There was a good PragerU video highlighting the misuse of the word science. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When I hear someone say, "believe in the science," I immediately respond by asking them when science became religion? We are not to believe in science. We are to understand scientific discovers using the scientific method. This provides us with knowledge, but knowledge does not tell you what to do with that discovery.

Michael Knowles is fond of quoting Henry Edward Manning (aka Cardinal Manning), "all human conflict is ultimately theological." Most people read this and think it mostly pertains to war between traditional religious ideologies, but it is much broader than that. This is what drives the difference between science - knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example by experiments [Oxford] - and Science^TM - metaphorical truths used for political advantage. It is a war between objective truth and subjective truth, (aka your truth).

Science, referring to real science here, provides knowledge but no context for wisdom. Wisdom, whether through experience or tradition, informs a knowledgeable person as to what to do with that knowledge. It is the ought statement. Science does not tell us what we ought to do with its discoveries. This is where influences, like religion, come in. Do with that what you will, but conflating science and religion accomplishes nothing.

I bring this up because there seems to be a battle between religion and science at the moment even though they are not in the same category. And this is not inherent on just one side of the political spectrum. Right-wingers who use religion, typically Christianity, to force the non-religious to buy into their policies are doing something wrong. The identifier of Christian Conservative is common, but I argue it should not be. I am a Christian (Catholic) and a conservative but describe myself as a conservative who happens to be Christian. Even though my Christian identity far supersedes my political ideology/affiliation, I refuse to make my faith a political statement.

C.S. Lewis writes about Christianity and politics in The Screwtape Letters. I recommend this book (or series of letters) to anyone and everyone, religious or non-religious. Lewis writes these letters from the perspective of a senior devil (Screwtape) writing to a young devil apprentice (Wormwood) trying to find the best way to turn man away from God. In this series of letters, he mentions how the connection between religion and politics can pull people away from the heart of Christianity. Lewis writes (remember he is writing from the perspective of the devil):

“About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything — even to social justice.”

The lesson here is using your Christian faith as a means to advance your personal or political agenda places yourself – meaning your personal desires – before God. C.S. Lewis, writing these letters in 1941, even mentions social justice here which has infused itself within many Christian denominations. Lewis continues this passage by saying, “The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice.” I do not point this out just to take jabs at the people promoting social justice but to point out putting any personal or political goals in front of your faith will eventually have you ignoring all its teachings.

This does not mean, however, that your faith ought not to influence you when making personal or political decisions. As a Christian, my faith tradition and beliefs influence almost everything I do and how I interact with the world. Even my political ideology and policy preferences are largely made on a theological (or theologically informed) basis. I bet many of you reading this might be thinking, “isn’t that the opposite of what you just said Christians shouldn’t do?” No, there is an important difference here.

Much like the quote I gave from Cardinal Manning before, religious beliefs, or lack thereof, influences every decision we make. Just like science provides knowledge but not wisdom, a set of facts provides insight but does not inform the individual as to what they ought to do. The ‘ought’ comes down to what you believe you must do or your sense of duty. A politician makes policy decisions based on what they believe is right. That sense of right and wrong comes from their religious worldview even if they claim not to believe in a higher power. Faith influences our decisions, but it does not demand we must force others to believe it too. There is a fine line between allowing your faith to influence your political decisions and explicitly adding religious demands into policy. The former works on improving the culture and world around you, and the latter injects religion right into politics which will ultimately corrupt it.

I did not originally plan to dive into the second half of this post covering religion so explicitly, but considering how much I have seen other people in the current movement fighting against wokeism moving towards both extremes – the religious extreme and the secular extreme – I think it is important to fight back against that reflex. Faith, more specifically Judeo-Christian faith in the American context, is an important element in bringing back a sense of God-given rights and morality. Also, openness towards people who do not believe in what you believe is vital because this fight cannot be fought by dividing ourselves into independent factions. We got to have a little faith in each other to deal with the social and political realities of today.

Did any of this make sense? Like I said, I did not plan on making any other points than the science argument, but I felt the need to close the loop on my logic. Reading back through it, it feels a bit scatter-brained, but that might be because I have had a crazy week at work (that’s the excuse I’m going with). But let me know what you think. Oh, and I should be finishing the last few parts of The True Believer review next week for those of you who have enjoyed those reviews. Thanks again for reading and being a part of the Engineering Politics Locals Community!