The Nappy Cat Chronicles

Conclusion: In Defense Of Science

Conviction and dogma permeate socio-political and -religious debate. Every empirically validated hypothesis and theory is therefore reduced in status to an opinion only held by those with dogmatic bindings. To the Dominionist movement, evidence that positively correlates the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of hetero and homosexuals is, in its judgment, merely a misguided estimation. In regards to sexuality, science tells us that attraction is a biologically-based phenomenon. Whether we are pedophilic, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, our preference is hardwired and extremely resistant to intervention. Unfortunately, the Dominionist movement rejects this and paints a picture of attraction that is based solely on the notion that variation outside of the opposing-sex dynamics experienced and shared by “normal” adults is disorderly and an “unnecessary evil.” However, as deft as the Dominionist movement is at exploiting the fear that surrounds this “unnecessary evil,” science holds the trump card: mathematics. It seems to be a dirty little secret that science progresses solely on the basis of numerical significance and duplicability. For instance, older males are significantly more at risk to attempt suicide than all other age and gender cohorts. This phenomenon has been so numerically verified that it is accepted as fact. This same standard is applied to sexuality by rational individuals. The statistical analyses conducted by social scientists do not suddenly become less valid when an individual believes that his or her deity disagrees.

A professor once told me, and I agree, that science is the pursuit of god. Our goal is to understand and explain 100% of our universe through our limited human framework. If we are to perceive god as everything, then, logically, we are discovering god bit by bit. Scientific theory may be able to account for, say, 10% of our experience. A theory such as E=MC^2 may increase our understanding to 12%. A subsequent theory may rock the boat and reduce our understanding to 8%. Certainly, science is fluidic and uncertain and it cannot be rendered into dogma. Nor can it be dismissed as opinion. It, as our current “best guess,” is somewhere in between. My belief is that a majority of people neither like nor value uncertainty. Holy books are fraught with moral directives and imperatives. They offer unyielding certainty and have been constructed to explain the sum of one’s experiences if one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are maintained within the recommended framework. This framework is considered “good” while all competing frameworks are considered “evil.” The verbiage employed by this binary outlook fosters fear and misunderstanding. Evil must be withstood because inherent to the term is the belief that evil is supernaturally deceptive and seductive. Realistically, we are all more similar than dissimilar. Diversity is therefore an educational yet unnecessary pretense that can be deconstructed through the empirical discovery that is accomplished by science and congenial communion that is accomplished by religion.