THE FLAT EARTH SYNDROME
Jerry Harkins
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
—Daniel Patrick Moynihan

As any five-year old could have told Senator Moynihan it’s a free country and you can believe any damn fool thing you want. Seriously though, who would have thought that anyone born in the Twentieth Century, in the world’s most technologically advanced society and educated at two of its top universities could purport to believe, explicitly or implicitly, that:
• The universe was created ex nihilo on Monday, October 23, 4004 BC;
• In a three-day orgy of creative activity, God made every living creature, plant and animal, exactly in the form we see today—the plants on October 25th, the fish and birds on the 27th, land animals, both wild and domesticated, and Adam on the 28th;
• Evolution is a myth—otherwise known as “only a theory”—and the so-called fossil record is a hoax put here by Satan to confuse God’s children;
• There is no such thing as global warming and, even if there were, (a) it would be too expensive to do anything about, and (b) it will probably turn out to be beneficial;
• Deficit spending is the way to fiscal health, especially if we borrow to give tax breaks to wealthy campaign contributors;
• Clear cutting is the best way to assure “healthy forests;”
• We are winning the war on terrorism.

You may think I’m exaggerating, but in fact there are many Americans who actually do subscribe to all the above ideas or something very close to them. Twenty percent of American adults believe the sun revolves around the earth. Millions upon millions are scientifically illiterate and proud of it. But only one is the President of the United States and a graduate of both Harvard and Yale. George W. Bush is a man who knows no science, does not believe what he is told about science, and does not trust scientists. When necessary, he searches high and low for charlatans who will flog his political agenda without reference to the evidence. It isn’t always easy but eventually he can come up with people willing to tell him that star wars is eminently feasible, that condoms do not prevent pregnancy or AIDS because latex is permeable, that embryonic stem cell research is tantamount to premeditated murder, and that dumping an extra 80 million tons of mercury into the air will not harm anyone or anything. Sometimes the search fails. When it came time to find someone to run FEMA, he had to settle for a horse’s ass. When he was unable to find a respected physician to put in charge of women’s health, he gave the job to a respected veterinarian. He sent a 24-year old campaign worker, one George C. Deutsch, over to NASA to help with their public affairs efforts. Not that he knew anything about science or engineering, just that he worked for the Bush campaign. So this incompetent wrote policy restricting media access to a leading climate scientist (Mr. Bush does not believe in climate science) and directed that all NASA documents use the word “theory” every time they refer to the Big Bang (Theory). Like many of his co-ignoramuses, Mr. Deutsch seems to think that “theory” is a dirty word. No matter. They had to fire him when it developed that he had lied on his resume, claiming a bachelor’s degree from Texas A and M that he didn’t have, much to that institution’s relief.

If they fired everybody in the Bush administration caught lying, we would have achieved the conservative Utopia: no government at all.

But it is the mercury story that best illustrates Mr. Bush’s overall attitude toward science. Mercury is a deadly poison. Power plants emit most of it—about 48 million tons every year. It gets into the air, then into the water, then into fish which people eat. It causes disease and death especially for children and the fetuses so beloved of Republicans. You will not find an independent scientist anywhere who has a kind word for mercury pollution. Forty-five states have issued advisories warning their citizens about dangerous levels of it in their fish. Even the feds have issued regulations requiring a 21% reduction over a five year period. Of course, the EPA’s proposal is de minimis. Two groups of state and local regulators have called it “severely flawed” and have proposed a plan they say will achieve a 95% reduction over the same period. Immediately, power industry trade groups howled like stuck pigs. The technology doesn’t work and is too expensive.  It will hurt consumers living on fixed incomes. The usual off-the-wall lies told by the folks who contributed nearly $500,000 to the Bush re-election campaign. The minimalist EPA mandates would have been cheap at twice the price. It was, however, a sure bet that the influence buyers would not be disappointed.

All this would be of little permanent import except that it gives sanction and a certain kind of respectability to ignorance, an effect I call the flat earth syndrome. Any idea exposed to the light of day will gather momentum in direct proportion to the celebrity of the people who propound it regardless of their credentials or its merit. This is merely a variation on P.T. Barnum’s Law that there’s a sucker born every minute. Thus, Tom Cruise can denounce anyone who takes prescription medication for depression and it matters not that Mr. Cruise is an ignoramus or that his theory is bonkers. Lots of Americans believe him, just as millions of Americans think that alien space ships have crashed in Roswell, New Mexico and that alligators live in the sewers of New York City. According to a recent CBS poll, 65% of Americans think creationism should be taught in the schools instead of evolution. The same people would denounce relativity, electromagnetism and continental drift if they had any idea what these theories are about or even if Mr. Cruise said they were harmful to the prosperity of thetans who seem to be people so endowed with theta that they can function without the inconvenience of a material body. Of course, without his own body, Mr. Cruise would be flipping burgers back in Glen Ridge.

By itself, ignorance rarely does much damage and, of course, error has its rights. The typical American has always been ignorant about science but that hasn’t stopped American scientists from winning Nobel Prizes, sending astronauts to the moon or developing polio vaccines. Thomas Edison survived a brief encounter with American education.   Bill Gates lasted long enough to drop out of Harvard in his junior year. Every single advance in computer technology came from an American scientific mind, educated or not. So what am I worried about?

It is not ignorance, it is ignorance at play in the arena of religio-political ideology. There are millions of African children who have died or will die because George Bush believes condoms are immoral and don’t work anyway. If he thought they did work and could save millions of lives, either he would have to rethink his moral theology or stand guilty of genocide. He is not big on changing his mind; he calls it “flip-flopping.”

Or take the matter of Plan B, the so-called “morning after” pill that prevents a woman from getting pregnant after unprotected intercourse. The manufacturer applied to the FDA for approval to market the pill over the counter—that is, without a prescription. The agency set about its usual scientific review process but while it was on-going, its senior management, political appointees all, pulled the rug out and decided to refuse the request regardless of what the scientists recommended. Their reason was that the pill was thought, incorrectly, to be tantamount to abortion and that it would encourage teenage sex both of which are ideological bug-a-boos to the administration. The Government Accountability Office reviewed FDA’s process and found it deviated from established practice in four ways, the first of which was that, “…the directors of the offices that reviewed the application, who would normally have been responsible for signing the Plan B action letter, disagreed with the decision and did not sign the not-approvable letter for Plan B. The Director of the Office of New Drugs also disagreed and did not sign the letter.” What you really need to know is that it was this bastardization of the process that led also to the resignation of Dr. Susan F. Wood as head of the agency’s Office of Women’s Health. Dr. Wood is the physician whom George Bush replaced with a veterinarian. [1] Science be damned, full speed backwards! Their God created human beings who become sexually mature nine or ten years before the geniuses in Washington think they should be allowed to enjoy it. So the Pat Robertson’s of this world are left to clean up God’s mess. And they think I’m a blasphemer! Wendy Wright, Executive Vice President of the conservative Concerned Women for America allowed as to how ignoring the science was “comforting.”[2] We can be grateful that at least some good—Wendy’s comfort—came out of a truly absurdist situation: something called the Food and Drug Administration using theology instead of science as the basis of its decision making. America is on its way to becoming a theocracy and its theology is the theology of ignorance.

Not too long ago, the voters of Dover, Pennsylvania threw out all the members of their school board because it insisted on telling high school students about “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution.[3] The Reverend Robertson went on television to proclaim that they had “voted God out of your city” and they should get ready for divine retribution. The inescapable image being evoked was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone. This is the same bozo who preached that the destruction of the World Trade Center was God’s punishment for homosexuality and feminism. “Bozo” of course is a bias word but anyone who says Tinky Winky Teletubby is a gay plot to destroy America is exposing himself to being thought of as a clown. Like George Bush, Pat Robertson had an influential father and a good education.[4] As anyone who has paid any attention to his career knows, he has said some amazingly stupid things over the years. For example, he once proclaimed on national television, “You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.” A truly moronic comment but he is simply not stupid. Why then do he and so many other people who should know better reject science and all it stands for? More importantly, why do so many Americans believe the kind of obvious claptrap being foisted off on them by Bush and Robertson? The answer, of course, is a view of religion which always trumps science, experience and common sense. It also trumps God who, in addition to the screw-up about adolescence, erred in making mouthy women and needy gays. Throughout history, one understanding of religion or another has been responsible for a dazzling array of horrific sins: the slaughter of innocents, slavery, persecution, terrorism and even mass suicide. Not all religion encourages such evils, only the most blatantly orthodox.[5] These are religionists—Jews, Christians and Muslims mainly—who profess to be holier than thou. A lot holier. If, then, these people are not inherently stupider than the rest of us, why do they take what the rest of us see as absurdist, nihilistic positions? There are, I think, three factors at work.

First, of course, they really are convinced that sacred-text-based knowledge is inherently superior to any other kind including science. In the words of the 1978 Chicago Conference of Biblical Inerrancy, they believe:

Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

There is an obsessive reliance on authority and “tradition” among conservatives of every stripe. Tradition, of course, should carry high value in human affairs but it is at odds with the curiosity that has motivated people to challenge superstition and ignorance and has led them to speculative philosophy, experimental science and democratic governance. The tension between the two is one of the great themes of history. It lies at the heart of the story of Adam’s disobedience. It manifested itself in the struggle between Galileo and the Holy Inquisition. Cardinal Bellarmine was a great scholar and intellectual who suspected that Galileo might be right. He did what he could to avoid looking foolish but when Galileo remained obdurate, he opted to retreat to the comfort of biblical authority. It is hard to know his mind but, between the Bible and the scientist, it was easier and safer for him to choose the former which he believed to be the word of God. Galileo was by no means an atheist. On the contrary, he believed that God would not deceive him by putting false images in his telescope. It was a titanic clash of two very basic sets of values, a clash that remains largely unresolved.[6]

The second reason is that conservatives (and many other people) fear uncertainty which is the stock in trade of the scientist. Science rejects certainty and deals only in probabilities. As soon as Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson explained the origin of the background radiation of the universe, virtually every astronomer gave up the cherished “steady state” theory in favor of the “big bang.”[7] If American astronauts had brought back samples of green cheese from the moon instead of rocks, scientists would have gladly re-written their textbooks. Orthodox religion, on the other hand, fears and rejects uncertainty. Inerrancy is attractive specifically because it offers people an anchor—a set of eternal verities by which they can lead their lives and through which they can overcome the fear of death. As St. Paul teaches, “O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory”[8]

But certainty can be a cruel mistress. King Solomon in his old age laments:
"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless." [9]

Why? Because nothing ever changes. Everything is bedrock certain. Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. All things are wearisome more than one can bear. What has been will be again. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who follow will not be remembered by those who follow.

Solomon may be the only person in history to complain that things never change and he is surely wrong that there is no remembrance of men of old. But the point he is making is valid. Uncertainty is the spice of life. It embraces change. This can be frightening. The hymn says, “Change and decay in all around I see. O thou who changest not, abide with me.” For some Christians, the existential dilemma lies in the choice between challenge and boredom.  Just possibly, though, the most potent reason some Christians react so negatively to science is their perception that scientists and other “elitists” denigrate religion and people of faith. There is, sadly, some truth in that perception. Consider the treatment meted out to William Jennings Bryan during and after the famous Scopes trial. H. L. Mencken covered the trial for the Baltimore Sun. At one point, he wrote:

…the old mountebank, Bryan, sat tight-lipped and unmoved. There is, of course, no reason why it should have shaken him. He has these hillbillies locked up in his pen and he knows it. His brand is on them. He is at home among them. Since his earliest days, indeed, his chief strength has been among the folk of remote hills and forlorn and lonely farms. Now with his political aspirations all gone to pot, he turns to them for religious consolations. They understand his peculiar imbecilities. His nonsense is their ideal of sense. When he deluges them with his theologic bilge they rejoice like pilgrims disporting in the river Jordan....

Strong stuff, that. Not a word of it gives a fair or accurate picture of either Bryan or his supporters. Take out the name-calling and there is nothing left in the paragraph. Now all of us engage in the same sort of thing occasionally. Tom Cruise, for example, is not literally an “ignoramus” even if he drives me crazy with his uninformed pontificating. But at least Cruise truly is ignorant about pharmacology and depression. I do not believe anyone should engage in the kind of invective Mencken reveled in but it is certainly true that people like me find no common ground with people we think of as willing to reject what we see as obvious. There are two things that trouble me. The first has been called the “will to believe” which means belief based mainly on the need or desire to believe. The second is what I perceive as a priori logic, the penchant to reason to conclusions from first principles or eternal truths.

I can’t argue with the will to believe except to say I don’t share it. To me it risks grasping at straws which I see as intellectually futile. A person driven to belief is, in my view, gullible. But I can understand that to others uncompromising belief offers the solace of a port, any port, in a storm, any storm.

A priori logic is more of a problem. It is, of course, the heart of every syllogism, a tool explicated primarily by Aristotle. All men are mortal. John is a man. Therefore John is mortal. This is fine just so long as one can be confident in the validity of the major premise to the effect that all men are mortal (and of course as long as the rules regarding the minor premise and conclusion are scrupulously observed). If, for example, you proceed from the premise that all pine trees speak French, you’re going to be in serious trouble.

Now as it turns out, the idea that all men are mortal is as close as we can come to a certainty. The evidence is our experience that all men we know about have actually died. But even such a sure bet is based on an assumption. At this moment, John himself is among the living (John is) and the living constitute the majority of all men who have ever lived. And not a single one of them has died yet. So the idea that John is mortal is a prediction, not a fact. You don’t want to bet against that prediction but you must recognize it for what it is. It is not a fact.

Most major premises are even less certain. “The Bible is inerrant” is an example. On its face, it contradicts your experience of everything else. Nothing in this world is perfect. There is no evidence for inerrancy unless you are willing to interpret some biblical passages as evidence.[10] It could be so but it bears a heavy burden of proof before you should trust any conclusion derived from it. Why do people think homosexuality is an abomination? Why do people believe Mary was a virgin? Well, the Bible is inerrant. Mary’s virginity is contained in the Bible. Therefore Mary was a virgin. If you think the Bible must be inerrant because Pat Robertson says so…ah, well, I’ll let that go with a prayer for your salvation. But this sort of logic does have consequences. Take for example God’s statement in Genesis 2:18, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." A helper. An inferior. The King James Version has it “help meet,” one fitted to be a helper or assistant.[11] James Dobson concludes from this, “…a family must have a leader whose decisions prevail in times of differing opinions. If I understand the Scriptures, that role has been assigned to the man of the house.”[12] You may agree with Dr. Dobson but please understand that he is stating a conclusion based ultimately on an unprovable premise. It is merely an opinion and I am entitled to think it is illogical and immoral. That entitlement is important especially if you think God gave me a mind. What good is such a gift without license to use it?

All kinds of people believe all sorts of things. Catholics believe that the priest turns bread and wine literally into the body and blood of Christ. The Mormons are certain Jesus left his tomb to come and preach the gospel to New World Indians. The French think they have a glorious military history and I know I am descended from the kings of Donegal. The problem with George Bush is he thinks his opinions, which I find fantastical, are uniquely true and virtuous. He has never made a mistake and has never changed his mind—at least if you believe what he says. It should go without saying that I don’t believe a word of what he says. I believe the truth is not in him.

Notes

1. The vet was Dr. Norris E Alderson. When the appointment caused a firestorm of protest, the agency denied ever having made it and the administration appointed instead Dr. Theresa A. Toigo, a respected pharmacist.

2. The New York Times, November 15, 2005, p. 1.

3. The Dover case is an interesting example of the flat earth syndrome. The Board of Education wanted to make its notification as part of the science curriculum, a decision later characterized by a federal judge as one of “breathtaking inanity.” The town itself was not happy being regarded as another Dayton, Tennessee and it voted the School Board out of office at the first opportunity. But a small minority was convinced that, as one mother told a reporter for The New York Times, “Children should not be taught that we came from monkeys when that’s flat-out not true.” This of course is the same idea that drove the people of Dayton in 1925. Indeed, the trial was and still is referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

4. Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson was the son of Absalom Willis Robertson who represented Virginia in Congress for 35 years and his wife Adelia Elmer Robertson. Pat got his B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from Washington and Lee University, a Master of Divinity from New York Theological Seminary and a J.D. from, where else, Yale Law School.

5. “Orthodox” is not a perfect word but neither is any other word commonly used. “Fundamentalist” is too narrow, “Evangelical” is unfair, “conservative” is a euphemism. Like too many other writers, I use these terms imprecisely and interchangeably.

6. This is an inadequate summary of the debate between Galileo and the Inquisition which really came down to different systems of epistemology. Galileo believed that the book of nature is written in mathematical terms. Bellarmine believed mathematics was a human artifact, often useful but essentially self-contained and self-referential. In this, at least, Bellamine probably had the better argument.

7. Not all. There were dissenters most notably Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the 20th century’s most distinguished scientists. Hoyle promoted several versions of what was called the "steady state" or “continuous creation” theory. His dissent, however, is of little comfort to fundamentalists in that it claims that the universe is infinitely old and will endure infinitely. In other words, no creator was ever needed. Some contemporary inflation theory cosmologists are working toward a model which might reduce big bangs (plural) to events within an infinite number of island universes. Continuous creation might return in a somewhat different form than that imagined by Hoyle.

8. 1 Corinthians 15:55. In various translations the two subjects, death and grave, and the two predicate nominatives, victory and sting, are mixed in every possible way. This is the version familiar to hearers of Handel’s Messiah. The next verse is obscure in many translations but the New Living Translation often used by Fundamentalists is exceptionally clear: “For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power.” This is a recurrent theme in Saint Paul’s writings and should give pause to anyone who is overly impressed with biblical legalisms. See also Galatians 5, especially Verses 22 and 23. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

9. Ecclesiastes 1:2-11. This and other Biblical citations not otherwise attributed are from the New International Version, International Bible Society, 1973. Some of King Solomon’s science is fine, some of it not so fine. The sun, for example, does not hurry back to where it rises. Galileo was right. The sun is stationary with respect to the earth.

10. The 1974 Lausanne Covenant offers ten Biblical references in support of inerrancy. They are: II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16, Matt. 5:17,18; Jude 3; Eph. 1:17,18; 3:10,18. To my eyes, all are extremely ambiguous and I have no idea what is meant by Jude 3.

11. “Helpmate” seems to be a politically correct version of the same word.

12. “Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions: Marriage and Sexuality,” Tyndale House (Reprint Edition) 1992.