“Let those who remain captives of ancient superstitions and fairy tales have their churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques, rituals and liturgical mumbo-jumbo; just don’t confuse the (pseudo)knowledge they traffic in with the knowledge needed to solve the world’s problems.”
-Stanley Fish, Are There Secular Reasons? - NYT
(Full disclosure: this quote was taken slightly out of context).
Religious people have over 1,000 years of music to call upon, but now, science is coming up with its own anthems.
Thanks, Colin!
A guest post by Steven J. Patrick.
The Narrowing of Mars Hill Church: How Humans Screw Up Theology
When Mars Hill Church started, it was a grand idea: eliminate the window-dressing and ceremony of conventional Protestant churches and embrace aspects of pop culture: rock music, sports, films, and current popular issues. Dress down. Bond as a like-minded brotherhood…what’s not to like?
But, as time went on, with young people today being generally either agnostic or indifferent to religion, the task of finding pastors became a process of Whomever Shows Up. Finding anyone, in any arena of human endeavor, who can speak, be confident, command attention, and maintain at least a facade of logic and rationality, as any HR recruiter will quickly tell you, is like looking for your lost cuff links in a gravel quarry. Those who speak without fear or self-consciousness in front of large groups of people tend to fall into four categories: bosses, con men, actors, and psychopaths. And, on the surface, they all look pretty much the same.
Enter guys like Mark Driscoll; people who have few, if any, real ties to the mores of this generation and a fierce, zealot-like belief in “traditional values”, that code phrase for “Let’s turn the clock back to 1956!” What Driscoll says and preaches is no different at all, in essence, from the old-time religion that Mars Hill claimed to reject. Driscoll’s Seattle area messages to the flocks of the local Mars Hill Churches are really no different from what Jerry Falwell advocated, all those years in Lynchburg, VA – minus his $1000 suits and the White Shoulders spume hovering over the chapel. Having attended and/or watched both those churches and seen them in action, I find it crystal clear that Driscoll is attempting – maybe even subconsciously – to elevate himself to the status of the “New Jerry Falwell”; an effort rooted in the fact that The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease. Driscoll appears to have a soul-deep understanding, as Falwell did, that the path to personal stardom as a minister/politician is to say whatever outrageous, controversial thing pops into your head, as long as it produces SOME reaction. THAT is how Liberty Baptist Church grew: Falwell ticked people off with his carny antics and his followers rallied around him, forming an “Us vs. Them” bond against the outside world. Every simple, vaguely-disillusioned person within that area of Virginia who felt that the world was not quite “right” gravitated to his message of Assigning Blame for their ills to something, ANYTHING outside themselves. There’s comfort in the idea that the world is to blame and that this crap in our own heads, that gets us odd looks and confrontations when we verbalize it, is actually Right, while the rest of the world is perverse and ignorant of The Truth.
Anyone who imagined that this new generation of Believers would be any smarter or more evolved than the generations of gullible folks who came before them is simply deluding themselves; indulging their egos with a self-serving view of their peer group as more enlightened than the ones that came before. Average, angry people will ALWAYS find a sympatico group who will tell them that Liberals, pop culture, Brittney Spears, American Idol, Avatar, and the media is to blame for their lot. The real truth – that the problems we ALL deal with are almost always of our own making – is exactly what congregations like Mars Hill has become are designed to avoid.
I saw Rob Bell, one of the founders of the Mars Hill “movement” onstage with the Dalai Lama at Hec Edmondson Pavilion during his last Seattle visit. I was taken by his gentleness and direct ideals and started to look into him and Mars Hill. I watched all of his videos on youtube and admired their style and content and simple, elegant truths. This, I thought, is a wonderful idea: religion which recognizes us and doesn’t judge all us rock ‘n’ roll-era kids and try to tell us that the things we love, the lives we lead, have to be gutted, purged, and reassembled to make room for God. No authoritarian old guys in suits, no fancy robes and collars and surplices, no thees and thous – just people of the generations after Elvis, trying to communally reach toward God. I wrote a previous entry in this very blog, dedicated to the idea that this concept can work, despite the wholesale vilification that Mars Hill was already incurring. I got angry emails from people who told me that I didn’t know what Mars Hill was really all about. And, full of myself as I frequently am, I chalked it all up to the Zeal of the Easily Offended.
I was wrong.
As a Christian, I can state without reservation that what comes out of the three Mars Hill Churches I have visited has NOTHING to do with any God I know. ANYONE who preaches confrontation, division, wholesale disdain, chauvinism, or the superiority of their own Truth has automatically disqualified themselves, in my eyes, as a Christian. There is ONE guiding principle with which NO real Christian can argue:
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.
Not when it’s convenient, not only when the cameras are rolling, not just when you agree with the other guy. ALWAYS. Mark Driscoll gets, as his followers do, a bit testy when anyone criticizes Mars Hill. But, apparently, as in this latest dust-up over the movie “Avatar” – “the most Satanic movie (Pastor Driscoll) has ever seen” – he feels it’s just fine for him to dump on whomever and whatever he wants. Those who defend him cry that he was only talking to his congregation, that it was a sermon and nothing more. The problem with that reasoning is that Mark Driscoll, for reasons I guess I am not equipped to understand, has Followers – followers who listen to his judgments and then go out among the rest of us and repeat what they heard, use it as a social weapon, and create artificial divisions based on nothing more than the views of one very ambitious, ladder-climbing, normally-imperfect man. I guess, when you’re angling for stardom, as Mark Driscoll certainly appears to be, the rules are supposed to be a little different for you.
Originally published on Seattlepi.com: link
A little exchange I had regarding privacy (which I do not really value as highly as I value transparency). I learned that not everyone shares my values, and that, for many, eschewing Google products is the most appropriate choice:
Thanks for allowing me to learn something new, Steve!
Was coffee’s introduction into Europe responsible for fomenting the Enlightenment?
“…when coffee originally arrived as a phenomenon in the mid-1600s, it was not seducing a culture of perfect sobriety. It was replacing alcohol as the daytime drug of choice. The historian Tom Standage writes in his ingenious A History of the world in Six Glasses:
The impact of the introduction of coffee into Europe during the seventeenth century was particularly noticeable since the most common beverages of the time, even at breakfast, were weak “small beer” and wine….Those who drank coffee instead of alcohol began the day alert and stimulated, rather than relaxed and mildly inebriated, and the quality and quantity of their work improved….Western Europe began to emerge from an alcoholic haze that had lasted for centuries.”
Steven Johnson’s The Invention of Air, pages 59-60.
Yitta Schwartz died in January 2010, but she is perhaps the most dangerous woman on the planet. She is dangerous not because of her demeanor or her smile, but rather her unique set of values, and what those values drove her to do: she excessively over-bred, leaving 2,000+ descendants, and consequently quickened the destruction of the biosphere that we call home. Mrs. Schwartz’ individual actions affected us all–she took from all of us, and gave us nothing in return.
Yitta and her husband Yosef had 17 children over the years, living in Antwerp and finally settling in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Those 17 children produced 170 grandchildren. Amazingly, Yitta could name all of them. Two more generations sprang forth from the loins of her grandchildren, and it is believed that she has at least 2,000 descendants, and perhaps 2,500, if they were to counted systematically. It is unlikely that Mrs. Schwartz knew of the outsized negative impact her progeny has had on the planet, and the commensurate setback in human sustainability.
Let’s not mince words; Mrs. Schwartz’ behavior is abhorrent. Her religion (Orthodox Judaism, or more specifically, Satmar Hasidic Judaism) gave her a belief that she should produce a brood as large as her body would allow. Her family planning behavior–that of having no control whatsoever over the number of her offspring–puts her squarely on the same level as wild animals.
The lack of strategy and planning that Mrs. Schwartz employed is an affront to the human intellect, and it also sets a dangerous precedent. Is it okay, in this day and age, to breed uncontrollably, to breed irresponsibly? If we were all to breed like rabbits (as Mrs. Schwartz certainly did), our species would be doomed to perpetually fight over dwindling resources, and our society would crumble. Law and order would vanish. All the work of our species, put in over thousands of years, toward the aim of building a more prosperous human condition, would be wasted.
If such a dystopian future is as detestable as I think it is, why then do we continue to allow humans to breed like wild animals? Why do we sign-off on the atrocious behavior of some solely becausee they subscribe to a particular brand of prehistoric beliefs? Is our desire to avoid offending religious and ideological groups responsible for putting society on a course toward its eventual ruin?
If our planet wasn’t overpopulated, then sure, overbreeding would be A-Okay, at least for a while. But in 2010, with a world population of 6.7 billion stretching the planet’s resources thin, excessive procreation hurts everyone. When anti-social behavior comes about, humans do the right thing–they ban and punish it. Perhaps it’s time that we ban excessive procreation.
Wow, I didn’t know they made crimson hip-waders.
My thoughts on this infographic, posted up by Jenny:
“Interesting graphic; however, the President (or the party he/she is a member of) has little to do with any job gains or losses during his/her term. The economy is a beast much larger and more complex than the federal government, and consequently cannot be lorded over by the chief of the Executive Branch.
A good example is the economy under President Bill Clinton, which soared (but some or much of it was a bubble). There is no way that such a massive rise in wealth could be attributed to one man (such as President Clinton). His influence is relatively small; a drop in the bucket.
Actions that affect the economy are so numerous (the Fed’s interest rate policy, the behavior of private-sector banks, changes in regulatory policy/legislation, consumer behavior, currency fluctuations, behavior of other central banks/treasuries, the business cycle, et cetera) that it would be overly simplistic to isolate a single action (the election of one President, or another) as the root cause of an economic malaise (or an economic boom), as this graphic clearly attempts to do. But considering the source of the infograph (it was created by Obama’s own administration, right?), I’m not surprised that it’s so self-congratulatory…it’s really downright propagandist and sort of (intellectually) disgusting.”
from: Cameron Newland
to: Sheryl
subject: Antivax‘Lancet’ Retracts Autism Paper—Citing the study’s bad methodology, the British medical journal The Lancet retracted a 1998 paper that linked autism with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.
from: Sheryl
to: Cameron Newland
subject: Re: Antivaxthe connection still exists. i know too many people who swear by it.
i wish they would look into it more. i don’t think they are doing enough research!from: Cameron Newland
to: Sheryl
subject: Re: AntivaxNo, there is no connection (well, at least, a connection that is fact-based and backed up by a statistically-significant correlation).
The error you’re making is that you know people (like me, my sister Shelby, and your friends’ children) who weren’t vaccinated, and who aren’t Autistic, so you irrationally assume (and extrapolate) that ALL unvaccinated people do not develop autism. Your sample size is too small and your methods too primitive to output a finding or conclusion of any reasonable scientific merit.
The converse of this error is also very easy to make: because the vast majority of American children ARE vaccinated, and SOME go on to develop autism (whether caused by the vaccine or not), parents mistakenly attribute a cause (the vaccine) to the development of autism, even when large bodies of data suggest there is no link/causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
The antivaxxers’ mistaken crusade reminds me very much of the way people used to attribute famines and plagues to witches, sorcerers, and evil gods many years ago. They had no reasonable evidence to suggest that witches, sorcerers, and evil gods had any involvement in their new-found misfortunes, but the simple fact that a plague or famine came upon them (or that children developed autism, in your case) was evidence enough that some evil spirit brought the pestilence upon them. Those primitive plague sufferers never gave a thought to the possibility of diseased rats and fleas as the culprit (which we now know was the cause), just as you don’t give any weight to the possibility that autism has been and will be ever-present, whether we commonly administer vaccines’ or not.
Anyways, more study of the relationship (or lack of such a relationship) between autism and vaccines wouldn’t be a bad thing. Hopefully, it’ll further cement the relegation of the antivax conspiracy to that of Old Wives Tale, where I believe it rightfully belongs.
Note: causal mis-attribution is more commonly known as Questionable Cause, and the antivax conspiracy theory is, I believe, a shining example of a Regression fallacy (“ascribing cause where none exists,” due to “failing to account for natural fluctuations [or normal incidence]).”
Prolific blogger Om Malik posted this provocative, loaded question for his readers to answer:
Does anyone else feel that World Economic Forum in Davos is elitist, all talk, no action, and a perfect representation of crony capitalism? The off the record nature of conversations only bolsters my argument. Talk away folks.
My response:
The older I get, the more I realize the value of conversations conducted in secret. One doesn’t have to worry about the oversensitive media creating an overblown polemic over some logical, agreeable, yet also out-of-context and outwardly controversial statement (Ex. Harry Reid’s observant remark that Barack Obama became the country’s first black president because he had “no Negro dialect.”)
Likewise, Obama’s meeting with House Republicans this week in Baltimore should’ve been (and indeed was initially planned to be) conducted in secret in order to foster dialogue, but was opened to the media as a result of secret meetings’ perceived incompatibility with Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent administration ever.
It just goes to show that even seemingly universally-positive values like transparency can become negative as you approach their extremes (liberalism, socialism, libertarianism, and conservatism are also examples of ideologies that become dysfunctional, regressive, and destructive as you approach implementations of their extremes).
Anyways, getting back to Davos, you are exactly right to call them elitists. Davos is where elitists feel comfortable amongst their brethren. And you’re also correct in your characterization of Davos as “all talk … no action.” Davos is basically a week-long press conference for elitists to trumpet their ideas and pat themselves on the back, coupled with receptions and parties, networking, and a little skiing. Little is actually accomplished AT Davos. However, the value of Davos can be seen in two key ways:
1) its benefit of expanded dialogue between business/political/cultural leaders,
and 2) the inception of many relationships between the elitist attendees that flower into real-life business relationships, which “greases the wheels of capitalism,” by the creation of useful partnerships.
I write this on a BlackBerry engineered in Canada and built in China, inside a centi-million dollar condominium building financed by major transnational banks. The existence of these two simple things (a cellphone and a condo building) are shining examples of the benefit to society that comes from cross-border business relationships–some of them made at places like Davos. So complain all you like, but the truth is that you likely benefit greatly from the World Economic Forum in Davos, whether you recognize it or not.
(I should note that I am not advocating corrupt crony capitalism between business and government. Rather, I’ve tried to illustrate my belief that elitists hosting a meeting like this and fostering incestuous business relationships is not in any way negative, nor should pejorative words like crony capitalism be used to describe the WEF.)
I found myself a participant in the following conversation earlier today and thought I should share it. It has shown me that there really are quite a few people out there who have odd beliefs and no evidence to support them. When I think of religious fundamentalism (perhaps extremism is a more fitting word) I often think of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan’s tribal areas, but rarely do I ever think that religious extremists are right here in my fair city, hiding in plain sight.
Cameron Newland: Fear yourself, for if you believe these quotes to be true, you are weak; you have lost faith in yourself as an agent of your own destiny.
Cathy B: I will definitely fear myself the day I start thinking Im the agent:-). I am however in control of my attitude which is a great thing!!
Cameron Newland: Don’t worry–you’ve lost your reasoning faculties already, Ms. Browning. This kind of understanding of reality is not something your brain allows you to do. Don’t be sad…god, in his infinite wisdom, created people with different capabilities (or in your case, handicaps) such that you don’t even comprehend the intellectual cop-out (that of humans having no control over their destiny) that you’re perpetuating.
Jessica R: Cameron -To each his own. That said, would much appreciate you keeping your opinions and diatribes on your blog or your own page, if you don’t have anything nice to say.
Cameron Newland: Jessica – I don’t find anything pejorative in anything I wrote. If you think being mentally handicapped is pejorative, I would question your compassion for those who were born with any disability.
And Jessica, why would I think to keep my (well reasoned) opinions to myself? I’m shocked that you would say such a thing during the week that began (well, Monday) with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. MLK stood up for what was right and what he believed in. What if MLK had “[kept] his opinions and diatribes [to himself],” as you’ve suggested I do? If he followed your advice, we might live in a much more cruel world, one with institutionalized segregation. I advise you, Jessica, not to dig yourself deeper in this hole of absurdity that you’ve dug.
Cathy B: Im saying that I dont believe Gods words AKA scripture…to be false. You are right if you mean that my great attitude can bring me to amazing places Id never imagined Id be! I LOVE the places God has walked me through and my attitude, strength and determination has gotten me there as well:-)). Sooo not quite sure what that long response of yours meant…you clearly don’t see that I recognize the decisions I make and goals i set will take me to different places…..I know though that there are things Im not in control of BUT that’s great that you control your destiny….no need for you to mock me by calling me Ms Browning….you never know…..we might actually find eachother to be great ppl that just think differently if we ever crossed paths. I respect you are entitled to your beliefs as am I Cameron:-)) I hope your having a great evening….really!
Oh and Jess….I just wanna make sure you know Im in no way sad:-)) Lifes good and I love the ride…..its way to short to not enjoy! goodnight all!
Cameron Newland: Dear Cathy – after reading your reply, it seems you’ve come around (or perhaps we were more in agreement than we originally thought)! Like you, I believe that I am not in absolute control of my destiny, but that I do have control over my choices and the way I think, and this empowers me and I am grateful for it.
By your replies regarding the biblical citation, I was under the impression that you took a much sillier view; that you believed that we are but powerless puppets whose every action is controlled by an omnipotent spirit somewhere! I’m glad we cleared that up and that you don’t believe such a silly thing!
Why would you think I was mocking you by calling you ‘Ms. Browning’? I thought it only proper, as we have yet to be introduced.
Anyways, I AM having a fantastic night (I’m smiling as I write this), and I wish you only the best today and far into the future!
Cathy B: For the record….I dont view my strong faith and belief in the Bible as silly at all. Im real enough to know that we obviously have different viewpoints on this. Its alright because its neither the first nor the last time this will happen in my life where Ill cross paths with all types of people. And yes….what an amazing thing Martin Luther King Jr spoke for…..I was honored to perform in front of about 5,000 men, women and children who were honoring him this last Monday! His words spoke loudly on his faith in God and you still respect him Soooo lets just leave this as we are two people who think a bit differently in areas! doesn’t mean were handicapped or incompetent…….Im sure your great at the things you do in life Cameron and I assure you Id be in no place to serve the community I do at work in the way I do if I was as incompetent as you originally thought I was….Cathy is my name…and its been an odd pleasure meeting you Cameron:-)
Cameron Newland: Cathy – please clarify something for me…are you a fundamentalist Christian? Perhaps a better way to word it is “do you believe that every word in the bible is fact, that it is the word of god, and that nature was created in only six days?”
If you answer yes to either of those questions, then I think you can understand why I would call such thinking silly and a sign of someone who certainly has a mental handicap or psychosis.
Luckily, there are not very many among us who call themselves fundamentalists. Those silly people–people who blow up airliners in a delusion that they’ll be sent to heaven, those who believe unfathomable things like the primitive biblical creation myth–are vastly outnumbered by moderate Christians who selectively believe in (or don’t believe in) parts of the bible as modernity shines light on the patently ridiculous/inaccurate sections in it.
What I’m saying is that perhaps I have passed judgment on you too early. I made an ASSUMPTION that you believed in a bunch of very silly things, that you were a fundamentalist, which may have been an error on my part. I don’t want to make the same error in assuming you are a moderate Christian, which is why I ask this very important question of you and that you clarify your stance: moderate or fundamentalist, sane or deluded?
Cathy B: Cameron….heres what ill say…Im very SANE and the ppl who blow up planes and kill people as a result are terrorists.
Cameron Newland: So, are you a fundamentalist, or a moderate?
Cameron Newland: It seems that you’re trying to answer that you’re a fundamentalist, but that you are certain that you are sane. I don’t want to read too much into your short answer, though. It’s a mistake (assumption) that I’ve already made.
Cathy B: And you have passed judgement on me too quickly. I assure you of this…. It amazes me that this world was created by God so quickly….and its my FAITH that carries me through the times ive questioned it. Now, there are plenty of things in the Bible that I have yet to learn about and things that I just don’t understand….Ill just have to see where this road of trust, learning and faith in Jesus leads me and while Im at it Ill continue to enjoy the ride Im on called a blessed life:-)
Cameron Newland: But you’ve sidestepped my question: are you a fundamentalist, or a moderate?
(I assure you, I haven’t ultimately passed judgement on you–I will when you answer my question).
Cathy B: Oh….and Ill continue to set my goals and succeed just as I always have before:-)) keeping good attitude along the way while loving and trusting the God Ive come to know:-))
Cameron Newland: Good for you! 
Are you a fundamentalist Christian, or a moderate Christian, or neither?
Cameron Newland: I take it by your silence that you believe yourself to be a fundamentalist Christian (please correct me if I’m wrong!)
In my opinion that qualifies you as delusional. I also think that if you had the mental capacity of an average human, you would certainly agree with me.
And I’m so sorry that the educational system in your hometown ([a small town] in the great state of Texas, correct?) was so primitive so as to lead you to delusions instead of toward seeking the truth by humble inquiry. Perhaps your parents/family are to blame for the silly beliefs and schooling had nothing to do with it. I cannot be certain because I don’t know you personally, but either way, I feel very sorry.
I’m glad I got to learn some things about your point of view tonight!
I wish you nothing but the best!
-Cameron Newland
Note: our conversation actually continued after I posted this. Luckily for us, Cathy admitted that she only dabbles in Christian fundamentalism and that she herself thinks certain fundamentalist Christian beliefs are over-the-top and dangerous. I was very happy to hear that Cathy was not in fact a complete fundamentalist, and breathed a sigh of relief.
She then proceeded to lower herself by resorting to an ad hominem attack, calling me an “arrogant ass”, which I thought was quite ironic. Cathy is the one who is so certain of her faith to the point of being arrogant and cocksure. By comparison, my faith in science is quite humble, as it is based on the idea that we do not know everything there is to know and can surely learn much more.
A new ranking of the most religious states in America shows only 13 states are less religious than Washington.
Is there any benefit enjoyed by landing on either side of the spectrum, of being more (or less) religious?
As it turns out, there is.
Poor people and poorly-educated people are much more likely to hold religious beliefs and believe in a personal god than those who earn more and have been well-educated. Put another way, religious people are poor and stupid (though to hold this as a universal maxim would be silly…in reality, the statement is but an accurate generalization).
“Several research studies have been published on the statistical relationship between religiosity and educational level, or religiosity and IQ. Michael Shermer, in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many interesting results was the discovery that religiosity is indeed negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious).” (Dawkins 102)
It’s not only education that is inversely correlated with religiosity; intelligence itself is also negatively correlated (which backs up my rather damning charge that “religious people are … stupid”:
“On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of individuals with a high IQ …). Bell concluded: ‘Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.” (Dawkins 103)
Clear signs that economic development is inversely correlated with religiosity are to be found in the new Pew survey. Specifically, it found that the most religious state in the Union is Mississippi, “with 82 percent of its residents saying that religion is important in their lives.” Mississippi also comes up last in another metric: GDP per capita. Unsurprisingly, Utah, which ranks 2nd nationally in Worship Attendance, comes in at 49th in GDP per capita. More compelling is the story on the other end: irreligiosity and wealth are highly correlated. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Alaska score the lowest levels of religiosity nationally, and all three rank in the top half in GDP Per Capita (with New Hampshire and Alaska both scoring in the top quartile). I’ve gone ahead and placed the state rankings of religiosity (2009) and GDP per capita from 2008 next to one another, and found that, on average, states’ per capita GDP ranking falls only 9 places away from its religiosity ranking, showing a correlation much higher than if we were to assign states random rankings. If we were to give the states random rankings in each, we would find that they would average a distance of 16 places apart. The strong correlation points to the existence of a powerful cause, because the correlation is so much higher than the expected result (if the result expected was ‘random’). The field of statistics doesn’t allow us to name the cause simply by noting a correlation; the identity of the cause as well as the nature of its workings is an answer we can only deduce.
I’ll take a stab at it.
During the primitive stages of humanity (let’s use 1776 as a somewhat arbitrary start-date for the modern era) there were a lack of compelling and widely-available explanations for the often complex and elegant occurrences found in nature. Myriad primitive theories were created in order to explain that which defied explanation. Some of these far-fetched theories included demons, spirits, and gods. These archaic explanations, having no proof whatsoever to support their existence, have been largely discredited and replaced by more elegant theories such as evolution by natural selection and those proposed by the natural sciences, which are concordant with observed nature and rely on evidence instead of primitive, baseless deduction. Modern scientific knowledge has only been around for a few hundred years, and widespread mandatory education has only been instituted in the last hundred. As a consequence of the relatively nascent development of both scientific breakthroughs and widespread education, it’s natural that primitive explanations are still common among the uneducated. As education becomes more ubiquitous, and as superstition loses its lustre, quantitative metrics will show a decline in religiosity commensurate with the increased level of education (which itself is largely dependent on economic development). It stands to reason, then, that once the entire planet’s population is relatively developed (to perhaps 1970’s-American standards of living), supernatural explanations for nature’s existence will have hit the tipping point of minority status, and will see their decline quicken. In a postmodern era (2300 CE onward, perhaps), Religion will be confined to a be a chimera of philosophy, community, and morality, and will have definitively given up its self-styled eminence in explaining the natural world.
How Religious Is Your State? – The Pew Forum On Religion And Public Life
Washington in bottom third of states on religious beliefs – PSBJ
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion…”
Page 64
“As he sat in a cafe with friends in the chic Kolonaki area on a recent afternoon, Antonis, 33, who disclosed only his first name, proudly announced that he refused to pay taxes.
“Why should I pay?” he asked with a grin. “I don’t care about my government; I don’t care about my country,” he added. He conceded, however, that he did care about soccer and women.”
Greece Struggles to Stay Afloat as Debts Pile On – New York Times
Iraq was a war that America should have never fought. But it was a war that was winnable. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is untamed, vast, and unconquerable.
Afghanistan has successfully resisted being conquered by Alexander the Great, imperial Great Britain, the USSR, and the United States is poised to add its name to the list. The country’s resilience has nothing to do with its technology or infrastructure, but rather its geography: the population is so spread out that it cannot be easily secured by troops. Taming Afghanistan is sort of like providing security for ships through the Gulf of Aden; when you’re dealing with an area that large and security forces cannot be everywhere at once, security measures are easily thwarted.
In Iraq, the country had a valuable asset that can be used to pay for infrastructure and security: its massive oil deposits. Afghanistan also has a profitable export industry, but it’s an industry that cannot be controlled and taxed by the government. That industry is opium. The earnings from Afghanistan’s opium production flow to warlords, corrupt politicians, and militant insurgents–all of them enemies of development and progress.
The third difficulty in securing Afghanistan lies across the border with Pakistan. Pakistan’s Federally-Administered Tribal Areas and Northwest Frontier Province are largely rural and are under the de facto control of Pashtun Pakistani Taliban. This means that, if the international community were able to secure and stabilize Afghanistan, there would still be militant Taliban fighters spilling over the border from Pakistan making trouble. A more ideal solution would be for the international community to occupy both Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, root out the Taliban in both places, and train locals and build infrastructure so that the areas could thrive without the Taliban. Proud Pakistani voters wouldn’t approve of that kind of operation, and their pragmatic President kowtows to his voters wishes.
All in all, the US occupation of Afghanistan looks to be a risky gamble.
