![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Religion & science.
May. 4th, 2011 10:53 pmToday I am in San Antonio, collecting some confirmation samples around permeable reactive barrier treating contaminated groundwater associated with Kelly Air Force Base. I was working as a one-person crew, so I had complete control over the music selection.
It may surprise some (a lot) of my friends that I chose to listen to Christian music. K-Love 91.3, to be exact. I've come to really enjoy the message, & to tolerate the light-pop music. But what does continue to annoy me are the super, over-the-top, saccharinely friendly DJs. They are so upbeat & wholesome, all the time. Just like all real Christians (TM) are! Sometimes I wish they'd admit to being grumpy, or tired, or of having a doubt about the Resurrection. Show a human side.
Instead today two of them showed one of the most ANNOYING sides of Christianity. They were discussing a recent paper, published by the Centre for Animal Ethics at Oxford, which argues that much of the terminology we use in reference to animals is outdated. The paper argues against a wide range of terms, including "pets" (animal companions), "owners" (human caregivers), "wild" animals (free-living animals), etc. The authors state that using words that reflect old understandings of our relationship to animals, or phrases that are laden with bias ("drunk as a skunk", "brutes", "vermin") impairs clear thinking about our relationships with animals & therefore these words or phrases should be avoided.
Personally, I think this is an obvious statement. If I think of myself as Shadeaux's owner, then it is clear that I can sell her, give her away, treat her as wonderfully or as poorly as I want to, perhaps even kill her. After all, I own her. But, if instead I think of myself as her caregiver, I am envisioning a much more tender - & responsibility-laden - relationship. Words, in fact, do matter. I'm not sure this was worth an academic publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but that's just me.
I would have thought that a Christian radio station - if they were going to discuss this obscure academic piece - would've perhaps taken an angle on how it might be better if humanity stopped thinking of ourselves as the "owners" of God's good Creation, & started acting more like its "human caretakers". They could have possibly talked about how some words do matter - they matter so much that once upon a time, the Word became flesh & changed absolutely everything.
But instead Scott & Kelli sniggered their way through a completely inaccurate summary of the paper, saying that these crazy out-of-touch Oxford dons insisted that using the wrong terms "would hurt your pet's feelings". They posted a poll on their Facebook page asking, "Does it insult your dog or cat to call him 'pet?'" It was obvious to me (even before I got to the hotel & checked online) that they hadn't read the Oxford paper, nor had they really even read the AP article about the paper that probably caught their attention in the first place.
Overall, they fulfilled the stereotype that Christians are anti-intellectual. They were full of politely-veiled derision for smart-yet-stupid Ivory Towerians who think that Fido & Patches actually understand the words we use for them. I was clenching my teeth throughout that entire segment of their show, reflecting on how difficult it can sometimes be to be both a scientist & a Christian, especially when so many scientists treat Christianity as a form of brain damage. One of the HARDEST parts about trying to reach out to other scientists with the message of the Gospel is their sense that Christianity rejects science. Conversations like the one I heard today on Scott & Kelli's program totally reinforce that image.
Is the Centre for Animal Ethics paper the best piece of research ever? No. It's probably not even research-based. But is it an important topic? I think so. The words we use do have some power to shape relationships - if they didn't, people wouldn't get so upset when they are called a "bitch" or a "queer". Treating animals well is an important ethical topic, one with practical implications; for instance, how much should the City of Austin allocate for paying for guaranteed no-kill shelters?
So, I wish that Scott & Kelli had presented this paper with a little bit more honesty & accuracy. And if an honest & accurate presentation of the paper would have been too boring for afternoon radio chit-chat, then just play another song. I like Casting Crowns.
It may surprise some (a lot) of my friends that I chose to listen to Christian music. K-Love 91.3, to be exact. I've come to really enjoy the message, & to tolerate the light-pop music. But what does continue to annoy me are the super, over-the-top, saccharinely friendly DJs. They are so upbeat & wholesome, all the time. Just like all real Christians (TM) are! Sometimes I wish they'd admit to being grumpy, or tired, or of having a doubt about the Resurrection. Show a human side.
Instead today two of them showed one of the most ANNOYING sides of Christianity. They were discussing a recent paper, published by the Centre for Animal Ethics at Oxford, which argues that much of the terminology we use in reference to animals is outdated. The paper argues against a wide range of terms, including "pets" (animal companions), "owners" (human caregivers), "wild" animals (free-living animals), etc. The authors state that using words that reflect old understandings of our relationship to animals, or phrases that are laden with bias ("drunk as a skunk", "brutes", "vermin") impairs clear thinking about our relationships with animals & therefore these words or phrases should be avoided.
Personally, I think this is an obvious statement. If I think of myself as Shadeaux's owner, then it is clear that I can sell her, give her away, treat her as wonderfully or as poorly as I want to, perhaps even kill her. After all, I own her. But, if instead I think of myself as her caregiver, I am envisioning a much more tender - & responsibility-laden - relationship. Words, in fact, do matter. I'm not sure this was worth an academic publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but that's just me.
I would have thought that a Christian radio station - if they were going to discuss this obscure academic piece - would've perhaps taken an angle on how it might be better if humanity stopped thinking of ourselves as the "owners" of God's good Creation, & started acting more like its "human caretakers". They could have possibly talked about how some words do matter - they matter so much that once upon a time, the Word became flesh & changed absolutely everything.
But instead Scott & Kelli sniggered their way through a completely inaccurate summary of the paper, saying that these crazy out-of-touch Oxford dons insisted that using the wrong terms "would hurt your pet's feelings". They posted a poll on their Facebook page asking, "Does it insult your dog or cat to call him 'pet?'" It was obvious to me (even before I got to the hotel & checked online) that they hadn't read the Oxford paper, nor had they really even read the AP article about the paper that probably caught their attention in the first place.
Overall, they fulfilled the stereotype that Christians are anti-intellectual. They were full of politely-veiled derision for smart-yet-stupid Ivory Towerians who think that Fido & Patches actually understand the words we use for them. I was clenching my teeth throughout that entire segment of their show, reflecting on how difficult it can sometimes be to be both a scientist & a Christian, especially when so many scientists treat Christianity as a form of brain damage. One of the HARDEST parts about trying to reach out to other scientists with the message of the Gospel is their sense that Christianity rejects science. Conversations like the one I heard today on Scott & Kelli's program totally reinforce that image.
Is the Centre for Animal Ethics paper the best piece of research ever? No. It's probably not even research-based. But is it an important topic? I think so. The words we use do have some power to shape relationships - if they didn't, people wouldn't get so upset when they are called a "bitch" or a "queer". Treating animals well is an important ethical topic, one with practical implications; for instance, how much should the City of Austin allocate for paying for guaranteed no-kill shelters?
So, I wish that Scott & Kelli had presented this paper with a little bit more honesty & accuracy. And if an honest & accurate presentation of the paper would have been too boring for afternoon radio chit-chat, then just play another song. I like Casting Crowns.
