The intellectuals I admire the most are those whose horizons are the widest. Peter Watson is one such intellectual because of his book Ideas from Fire to Freud which majestically surveys all the major ideas from neolithic times to the present day. Another of my icons is Jared Diamond on account of Guns, Germs and Steel, a book that offers a number of very original ideas to explain why some parts of the world have been more prosperous over the ages since farming replaced hunter-gathering.
Now I have met two more giants: Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. They are the authors of Why Nations Fail which was published in 2012; I have only just read it but, better late than never, it was breath-taking in its explanatory power.
The topic of the book is captured in the title: it explains why some nations are less successful than others and indeed why some fail altogether. The one sentence explanation is that failing states have political and economic institutions that allow an elite minority to dominate the remaining citizenry. This simple idea is developed in great detail. The authors make a distinction between extractive institutions (bad) and inclusive institutions (good). At the political level this distinction is between systems that allow all citizens equality of voting rights and equality before the law and systems that don't. At the economic level the distinction is between systems that allow elites to amass great wealth at the expense of the others (by giving them monopolies or exclusive access to natural resources for example) and systems that protect the financial resources of everyone (by enforcing property rights for example).
The remarkable aspect of the book is how much evidence the authors bring to justify their hypotheses. They give detailed analyses of dozens of countries at various points on the inclusive-extractive spectrum which convincingly demonstrate the validity of their ideas. In most cases these examples trace the historical causes of a country's institutional practices and this perspective is a brilliant look at history through a particular lens.
I'll give two contrasting summary examples: the countries of South America compared with the USA and Canada. When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in South America they found a land rich in both material and human resources. In several brutal centuries they enslaved the population in order to loot the gold and other precious materials for the Spanish crown. Obviously this was a very extractive system. But it remained extractive when the various South American countries gained their independence since the new rulers took over the institutional practices set up by the Spanish.
In contrast something rather different unfolded when North America was colonized (although the authors are clear to point out that this was in no way due to any more noble motives of the colonizers). Things were rather different for several reasons. One reason was that the British were already moving towards a more inclusive system in their own country (because of the monarchy losing much of its power in the Civil War and the resulting Glorious Revolution of 1688). Another reason was that North America was not rich in precious metals. Instead tobacco was the cash cow but tobacco required intensive farming and, there being insufficient or unwilling natives to enslave, the colonists had to furnish the labour themselves. This gave them economic leverage with the British government and, of course, the War of Independence allowed the Americans to set up a relatively inclusive state apparatus.
Why some countries followed a historical path towards inclusive institutions while others didn't cannot be explained by some simple mechanism. The authors refer to "critical junctures" which set countries travelling along particular trajectories. Often it seems to be accidental what happens on these occasions. For example, a plausible consequence of the 1688 invitation to William of Orange might have been that the Stuart Royalists might have won the day and firmly entrenched James II back on the throne to roll back the reforms following the Civil War. Or, a century earlier, bad weather might not have sunk the Spanish Armada and Philip II might have established a Catholic stranglehold on England.
The book explains why, once a direction has been set, either to an extractive state or an inclusive state, vicious or virtuous circles tend to preserve that direction. This is certainly seen today among the former colonies of Great Britain where often the extractive apparatus they established has been inherited by the new rulers after independence who have found it comfortable to enjoy getting rich just as their former British overlords did.
I ended the book reflecting on two things. The first was a comparison with Guns, Germs and Steel which is another attempt to explain why different countries nowadays enjoy very different levels of prosperity. Diamond's explanations are rather different (and, intriguing though they are, are more speculative) but they reach back much further to the time before nation states developed. Acemoglu and Robinson believe that their institutional explanations would apply to these much earlier societies. Here they are on weaker ground because there is less evidence in the historical record. I find many of Diamond's explanations plausible about why agriculture took off more quickly in some parts of the world than others but we shall probably never know with certainty.
The other thought I was left with is that, despite the tendency of inclusive systems to be self-correcting, we cannot be complacent. I look at the recent track record of the USA with some anxiety: the great income and opportunity inequity in that country shows some of the signs of an extractive system. If this book sets more alarm bells ringing it will have done the whole world a service.
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
Monday, 17 March 2014
The forgotten American shame of Vietnam
It is almost 40 years since the Fall of Saigon and the end of the US war in Vietnam. Memories of that traumatic war are dimming as veterans, politicians and journalists who lived in that period die off. It is therefore easier to mythologize the war and cast the US defeat in a more positive light. Nevertheless the US psyche remains deeply scarred. A new book Kill Anything That Moves by Nick Turse picks the scab (Turse would most likely claim "lances the boil") of possibly the most shameful aspect of that conflict.
Written over a 10 year period the book is a meticulously researched exposé of systematic institutionalized abuse of Vietnamese civilians. The narrative that most Americans accept is that, while there may have been occasional excesses carried out in the blood-lust of the moment, the war was prosecuted honorably and within the rules of the Geneva Convention. Turse demonstrates that this narrative is completely fictitious. He has interviewed hundreds of US veterans and Vietnamese survivors, pored through numerous written records and built a consistent and compelling picture of the army culture in Vietnam. What he has discovered is chilling.
American troops faced a guerilla war where the enemy was a shadowy figure often indistinguishable from a civilian. This produced more endemic anxiety in the average American soldier than in a more conventional war where a small number of pitched battles are separated by long periods of tedium. Not knowing who was friend or foe cannot have been easy for the raw recruits many of whom were unwilling draftees. The army's response to this very stressful environment was very often to turn a blind eye to the over-reaction of trigger-happy soldiers. At least it perhaps started like that but very soon, as Turse demonstrates in a multitude of case histories, the ease with which troops could get away with murder bred a callousness that quickly got out of control. Very soon civilians (including women and children) were being killed for sport and their deaths were reported as the deaths of enemy combatants. Significant quarters of the army turned a blind eye to atrocity after atrocity - all that mattered was body count. A few men in a US unit could level an entire village in minutes, leaving no-one left alive, merely because they were looking for a lone sniper; that power is too corrosive to be left unchecked.
Obviously this new narrative is so explosive that one would be tempted to reject it out of hand. But Turse has amassed a mountain of supporting evidence for his claims and it is time that the United States confronts its past with honesty. It is no longer credible to believe that the US war crimes began and ended with the My Lai massacre. The truth is that there were hundreds of My Lai's.
Possibly it is too late to bring the war criminals to justice (although, of course, there is no statute of limitations of war crimes). But the guilty parties are not simply the young men who raped and murdered Vietnamese civilians, all the time demonizing them as "Gooks" or "Charlie". The guilt should be borne by those senior officers in the US army who were aware that the men on the ground were out of control but either did nothing or tacitly encouraged their behaviour.
Retribution would not only represent justice for the survivors of the indiscriminate killings but would remind the most powerful (and therefore most dangerous) nation in the world that their military might can hardly be used without being abused. Shining the torch on their Vietnamese atrocities would ignite a debate about the very society they stand for - a debate that currently is not happening because the establishment has been so successful in hiding the facts.
Written over a 10 year period the book is a meticulously researched exposé of systematic institutionalized abuse of Vietnamese civilians. The narrative that most Americans accept is that, while there may have been occasional excesses carried out in the blood-lust of the moment, the war was prosecuted honorably and within the rules of the Geneva Convention. Turse demonstrates that this narrative is completely fictitious. He has interviewed hundreds of US veterans and Vietnamese survivors, pored through numerous written records and built a consistent and compelling picture of the army culture in Vietnam. What he has discovered is chilling.
American troops faced a guerilla war where the enemy was a shadowy figure often indistinguishable from a civilian. This produced more endemic anxiety in the average American soldier than in a more conventional war where a small number of pitched battles are separated by long periods of tedium. Not knowing who was friend or foe cannot have been easy for the raw recruits many of whom were unwilling draftees. The army's response to this very stressful environment was very often to turn a blind eye to the over-reaction of trigger-happy soldiers. At least it perhaps started like that but very soon, as Turse demonstrates in a multitude of case histories, the ease with which troops could get away with murder bred a callousness that quickly got out of control. Very soon civilians (including women and children) were being killed for sport and their deaths were reported as the deaths of enemy combatants. Significant quarters of the army turned a blind eye to atrocity after atrocity - all that mattered was body count. A few men in a US unit could level an entire village in minutes, leaving no-one left alive, merely because they were looking for a lone sniper; that power is too corrosive to be left unchecked.
Obviously this new narrative is so explosive that one would be tempted to reject it out of hand. But Turse has amassed a mountain of supporting evidence for his claims and it is time that the United States confronts its past with honesty. It is no longer credible to believe that the US war crimes began and ended with the My Lai massacre. The truth is that there were hundreds of My Lai's.
Possibly it is too late to bring the war criminals to justice (although, of course, there is no statute of limitations of war crimes). But the guilty parties are not simply the young men who raped and murdered Vietnamese civilians, all the time demonizing them as "Gooks" or "Charlie". The guilt should be borne by those senior officers in the US army who were aware that the men on the ground were out of control but either did nothing or tacitly encouraged their behaviour.
Retribution would not only represent justice for the survivors of the indiscriminate killings but would remind the most powerful (and therefore most dangerous) nation in the world that their military might can hardly be used without being abused. Shining the torch on their Vietnamese atrocities would ignite a debate about the very society they stand for - a debate that currently is not happening because the establishment has been so successful in hiding the facts.
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Blair: the religious terrorist
Tony Blair, writing in the Observer, offers us his thoughts on war and and religion. He writes "religious extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world". Can he possibly be right?
Let's take the war he knows most about: Iraq v. US/UK. As we know, this was a unilateral attack in 2003 by the US and the UK led by Bush and Blair. This war caused between 600,000 and one million Iraqis to die (estimates vary wildly - the BBC's More or Less podcast explains why). We also know (see, for example, The Downing Street memo) that both these men lied to their people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (their justification for the war). No doubt then that this war was a horrible example of aggression and that the BB leadership has to take full blame. Where though does religion enter into the equation?
Blair himself is Roman Catholic and has admitted to praying to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq. Presumably God gave him the go-ahead. Bush, a born-again Christian when he was 40, is one of the most overtly religious presidents the USA has ever had. There are very many examples of him claiming divine guidance during his presidency and at least one plausible claim that he believed he was charged by God to invade Iraq.
So maybe Blair has a point.
It could be, of course, that he doesn't see it quite in the way that I have presented it. In his article he goes on to say "acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith". Oh, that's all right then. As long as you commit acts of war not acts of terrorism, as long as you don't "abuse" your religion and as long as your faith is not "perverted" everything is fine and dandy. Can Blair really subscribe to that sophistry? At this very moment his own church is suppressing women throughout the world by doctrines that deny them access to manage their reproductive systems and thereby keep them in poverty.
No, Tony. The Campaign to arrest Blair has got it spot on. You are personally responsible for your actions. You should face justice and you should stop hiding behind the cloak of your God. Your article is self-serving hyprocisy and quite likely an attempt to begin the damage control that the Chilton inquiry is going to inflict on you when its report is made public this year.
But on a positive note: you are right in accusing religion as a cause of many wars. Where you got it wrong was assuming that religions you don't subscribe to, and wars you are opposed to are because the religions became "perverted" or were "abused". Christianity, Islam and Judaism (to name but three) have all done more than their fair share to deal out death, torture and destruction. Would you care to widen your target and argue for their wholesale culpability? And if you did that would you like to go the extra mile and denounce and renounce faith altogether?
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Why does the world exist
I have just finished reading "Why does the exist" by Jim Holt. It is account of Holt's quest to find an answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", possibly the hoariest philosophical chestnut of them all. Holt's research methodology is quite simple: he interviews a number of philosophers, scientists and other thinkers, listens to what they say, offers his slant on what each great mind has told him, and then hops off to the next guru on his list. It's an interesting read as a survey of the very different answers to this great existential question and Holt presents the ideas in an engaging manner often lacing the details with personal anecdotes. Despite this I was left with a bemused feeling that Holt's greatest achievement was to expose the uselessness of philosophical thought at least in this particular area.
I do not accuse the great thinkers interviewed by Holt as intellectual con-men. However, I cannot help comparing them with thinkers and practitioners in the much narrower domain of theism. In the latter domain we have a myriad of mutually contradictory faiths defended by their advocates with an impressive array of intellectual fire-power. But of course we cannot take any of them seriously: if you are a Mormon your beliefs are totally at odds with a Sunni Moslem. And for any other two religious faiths you will find a huge amount of disagreement. And all this despite the lengthy education of their most notable exponents at esteemed centres of learning.
As Holt's book makes very clear this level of disagreement is present when the domain of discourse is existential philosophy. The difference is that the individuals that feature in Holt's book are heavyweight intellectuals: they are clever enough to marshall an argument to build complex structures to explain our existence but none of them come up with the same structure.
I know that many of those interviewed by Holt's have reputations that they justly deserve. But, cor blimey gov'ner, so far as throwing light on Holt's main question they are a load of posturing charlatans.
I do not accuse the great thinkers interviewed by Holt as intellectual con-men. However, I cannot help comparing them with thinkers and practitioners in the much narrower domain of theism. In the latter domain we have a myriad of mutually contradictory faiths defended by their advocates with an impressive array of intellectual fire-power. But of course we cannot take any of them seriously: if you are a Mormon your beliefs are totally at odds with a Sunni Moslem. And for any other two religious faiths you will find a huge amount of disagreement. And all this despite the lengthy education of their most notable exponents at esteemed centres of learning.
As Holt's book makes very clear this level of disagreement is present when the domain of discourse is existential philosophy. The difference is that the individuals that feature in Holt's book are heavyweight intellectuals: they are clever enough to marshall an argument to build complex structures to explain our existence but none of them come up with the same structure.
I know that many of those interviewed by Holt's have reputations that they justly deserve. But, cor blimey gov'ner, so far as throwing light on Holt's main question they are a load of posturing charlatans.
Friday, 3 January 2014
The Spirit Level: consequences of inequality
Over the last several years a very troubling social issue has boiled to the top of the political cauldron: the increasing income inequality in many countries of the world. President Obama recently gave a speech in which he stated that reversing the growing gap between rich and poor was "the defining challenge of our time". His speech did not, by any means, meet with universal approval. For example, columns in the Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic were sharply critical of the idea that inequality in itself was a problem, and also challenged that it was a growing condition.
Nevertheless it does seem to be established that income inequality has become much more pronounced since the Reagan-Thatcher years. If you doubt this have a look at this very compelling presentation of the US situation. There are many other statistical analyses and I think that you have to be completely blinkered not to accept that income inequality is a growing phenomenon.
But is it a "problem" that we should be working to solve? Maybe income inequality is a motivator to make societies stronger or more efficient. And how can we judge the arguments for and against when clearly this is an issue that is likely to be politically polarised with the left arguing on the basis of social equality and the right arguing on the basis of rewarding the most industrious?
I have just finished reading "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Theirs is not a political text but they do come down completely on the "Income inequality is harmful" side of the question. They demonstrate, by a large number of statistical analyses, that income inequality is correlated with a host of societal evils (poor social relations, poor mental health and drug abuse, poor physical health and lower life expectancy, obesity, low educational performance to name just some). They display their results in graphs that plot, country by country (or US state by US state) how income inequality is correlated with particular social evils.
Now correlation is not necessarily the same as causation but the authors do consider in depth whether some other causal agent than income inequality might be present. Coupled with arguments for how income inequality can be so pernicious they come to the very strong conclusion that very many societal evils stem directly from income inequality.
This part of their book - the case for income inequality having such negative effects - is the main take-home message. I found it entirely convincing, so convincing in fact that I believe every honest politician should acknowledge its validity. The remainder of the book begins a discussion about what to do. Of course this is much less clear-cut but I found it valuable for two main reasons. The first one is that we should be aware that there are multiple types of solution not all of which would be unpalatable to those on the political right.
The second one brings in the other flagship problem of our age: to come to terms with our now rapidly changing climate and the inevitable adjustments it will being to our way of life. It turns out that yet another strong correlation (arguably causal) is that nations with greater income equality are more seriously inclined to pursue vigorous policies to address climate change.
So to underline the principal message of the book: every nation should be aware that most of their social problems will be alleviated if they can institute measures to distribute their national wealth more equitably. This is not the politics of envy - it is the politics of our very survival as a species.
Nevertheless it does seem to be established that income inequality has become much more pronounced since the Reagan-Thatcher years. If you doubt this have a look at this very compelling presentation of the US situation. There are many other statistical analyses and I think that you have to be completely blinkered not to accept that income inequality is a growing phenomenon.
But is it a "problem" that we should be working to solve? Maybe income inequality is a motivator to make societies stronger or more efficient. And how can we judge the arguments for and against when clearly this is an issue that is likely to be politically polarised with the left arguing on the basis of social equality and the right arguing on the basis of rewarding the most industrious?
I have just finished reading "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Theirs is not a political text but they do come down completely on the "Income inequality is harmful" side of the question. They demonstrate, by a large number of statistical analyses, that income inequality is correlated with a host of societal evils (poor social relations, poor mental health and drug abuse, poor physical health and lower life expectancy, obesity, low educational performance to name just some). They display their results in graphs that plot, country by country (or US state by US state) how income inequality is correlated with particular social evils.
Now correlation is not necessarily the same as causation but the authors do consider in depth whether some other causal agent than income inequality might be present. Coupled with arguments for how income inequality can be so pernicious they come to the very strong conclusion that very many societal evils stem directly from income inequality.
This part of their book - the case for income inequality having such negative effects - is the main take-home message. I found it entirely convincing, so convincing in fact that I believe every honest politician should acknowledge its validity. The remainder of the book begins a discussion about what to do. Of course this is much less clear-cut but I found it valuable for two main reasons. The first one is that we should be aware that there are multiple types of solution not all of which would be unpalatable to those on the political right.
The second one brings in the other flagship problem of our age: to come to terms with our now rapidly changing climate and the inevitable adjustments it will being to our way of life. It turns out that yet another strong correlation (arguably causal) is that nations with greater income equality are more seriously inclined to pursue vigorous policies to address climate change.
So to underline the principal message of the book: every nation should be aware that most of their social problems will be alleviated if they can institute measures to distribute their national wealth more equitably. This is not the politics of envy - it is the politics of our very survival as a species.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Women should .... and men should ....
There was a very interesting report in Global Voices last week. It reported on an unusual way to measure negative attitudes to women's rights in different countries across the world. Type phrases such as "Women should", "Women must", "Women shouldn't" etc into Google's search box and see what auto-completions are suggested. These auto-completions are generated on the basis of previous searches conducted by users and so they measure the commonality of searches beginning with these phrases. Some examples (from Google New Zealand):
- Women should not (speak in church, work, preach, vote)
- Women must not (teach, preach, wear men's clothing)
I was interested to compare these searches with corresponding searches where the word "Men" replaced "Women". For the cases above I found
- Men should not (marry, wear shorts, wear sandals)
- Men must not (walk too late, cut down trees)
The Global Voices article gave many examples of "Women" searches in other languages. It would be interesting to see the results with "Men" replacing "Women" there too.
In any case, this small experiment adds weight to the main point: that women remain disadvantaged and oppressed in many societies.
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Dangers of benign faith
In a discussion between religious believers and atheists there are two fundamental questions: whether a particular faith is actually true or whether (irrespective of truth) faith can be an overall force for good in the world. For the first question it is quite difficult for a believer to respond to the charge that not all faiths can be true, and the charge that one's particular faith is almost always determined by one's cultural background. But the second question is more subtle: it depends on what you count in the balance sheet. Which wars should you count as being religiously motivated? If, on the surface they were religiously motivated (like the Thirty Years War), would they have occurred even if religion had mysteriously disappeared from the human condition? Nevertheless, most theists will concede that, in the past, many things have been done in the name of religion that nowadays we abhor.
Often such a concession is accompanied by two mitigating comments: that nowadays religion is more benign, and that much community good work is carried out by churches. I accept both of these comments, am happy to discount the past and to make a balance sheet purely on today's religious activities.
In this post I am not going to point to the many examples around the world where violence and intolerance are founded on religious grounds. Nor am I going to criticise the many well-meaning, sincere church-goers of all faiths who care deeply about their fellow men and women and live their lives trying to improve our society. Instead I wish to make a case that the very presence of faith-based behaviour in our society has negative consequences.
Is it harmless to "touch wood" (you know what I mean, you naughty people) just in case there might possibly be something in that old superstition? Is it harmless to believe that "what goes around comes around" or that "everything happens for a reason"? Is it harmless to believe that your life is overseen by some benevolent creator, or to believe that praying for a friend to recover from an illness is effective? Aren't all those things (and many others like them) at the very worst just personal musings?
In my opinion these beliefs are damaging in a subtle way. The fabric of religious belief contains many strands: the examples I have given are less damaging than some others (such as killing people because of a conviction you think is implanted in you from your god, or refusing a woman birth control because a holy book prohibits it, or marginalising a gay person). But I use the fabric metaphor because these beliefs are connected. If you believe that "everything happens for a reason" you have taken a step along a superstitious strand and you will take another unthinking step a little more willingly. In bad cases you may become so superstitious that you may one day come to believe that you are charged by a god to act in a certain way, and for some fervent believers that way may be bad for society (or bad for you).
In other words what I am claiming is that superstition, or believing things for which there is no evidence, is a pernicious thought habit. Once you let a smidgeon of it pollute you, you are in danger of wading a little deeper into the pollution. Maybe you will resist the next superstitious thought that you meet. But isn't it likely that, having admitted to some unthinking superstition, your critical thinking faculties may let you down once more, or twice more.
If you remain unconvinced consider the prevalence of religious belief in the United States. That rich culture allows many scales of superstition to flourish and some of them are surely harmful. For example Justice Antonin Scala believes that Satan is a real person. Doesn't it make you uneasy that a member of the Supreme Court of the US, someone who has to judge on human wickedness, believes in a superhuman incarnation of evil? Or what about Congressman Paul Broun who is a Young Earth creationist. He is a member of the House Science Committee! Do you trust him to understand the science behind Global Warming (to take just one example). And then of course there are the tele-evangelists who amass large fortunes while promoting hatred of gays (and in some cases like Bob Larson and Ted Haggard are caught in mind-boggling hypocrisy). Of course, these examples are outliers but my point is that such irrational behaviour is only unremarkable in a culture where faith is exalted rather than pitied.
The problems of life are very complicated and superstitious thought patterns are sometimes useful as rough and ready rules of thumb in order for us to make quick decisions (don't walk under ladders so that a paint pot will miss you when it falls). But don't credit your superstitions with mysterious properties or you will lead a less examined life. Socrates thought that such lives were not worth living and I agree.
Often such a concession is accompanied by two mitigating comments: that nowadays religion is more benign, and that much community good work is carried out by churches. I accept both of these comments, am happy to discount the past and to make a balance sheet purely on today's religious activities.
In this post I am not going to point to the many examples around the world where violence and intolerance are founded on religious grounds. Nor am I going to criticise the many well-meaning, sincere church-goers of all faiths who care deeply about their fellow men and women and live their lives trying to improve our society. Instead I wish to make a case that the very presence of faith-based behaviour in our society has negative consequences.
Is it harmless to "touch wood" (you know what I mean, you naughty people) just in case there might possibly be something in that old superstition? Is it harmless to believe that "what goes around comes around" or that "everything happens for a reason"? Is it harmless to believe that your life is overseen by some benevolent creator, or to believe that praying for a friend to recover from an illness is effective? Aren't all those things (and many others like them) at the very worst just personal musings?
In my opinion these beliefs are damaging in a subtle way. The fabric of religious belief contains many strands: the examples I have given are less damaging than some others (such as killing people because of a conviction you think is implanted in you from your god, or refusing a woman birth control because a holy book prohibits it, or marginalising a gay person). But I use the fabric metaphor because these beliefs are connected. If you believe that "everything happens for a reason" you have taken a step along a superstitious strand and you will take another unthinking step a little more willingly. In bad cases you may become so superstitious that you may one day come to believe that you are charged by a god to act in a certain way, and for some fervent believers that way may be bad for society (or bad for you).
In other words what I am claiming is that superstition, or believing things for which there is no evidence, is a pernicious thought habit. Once you let a smidgeon of it pollute you, you are in danger of wading a little deeper into the pollution. Maybe you will resist the next superstitious thought that you meet. But isn't it likely that, having admitted to some unthinking superstition, your critical thinking faculties may let you down once more, or twice more.
If you remain unconvinced consider the prevalence of religious belief in the United States. That rich culture allows many scales of superstition to flourish and some of them are surely harmful. For example Justice Antonin Scala believes that Satan is a real person. Doesn't it make you uneasy that a member of the Supreme Court of the US, someone who has to judge on human wickedness, believes in a superhuman incarnation of evil? Or what about Congressman Paul Broun who is a Young Earth creationist. He is a member of the House Science Committee! Do you trust him to understand the science behind Global Warming (to take just one example). And then of course there are the tele-evangelists who amass large fortunes while promoting hatred of gays (and in some cases like Bob Larson and Ted Haggard are caught in mind-boggling hypocrisy). Of course, these examples are outliers but my point is that such irrational behaviour is only unremarkable in a culture where faith is exalted rather than pitied.
The problems of life are very complicated and superstitious thought patterns are sometimes useful as rough and ready rules of thumb in order for us to make quick decisions (don't walk under ladders so that a paint pot will miss you when it falls). But don't credit your superstitions with mysterious properties or you will lead a less examined life. Socrates thought that such lives were not worth living and I agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)