge as a liberating force against the dangerous superstitions and politics of religion. Galileo, facing the humiliation and torture of an inquisition, famously asked the Pope to direct his energies towards getting his flock to spiritual heaven and leave it to the scientists to figure out the "nature of the heavens". The explosion in scientific knowledge in the last century and a half and its ready acceptance by society, have led modern scientists to believe that they no longer need to engage the fanatics in the public square because "the facts will speak for themselves". They are sadly mistaken in their complacency, of course. Every new disaster or disease opens another door for propaganda, false promises and religious mind control. Given the right political climate, religious obscurantism exerts its visible, long lasting, harmful influence in turning back the tide of progress. We are fighting a couple of costly wars to counter the effects of bigotry, we are told. Yet we take our own homegrown bigots in stride until their persistent meddling ends in spectacular harm or stupidity . Perhaps the recent circus about Intelligent Design will be a wake up call for the scientific community. Religious bigotry, as I said, has never been about knowledge, freedom of enquiry or truth, although its proponents always couch their challenges to science in that lofty language. Instead, it is about wielding power and control over the psyches and wallets of the credulous among us. When promises of eternal life, kingdom of heaven and other lures don't adequately capture the imagination of the audience, religious bullies use the sharpest arrow in their quiver - fear of death, destruction and damnation. And for bigots through centuries, the most fertile grounds for sowing the poisonous seeds of fear and revulsion have been women's bodies and their sexuality.

Ellen Goodman writes with her usual good sense about cynical grumblings and discontent on the religious right about a medical break-through that could save thousands of women's lives.  Recently, scientists have developed a vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is sexually transmitted and causes cervical cancer - the second leading cancer killer for women. The vaccine has tested 100% effective and if administered to pre-teen girls before they become sexually active, will virtually eliminate the occurrence of this common and deadly cancer. Conservative groups who promote "abstinence only" sex education, are alarmed that the vaccine and the resultant elimination of the threat of cervical cancer will promote sexual promiscuity in young women. What they are not saying is that the vaccine will remove a powerful tool of fear mongering from their arsenal.

I for one, do not doubt that science is winning and will win the culture war against fundamentalist religion's backward pull, but it won't be without a struggle. Scientists need to once again enter the public debate and methodically dismantle the bulwark of bigotry built on bullying, blackmail and brainwashing.

Update: A related story here.  Thanks to Menesh Patel for the pointer.

Comments

[Kumar]

Prof. Paul: "I for one, do not doubt that science is winning and will win the culture war against fundamentalist religion's backward pull, but it won't be without a struggle."

I am not so sanguine, though I hope you are right. As an immigrant to this country, I am puzzled by the appeal of the 'anti-science' crowd in a country whose prominence rests, at least partly, on its scientific prowess.

I find argument with ID-creationists wearying. It takes away time from the pleasure of doing biology, for me anyway.

Kumar

[Ruchira Paul]

Thanks for the honorific - but I am not a professor.

I too am disturbed by the expanding harmful influence of organized religion in matters of science and medicine in the US and elsewhere.

The crazies and the bigots have been and always will be there. It is up to the scientific community and the national leadership of a country to see to it that their voices do not interfere with progress. In the last twenty or so years, since Ronald Reagan became president, the trend to pander to religious bigotry for political expediency, has been on the rise. The fall of communism in the USSR and eastern Europe, gave the movement a boost that has emboldened the bigots. They indeed now believe that "God" is on their side and their message must be heeded by all, including scientists. George Bush has played the dangerous game of pandering to these ruthless tacticians more than any other national leader I have seen.

But I would advise you that you should not give up easily in your arguments with the "anti-science" crowd even if it does take away from your time and energy. That is precisely what they are hoping for - to silence the voices of reason with their own strident advocacy.

[joe]

I wish I could share your optimism. But I feel like in the United States, at least, the Christian fundamentalists have been gaining social and political strength in their struggle with the progressive movement.

I find it incredibly disturbing that science is a political issue, but if you accept the premise that it is, what does the Bush presidency indicate? He appeals to the evangelists; John McCain did not; Bush emerged as the Republican nominee. Didn't Kennedy have to convince the nation that he would not rule based on his Catholic religion? Howard Dean, running for the Democratic nomination, had to get Jimmy Carter to publicly endorse Dean as a "Christian." It feels like this country has taken a great step backwards towards theocracy--and Alito replacing O'Connor won't help matters.

[Ruchira Paul]

Bush has perfected pandering to the religious right to an art form. It reflects the hollowness of his leadership and the bankruptcy of his intellectual and moral vision. But I am hopeful that with an appropriate change in leadership, it may be possible to restore the forward looking vision of this country. The danger will be in electing another leader who may decide to continue in the same anti-science, anti-progress path for the same cynical political calculations as George Bush and Karl Rove have done.