Behavioral Ecology Blog

I was listening to NPR the other day, as per usual, while I drove to work. On the usually interesting program “All Things Considered” they were talking about the apparently large population of Vietnamese Roman Catholics. Not to belabor the story, but the man speaking was explaining how he came to feel as if the virgin mary was his own personal patron saint- and in general, is the special fairy godmother of the Vietnamese people.

He describes the exodus from South Vietnam after it fell to the North shortly after the US pullout. He goes on to tell how Catholics were discriminated against, robbed, beaten, and in some cases killed. They were not allowed to practice their religion, and as such were forced to the sea I search of refuge, often times on small overcrowded boats that capsized not infrequently. Anyway, in the end he uses the story of how he was rescued (of course by the virgin mary herself) by a Japanese barge just minutes before a raging storm hit (a storm that would have surely killed them all) as evidence of divine intervention.

The obvious question to me though- is why god didn’t intervene earlier? To me, it seems that the truest sign of godly love would have been to prevent the suffering in the 1st place- not wait until significant suffering had already occurred- THEN put the brakes on. It seems reasonable to expect none other from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god- that is IF such a being existed. The problem of evil is basically what I’m talking about, and the inability of theists to acknowledge it (or more generally, to acknowledge evidence) is exactly why theists generally make for poor scientists.

Theists in general, have a reprehensible habit of seeing a body of evidence, then selecting which pieces fit their desired explanation, ignoring the rest. This practice is not acceptable in science. For example, the Vietnamese Catholic Guy:

1. Was unlucky to have been born in a soon-to-be communist nation
2. Was persecuted for his beliefs
3. Family and friends physically harmed
4. Was forced to risk his life to escape said injustices
5. Was almost killed in the process

Jeez- unlucky guy. God who? Sure seems to have abandoned this poor guy (and these poor guys in general. But wait.

6. Saved by a Japanese ship

Oh, now its clear- divine intervention. How clear it is… He says, “God is so great- having saved me from certain death.” But I say, “NO! If the omnipotent, omnibenevolent god really existed- he would have intervened somewhere during events 1-5.” And this is exactly the problem, considering all the facts as they are, you might have a hard time believing in- or arguing for the 3-O god… a much more reasonable explanation for the timely coming of the Japanese boat is just plain ‘ole luck….

This, I believe is the fundamental reason why theists make poor scientists- because they have made a habit of forming opinions/making decisions without sufficient evidence for, or even evidence to the contrary…they believe in god, when there is NO evidence FOR his existence and A LOT of evidence (of the circumstantial and probabilistic nature) AGAINST his it.

Now some people say a couple of things in defense… That religion is a personal decision, and that faith is the guiding principal (as opposed to evidence). That decisions pertaining to religion should not be held to the same burden of proof that other decisions are held to, but instead should just be accepted. Second, that it is possible for religious people to act quite rationally when it comes to matters outside religion- that they are able to partition their brains such that hypotheses and conclusions are based SOLELY on evidence in one half, and in the other, are formed irrespective of evidence… In short- I don’t believe this is possible.

I believe that once a person enters into the practice of ignoring evidence, facts, logic, and reason, that this construct is pervasive in all areas of life. I believe that there is a veritable slippery slope of ignoring evidence, and that once one heads down that path- it is very difficult to stop it. Once you’re able to ignore evidence about one thing- it becomes so much easier to ignore it about other things… The strict adherence to evidence can be uncomfortable- just ask anybody whose ever witnessed the demise of their “pet hypothesis”… People (theists) accustomed to ignoring evidence seem much more likely to ignore an uncomfortable fact, and be led astray…

Is is coincidence that the majority of scientists we consider “leaders in their field” are atheist? Are there devoutly religious people who are prominent scientists? Who? Francis Collins is the only name that comes to mind..

Are the 2 things simply correlated- or does religiosity actually prevent one from dealing with evidence appropriately?