Archives for the month of: August, 2009

The organizers of the AAI Convention have released a revised schedule. I’ve been moved back to Sunday, October 4th. The upside is that I won’t be speaking at the same time as PZ Myers. The downside is that my talk starts at 8:30 AM, and I am not and have never been a morning person.

I wrote to President Obama today (via the White House “Contact Us” page). I said:

At a recent town hall meeting, you estimated that your national health care plan would cost $90 billion over 10 years. You also estimated that “about two-thirds” of it could be obtained by things “like eliminating subsidies to insurance companies.”

I’d like to remind you of the “elephant in the room” that is always standing there when the federal government seems to be strapped for cash. The budget for FY2010 includes $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense. This is a staggering number: about $1,800 for every man, woman and child in the United States; $7,000 for a family of four.

In one year.

If there are sources for two-thirds of the $90 billion that the new plan will require in its first year, the remaining $30 billion can be obtained by trimming the DoD’s allocation by six percent. Six percent! And think of the symbolism: we’re moving toward the well-being of all citizens, by stealing just a tiny bit from the Department of Death. It would be one of the most beautiful, humanitarian decisions our country has ever made.

I’ve rediscovered a piece from 2007 that reads like the best news ever about organized religion: “Why the Gods Are Not Winning”, by Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman. The authors find that secularism is eating away at religion, and will eventually swallow it whole.

Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and it is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.

Many people have reported a resurgence of religiosity since 9/11. Paul and Zuckerman counter that there is no evidence for this.

Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. No growth there. Hindus are coasting at a seventh the total, no significant increase there either even though India adds more people each year than any other nation. The WCE predicts no proportional increase for these faiths by 2050. The flourishing revival of two megareligions whether by democracy, edification, or fecundity is therefore a mirage. Having shrunk by a quarter in the 20th century, Buddhism is predicted to shrink almost as much over the next half century. Once rivaling Christianity, paganism — whether it be ancient or modern as per New Ageism and Scientology — has over all contracted by well over half and is expected to continue to dwindle.

The reign of Bush II certainly saw an acute rise in public religiosity, including a full-scale war in Iraq that was theologically justified. P & Z’s statistics imply that although the voices of piety have become louder, they have not grown in number.

A decade and a half of sampling finds conservative (thought to be about two thirds to four fifths of the total of) evangelicals and born-agains consistently stuck between a quarter and a third of the population. The majority that considers religion very important in their lives dropped from over two thirds in the 1960s to a bare majority in 1970s and 1980s, and appeared to edge up in the Clinton era. But instead of rising post 9/11 as many predicted, it is slipping again.

Tell me more!!!

Even the megachurch phenomenon is illusory. … Rather than boosting church membership, megachurches are merely consolidating it. From a high of three quarters of the population in the 1930s to 1960s, a gradual, persistent decline has set in, leaving some clerics distressed at the growing abandonment of small churches as the big ones gobble up what is left of the rest. Weekly religious service attendance rose only briefly in the months after 9/11 — evidence that the event failed to stem national secularization — and then lost ground as the Catholic sex scandal damaged church credibility. As few as one in four or five Americans are actually in church on a typical Sunday, only a few percent of them in megachurches.

Wow. To what do you attribute this trend?

Every single 1st world nation that is irreligious shares a set of distinctive attributes. These include handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.

But we are a 1st world nation that is still pretty religious.

It is the great anomaly, the United States, that has long perplexed sociologists. America has a large, well educated middle class that lives in comfort—so why do they still believe in a supernatural creator? Because they are afraid and insecure. Arbitrary dismissal from a long held job, loss of health insurance followed by an extended illness, excessive debt due to the struggle to live like the wealthy; before you know it a typical American family can find itself financially ruined. Overwhelming medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy.

We’re religious because our health insurance is crappy?

In part to try to accumulate the wealth needed to try to prevent financial catastrophe, in part to compete in a culture of growing economic disparity with the super rich, the typical American is engaged in a Darwinian, keeping up with the Jones competition in which failure to perform to expectations further raises levels of psychological stress. It is not, therefore, surprising that most look to friendly forces from the beyond to protect them from the pitfalls of a risky American life, and if that fails compensate with a blissful eternal existence.

Now, wait a minute. You guys started out with statistical facts, but this is pure speculation. And it assumes that people really believe, and act on, religious propositions such as “God is love” and “Good people go to Heaven.” As I demonstrate in my upcoming book, there is little reason to think that religious “beliefs” are anything more than mechanically parroted phrases.

So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition. … To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and especially economic conditions (please note we are discussing large scale, long term population trends, not individual cases). Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis. … Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.

Ouch. Is the U.S. really that different, in terms of the average person’s experience? Makes me wonder again about moving to Canada, or Holland.

Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. It’s guaranteed. That is why perceptive theists are justifiably scared. In practical terms their only practical hope is for nations to continue to suffer from socio-economic disparity, poverty and maleducation.

Yes, that does seem to be what they want.

In the end what humanity chooses to believe will be more a matter of economics than of debate, deliberately considered choice, or reproduction. The more national societies that provide financial and physical security to the population, the fewer that will be religiously devout. The more that cannot provide their citizens with these high standards the more that will hope that supernatural forces will alleviate their anxieties. It is probable that there is little that can be done by either side to alter this fundamental pattern.

Well, I still think you have misunderstood what “religious belief” is. But from the international, statistical point of view, that probably doesn’t matter. And even if your speculations regarding its causes are false, the trend seems to be strong. Thanks for the best news I have heard in years.

Dan Hind, author of the brilliant The Threat to Reason, has a new, short book on the recent economic crash and our government’s sickening attempts to rescue us from it by giving all our money to the guys who caused it.

This once broadly welcomed project, to put an end to financial turbulence and the miseries it brings with it, you know, unemployment, political extremism and global war, became increasingly controversial in intellectual circles in the decades that followed [the Bretton Woods conference]. Some felt that the maintenance of peace and prosperity came at too high a price in terms of freedom for capital. What good was peace and prosperity, if capitalists had to make do with less than a license to do what the fuck they wanted all the time, everywhere?

I’m not an expert on financial matters, but some of the aspects of our situation seem inarguable. It’s possible that the global financial markets performed valuable functions at one time, but they now appear to be deliberately contrived to siphon money from those who could have used it to those who already have too much. But it’s worse than this. They are set up to skim off so much money that the people who are forced to use them can go broke. That is, the markets can destroy people — except for the people who designed and maintain the markets. Somehow, the architects of the system continue to collect their staggering fees, no matter what. Why do we allow this?

This then was the accident waiting to happen — debt was deployed as the solution to flat buying power. Debt counteracted the effects of stagnant real wages for as long as it expanded. As a result economies could continue to grow even as they grew more unequal. Notional gains in asset wealth encouraged workers to borrow ever more money.

So there was only one problem with the organization of political economy in the period after 1970; it was always, eventually, going to end in disaster. Other than that it was a great idea.

Jump! You Fuckers! is available as a free download.

If you can’t get there, try the live feed –

livetomorrowsmall

– but V. and I will be there in person. W00t!

The constitution of Iraq was written by theocrats. Here is the result.

Article 1:

The Republic of Iraq is a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state in which the system of government is republican, representative, parliamentary, and democratic, and this Constitution is a guarantor of the unity of Iraq.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.

B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Points A and B are completely incompatible. Right here at the start, the constitution adopts a rule that cannot be followed, no matter how hard you try. This document is guaranteed to cause interminable problems for its country. That’s what you get when you let the imams call the shots – because they don’t actually mind if everything goes to hell around them, as long as they stay in charge.

My talk at the Atheist Alliance International conference in Burbank has been rescheduled. I’ll be speaking Friday, October 2nd at 5:00 PM. Here is an abstract.

Roy Sablosky: On the Profession of Religious Belief
As Wittgenstein observed, “one cannot mean a senseless series of words.” Religious propositions have no meaning, so they cannot be meant; and if they cannot be meant, they cannot be believed. Therefore, “I believe in God” (for example) is not an statement of belief. But then, what is it? If the person who says it is not meaning or believing, what is he doing? Here at last is a question about religion that can be answered! Such statements are not reports of (private) mental states, they are tokens of group affiliation. This has important implications for cultural debate and for public policy.