[1] Anyone who has held a newly born baby can appreciate the innate curiosity of a person. The importance of curiosity is so ingrained in our beliefs that many toys are sold to help stimulate curiosity during early childhood under the belief that intelligence is improved.

[2] “Why” is the unending question of most children.

[3] By limited circumstances I am referring to the repeatability of scientific experiments. By nature scientific experiments are usually conducted in very controlled environments, and even then only make very limited predictions. While useful, this is not very satisfying. We as people would like to predict many things like the weather, the economy, the ability to remain safe, and what will happen after death just to mention a few things. Because we do not live in a closed system and there are far too many variables to measure, much less make definite predictions of the future of these events - which is next to impossible.

[4] Claimed knowledge of what will happen after death; the absolute best way to proceed in the future; what is the right behavior versus the wrong behavior for the human race as a whole;  these are ways people use to gather power in a society. To acknowledge limits or the ability to make mistakes is something that causes people to have doubt in their leaders. After all, one would naturally follow someone who knows she/he is right more so than someone who admits that she/he is capable of error.

[5] When President Bush was asked if he made any mistakes, he could not think of any.

[6] Again President Bush claims his decisions are guided by a “higher authority.”

[7] Because prediction is so difficult, news organizations and people tend to make judgments based on how we feel about a candidate, as opposed to a hard analysis of the candidate’s policies. Candidates are told to wear earth colors. Fuzzy policies and predictions are not seriously analyzed. The worst thing a candidate can do is present specific policies that can be pulled apart. The best thing a candidate can do is give voters a warm fuzzy feeling that she/he is a good person.

[8] This is the thesis of the Lord of the Flies. Consider societies where accepted standards of behavior have ceased to exist such as the war lord society of Afghanistan.

[9] Accepted rules enable people to predict that their neighbor will behave in a way that is not harmful to them, and when agreements are made and enforced may even be beneficial to them. The security and cooperation that comes from accepted standards of behavior allows people to be much more productive than without the accepted rules of behavior.

[10] Perhaps even more important than that we are a democracy is that we are a nation of laws. This is why the constitution and Supreme Court are held in such high esteem. The attack on the court system, whether by the left or the right, occurs when the court system is perceived to be legislating or making its own laws. Courts that legislate do not as a rule last long. People get upset with the arbitrariness of courts legislating.

[11] Judaism lays the ultimate causation on God; the Torah contains the rules; and the Rabbis interpret the rules. In a similar way Islam lays the ultimate causation on Allah, the Koran contains the rules, and the Mullahs interpret the rules. Christianity ultimate causation to the Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost, the Bible contains the rules, and ministers/priests/preachers interpret the rules.

[12] Causation in science is what is observable and repeatable. Everything else is hypothesis. Laws are what are highly repeatable. Scientists and engineers interpret the rules. The rules and hypotheses also change over time. People don’t like that rules and hypothesis of science change.

[13] While people are intensely curious, we hate when we are wrong or have to learn something that contradicts something we think we know. Thus when we (the church at the time) ‘know’ that the earth is the center of the universe, we hate having to learn that earth is a mere speck in some larger way of looking at reality. Not only is the earth not the center of the universe, but it is not even the center of the solar system, much less the galaxy.

[14] Governments and government policies are the mechanisms by which rules are implemented. In the case of a government controlled by a religious group, the distinction between religious leaders and government leaders becomes null and void. One of the interesting aspects of this is that religious leaders today usually do not like to get involved in the day-to-day decisions of government, but rather prefer to make broad pronouncements about government policies they disagree with. Thus there is a strong similarity between the democratic government of Iran, with its mullahs making pronouncements from above, and the government of Israel where its Rabbis make pronouncements from above. The difference between the U.S. and either Israel or Iran is that the religious leaders in the U.S. do not have veto power whereas in both Israel and Iran they do.

[15] Our inability to deal directly with religion’s human failings has led to great conflict in the world. In essence the ultimate human failing is the reliance on ultimate causation, or as any exasperated parent knows the because I said so phenomena. Very few people like that answer, because based only on what we know now, this is what we believe the best answer/solution to be. In particular we hate the aspect that we may learn something tomorrow that changes everything.

[16] In the western world science and religion are in a constant battle. Today, one issue is over stem cell research. Yesterday, one conflict was over the motion of planets and the sun. While there are constant attempts to patch up the differences, the differences keep arising and they appear in areas as diffuse as spare the rod and spoil, the child to the nature of life. There was a time not so long ago when masturbation was considered to be a sin because of the sperm that died.

[17] This is why there are major schisms in most major religions. As a person of Judeo-Christian heritage I am amazed at all the splits in the Christianity. Some date back to the founding of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Christianity itself might be viewed as just another sect of Judaism. A small part of the difficulties we face in the Middle East is a failure to recognize all the complexities of Islam.

[18] The founding fathers wrote as if certain basic beliefs held by all Christian sects of the time such as the “Creator” as used in the Declaration of Independence were absolutely and unquestionably true. Since the wording was extremely broad in the first amendment, we have been able to grow and as a country today have some degree tolerance for almost any religion. Yet despite the first amendment the country still favors religions with a basic belief in a single (some might argue Judeo-Christian) God. This favoritism is evident in such things as the pledge of allegiance and the sayings on our dollar. The country would be stronger without such artifacts.

[19] Religion demands an unquestioning belief in the truth of the religion. Yet, education by its nature raises questions and thus before long there are questions that are raised and schisms occur. The question becomes one of who appointed whom as the ultimate speaker for the ultimate causation. Few in the west appreciate that Islam by its nature has many leaders and does not speak with one voice, just as Christianity and Judaism have many leaders and do not speak with one voice.

[20] Scientists hate to admit that science has many more similarities to religion than differences. Scientists achieve acclaim only after many years of demonstrating their faith in science, just like religious leaders. Scientists who question basic principles are just as ostracized as any religious leader who questions a basic principle of his religion. Faith and the ability to persevere in the face of deep criticism are important to leaders in both. Vitriol and hatred occur between scientists of different beliefs (consider cold fusion). There are different schools of thought on many scientific issues.

[21] A legitimate question that religions raise is: Why is government funding of science not a violation of the first amendment? The answer provided by scientists is that because most of science is not looking at questions of ultimate causation, then ultimate causation is the sole province of religion. The shorter term causation is the realm of science. Hence the two are separate. The fallacies are that science is continuously getting closer to ultimate causation, and religions claim explanations for short term causation. For example, where religion says God created everything, science says everything was created by the big bang. A creative person who tries to resolve the differences might say that the big bang was just God clapping her/his hands. Another example, is that we say God created life, yet today we combine sperm and eggs in the laboratory and are beginning to manipulate the genetic code. In two hundred years one can envision creating life strictly from the elements through a process of making compounds, nucleic acids, DNA structures and cells from scratch. I suspect much fear of embryonic stem cell research is based on the fear that we may be able to create organic life and eventually even humans from scratch as it were.

[22] While there are some functions of government that do not contradict religious beliefs, these are not as clear as the U.S. would like them to be. For example, one of the rules in some schools bans wearing head gear in U.S. middle schools. The reason is to ban gangs from identifying themselves with their colors. This rule is in conflict with both orthodox Jewish sects as well as some Islamic sects. Are we hurting these religions with this ban? Of course! The same is true of printing “in God we trust” on the dollar and keeping the words “under God” in pledge of allegiance. Why not under Allah? Even something as basic as rules against public nudity is just basic belief.

[23] To consider how arbitrary our decisions are, consider even our revered Supreme Court decisions. Very few are unanimous. Many that have broad application are either reversed and/or fought by the country. The classic example of this is Brown vs. the Board of Education which reversed earlier decisions on separate, but equal. This decision is still being fought today and we still have not achieved equal educational opportunity within a state, much less across the nation as a whole.

[24] For example consider presidential politics. Both sides are talking about religious values and are asking basic questions. This is very clear on the issue of stem cell research. Because stem cell research may lead to new understandings of how to create life and human life, people who believe only God can create life want the research banned. Others see the benefit that such basic understanding can lead to and want the work to continue. Another level of clarity is to what degree does the government have responsibility to help people out of their misery, versus enabling religions to help people and in the process convert people to their beliefs.

[25] Today there is much debate about gay marriage. We are worried about the extent to which homosexuality is normal behavior. Yet when science looks closely at homosexual behavior among males- be they ape, rat, or human- science finds that the behavior is more widely practiced both in the past and the present than many of deep religious belief would like to believe. Further we know that one can increase the behavior in men by putting men in an all male environment and restricting their access to women as is common in prisons and armies of the past.

[26] While this may be true, I know of few scientists who will not argue that their work will lead to a better life. This is certainly the reason (despite the religious nature of belief in science) that government funds science. This implicit judgment for improving the human condition through knowledge is present in all scientific research and leads to our revulsion at the Nazis’ use of science.