The Nappy Cat Chronicles

This post is in response to an email regarding the PBS Nova program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial” that I received from my good friend Michael. After watching the program, I was excited and, rightfully so, he questioned my optimism. Specifically, he asks “[H]ow do you think we will avoid war? Who are those of “cool” disposition, and how much of our discourse do they control, as opposed to war hawks and religious fundamentalists? I would like to hear how the U.S.’ current theory of presidential powers prevents one of those of vocal minority to do as he pleases? Does our current theory of presidential power prevent anything?” My answer follows.

After the program, I was excited for three reasons. First, the program was an excellent expose of the underhanded approach that Intelligent Design advocates employ. I found it satisfying that a program finally had the decency to reveal those Christian fundamentalists and absolutists who willingly commit sins against their god in a misguided belief that they have been forced to sin in order to do their almighty’s will.

Second, the program defined science and theory in clear terms and acknowledged that those who would wrest power from a benign group of biologists must muddy the lexical waters in order to claim parity. Hence, in Newspeak, “science” and “theory” are fluid terms and the meanings that have been ascribed by generations of academics have been lost. It’s clear to me that certain sectors in society have long associated and will forever associate the current conception of religion with “good” and the current conception of science with “bad.” So, any program that poignantly exposes this lexical mischief should be celebrated.

Third and finally, the findings prove that an impartial observer, one who is an expert on neither religion nor science but the law, will correctly determine the outcome of the aforementioned debate using a rational and scholarly method. As though a judge should ensure that both parties leave the courtroom fairly content and partially hopeful, one of the chief complaints about Jones’ ruling that Intelligent Design is not science and that it is the “progeny of creationism” is that he goes “too far.” You take these criticisms to heart, I know. Unfortunately, a judgment declaring Intelligent Design science and irreducible complexity valid is the only action about which the Intelligent Design advocates could have experienced even a modicum of contentment.

As for the content, I do agree that, when viewed with an “Intelligent Design has achieved parity” mindset, the program is one-sided. If the judge had ruled that Intelligent Design surpasses evolution as both a science and a theory and the producers had decided to allot equal time to both, Intelligent Design advocates would mindlessly squawk on-and-on about how the equal time subverts the truth and about how “Darwinists” are losers. On the other hand, an honest assessment would conclude that the program’s intended purpose, to explain how the judge reached his decision and to present a summary of the aftermath, was readily achieved.

Now, onto the meat of your email, your invocation of Sam Harris is interesting. I almost fully disagree with his infamous “Science Must Destroy Religion” essay. Religion will exist as long as “misery” and “suffering” reside in our vocabulary. Atheism offers neither hope nor comfort to those who believe that life is truly awful. Aside from offering the wonderful and individually-conceptualized reward of soulful bliss, religion offers a code of conduct that prescribes the actions one must undertake in order to achieve personal satisfaction through the bringing of happiness and safety to others. Current fundamentalists and absolutists passionately believe that misery and suffering will never be eradicated unless secularism and its precepts are eradicated.

In this regard, religion is extremely influential. It is its pinnacle of economic acridity. Thousands of people, who misguidedly believe that their contributions will bestow great blessings upon them, tithe daily. Though I cannot refute Harris’ central thesis that an investment in science will provide more tangible blessings to more people, the placebo effect that is produced by acting upon faith remains valid.

Subsequently and throughout history, the moods and behaviors of a people within a state have been determined by the leaders of the state’s foremost religion. Constantine chose religion in order to consolidate his power amongst his people for this very reason. The encouraging news about this religion-as-institution condition is that Christianity and Islam arose from within. Religion-as-institution naturally produces misery and suffering and its inevitable outcome is the production of its most subversive element–the one that must precede orthodoxical revolution–contra-interpretation.

In this phase of American history, religion-as-institution is, overwhelmingly, the most favored governmental paradigm and, subsequently, “war is peace” is the most favored foreign policy. Soft war (dissemination of misinformation and the beginnings of economic sanctions) with Iran has already begun. And, because, like Constantine, the current President of the United States sees no distinction between the resources of his state, the resources of his will to do good, and the resources of his god, hard war with Iran is likely. Congress and the people lack the will to stop this because that which will be lost by becoming subversive far exceeds that which will be lost by espousing modern jingoistic ideals.

Those who are of a legitimately “cool” disposition will likely arise from within this religion-as-institution fire. From my experience with the Catholic Church, the most caring and personable priests have atheistic tendencies. When the Church causes misery and suffering, those priests who have maintained enough of a distance from the dogma can compensate those who find themselves disenfranchised.

To wit, all I am able to do now is speculate upon those events that will produce a critical mass of those subversive elements necessary for orthodoxical revolution. An external effect such as terrorism does not produce an immediate result. Likewise, an internal effect such as the bad decision that an agent of the state will make in response to an external threat does not produce an immediate result. It is a slow bleed and the vocal minority can only grow over time. I do believe that a hard war with Iran will substantially speed up this process. However, boiling the water too quickly can cause the people to accept a 1% token while the state retains 99% of its former self. Still, it is a loss and, I conclude, let the state expend its resources and continue its self-destruction because that 1% may be the largest return to the people that I will see in my lifetime.