Food for Thought (and Perhaps a Prayer or Two)

Check out the following article in the New York Times from yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/dining/22eco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (Of Church and Steak: Farming for the Soul.)

There are a couple of key points in this article that describe the current state of affairs in a broad context,

"In the past few years protecting the environment has emerged as a religious issue. Now, something similar is taking place in the way people of faith view their daily bread."

Views regarding how food is produced and consumed in this country are increasingly shifting from a science based discussion to a moral and religious discussion. Notwithstanding that this particular piece is about the influence of the major religions (and their minor subsets) on food production and consumption patterns, make no mistake, secular religion has jumped onto this bandwagon some time ago.

What is secular religion? Secular religion is a set of beliefs, codes and practices which recognize the environment (for instance) or nature as the supreme focus of honor and to which higher and compelling duty is owed. Secular religion is without the notion of a personal God or Deity but has all of the characteristics of religious thinking and practice though focused on an object or non-personal deity. Sin, salvation, penance and prayer as well as heaps of guilt and shame are sometimes reinterpreted or renamed but nonetheless very much present in secular religion.

The impact of this is that the playing field in food and agriculture is slowly switching to a moral discussion from a scientific one. The moral discussion, when couched in secular terms can sound very appealing without alienating someone with the specific words of a religious tradition to which they do not belong. Examples: "keeping kosher" indentifies the Jewish tradition and "eating meat on Friday" is associated with Catholicism. If you can make the moral argument about food and how it is produced and consumed without reference to any specific relgious tradition, you have a shot at everybody.

It is fascinating that the secular argument normally enthrones science as the only and final arbiter of truth in every area except food and the environment where classic religious arguments displace science.

The net effect is that the general public may be much more susceptible to a moral argument than to a scientific one, particularly if they are in conflict. It all depends on the issue and the argument of course but producing guilt and offering salvation are much more powerful movers than a lecture in science will ever be.