EGR 2: Discovery Institute

[Editor]

Nice to see this new board, and thanks to those who set it up!  The blurring of the distinction between religion and non-religion is an issue of great contemporary relevance, and something that has occupied my thoughts lately (see here).  My sense is that public argument these days is not just between competing faiths, or faith and non-faith, but also between pluralist 'tolerance' and the (plurality of)  ideologies that criticise this 'tolerance'.  It is my considered opinion that this 'tolerance', as well as criticism of it, can both be a good or bad thing depending on the circumstances - which I admit is probably an empty truism on my part.  (I would welcome any comments or criticisms from readers about this point).   Personally, I think it is unfortunate (if understandable) that the hoped for pluralist utopia has been reduced to a no-man's land, complete with landmines and crossfire.  I also think analysis of emerging religious movements is a good occupation for any pluralists out there - because they are so suggestive of the idea that religion and non-religion are not so easily separated.  By the same principle we should acknowledge the historical relationship between any schismatic sect and its mother church.  Even with missionary religions and their chosen 'pagans', or missionary religions and other missionary religions, each 'side' is redefined by an encounter with an Other which will form the basis of their future relationship.  VLED - I need an anthropologist to say these things properly, can you help?

Discovery Institute


Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute

Check out this organisation.  They profess as their guiding principles (in summary): "God-given reason; the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service; free market economics; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities."¹)

I include the Discovery Institute on this board because they are a non-profit educational foundation aimed at promoting a religious (and political) worldview  in the international public arena.  (Hint: they're affiliated with one of Dawkins' old ideological foes, repackaged.)   I am not suggesting that this is any sort of misconduct in and of itself - but I do wonder where the line exists between groups like this and 'religious organisations' proper.  Surely the designation 'religious organisation' (or perhaps 'order'), could already have implied the sort of educational and social functions pursued by D.I?. Unless, of course, one starts from a non-religious perspective, wherein it is not presumed that religion has anything to teach or anyone to help - which would seem disingenuous for a group formed on the basis of theism: it is not as though they claim to have 'discovered' God during the course of research.  One explanation is that the repackaging as an unaffiliated 'educational foundation' is a deliberate subversion of secular institutions, an expedient response to the perceived exclusion of religion from modern society.  This interpretation is supported by their stated campaign to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"².  (The Wikipedia article on this campaign references the allegation "that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism"³)

The Institute has produced and markets a very influential DVD, whose potential impact on government education policies has spread well beyond American shores.  See for example this article on a viewing of the DVD in 2005 by Australia's (then) Education Minister, which mentions the name of the DVD but not the Discovery Institute.
 
Anyone know anything?  Or have any thoughts?  At what point does the influence of an organisation of this kind coalesce to become a new religious movement unto itself? 

[Editor]

As part of an analysis into the techniques of the Discovery Institute, I have included links relating to the methods of argumentation it deploys in the public arena.  My purpose here is not to evaluate the arguments promoted by these methods, just the methods themselves.  Comments, as ever, are most welcome.

The Wedge Strategy
You may have heard of 'wedge politics' before . . . well here are links on the D.I. campaign known as the 'wedge strategy':

The Discovery Institute

Wikipedia

(VLED - what do you make of the triangular symbol they use for the 'wedge'.  Echoes of the 'Compasses' insignia?)

The Straw Man
definition from Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

In their critique of evolutionist atheism, DI (and others) often describe their opponents as using 'straw man' arguments.  Interestingly, evolutionist atheists will often say the same thing about the arguments of creation theists.  I've included links to polemics from both sides - the first is from the Discovery Institute site, the second from the Dawkins site.  Spot the charge of 'straw man' in either case.

Much Lies Beyond the Grasp of Arrogant Atheism
By David Klinghoffer
(4th paragraph from bottom)

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
By Chuck Kopec
(First line)

Of course, to allege another's use of a straw man could, in some cases, be a straw man in itself.  (Think about it!)

[Editor]

I thought I'd check to see if the Rick Ross Institute had any data on D.I..   (As readers of this forum may already know, RRI provides a "database of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements" - I suppose D.I. falls within the definition of 'controversial group/movement'.)  A search yielded two articles on unrelated topics - one about animal rights activists and the other concerning (Mormon) Orrin Hatch's bid for US presidency 1999-2000.  In each case, a D.I. spokesman is quoted as an outside authority rather than a subject of the article.  Again, it is not D.I.'s obvious partisan agenda which interests me here, but the rhetorical devises they use in service of that agenda.

In a criticism of Animal Liberationists, the spokesman for the Discovery Institute says,

"Violence stems from the ideology of the animal liberation or animal rights movement,"

  This is a characterisation which could fairly be described as counter-intuitive, though not unheard of.  It was nevertheless backed up with a seemingly logical, if also emotive, philosophical argument:

"If you come to believe an animal's existence is of equal moral worth to a human existence ... then they consider a leather couch equivalent to a lampshade made of human skin."

I will say here that I regard this argument, by any estimate and regardless of viewpoint, as a 'straw man' (ie. knowingly misrepresenting the other side to discredit it).  Religious-based criticism of the animal rights movment usually centres on the Book of Genesis, where God gives dominion to humans over other animals.  We can see how D.I. have omitted reference to this in favour of a philosophical argument, which essentially presupposes the religious view anyway.  It takes a 'Genesis view' of leather couches and compares it to a hypothetical Animal Liberation view of 'human lampshades'  - the twist being that Animal Liberationists consider human lampshades as morally equivalent to something which proponents of the 'Genesis view' consider to be morally acceptable.  (You may need to read that sentence again.) This is a good example of the Wedge Strategy - divide everybody into two camps: Animal Liberationists on one side with terrorists and cannibals ..... while on the other side: decent leather couch owners and Judaeo-Christians.   

In the article on Senator Hatch, a senior fellow on religion and politics at the Discovery Institute refers to Mormonism as an 'alternative religion', one which might be discomforting to the Christian evangelical community.  First I would like to make the observation that the US political constituency known to the media as 'the Evangelicals' are a late-twentieth century politico-religious reaction to Christian liberalism, and it emerges from twentieth century protestant movements such as the late 1960s 'Born Again' Christianity.  Nineteenth century Mormonism might well be classified as 'alternative' from the broader perspective of Christianity, but, from the same perspective, so too are the US Evangelicals. 

The second point of interest is how the spokesman comments on the "theological problems"  these voters might have with Mormons.  Then comes the D.I.'s trademark framing of an issue:

"there is a lot of controversy. It's not easy to say how that will play."

  I am not implying there is no actual controversy here (otherwise the wedge strategy wouldn't work).  But I could not let that one pass without referring to the fact that 'Teach the Controversy' was the also the name of one of D.I.'s past campaigns (against evolutionists).  Again, it is divisive way of focussing on (some would say inflating) differences in opinion, with the aim of discrediting an established opponent and placing it on level footing with an otherwise radical opinion.  The radical opinion in this case claims US Evangelicals represent a pure form of theological conservatism, against which Mormonism is an 'alternative religion'.  Might also be referred to as a (fallacious) 'appeal for balance' or as 'redefining the middle ground'. 

I do not suggest that D.I. has a hidden agenda in all this - since the leaking of the 'Wedge Document' they have been quite open and unapologetic about their goals and methods (as far as I know).  But the fact remains that their media presence and impact far exeeds any substantive public awareness of their affiliations or activities.  While it may be true that no source of opinion can completely avoid bias, many expect an attempt by public intellectuals to achieve a degree of critical neutrality.  Members of D.I., if I understand them correctly, would regard the call for such neutrality as an excuse for relativism and (by extension) moral/intellectual permissiveness, arguing that what is really required is a bias towards truth.   Welcome to the Wedge!