Blogotional

Pseudo-Polymath recently wrote about using science in political decision making. (He manages not to mention the current President's promise to "restore science to its proper place - amazingly.) He says there are only a few things to consider. One point bears further examination:

First off, it is my experience that there are two features found in many of the first rank scientists in our midst. First off, the best and brightest scientists in various fields don’t have the slightest interest in giving advice to politicians and in fact when they do offer political advice they offer very bad advice. I might add that theologians and religious leaders as well, for the most part, also are very horrible when they enter into the political world. There are some good reasons for this. Skills are involved in politics. The ability to read people, judge motivations and to have an estimate of the possible and so on are political skills. To become talented and to rise to the top of a scientific discipline requires three things: talent or genius, a love for inquiry, and a concentration on that field virtually to the exclusion of all else in life. Those people who are at the first rank usually have no talent, or frankly, desire to spend any time with exercising any authority. For them, their life is wholly given to the chase for the truths hidden by and in nature. To make an analogy with popular culture from cinema, while we might hope for our scientific authority to rise from the Mozarts in our midst, we’re going to get the Salieri’s who are the ones who will sully themselves with such matters.

First off, the Mozart/Salieri illustration is informative, but one need look no further than Carl Sagan to get the picture. Sagan may be one of the most widely known names in science, ever, but beyond that fame he has contributed almost nil. But then, frankly, most people do not know science well enough to know what is and what is not a substantive contribution (and don't get me wrong, Sagan managed to attract funding which matters in big science.)

But here is the real point I wanted to get to. It's about the political skill set as opposed to the science or the religious one. There is an old adage - Anything about which we lack sufficient understanding appears to be magic. That can apply to both religion or science. And the political skill set uses that fact to claim authority. Which leads me to two important points.

One, both religion and science are being "used" in a political science. Which means both religion and science need to train the people they want to represent them politically or they will allow themselves to be pawns.

But my second point is the one I want to concentrate on. Religion is waning in its political influence because it has lost much of its mystery. It has done so through two things. One is the simple lowering of the bar for what it takes to be a religious professional and the other is scandal.

Evangelicalism has been a brilliant move in American religious expression, but the ebb in gate-keeping institutions that has accompanied it (denominations) has been horrendous. Virtually anyone can hang a shingle and call themselves "pastor" now. For centuries, religious professional were the best educated people in the world. No more is that the case. Having said that, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Many people have experienced genuine faith that otherwise would not have. Faith is not about education. Which brings me to the second point.

Because the point of religion is to make better people, when religious leaders fail morally, religion generally fails. The fact that any door was left open for Ted Haggard to experience a return to ministry, forfeits religious authority - and so it is with every scandal from Jim Bakker to the pedophile priests.

Science has an advantage when it comes to using its mystery for gaining political influence - it has no moral requirements. Back in the day when education marked the religious professional, morality mattered less. But any schmuck with a few bucks gain now by an intra-linear and appear as well educated as the next religious professional. Morality is all we have to set us apart - and maintain our mystery.

There always have been and there always will be religious professionals that fail morally. If religion wants to maintain itself as a source of political authority, then it needs to learn, relearn actually, how to deal decisively and permanently with that fact. God forgives - and that poor lost soul will likely join us in eternity, but temporal leadership, even of the church, must be lost to such people for the rest of their lives.

This is the heart of the religion/science debate. It's not about creationism and evolution or stem cells and abortion - its about authority. The church is giving its own away in vast quantities when it transfers "problem priests" to a new diocese or tries to help drug-addled whore-mongers be "restored to ministry." Personal and spiritual restoration for such people is our call, but restoration to ministry is out of the question.

Technorati Tags:church, science, politics, mystery, authority
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator