Science and Fire, Religion and Hell-Fire

It struck me last week when I caught the tail-end of the brouhaha surrounding the hiring of the New York City Fire Department's new Islamic chaplain, or rather, the remarks he made to Newsday about the 9/11 WTC collapse, that it was a perfect illustration of why we teach science in public schools but not religion.

In case you were out of town or have simply learned to ignore sheer stupidity, Imam Intikab Habib told Newsday in a phone interview that he doubted the U.S. government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 terror attacks , and suggested a broader conspiracy may have been responsible for destroying the World Trade Center and killing more than 2,700 people.

Such opinions are apparently common in the Muslim community, as the imam cited widely disseminated video and news reports. "I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he said. "It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"

Did I say something about "sheer stupidity"? This kind of thinking is as American as apple pie.

Habib's remarks are perfectly consistent with a somewhat rational belief system in that community that Westerners are at least suspicious if not downright hostile to the Muslim world and that Western news reports are likely to be slanted against them before there is a fair presentation of facts, if ever. Such a belief system has undoubtedly been built from some previous cultural experience and reinforced by the instinct for self-preservation -- as is the West's suspicion and hostility toward the Muslim world. Let's face it, there's some pretty serious history between the two.

When not being used to construct evermore devastating weapons for annihilating Humanity, Science has extraordinary opportunity to promote understanding and peace. This is because "belief" is not a component of Science. It is based on measurable, repeatable observation. You don't believe someone's explanation, you do the experiment yourself and observe the outcome. It works in all languages regardless of religion. People ignore it at their peril, and employ it to put their enemies at THEIR peril. Superstition always yields to demonstrated science.

We teach science so that our children learn to look to the verifiable facts of the physical world before turning to an unprovable, non-objective world of religion for explanations. We should encourage other cultures to do the same. There is plenty of room for God outside of the lesson plan. "Intelligent Design" is not new, just its promotion as "alternative science." Promoting the practice of supporting beliefs over empirical evidence feeds into the cultural groupthink caused by the repetition of unobjective media reports flashed around the world.

Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said once he heard about Habib's remarks he couldn't see how the imam could become a chaplain in a department that lost 343 firefighters on 9/11. I don't see how he could let that guy back out on the street without showing him at least some of the information and video we've got on different kinds of fire, of accelerants and arson. I even recall that maybe ten years ago there were arson fires being reported nationwide that were suspected of using rocket propellant because they were so hot that metal actually burned -- and with it all evidence of arson.

Instead, we've got another Muslim community leader who's going back with a story about being forced out of his job because of his beliefs. "He was recommended to us by our Islamic Society," said Scoppetta. "He was interviewed by one of our senior chaplains. He has quite an education, and that seemed to qualify him."

Sanctioning "belief" or "faith" over science is anti-education, perhaps even anti-social. Science doesn't run roughshod over religion where religion and faith have exclusive domain, so Religion is hardly inferior to Science. Teachers should make a point of expressing that, and if a child finds it confusing, that's okay and a good sign. Creation is not a quick study.