Walter Russell Mead is channeling Bill Joy:
The inescapable reality is that the very forces creating our affluent, modern and democratic world also generate violent antagonism. Breivik, like Al-Qaeda and like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, is the shadow of progress. When conditions are right, the lone psychopath becomes a cult leader; in a perfect storm when everything breaks his way, the psychopath becomes Fuehrer.
That would be bad enough, but there’s one more turn of the screw. The same technological progress that helps create violent alienation and rage also empowers individuals and groups. 200 years ago a Breivik could not have done so much damage. 100 years ago Al-Qaeda could not have hijacked a plane. Modern society is more vulnerable than ever before to acts of terror, and developments in weaponry place ever greater power in the hands of ever smaller numbers of people.
This is still in early stages. Fortunately Breivik was a traditionalist and relatively low tech mass murderer; he did not hack vital computer systems to wreak murderous havoc with a rail or air traffic control system. He did not poison the reservoirs with weaponized biologicals. He did not even pump poison gas into a subway system.
We can be reasonably confident that an increasingly chaotic and stressful 21st century will generate more bitter nutjobs and place more destructive power in their hands. Democracy and affluence won’t cure it; the same forces that raise those golden arches build bombs to knock them down.
I have to say that Breivik and McVeigh are in an entirely different category than bin Laden. The latter is part of a totalitarian religious movement, with the support of millions, while no one is cheering the former in the streets, and in fact they are being roundly condemned by their own group members (that is, those with whom they share a genetic heritage). I am particularly disgusted by the media’s attempts to paint both as “Christians” when I’ve seen no evidence that either is, and McVeigh actively disavowed a belief in God. But they have to do so to feed the moral relativistic narrative in defense of Islam.
But here’s where I just don’t get his argument at all:
The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that human beings are stuck in a condition of radical uncertainty. Something big and earth shaking is going on around us, but the information we have does not allow us to predict where it all goes.
In my view, this is one of the reasons that belief in a transcendent power beyond the human mind is intellectually necessary to grapple successfully with the realities of our time. When the determinist progressives threw God under the bus, they threw away the possibility of an integrated world view that has room both for scientific and rational analysis on the one hand and a honest, unsparing appraisal of the radical uncertainty around us on the other.
We still live in the Age of Apocalypse that opened in World War Two when Hiroshima and the Holocaust delineated the essential problems of the new and possibly last era of human civilization. Mankind has long had the potential for radical, desolating evil; today we still have that potential among us, and we have united it to the power to end all life on earth. We live with one foot in the shadows and another on the high and sunny uplands of democratic and affluent society. We have one foot in Norway and the other in Hell and nobody knows where we step next.
One of the reasons to bother God in our century is the hope that in turn he will bother about us. Whatever is coming, we will face it more honestly and live it more richly with him.
This presupposes that he exists, but that we are just ignoring him. Well, that may be, but I have no sense of it, which is why I’m a non-believer, and furthermore, I feel no need for him for me to intellectually grasp what’s happening. While I admire Professor Mead, I think that he is projecting his own apparent intellectual inadequacies on the rest of us.
The one and only point that Marx got right was that religion is essentially a drug. It serves the same psychological function as a psychoactive compound.
Beyond having a serious issue with McDonalds, he’s really off the rails in general.
“But it’s all a lie. Look at this one nutjob in Norway.”
Who the hell said modernization was going to cull phsychotics from the population? Fukuyama? Or does modernization lead to increased population, which is bad… statistically more phsychotics? [Me: Straining… against… strawman…]
What strange ideas are you talking about?
Oh. OK. I thought you were referring to honor killing or something.
Damn Kroc’s. Should never have allowed those Hutus to get McDonalds.
My thinking is someone should check on the good professor to make sure he didn’t get a hernia from that.
“The one and only point that Marx got right was that religion is essentially a drug. It serves the same psychological function as a psychoactive compound.”
Science is as much of a religion for some people as any traditional religion. Science as religion is a little scary because there is no morality inherent to their doctrine.
“This presupposes that he exists, but that we are just ignoring him. Well, that may be, but I have no sense of it, which is why I’m a non-believer, and furthermore, I feel no need for him for me to intellectually grasp what’s happening.”
The fact of God existing, I think is is all that is required- not whether or not He cares or not. Just the idea that there is “something higher”.
Of course the major faiths do regard God as caring/concerned.
I would say there isn’t much difference between the person who believes they have a special direct-line connection to God and person believes there is no god. In both situations the person is god- a person as the ultimate and final authority- is the dictator, and having the “given” right to murder/execute others.
Well, I stopped reading after this:
The tragedy in Norway is among many other things an important reminder that much of we want to believe about history is plain wrong….the species of quackery that posits that democracies don’t go to war with each other.
Talk about a category confusion! Hello, Professor? War by nations is not the same thing as murders by an individual. If nothing else, war is (or at least can be) a perfectly rational decision taken by men of peace and good will. Murder is almost by definition irrational and psychopathic, and executed only by severely dysfunctional individuals.
You might as well join the Modern Left and argue that the example of Bernie Madoff or Countrywide proves that a free market filled with honest transactions is a cruel illusion, or join the Andrew Dworkins and argue that the existence of rapists proves that sexual intercourse is inherently demeaning to women.
“Science as religion is a little scary because there is no morality inherent to their doctrine”
Whereas the religious claim they have some higher morality that they can then use to justify performing various unpleasantries on heretics, for the heretics own good of course.
I’m still trying to figure out what a fascist era in Norway would mean. The only thing I know about fascist immigration policy was that Mussolini kept pressuring Congress to admit more Italians, and that Mussolini said Fascism ignores all racial and ethnic identities, treating everyone living in Italy as equals.
Something big and earth shaking is going on around us, but the information we have does not allow us to predict where it all goes.
Sounds like Mead is describing the Singularity.
I’m still trying to figure out what a fascist era in Norway would mean.
c.f. Vidkun Quisling
Quisling was a Nazi, not a Fascist. Though they fought as allies and shared many of the same roots in Marxist revisionism, the two groups were different in many key respects. The Nazis were avowedly hardcore socialists, while the Fascists claimed that they were beyond mere socialism and on a third path (a blend of socialism and anarcho-syndicalism, which was way left of communism). The Nazis were extreme racists while the fascists were extremely anti-racist (Mussolini had a long string of Jewish girlfriends).
So Meade’s talk of a fascist Norway confuses more than it enlightens.
Science is as much of a religion for some people as any traditional religion.
The difference is that science works.
Science as religion is a little scary because there is no morality inherent to their doctrine.
The only morality that matters is how you treat others. Game theory does lead to the morality of “cheap benevolence” and that is sufficient for modern civilization. Any other definition of morality is complete poppycock.
The problem is some people worship it even when it doesn’t — when the evidence doesn’t support the prior conclusion, for example. Rather than re-evaluate their hypothesis, they “massage” the study, and then refuse to share the raw data so the study can be tried through replication.
The difference is that science works.
That depends on what you mean by “works.” It doesn’t get you into heaven.
The problem is some people worship it even when it doesn’t — when the evidence doesn’t support the prior conclusion, for example.
Global warming as the perfect example of this. I would say it differently. Science works when it is strictly empirical and based on experimentation. When science is politicized, of course it does not work.
My problem with religion is exactly the same as with the liberal-left ideology. They are all examples of top-down, hierarchical command systems. The only difference between religion and socialism/communism is the authoritarian entity at the apex of the pyramid. In all other respects, they are conceptually identical. I reject the hierarchical pyramid completely, in favor of decentralized bottom-up spontaneous self-order.
Religion is basically satanic whereas “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” Science is an example of this kind of faith.
“By faith we perceive that … things were put in order…”
Evidence and a belief in order, along with measurement and reason, are the foundations of science. Science should be the same anywhere in the universe is a belief in order.
Religious gullibility has nothing to do with true faith. Faith is something we all have and depend on. Life otherwise would all be perceived as total chaos and anarchy (yeah, sometimes it is that too.)
Complaining that science “works” but religion doesn’t makes no sense. They are two completely different things. It’s like saying your car is better than a banana because you can’t drive a banana on the highway.
“The difference is that science works.”
Science is also allowed to be wrong and to change over time. That same consideration is often not given to religions.
“Game theory does lead to the morality of “cheap benevolence” and that is sufficient for modern civilization.”
Game theory teaches that you only cooperate if it helps you out and the moment you don’t need to cooperate you fuck your buddy. In the event that cooperation doesn’t give you an advantage, you don’t cooperate. Game theory doesn’t really allow for self sacrifice, cooperation when there is no gain, or cooperation at a detriment to yourself.
Andrew W Says:
“Whereas the religious claim they have some higher morality that they can then use to justify performing various unpleasantries on heretics, for the heretics own good of course.”
Like what type of light bulbs to use or what types of food you can eat.
Not saying that bad things haven’t been done by religions in the past but it isn’t very hard to imagine that people would use science to justify doing unpleasant things for their own good or for the good of others.
“…but it isn’t very hard to imagine that people would use science to justify doing unpleasant things for their own good or for the good of others.”
What nonsense. Science will never be used for such nefarious purposes.
Those are just a few but my sarcasm meter broke and I need to get it repaired.
It seems to me that a central point of most religions is the existence of a soul, this strange, intangible, immortal quality of human life that goes on forever. Religion says that how you live your life will determine how your soul spends the rest of eternity. However, I know of no way to prove or disprove the existence of a soul. If there is no soul that survives death, then there is no heaven or hell. In that case, when death comes, turn out the lights ‘cause the party’s over.
The devoutly religious accept as a matter of faith that there is a soul, a God, a heaven and a hell. Atheists state that none of these things exist. However, they have no more evidence for their beliefs than the religious believers. Agnostics simply confess that they don’t know the answers and in fact some of these things may be unknowable.
Indeed, game theory “morality” is nothing more than the code of what-I-was-going-to-do-anyway. All teleological moral systems end-up this way due to self-interest (either of the individual actor or those who hold the reigns of power.) In contrast, deontological morality is robust because it’s objective and universifiable — it is fair to all regardless of social station, thus tapping into man’s reciprocal altruism and building a cooperative society.
Faith, religion, whatever you want to call it, it is fine with me providing it is never, ever used to undermine the sovereign individual. The problem is that many people who are into this stuff use it for precisely this purpose, and that pisses me off to no end. I am sick of these motherf**kers telling me that I do not own my life and that I owe some obligation to some external source or authority. This concept pisses me off to no end and I completely reject it.
Yes, I believe in treating other people in a decent manner. How you treat others is the definition of morality. This is no such thing as morality that exists independent of how you treat other people. In other words, “sin” is defined as the intentional causing of harm to others. Any other definition of “sin” is complete batcrap.
If you want to believe in God as the cosmic cop that ensures that we all treat each other reasonably, thats fine with me. If that was all religion, faith, or whatever else you want to call it was all about, I’d have no problem with it.
However, religion seems to sticks it nose in my personal affairs and choices even when they do not involve other people. For example, I might choose not to get married or have kids. Maybe I like the single life or I want to save my money so I can retire to some cheap beach place in S.E. Asia. Maybe I’m into radical life extension and cryonics. Maybe I’m into all of these choices. Religion has no business “judging” whether my personal life choices are “correct” or not. As long as I do not cause harm to others, it is impossible that any personal choice I make could be “incorrect”.
When religion starts to respect my autonomy and sovereignty, I will start to respect it. Until then, it can piss off.
‘The one and only point that Marx got right was that religion is essentially a drug. It serves the same psychological function as a psychoactive compound.’
at the time he made said point opium was pretty much the one and only *effective* analgesic available for public use. So I’ll posit that he made this point in a positive sense which, a century and a half later, totalitarian bastages *continue* to purposely miss.
You people don’t seem to get it. The notion that the individual is not autonomous, does not own his or her own life, is the philosophical root of tyranny and totalitarianism. I came to this conclusion while in high school (growing up during the Cold War) and I believe this even more strongly today than I did then. I reject any form of religion as strongly as I reject the memes of socialism and communism. I will never accept any meme that requires that I surrender any measure of personal autonomy and I consider any suggestion that I should do so to be HIGHLY offensive. I also consider any suggestion that any of these memes have any “jurisdiction” over me to be highly offensive as well.
Wow, froth much? Hey you guys, quit your religion-pushing on poor Mr. Lindsey. He feels oppressed by your theism. (SARC tags as applicable.)
Sorry for the frothing at the mouth. Its just that the concept of religion some how gets under my skin. As I said before, if religion limited itself to controlling real criminality, thuggery, and other anti-social behavior, I’d have no problem. However, those into it often use it to regulate personal behavior and choices that are, in no way, anti-social at all. I just find this unacceptable. I don’t see why any of my life personal choices, where I don’t cause any harm to others, should be subject to any kind of judgement by religion. I don’t get this at all. I also think that it is this use of religion that creates the animosity that many people such as myself feel towards it.
Well then aren’t you glad to be living in a country (as I assume you do) where you are free to be religious or not as you please. Unfortunately that means sometimes having to meet religious people and put up with them exercising their freedom of speech. Those are the breaks.
By the way, I’ve found that a firm but polite “thank you I’m not interested” takes care of most religious proselytizers. People who react with anger or other vehement emotion to a religious proposal are seen by the average missionary as a challenge, figuring that if the mere mention of their God causes such rage, Satan must be near — or at least there’s a sore spot that might be vulnerable to the influence of their beliefs.