Matter of National Security

Science: A Matter of National Security

By Roy D. Follendore III

July 5, 2002

Despite the evidence here are many people in the United States who do not believe that natural evolution is a fact. Most of these people undoubtedly base their beliefs on the idea that one can not be faithful to their religion while believing in any other contradictory proposition. For these people, the writings of their religion are not allegorical, as though an allegory somehow means less than scientific fact. Webster defines an allegory as "a narrative in which actions of characters represent abstract ideas or moral principles." Allegories are not black and white, but this is what makes them so powerful. Allegories have power because generalized wisdom of the character exists within the writer before that of scientific wisdom.

Because their underlying objective is to discover facts, Scientists are first and foremost metaphorical writers of the allegorical hypothesis before they become writers of new facts. Allegories contain a story which is essentially a metaphor on a grand scale. It is not a good thing to put your hand onto a hot coffee cup so it is not good to put your hand on a hot stove, or into a hot flame. The hero reads the wrong thing and goes down the wrong path. The allegorical concept is that it is not good to intellectual product to refer to something that harms your decision making process, such as biased information and propaganda. The metaphor to that of touching something too hot is a concept that is present.

Allegories have power precisely because they pull concepts across conceptual and theoretical boundaries and they are as well as utilize analogies. Stories that are allegories speak about the larger community of thought. The concept of absolute truth is weak because it is contextual and it is so precise. We witness that which our minds allow us, in context with who, what, where and why we are at any given moment. When our perceptions change, our ability to communicate truth also changes. Yet we prefer to think in terms of black and white, even though black and white deny the existence of an infinite spectrum of color.

Human language is contextual because human minds are contextual. Moreover, context is a physical as well as a psychological boundary for the mind. It can not process that which is not there unless it substitutes one thing for another. Without allegory, language can not convey meaning past this contextual barrier that exists between human minds. Without an allegorical common ground, man can not move past the boundaries of culture to cooperation for common good. The physiological bind between Science and Religion is that both attempt to agree on what seem to be opposite absolutes. A Scientist may point to evidence as "natural" conclusion while a theologian will point to rationality of the will of "God" as "faith."

It may be a fool of a Scientist who denies the existence of direct observational data, but it the unfaithful that would deny the faith of religion because of the need to process unbiased observation. Where the "word" of God on Earth is taken literally, as an absolute literal statement of truth, there can be no room for interpretation. It is easier to live in one camp of thought or the other. It is rationally impossible to live in a universe of coexistence of unbiased scientific observations and absolute religious faith. On the other hand, it is easy to live in a scientific factual world where faith is allegorical, where the concept of God's word is interpreted as guidance, rather than absolute commands science and religion can coexist. On the other, it is easy to live in a religious world where science is allegorical, where the concept of science is interpreted as rule of thumb procedures man uses to God's end.

It is more important than ever for the human race on this planet understand this paradox. There can be no faith without the underlying allegory of our scientific "story", just as there is no science without contextual observation. The assumption that the concepts of context and allegory are weaknesses is a ludicrous philosophy. The weakness in both religion and science emerges when we ignore our own bias of context. If Science is to be a philosophy without ethics then it will not be controlled.

But Science and religion are more than issues existing to themselves. They are fundamentally necessary functions of the welfare and service of mankind and civilization. Even if we were to set aside as a independent problem of the existence of a God, we would have to conclude that the existence of God as a concept is necessary for the existence of civilization. Science would need to invent God. We would also have to conclude that civilization is necessary for modern Science to exist. The concept of God must exist for Science to exist. Modern Scientific method arose from the Dark Ages interpretation of God's good will from nature. We can not push aside one principle of Scientific and religious philosophy without damaging the other. Religion and Science are two pillars of world society. The third pillar is that of Government because it is through Government that Religion and Science coexist.

The justification of the separation of the philosophies of Church and State is a concept that has been misunderstood precisely because we have taken the relationship of these concepts for granted. Our Ship of State must be run based on demonstrated facts, in context with the allegory of wisdom which has been handed down through the ages by humanity. The knowledge of that which exists and can be demonstrated is the step of contextual awareness but that is not truth. Truth is processing of that contextual knowledge through wisdom, which can only be found through allegorical faith. The absolute orientation of religion is too easily controlled and manipulated by too few and the absolute nature of Science is too limited by mere facts without generalized templates for moral action. It is the midiron of moral reasoning from which we must draw deliberate and wise community pathways into our complicated technical future.

Perhaps the most dangerous path that the United States treads today involves our political and economic support of political systems of government that are based on religious "non-secular" governments. Through the self fulfillment of religious prophecies, science can be used as a means to the faithful allegorical end involving the induction of "God" to mankind and the "heavenly" end of the world. Least you think that current events are not being affected, think again. Newsday reports that American Jews are currently being paid a grant of $5,000 each to move to Israel by Evangelical fundamentalist in order to fulfill scriptures of rapture as Jesus returns. The point is not that this is simply a religious issue. Religious groups have always gone after their own flavor of political ideals. The point is that solutions that push politics to match religious zeal is not be in the interest of government or the citizen. We have seen the lengths of responsibility which religious cult leaders like the Reverend Jim Jones, and David Koresh will take their constitutes when acting as their own government. What did our American founders know about all of this?

It becomes too easy for governments who are based on ultimate religious doom and gloom of man to assign malevolent traits of others while assigning eternal sanctity in their own actions. We know that the potential of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare threats can be assigned the rank of prophecy and certainty to the "faithful" as a particular religious brand of allegory. In such hands, science and technology become tools for the eternal control of humanity where Jesus or God comes just in time at the end of the World. Why should religion be the answer to political compromise? Religion has repeatedly shown us throughout history that when given total political control of nations, it fails mankind. The allegorical character we call man must grow productively in order to exist. The doom of creativity and curiosity within individual man through religion is an effective doom of all of mankind. Religion needs Science as much as Science needs religion if man is to survive.

Science for Science sake is certainly no better than religion for religious sake. Science without boundaries and ethics arising from religion are equally dangerous. Scientific experimentation without consideration of ethical meaning, science for science sake or science without the proper humanitarian acceptance of risk also represents a frightening future for our allegorical character. The ability of a few to make an openly unwarranted experimental decisions that risk all of mankind must also eventually lead to the inevitable destruction of mankind. The personal bets among the first atomic scientists that the atmosphere of the earth would ignite when the first atomic bomb was exploded is a good example this. Our Governmental leaders and our scientific leaders were willing to risk the whole of this planet for a six month shortening of the war with Japan. It was the fools gamble of all of mankind against a million, even though we may have won.

The point is not that our planet was not destroyed by the first tests atomic bombs, the point is simply that risk was deemed acceptable by our scientific leadership without public debate. The same wager is being repeated every year in laboratories around the world and the proper acceptance of that level of risk has yet to be openly debated. Because the general probability of such experimentation is independent, if we continue to allow the potential of the scientific worst, then the worst will eventually happen. The rate of unbounded scientific growth implies that there will be a point at which non-allegorical mankind may destroy ourselves through scientific experimentation.

We stand on the threshold of a potentially infinite technical future. We have choices. We make choices even when we do not. But by not choosing we also choose our future. The consequences of understanding the balance of scientific and religious power, to government power will affect the future of our children. The framers of the Constitution gave us the model through which we may improve our lot. That model is the separation of Church and State. It is important. There should also be a guiding concept that separates science and state as well. It is up to allegorical man to make something new of that map that fits our modern context. This is a matter of our National Security.

.