I know this is a science blog but I can’t leave this without comment – and an unabashed ad hominem point, I’m afraid.

There is particular irony in AN Wilson associating scientists with Nazis – in the Daily Mail, of all places. In 2003, Wilson was dazzled enough by the charm of the unrepentantly pro-Nazi Diana Mitford that he attended her funeral. (Note to our US friends: Mitford was the wife of Oswald Mosley, leader of the British fascists in the 1930s – the “Blackshirts”.)

The then owner of the Mail, Lord Rothermere, wrote an article entitled “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”, in January 1934,

And in 1938, as persecution of the Jews in Europe escalated, the Mail objected to their seeking asylum in Britain. “The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. The number of aliens entering the country through the back door is – a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.”

It’s a fine tradition that they continue to this day. In the Mail worldview, scientists are “boffins” who, instead of doing something useful like finding a cure for cancer, spend their time on lunatic theories which, using nothing more than hard evidence, “conveniently” explain global warming or evolution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224578/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Fatuous-dangerous-utterly-irresponsible–Nutty-professor-whos-distorting-truth-drugs.html

by Mel Philips, who you may remember as a promoter of what Ben Goldacre calls the MMR hoax, and who memorably suggested that she knew more about epidemiology than, well, epidemiologists. Well, I’m sure that’s not exactly what she said, but it was the inevitable conclusion, as I remember it. Anyhoo, if you want to play spot the logical fallacy, this, as with most of Mel’s pieces, makes excellent fodder.

How do you confuse a Mail reader?
Tell them asylum seekers eat paedophiles.

The Daily Mail and The Guardian are quite different, it’s just that the British are much more likely to have a good laugh when there’s one to be had (and particularly like ribald humor of the kind that makes some American’s gasp in puritanical horror…nipples are considered funny and sexy and not scandalous in the UK, for instance). Media – meaning print, radio and TV – are quite different in the UK and America for a wide variety of reasons.

i.e. sorta like christians and hell. Except they beg forgiveness then get moved to another church.

This is also (one of the many reasons) why the idea of christian prisons should frighten the life out of all of you (see pharyngula).

I stand corrected on the newspaper title. It appears there is less difference between the newspapers than I first thought.

Really? Do you sincerely believe it’s about how we “feel” about the facts? Whether we like or dislike reality/facts? That seems odd to me. The whole point of having facts is so that we can deal with something rationally and predict consequences based in reality and not how we “feel”. What if everyone “feels” differently? Reality is reality, no matter how we feel about it. If we feel threatened by reality or it challenges a belief we hold so we feel afraid of the facts, does that mean you think we should ignore reality and facts in favor of feeling good? It seems to me that this is the very basis of the kind of unreality based thinking (feelings trump facts) that’s so problematic in our very real world. Ethics in science and medicine aren’t based upon feeling, they’re based upon the very real consequences of actions and if they harm others, individual good vs common good, etc. They are based upon the best knowledge and understanding at the time and change according to new information.

Tibet before the invasion by China was a theocracy, I’m aware of the technical meaning. As admitted, calling America a theocracy was somewhat glib on my part but religion certainly plays a huge and powerful role in American politics that is quite different than in Europe, Canada and Australia (where it’s actually often Fundamentalist Muslims who are trying the hardest to influence policy, sometimes in conjunction with Fundamentalist Christians). This is heavily reflected in policy decisions in the US – particularly regarding science. This doesn’t mean there isn’t religious fanaticism in other nations or that religious organizations don’t try to influence policy, and I’m not attempting to demonize America as a nation run by religion. However, one only has to look at the influence of Fundamentalist religious beliefs on US policy towards science and medicine to realize American government is heavily influenced by religious morality (that has very little to do with actual ethical and reality based decision making, and everything to do with Fundamentalist interpretations of biblical morality).

That is the very reason for the deception – the need to present a secular purpose for things that are really religious.

Cali Arcale – Thanks for the explanation. It was probably a bit glib to call America a theocracy, it’s just very tempting to do so when wars are framed as “crusades”, prayer is considered medicine and to be payed for by taxpayers, and religious and corporate lobbyists seem to have more power than citizens.

And, of course, law is historically based in Christian moral beliefs in Europe, Canada and the US (being Judeo-Christian cultures, though Islam is from the same roots, something that many people seem to be unaware of!). Why would it be any different if Muslims were trying to impose a moral belief determined by religious laws? I’m not sure why you think it’s different according to which religious group is trying to shape public policy according to their religious/moral beliefs. Here in Canada Muslims tried to argue they should be able to impose Sharia law and have their own courts – this was an attempt to override secular law with religious law.

Science usually deals with ethics and not morals. While I realize many people don’t differentiate between the two or consider them the same thing, I think there’s a distinction to be made. There’s a reason why people don’t study “medical morals” but do study “medical ethics”, and why ethical standards change within science and medicine as our understanding and knowledge grows.

Murder can be illegal even though it is also a Biblical commandment.

You just can’t justify a law by saying it advances a particular religion or religious view. It must have a secular purpose.

In the US, there’s meant to be a separation between Church and State that means that government isn’t imposing religious morality on the people or basing policy on religion

Not exactly. In the US there is what’s called “the establishment clause”. It’s in the United States Constitution, and it states that the federal government shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion. State governments have to follow that as well. (No state law can violate the US constitution.) What exactly that *means* has been a matter of some controversy, but it would definitely be taking it too far to say that government entities may not impose religious morality. After all, how do you determine, in a court of law, whether or not a law imposes “religious morality” if the law doesn’t specify “per Christian doctrine” or somesuch? It’s not like morals are unique to any religion. Indeed, most morals aren’t religious in origin; they originate in society and are added to religions in order to codify them.

There are a whole lot of laws in the US which originated from explicitly religious sentiment, yet they do not violate the establishment clause. “Blue laws” are the obvious example. Most have been repealed (not because they were unconstitutional, but because the relevant legislative bodies chose to repeal them). Prohibition was such a law. Here in Minnesota, I may not go into a liquor store and buy booze on Sunday (although I can go to a restaurant or bar and order a drink, as long as its a place which also serves food). I also can’t buy a car on Sunday — yes, that’s a blue law.

There are much less clear examples as well. Is it an example of religious morality if the federal government chooses to only fund abstinence-only education? Maybe. But is it “religious morality” merely because a Christian happened to be pushing it? What if a Muslim were pushing it? Would that be different? What if an atheist were pushing it? There are, after all, moralistic and even preachy atheists. These views are not unique to any one religion, and it would be very difficult to tell if a particular bill was being promoted for its adherence to a particular religious doctrine, or because of the personal opinions of the person promoting it, who just happened to be a religious sort of person. Religious people cannot be barred from promoting their views; that would be as bad as enfranchising only one religion. So just because somebody is, say, Baptist, that doesn’t mean their views should be discredited when they happen to coincide with the person’s religious views.

The US is far from a theocracy. If you believe otherwise, then you probably don’t understand what a theocracy really entails.

Science is about reality and not morality – though one may derive an ethical position from a deeper understanding of reality.

I agree; science gives us the facts. It is then our responsibility to decide how we feel about those facts, and what we will do with the information. That’s where things like ethics and morality and honor come into play.