There have always been two main manifestations of human nature, thought and/or ingenuity:
Religion or
spirituality, collectively "religion" or "emotion" and
secular humanism or pragmatism. In general, religion is faith in the unknowable. It is belief in things that we cannot perceive or analyze. It is not grounded in reason and based on tangible (provable) knowledge. It is mostly grounded in culture and things other than tangible facts. Call it emotion for lack of a better term. Pragmatism is generally the opposite. Its mostly reasoned faith in the knowable (tangible) based on what we can perceive and test or analyze and is generally less tainted by culture.
Guam Rail - extinct in the wild
Science and pragmatism mostly end where our ability to test and analyze ends. Beyond that is the realm of religion. The relatively thin line between them is usually, but not always, clear. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus and the theory of relativity are obviously on opposite sides of the line. That clarity creates an unusual situation in human affairs: Distinguishing between two complex ways of seeing the world can usually be determined. One world view is faith based and the other is reality based.
Hard wiring
Religion and pragmatism have always been there. They are innate and fundamental characteristics hard wired into the human brain. Depending on the situation and the individual, one may dominate the other, but both are always there contending for mental bandwidth and influence. The interplay is mostly unconscious. The result of the competition manifests as an opinion or belief about something. Sometimes the result accurately reflects reality. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes facts and logic dominates the output. Sometimes emotion dominates.
It isn't the case that pragmatism will always get reality right or mostly right. Nor does religion always get it wrong. But on balance, it is reasonable to expect that beliefs or perceptions of reality coming mainly from pragmatism will get things more right more often than when religion dominates. Why? Because attempts to see or understand reality for what it is should be more accurate if religious ideology is not a source of distortion. Of course, that only makes some sense if you believe that religious faith can distort a person's view of facts and thus reality.
The following is a political argument, not an attack on religion.
As argued here before, religion is hard wired into the human brain. It is part of our innate character. What varies between individuals is how that character manifests itself in a person's world view including (i) what constitutes fact vs. fallacy and (ii) the person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. Attacking religion makes no sense.
Can religious faith dictate facts and reality?
Are there instances where religious belief dictates facts and reality despite contrary evidence of a "secular" nature? Yes, there are. Over the centuries, the Christian religion has rejected all sorts of realities that it later was forced to concede were real, e.g., the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today some, but not most, Christians believe that the Earth is literally about 6,500 years old (
link 1,
link 2,
link 3). Because of that and coupled with acceptance of the existence of dinosaurs as a fact, some Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs and humans in fact existed at the same time (
link 1,
link 2). None of that means that Christians reject logic and reason (
link). However, concluding that the Earth is a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a perception of reality based on religious faith and belief, not modern science.
Specifically, the context and facts that Christians use to conclude these things comes from religious belief, not science. Their conclusions do not mean that their logic or reasoning is flawed. It is just that the context and facts they use are at odds with modern secular reality. Faith in the bible dictates the facts and once those facts are accepted, logic and reason can flow naturally.
Religion and politics
If religious faith can lead people to believe things that overwhelming evidence says is not true, then what might the effect of religion on politics be when the evidence is much less compelling? Consider, for example, climate change (
discussed here before in a similar facts/reality vs. perception context), the impact of human activity on it and its potential severity. The facts are hotly contested, in politics. But not so much in science. Majority scientific opinion, approaching overwhelming consensus opinion, if not already there, says its an urgent problem and we should at least try to do something about it.
Assume just for the sake of argument, that something important in the Bible or Christian faith said that Christian belief about the issue should come down on the side that says humans have no affect on climate change, it can't be affected and it is God's will to not to even try to interfere. Assume that the contrary facts and consensus scientific opinion on climate change are dealt with the same that some Christians use to conclude that the Earth is 6,500 years old in the face of those contrary facts. Finally assume that Christian driven belief comes to dominate politics and becomes official policy, the policy is ultimately proven wrong and the consequences are worse than catastrophic. Could that happen if this hypothetical scenario were true? If not, why not?
Its not about global warming, its about
how your ideology affects your perception of reality
It does not appear that Christian faith underlies most of the distortion of facts and reality in the global warming political debate. Instead, that distortion seems to come mostly from rigid conservative ideology that dislikes government and has faith in the belief that government should not deal with such matters. From the rigid conservative ideological point of view, the facts make it look like addressing global warming will require coordinated action at the federal level and would have adverse impacts on the economy.
Given that accurately perceived reality, many or most conservatives unconsciously distort or discount contrary majority scientific opinion and facts that global warming is something to be concerned about. They come to an inaccurately perceived reality based on their faith in their "sacred" ideology. That politically ideologically driven distortion is necessary to logically conclude that global warming is nothing to worry about. Its the same process that leads some Christians to conclude the Earth is just a few thousand years old.
Consider dealing with facts that are less convincing than facts about the age of the Earth. What could religious faith do to those less convincing facts if they contradict an important sacred, infallible religious belief? How hard would it be for many (most?) believers to conclude something that conforms to the religious faith but contradicted by the facts? What proportion of people with faith would come to the wrong faith based conclusion? Its reasonable to guess a lot higher than for the young Earth issue because the facts and science are less solid and more open to attack and doubt.
Liberal, conservative, religious,
compromise (moderate) ideologies & pragmatism
Of those five sources of authority and world view in politics, two stand out as fundamentally the most different, religion and pragmatism. Religion and faith for their capacity to lead believers to conclusions and perceptions regardless of contradictory facts and reality. Pragmatism, as I define it, for its emphasis on trying to understand facts and reality for what they are while trying to downplay effects of other ideologies. Those are two very different vantage points from which to see the world and from which to conduct politics.
It is not the case that liberal, conservative and moderate ideologues don't let their ideology affect the way they see things. As discussed above for global warming,
they clearly do and sometimes to a surprising degree. Despite that, it seems that facts and unspun reality generally have a bigger impact on perceptions of people with those "secular" beliefs than on persons who are also deeply (and maybe moderately) religious. That is just opinion, but it is based on listening to people and trying to understand what shapes their perceptions of reality. Religion seems to have a more powerful effect on perception than the other authority sources. That's fine, if it leads to an accurate perception of reality and intelligent politics. It can be a bad thing when it doesn't and mistaken perception leads to bad political policy and a waste of tax dollars.
The foregoing describes the context in which our politics operates for the most part. From that context, it is reasonable to believe that reliance on sources of authority that can more easily lead to mistakes from misunderstanding reality should be de-emphasized. Reliance on sources of authority that minimize mistakes should be emphasized. From that, it is reasonable to conclude that the influence of ideologies on politics should be minimized as much as possible. Reliance on pragmatism should be increased as much as possible.
For addressing a person's spiritual needs, religion can be a great thing. But for politics, religion is the most powerful source of distortion of fact and reality. It is the worst source of political authority.
