Religious Attacks?

In a recent blog commentary at Cryptomundo.com, Loren Coleman pointed to a Catholic blogger who posted on the Kansas City exhibition of the art and cryptozoology exhibition (that Loren helped put together). Apparently, this blogger stepped on Loren's toes by noting that the exhibition would "raise eyebrows." Loren's overreaction to this blossomed into "Catholic Left Attacks Cryptozoology." Never mind that it was a solitary blogger, not a diocese; forget that the artists themselves have no real interest in communicating what cryptozoology actually concerns... No, let's just throw out some rhetoric ("First it was the creationists and now it is the Catholic progressives that seem ready to assault cryptozoology.") and see if the cryptozoology community swallows it.

Can someone with a religious perspective effectively practice or understand science? Or even have a viewpoint on matters of science? (What does Loren say? "Who cares what the right or left religious writers say about cryptozoology and art?") I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian, and I find this implication offensive. Wouldn't it be just as ignorant to ask, "Who cares what artists say about cryptozoology?" or "Who cares what cryptozoologists say about art?" or "Who cares what cryptozoologists say about religion?"

Loren states, "Misunderstandings, assaults, and insults come from the religious right and the religious left," but let's be honest. Misunderstandings, assaults, and insults come from every perspective, even agnostic or purely naturalistic mindsets. To try and extrapolate a religious cultural viewpoint from a single individual's posting (and after misapprehending it to begin with), is poor logic.

The problem, I believe, lies in a misunderstanding of the nature of belief in science. There is an inaccurate concept that "belief" is only religious in nature, and is not found in science, or is antithetical to science. (Therefore, holding a belief, religious or otherwise, places one in strife with scientific reason.) That is not true, of course. If one points, for example, to fossils as an evidence for the common descent of all organisms through geological time, one is not pointing to a fact, but to a belief that flows from certain assumptions. By changing assumptions, one may end up changing a belief. The facts themselves (the presence of a fossil, the presence of certain elements within the fossil, the geologic strata in which the fossil is found) do not change, nor does the methodology used to study the fossil. But the assumptions one uses may create certain limitations (blinders) or may show different potential answers to the question being explored. And, like it or not, those assumptions are beliefs. If a biologist assumes that it is possible for a big hairy primate to have been overlooked by traditional discovery methodology, that biologist may consider examining evidence that another biologist (who assumes it is not possible) will ignore. The methodology doesn't change, the evidence doesn't change, only the assumptions change.

Take the definition of religion itself by a cultural anthropologist (Clifford Geertz, 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures, via a discussion list): "A religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." Gee, we've never seen that outside organized religion, have we?

Rather than creating a false dichotomy (religion has beliefs, science has facts, never the twain shall meet), we should recognize that assumptions exist, and learn to be transparent about them rather than hiding them behind a false screen of subjective opinions masquerading as facts. If we know what the assumptions are, we can learn to recognize problems that accompany them, and hopefully resolve them or compensate for them (or even reconsider the assumptions) while seeking objective evidence.

Cryptozoology doesn't need any more of this "Religious Assault" misinformation. Researchers and enthusiasts come in every philosophical and religious shade, and most are capable of working with individuals of different persuasions. That cryptozoological discoveries may have relevance or interest beyond discovery science itself should not be decried or derided. That is the nature of science and philosophy, and should not affect the legitimate practice of cryptozoology.

[Note: Loren has posted a new commentary on Cryptomundo around my first response. To this, I'll just note that he misses my point. My argument was not that Art will shift cryptozoological concepts or that cryptozoology should hide from Art: rather, it is that when someone who doesn't know better takes the wrong tact with cryptozoology from Art, we shouldn't immediately blame that individual, particularly if we were contributing to the problem. If you are going to sleep with lions, don't be surprised if you end up with a few fingers missing. Second, Loren thinks I've misrepresented him when he talked about the "Right." Apparently, Loren has his own definition: he just means a "small minority," (the far, far, far "Right"?) a certain creationist and cadre. I think I know a bit more about the breadth and scope of creationists interested in cryptozoology, and I don't believe Loren knows where he's forming his boundaries here. As far as that certain creationist goes, I've been on record elsewhere that his credibility in either field is nil. But, again, it is no one's business whether someone "uses" cryptozoology for some purpose beyond cryptozoology itself, any more than if an environmentalist uses biogeographic data to push legislation for the protection of a species, so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.]