Scientific and Religious Mindsets: A Candid Look at the Perils of a Panglossian President

Through Voltaire’s novella Candide, this essay examines the differences between a scientific and a religious mindset and the consequences of poor decision-making when a political leader has a religious mindset that he misapplies to fundamentally scientific questions. By analyzing various decisions that President Bush has made, it is argued that he has a religious mindset that has resulted in several fallacious choices of extreme import, yielding considerable losses. As such, a decision-maker with power should be able to distinguish questions best answered with a scientific mindset from those that are in the realm of philosophy or religion and apply a scientific mindset to the former. A scientific mindset formulates a theory that yields testable propositions, it acquires data and uses that to evaluate the verity of the theory. As the data contradict the theory’s predictions, the theory is adjusted. The religious mindset proffers certain explanations but then holds steadfastly to them. It ignores contrary evidence, does not adjust its tenets, or alter its prescribed behaviors, attacks the integrity of those who espouse contrarian viewpoints, and commits logical falla- cies, such as inverting the causative relationship.

From Darfur to Sinai to Kashmir: Ethno-religious conflicts and legalization

This paper attempts to examine agreements between two high conflict states - India and Pakistan - in comparison with those between parties characterized by high degrees of conflict along ethnic and religious lines, from a theoretical perspective with a view to determining if legalization has any correlation between the commitments embodied in agreements between such states and the degree of compliance. For purposes of comparison, I examine the historic agreement between Israel and Egypt, and the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) as exemplars of similar conflicts where legalization has salience. I adopt the lens of legalization articulated by Abbott, et al, and bring recent advances from the intersection of international relations theory and international law to the design and structuring of agreements between states beset by persistent hostilities. I analyse agreements between India and Pakistan, Israel and Egypt, and the Darfur Peace Agreement, to demonstrate that agreements that are high on the precision-obligation-delegation matrix enjoy higher degrees of success than those that are low on this matrix when concluded between high conflict states. I conclude by arguing that India and Pakistan should aim for hard legalization to solve the Kashmir dispute, and that they must learn from the painful experience of the Darfur Peace Agreement and include non-state actors as signatories to any agreement.

Religious ambivalence: suppression of pro-social attitudes toward asylum seekers by right-wing authoritarianism

A survey of 168 White Australian community members examined whether ambivalence toward certain social groups by some religious individuals constituted a suppression effect in which authoritarian motivated prejudice suppressed more pro-social attitudes toward asylum seekers. Using mediation analysis, it was found that Christian religious identity was not significantly associated with prejudice at a bivariate level. However, when Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) was taken into account, Christians (compared with non-Christians) were less likely to hold negative attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. Inclusion of acculturation ideologies (assimilation, multiculturalism, and color-blindness) in the models indicated that the suppression effect was specific to RWA rather than due to other intergroup attitudes. However, findings suggest that multiculturalism may be one proximal indicator of Christian pro-sociality.