Science, Democracy and Islam  

Morten Breivik
2006/04/12  

One of the most valuable principles of science is to question everything; to consider nothing untouchable. If a specific theory cannot withstand comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny, it is practically worthless and should be discarded. It is for instance futile to champion a mathematically beautiful theory of physics if it fails spectacularly when faced with empirical evidence from the real world.  

This kind of thinking particularly lends itself to the natural sciences, but is harder to apply to the more elusive and less tangible social sciences and humanities, where so-called pseudo-science seems to be more widespread. Pseudo-science attempts to resemble science by applying elements of its formal structure; utilizing scientific-like jargon and language, employing symbols and equations, providing conferences and journals, etc. However, by closer scrutiny the actual content is found to represent nothing but unsustainable rubbish, often camouflaged through creative rhetoric and cognitive manipulation.  

The foundations of democracy are very much related to the foundations of science; requiring a merciless questioning of the existing at all times. An unrestricted exchange of ideas between actively participating members, irrespective of their affiliation in any sense, is demanded. Like a child learning to walk and talk, any society of man, situated in a world governed by the principle of causality, must continuously probe uncharted terrain to obtain the knowledge that is required for improvement. However, if the information flow between the components of society is prohibited, for instance by distortion or detainment of information, the societal organism cannot be expected to learn from mistakes in order to progress toward something advantageous. Consequently, a democracy requires features such as unlimited freedom of speech, unbiased media and research institutions, a citizen-serving government, and an education system which educates rather than indoctrinates. The citizenry must always have access to the tools and information upon which it can make qualified and constructive decisions.  

Analogous to pseudo-science, a pseudo-democracy is a hoax where the formal structure of a democracy may exist, but where all the content-supplying elements are distorted; restricted freedom of speech, biased media, government-serving citizens, and an indoctrinating education system. Hence, the citizenry is regularly fed everything from half-truths to outright lies, simultaneously lacking the proper tools with which to analyze and process any consumed information. By annulling the inherent checks and balances of a democracy this way, artificially suspending the fundamental laws of reality, any lunatic ideas might be applied for an unhealthy amount of time. In such a situation, the societal organism cannot be expected to learn from real mistakes, but only from imaginary, and possibly ideologically motivated, ones.  

The most anti-scientific and anti-democratic force in the world today seems to be the ideology of Islam. Thinly guised as a religion, it usually manages to dodge the criticism that is rightfully directed towards its totalitarian cousins Communism, Fascism and Nazism. By playing the religious card, any obviously deranged pills it prescribes become seemingly untouchable in a world gagged by political correctness. Still, the emergent behavior of applying the basic tenets of Islam undeniably appears to be a never-ending flow of misery; illiteracy, misogyny, gay-bashing, endless refugee streams, civil unrest, violence, terrorism, war, etc. ad perpetuum. Whatever positive features Islam may possess they certainly do not seem to manifest themselves in the real world, which is what ultimately matters.  

All Islamic nations of the world today represent either pseudo-democracies or pure totalitarian regimes. This fact does not bode well if it is inextricably linked to Islam itself. However, the ideological rigidity of Islam, claimed to be divinely sanctioned, appears to be rescued by the notion of a so-called Islamic Golden Age. Some assert that the achievements associated with this period were due to inherent qualities of Islam. Others conjecture that they were simply induced by an Islamic world temporarily coasting on the knowledge and capabilities of recently conquered civilizations; that the “Golden Age” represented nothing but a transient pulse naturally decaying toward a miserable steady state, corresponding to the Islamic world of today, where all the progressive features of the conquered civilizations finally had been destroyed. Indeed, one can rightfully wonder what constructive qualities might possibly emerge from an ideology whose institutional cornerstone is something as inhumane and hostile to knowledge as Sharia, and whose leading authorities threaten to kill anyone who dares articulate challenging questions.  

A prerequisite for true progress is to allow for uncertainty; uncertainty in the sense that our current beliefs may in fact turn out to be wrong. Consequently, we must allow ourselves to be unsure, we must be prepared to change our views, and we must not let our egos impede possible improvement. The process under which a new truth is accepted corresponds to the well-known three-stage rocket where it is initially ridiculed, then fervently opposed, until it is finally considered obvious and self-evident. However, if the second stage automatically involves physical violence with a near-certain possibility of death, then new and fruitful progress will never be made.