Paranoid Science: The Christian Right’s War on Reality, by ANTONY ALUMKAL

Abstract

One of the oldest problem areas in sociology, the relationship between religion and science has taken on renewed importance in light of recent controversies about biomedical research, sexuality, and the environment. Antony Alumkal’s Paranoid Science, therefore, arrives at a crucial moment in our understanding of how religion and science are mobilized in the public sphere. Through an in-depth analysis of texts, films, and other materials that serve as the intellectual foundation for evangelical anti-science movements, Alumkal takes on a central question in the literature on secularization, namely, how do religious individuals and organizations respond to the growing centrality of science in society? More specifically, he asks, how do we make sense of some evangelicals’ rejection of science, or as the book’s subtitle puts it, “the Christian right’s war on reality?” The conceptual framework for the book is Richard Hofstadter’s theory of a paranoid style of politics. Originally developed to analyze conspiratorial, right-wing political thought, Alumkal adapts the argument to understand religious movements’ opposition to science. Alumkal’s study is set apart from others by his comparative analysis of four distinctive episodes (evolution, the ex-gay movement, bioethics, and climate change) where conservative Christian movements coalesced around a rejection of mainstream science. This comparative approach is especially well suited for identifying common themes in these movements’ attempts to undermine science. It is also revealing of how differences in the frames employed by these movements ultimately contributed to differences in their success. Throughout the book, Alumkal is careful to articulate the ideological heterogeneity among evangelicals. He notes that three of the four anti-science movements he studies are coalitions of conservative and moderate evangelicals. Only on the issue of climate change have moderate evangelicals broken with conservatives’ rejection of science.