As a scientist, I do not come from a religious background. But perhaps that is the point: Faith is still directly relevant to the present course of our culture, and scientists are uniquely placed to see that faith in a creator and scientific investigation do not have to be mutually exclusive.
However, similar to the scientists of early Enlightenment times, there is a false conflict between articles of faith and freedom of enquiry. In the days of Galileo, the conflict was between freedom of enquiry and a totalitarian Christian church. Today, it is between freedom and other totalitarian theologies found in some parts of the world and in some non-traditional churches. And yes, I did describe in a previous article how wokeism has the characteristics of a new religion—complete with articles of faith and canon including so-called DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Why is this important now? It is true that scientists—and knowledgeable citizens—can reconcile empirical and biological reality with a creator. After all, the essence of faith is that one does not have to prove—just have faith in—a God. However, today there seem to be three main kinds of totalitarianism which oppose citizen freedom, including their articles of faith that intercede upon our freedoms.
The first kind of totalitarianism is well known in the past century. As per an axis of freedom, tyranny can be found on the left and free will is to be found on the right for citizens. Canadians had to defeat national socialist and classical Marxist regimes, which sacrificed freedom for totalitarianism. Nowadays, there is a second kind of totalitarianism which I have described as green tyranny—where green clerics are imposing articles of faith based upon the ecological axis. These are watermelons: green on the outside, but red on the inside. In fact, cultural Marxism, neo-Marxism, and DEI ideology come directly from this underlying red ideology.
Then, there is the third kind of totalitarianism that I wish to describe more here. It is driven by religious extremism—most often seen with terrorism and theocracies these days, particularly in the Middle East. Unlike the watermelons, this kind of totalitarian ideology relates directly to the faith axis, not the ecological axis. Thus, we have to face this third axis with respect to the freedom axis. (Refer to the figure.)
The typical leftist authoritarian exists at the atheist, if not agnostic, end of the faith axis. This is where the phrase “Godless communism” arises. However, there is just as much a cultural problem to have an extreme faith in God that cares so much about the afterlife that it destroys the here and now. In either case, I submit that there has been a disconnect with empirical reality—the repository of scientific reality and common sense. True human advancement requires reason, not just faith. Galileo was onto something when he pointed out that religious doctrine cannot contradict observations of the natural world.
In fact, as a scientist and physician, it has become apparent that the inquisitions of Galileo are arising again. An assault on citizens’ ability to think, speak, and reason freely has certainly begun in academia with colleagues having to write DEI statements to obtain research grant funding from our governments. More broadly, no citizen freedom ought to be lost due to either cultural Marxism or radical Islamism. The choice ought not be between either DEI or die. There must be an alternative. Thus, there is a need for moderation just as much on the faith axis as on the ecological axis.
What way is there to escape a totalitarian theocracy? It turns out that humanity has been down this way before. The trouble with the divine rule of kings and khalifs is that they have been invariably shown to be fallible and corruptible. Thus, outright tyrants are the rule. The ancient Greeks tackled this problem by making their rulers accountable through direct democracy. In the anglosphere, our kings and their governments were first made accountable—and not above the rule of law—by the Magna Carta. Representative parliaments of the people developed thereafter. We have benefited greatly from the resultant freedom and democracy that flowed from these original ideas.
The fact is, the only path to peaceful coexistence will have to be through separation of the religious institutions—including woke ideology—from the state institutions.
But of course, this does not endorse a Godless regime either. Why? Because in a Godless dictatorship such as by Marxism or communism, the leaders will think that they can replace God—but act solely by their own despotic rules. Thus, this is just as much a recipe for unchecked human tyranny as religious extremism.
Prescription: The religious institution, including woke ideology, must not run the state institutions; nor should the state institution run the religious institution.
This used to be common sense for churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues, but it should also be remembered for the green and red clerics of cultural Marxism. The alternative is for us and our children to be trapped like yellow minions in a culture undergoing ideological capture—tyrannical and unaccountable.
In Part 2, I will flesh out some more immediate remedies for DEI and die—namely, using the alternate acronym FREEDOMS.
