tt.humanist :: forum :: articles :: baldeosingh :: philosophy

Scientifically Speaking

Kevin Baldeosingh • 2 May 2002 • 841 words

"The religious mentality discourages analytical thought; the scientific mentality demands it."

In local science circles, there is a well-known story about an American etymologist who came to Trinidad to collect scorpions but whose specimens were seized by Customs when he was leaving the country. The seizure was probably illegal, since scorpions are classified as vermin, but what happened was that a Trinidadian scientist, who was also doing research on scorpions, heard about the American etymologist and, terrified of the competition, used his political connections to have the man's specimens confiscated.

That local scientist is also devoutly religious but, in this act of several decades ago, he displayed a spirit that is neither scientific nor Christian. Unfortunately, anti-scientific and pro-religious attitudes seem dominant in the local scientific community. It certainly dominates at UWI, where Christian lecturers tell students that Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are wrong.

This is one reason why this country will probably never produce any leading scientists. Surveys suggest that there is an inverse relation between religious belief and scientific achievement. One study which measured attitudes among members of America's prestigious National Academy of Sciences found that 65 percent of NAS biologists didn't believe in God, while 79 percent of the NAS physicists were also atheistic. Most of the rest were agnostics, with few believers. These percentages are in stark contrast to America's national average, where over 90 percent of the population believes in a Supreme Being.

The danger posed by this society's superstitious culture is not that we are unlikely to produce leading scientists in the hard sciences. This country will get by well enough if we just produce technicians, which is what UWI is good at. But a scientific attitude is still necessary when debating, say, ethical issues.

In science, one takes two axioms for granted: that reality has order and that effect follows cause. Empiricism rests on these two assumptions. In ethics, one similarly has to take moral axioms for granted. Concepts like justice or tolerance or the right to life, for example, cannot be proven to be inherently good. But, once we accept that these are desirable values, then it is possible to take an empirical approach to achieving them.

Unfortunately, our irrational culture makes ethical reasoning far more difficult than it should be. I found this out myself some weeks ago, when I wrote a satirical piece that crossed an ethical line. What was significant, though, is that I didn't even realise I had done anything wrong until a friend called me up to boof me. I am normally very rigorous about such matters, but in this case I was too enraged by the issue I was writing on to notice what I had done: which just shows that, like it or not, I am part of my culture.

The problem, though, is that ethics isn't merely a personal issue. The lack of scientific reasoning in ethics affects social policies as well. Consider that Dr. Courtenay Bartholomew, the leading local figure in AIDS research, blames pornography for the rapid spread of HIV: never mind that the highest infection rate is in sub-Saharan Africa, where they don't exactly spend much time perusing Playboy or watching blue movies, and that the lowest HIV-infection rates is in Western Europe, where porn is readily available.

Or consider Dr. Ramesh Deosaran, this country's most prominent expert on criminal behaviour, making the vapid and tautological analysis that crime is a spiritual problem, and recommending that youths read the Bible, Bhagavadgita and Qu'ran. (Presumably, then, all we need to do is convert the Ansa McAl Psychological Research Centre to a Centre of Religion and we shall solve all our crime problems.)

Clearly, with such people at the helm, winning the battle against HIV and crime and poor education is going to be a lot more difficult than it need be. It is bad ethical reasoning which allows social ills to flourish in our society, whether such ills are based on class or sex or race. And religion frequently acts as a barrier to ethical thought.

This is a major factor in keeping capital punishment, for example, on the statute books. There is no good practical, legal or moral reason to hang people: but God says it's okay. A failure of ethics also explains why the Catholic Church opposes abortion and condom use. That illegality affects mostly poor women and HIV kills: but God says life begins at conception and fornication is wrong. A failure of ethical reasoning even explains why trade union leaders still call for protectionist policies. Free trade demonstrably helps build a country to prosper, which you would think labour leaders would want since workers benefit: but socialism is also a religion.

The religious mentality discourages analytical thought; the scientific mentality demands it. In the modern world, with all its complexities and variety, the scientific method is the best way to build a good society, whereas the religious method almost guarantees the spread of human misery. Is it any wonder, then, that Trinidad and Tobago has a born-again Prime Minister?