I was raised Roman Catholic, so trust me, I, of all people understand the true meaning of hypocrisy. But let me clarify: it’s NOT that Catholicism (or any religious/spiritual doctrine) in itself is a flawed belief system. Rather, it’s what people do in the name of religion that has given it a bad rep; akin to that smart expression regarding guns and people and who’s truly responsible for killing. With that said however, I wonder what’s worse? Believing in something so strongly that it causes you to make lapses in judgment and be discriminatory towards others OR not believing in anything at all? To me, it’s the latter. Coming from someone who was once engaged to a nihilist with sociopathic and anarchist tendencies, trust me when I say it’s scary what you can justify when you subscribe philosophically to nothing at all. After all, without religion, without spirituality, without some sort of moral foundation, what is there to keep you in check? Even Freud, the grandfather of the discipline of psychology, acknowledged that ‘the super-ego’ (our mind’s moral policing device) is derived from the internationalization of societal mores, and norms, of which religion plays a major role in establishing.
But since the Age of the Enlightenment, rationality has ruled supreme. While everyone is so quick to point the finger at God as the downfall of humanity, I’d like you to consider science as an equipotent force in causing self- and societal destruction. Allow me to elaborate:
Originally undertaken as a project intended to solve the energy crisis through the advent of nuclear, we all know what happened when the technology of the good old Atom Bomb got into the hands of the military. Then, of course, there are the countless atrocious experiments performed on twins and other “lucky” guinea pigs under the Nazi regime; the results of which contributed greatly to our modern knowledge of genetics and genetic manipulation (what a proud history we have there!). But, if we want to predate both of the aforementioned “brilliant” (and I use that term extremely facetiously) usages of science, society’s named “progressive” and “objective” force, we needn’t look far back to our history of colonialism which was largely informed by Social Darwinian and eugenics policies that justified the extermination, mistreatment, and forced sterilization of a ridiculous number of people - the so-called “inferiors” (ie: anyone who was not a member of the dominant white class and/or anyone who was insightful enough to challenge said class’ weak “survival of the fittest” validations).
The point is that while admittedly some pretty awful acts have been committed in the name of religion (The Crusades and Witch Hunts come to mind, among others), the VERY SAME THING can be said about science! But what makes science that much more dangerous in this capacity is that while religion is perceived as socially constructed, subjective, relying on faith and therefore NOT having all of the answers, as well as open to interpretation (mind you, unless we’re talking about the Fundamentalists, but they go into a category of their own), science, on the other hand, is given ULTIMATE UNQUESTIONED (moreover to use a religious pun, “infallible”) AUTHORITY in contemporary society. As explained in Bereska’s Deviance, Conformity & Social Control in Canada, “science is seen by many people as a purely objective discipline such that its claims to truth are frequently considered unaffected by political, religious, or commercial interests.”
Given that scientific pursuits are increasingly being funded by “big corporate”, I’d say this is particularly problematic. In fact a recent study, in Fast-tracking the Plague: Drugging America to Death, documented that, “96% of [scientific] authors with ties to pharmaceutical companies produced favourable results, while only 37% of independently funded studies of the SAME DRUGS showed favourable results.” I think I’ll let that quote speak for itself.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this – science AND religion are both merely belief systems. One is no more important, objective, free from partisanship, or truthful than the other (this, of course, opens the proverbial can of worms for an entire debate on exactly what is truth, but I guess you’ll all just have to wait ‘til next year for that dousy).
While science and its associated technologies undoubtedly has its merits, on its own, I question whether or not it is able to provide our citizens with the moral compasses we need and should be embracing when it comes to living our lives. You can call me old-fashioned but, I sincerely believe the world would be a much better place if we all learned to adopt the Ten Commandments as universal rules of how we should treat one another.
To that I add only one caveat: while I self-identify as a Christian, I would NEVER infringe my personal religious beliefs onto another person, and so while the first of the said Commandments suggest that there is only one God and that he/she/it is to be honoured solely, I suggest to all of you non-religious folk to read between the lines of this expression (ie: it’s about acknowledging the fact that there are forces over and above human nature, and that those forces, along with our fellow man and womankind deserve to be acknowledged and honoured even if we can’t always understand them. In sum, don’t lead a selfish solipsistic existence.) Amen to that.
