L’Église s’y X…

moralizing gods drive Nature rejection

Sheer Thursday in Nature

As on this (sheer or maundy) Thursday, it happens from time to time a religious tribune worms its way into the scientific journal Nature. This one calls for a collaboration between scientists and “people of faith” towards stalling climate change. Which is obviously well intentioned, as any initiative towards that goal cannot hurt on principle. But against the scientific method as well: the  tribune calls for convincing religious communities of the need to act by relating scientific facts to “sacred” texts, for focussing on communities of the same faith impacted by climate change, and never argue against anti-science religious arguments… And somewhat irrational even without considering the conservatism of most religious groups, as “people of faith” are about as diverse as the whole society.

“So President Emmanuel Macron of France called me on Thursday afternoon” [really?!]

When I read this first sentence in The New York Times article by Ben Smith, I was a wee bit suprised as it sounded more Trumpian than Macronesque. Esp. when the article continued with the French president “having some bones to pick with the Anglo-American media”… As it transpired, it is factually correct, if giving an impression of the exact opposite of the right causality arrow. The Élysée palace indeed called back the NYT journalist after the latter asked for an interview a few days earlier and that Macron agreed to it. Beyond this misleading launch, the article is much more of an opinion piece (about Ben Smith’s opinions on French politics and secular principles) than an interview. Just like most principles, the rather specific core concept of “laïcité” (secularism) can be both debated ad nauseam and turned into political weapons for all positions on the political spectrum, from extreme-left to extreme-right. It is also almost invariably presented from abroad as an attack on the freedom of religion (and lack thereof), mostly against Muslims, and almost automatically mixed with institutional racism. The article actually goes all over the place, from attributing the uncovering of a pedophile writer to The Times journalists, to seeing Macron’s position as a theatrical posturing helping his own agenda for the next presidential elections. And while I readily concede the many woes of the French society, government, institutions, like police and justice, politics, &tc., I cannot but support an idea of a model that remains universalist and therefore secularist.

Nous continuerons, Professeur.

“Nous continuerons, Professeur. Avec tous les instituteurs et professeurs de France, nous enseignerons l’histoire, ses gloires comme ses vicissitudes. Nous ferons découvrir la littérature, la musique, toutes les œuvres de l’âme et de l’esprit. Nous aimerons de toutes nos forces le débat, les arguments raisonnables, les persuasions aimables. Nous aimerons la science et ses controverses. Comme vous, nous cultiverons la tolérance. Comme vous, nous chercherons à comprendre, sans relâche, et à comprendre encore davantage cela qu’on voudrait éloigner de nous. Nous apprendrons l’humour, la distance. Nous rappellerons que nos libertés ne tiennent que par la fin de la haine et de la violence, par le respect de l’autre.”

Emmanuel Macron, 21 October 2020