photo of a stone crossI was asked on Formspring.me: “Do you think it’s possible for a religious politician to put aside the teachings of their religious institution, and make decisions purely on evidence and for the benefit of the population as a whole?”

What follows is an edited version of the answer I gave there.

My immediate reaction was simply: “Not any more than anyone else can put aside their own experience, philosophy, intuition, insight and individual knowledge or understanding when making decisions.”

Surely, when you make a particular decision you bring to bear a vast collection of understanding. Not all of this is “evidence-based” in the strict terms I believe you’re probably referring to. The same is true for a religious person and a non-religious person, because both have brains that work like people’s brains should, right? Unless you’re suggesting that the religious are somehow less than human?

And, why would they or anyone else want to? Is it always bad for a person to base a decision on their own experience with morals, teachings, understandings and even faith? I’m personally delighted when someone I distrust makes a decision based on something bigger than himself. It, at the very least, shows an ability to consider multiple perspectives.

But I began to think more about the question, and what it suggests. It seems more or less bigoted to suggest that a minority of people in the world have a monopoly on sense because they have chosen—based on their own experiences, morals, understandings, intuitions and the rest—to reject religious teaching.

And I know that many people who read this will immediately become cross. They’ll accuse me of saying that people who reject religion have no sense. I may get more angry comments about thinking of some atheists as religious people, and thinking of some Christians (and, indeed, people of other moral traditions) as not really religious at all. I hope that people will read the whole paragraph above, however. It’s quite a statement to suggest that anyone with a professed faith should set aside that faith whenever a political decision is made. Most people in the world do profess some form of faith, and suggesting that most of humanity is incapable of making trustworthy decisions is dangerous ground. It’s potentially elitest ground.

I agree—I think—that there are times when the idea of having a decision made by someone whose understanding of a situation may be compromised by their idiosyncratic state is preposterous or unpleasant. I’d find sexual tips and marriage advice from a celibate priest harder to trust than from a friend celebrating his 25th anniversary, for example. But, political decisions are, by definition, decisions involving many people, and a minister for homes and families (or whatever they’d fall under) who happens to be a celibate priest might not be a bad thing. Political decisions would demand skills like being able to see the fullest picture possible, to balance the needs of an important minority with the majority, and the ability to think clearly and take advice.

Then we come to “evidence”. Do you always base every decision on “evidence”? Do you double-blind, placebo-control, clinically trial every decision you make?

“Blimey, I need to choose one toothpaste over another, Fred. You squirt a bit of each on these sixty identical toothbrushes, and we’ll find randomly-selected volunteers to brush their teeth with one or the other, and one group using a toothbrush full of jam, and follow their progress for a year…”

Of course not. You bring a shared, social and cultural understanding to every decision. OK, maybe toothpaste isn’t the best example, because it is possible to gather evidence anyway. What about deciding which colour shirt to wear, or how to tie your tie? Part of this will include an individual’s convictions, faith, teachings and understandings. Can you set them aside?

Can you set aside your nationality, gender, culture, intuition or “gut feeling” when making any decision at all?

Also, how do you make a decision on a topic where “evidence” is contradictory, difficult to interpret, or simply lacking?

I’m a huge fan of the whole notion of “evidence-based ” policy and medicine. I think a minister for health who believes vehemently in homeopathy or spirit-healing would be unlikely to receive my vote. But I think we’re in danger of over-stretching the meme of “evidence-based” as an adjective. It’s a cultural token amongst the moderately-well educated to indicate a trust in scientific method over tradition, marketing or simple bullshit. But that’s what it should be. It shouldn’t be stretched to include a life-style, a culture, or a token for an atheistic life.

I believe in evidence in every area of life where it’s possible to apply it. It’s important to make informed decisions. But I also believe that there are areas of life where “evidence” is lacking, difficult to interpret, or simply inapplicable. There is no evidence-based conclusion to why I should prefer a certain song to another, to why I may be drawn to a particular form of beauty which may bore or disgust you, to why I find solace in sunsets and fear sleeping.

Don’t over-stretch the idea of “evidence”. It’ll lose its meaning, and eventually, it’s significance.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email

Related posts

What is a Fundamentalist Atheist?

I think the instinct—for lack of a better word—that draws people to act religiously can also affect people with no religion. While there may be no organised creed, there is organisation in a sort of tribal way. This may be in some way related to a …

Read this one »

What thing or things can a religious person do that an atheist cannot?

I don’t know, sounds like a clinical trial might be in order?

I’m uncomfortable with the idea of religion, and that discomfort is growing into something akin to distrust.

I sort of see “religion” as a way to organise faith and belief into a structure. Traditionally, this structure has been a default in many cultures—because the organised belief and faith were heavily integrated into the social structures too. In the West, this tradition has become eroded. I don’t see this as bad in itself. It may prove to be hugely good, because it makes a person’s faith their own responsibility and maybe allows for a stronger connection with Love. Religion can get in the way of faith, and in the way of Love, especially if the structure of the religion is particularly authoritarian or the ideas closely controlled.

I do believe in a loving, creative God, and I follo the teachings of Jesus, but I’m uncomfortable with the structures and manifestations of “religion”. The way I see it, I think, is that if God is infinite and also benign (Loving), then those who want to Love, and those who question will ultimately find Love somehow. Religion might limit this questioning, and limit our own understanding of Love.

That’t not to say I don’t see truth in religious teaching, or that I am a complete non-traditionalist (my instinct is to embrace tradition, though my conscious thought is conflicted where I don’t see the truth in a tradition). Some traditions are good, or contain good or are useful or are beautiful. I think the ones which are narrative rather than proscriptive are most close to Love, at least for me.

So, I might surprise you by saying perhaps a religious person can hide behind an institutionalised version of the truth to justify not thinking for themselves?

Oh, I also think many athiests can be “religious” themselves, by the way. If the profound belief that nothing beyond their potential state of empirical knowledge becomes a structure, then it resembles nothing more than religious thought-laziness. So, be athiest, be religious, but don’t hide behind either. Be you, and I pray you find Love.

Read this one »