Comments on a talk about religon, demographics and politics

I went to a talk last night at the RSA (Royal Society for the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) in association with
New Humanist magazine by Eric Kaufman.

The guy was talking about his theory that fundamentalist religous sects
could gain significant political power in developed nations by 2050
through increased procreation. Its actually a reasonably sound theory
based on birth rate trends. The West has seen a decline in birth rates
such that it's less than 2.1. People are living longer and immigration
keeps the population growing. This decline in birth rate is happening
all over the place but cetain religious sects such as Mormons, certain
Islamic groups or ultra-orthodox Jews have high birth rates and
significantly higher than the local population. These particular sects
isolate their offspring to the religious community and are strict in
rejecting any change from society so there is no contamination of the
ideology and culture and their is little loss from people leaving to
join mainstream society. These populations will grow much faster may
emigrate to the West. In America the right-wing Christian lobby is
pretty powerful such that there are attempts to get evolution not taught
in schools. And that's the fear: that science and/or rationalist dogma
will be inhibited. George Bush banned state-funded research using stem
cells because of religious reasons and not scientific ones so the
potential for this to happen is definitely there.

Is it a bad thing is also another question. Science and rationalism is
the new dogma in the post-Enlightment and its a good one. It provides
good answers. But it doesn't do everything. Its hasn't replaced the
teachings of religions in providing a guide to life. It doesn't provide
a sense of good or bad, just rational decision making and that can be
cold and unemotional. It can dehumanise humans and that's certainly true
in mental health in the past and possibly the present.

I am for more liberal, open minded and progressive thinking in all areas
and I'm not sure I'd swap the general liberal attitude of science today
for the constraints on science imposed by religons past and present, and
strongest in the religious fundamentalist groups. I'm a product of the
new religion of rationalism and science though I've found the answers it
provides in mental health are not as useful as the answers found using
philosophies other than positivisitic science. The dogma of rationality
and science also break down into sub-cultures each with their own
interpretations of the 'gospel' truth and to me this feels like some
truth of human nature: that even in solidarity we disagree.