❝❝Beer, cheese, and bread.

These things were discovered hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago. We don't know exactly when. What we do know is that chemistry and science in general originated because someone wanted to make beer, cheese, and bread better.

Money, measurement and accounting in general started because someone tried to figure out how many goats their grain harvest was worth.

That doesn't even count fundamentals like fire or the wheel which are still basics of our science and technology today.

Science and technology use what works. When we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology.

And yes, economics in it's pure form is a science. The problem comes when we try to use economics to do things that it can't do well. Most of this is directly traceable to government interference in the exchange.

Economics describes the flow of value. We know how value moves as long as it isn't diverted. Rather than top-down "managing the system" and diverting (and diminishing value), I'd rather see new ideas in products and services. I'd rather see incremental improvements in technology than a clumsy effort to shift money by government edict. I'd rather see lower prices than tariffs protecting the "balance of payments."

---

No, the correct phrase is that when we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology. Sometimes it's an improvement, sometimes it is a dead end. Modify is appropriate, not improvement.

Your point is wrong. The poor are getting richer, in cash, opportunities, and in available goods (at a lower cost). Cell phones are dirt cheap. Grocery stores have a better selection and sell for lower relative prices.

There is a disparity between the rate of wealth growth of the rich and poor, but the majority of people are better off. But since that doesn't cost the poor, that's hardly a problem.

Are there problems with unemployment and low paying jobs? Yes, but it's not government's job to fix that. We know that when government tries to set prices or wages, things get worse.

You want specifics, then I will give you specifics. Cut taxes so that the combined (Federal, state, local) tax on anything is no more than ten percent. Do away with the income tax and it's reporting requirements. Prevent government from spending more than it takes in, possibly by punishing the legislators. I can give you hundreds more, but all of it is unimportant until taxes get cut way back AND government spends within it's means and no more.

If I say things that are correct and they don't fit your "mental image of the world," maybe that image isn't all that clear.

---

For American history, I usually work from about 1750 CE on. For Western civilization in general, I usually work from the age of Charlemagne or the Roman republic

Now, what you are talking about is the 20th Century. That just happens to be the century of American central banking, command economy, war as an industry, active intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, massive corporations mostly unbound by local laws, and the birth of "globalism." I put "globalism" in quotes because our "elites" don't mean opening up the world to trade and cultural exchange, they mean control. Specifically deciding what is and is not allowed under what circumstances.

I group these things together because they are closely and intimately related. These are also things that you are not supposed to pay attention to, indeed most of the media constantly tries to distract people from these things. It's just taken for granted that government is supposed to handle those things and we mere citizens aren't supposed to worry.

We're conditioned from birth to accept that government is the first, last, and best solution.

Plot the events and trend lines for yourself. Increase any of these six items and the impact falls mostly on the middle class and then the poor. These changes don't affect the rich as much as those trying to become rich. Changing your financial circumstances becomes harder. Indeed, a society that puts those six factors first "locks out changes," it resists any disruption from within the system. Usually the only change that can happen starts externally. For the elites, this is not a flaw, this is deliberate design.

So when I say that government is not your friend and when the solution to almost all widespread economic problems is to get government out of the picture, it's because I know what it has done.

The truly scary part is "helping the little guy" relies on more government intervention and control. Even though that is what hurt the them to begin with. Let's fix government… with more government!

The problem for the elites is that the economy can't be controlled, not even mostly. Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.

Build a system insulated from the free market that "controls" value and it will always serve the elites at the expense of everyone else. Manipulate the system, tinker with it, and the elites always come out ahead.

---

“When has an economist ever been right about anything?!”

Hernando de Soto. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. Almost any of the Chicago school of economics. But the politicos don't like a free market approach because it reduces their power and their ability to pick "winners" and "losers" in a national economy. Of course when things go wrong, that doesn't stop the politicos and pundits from blaming economics in general and the Chicago school specifically. Even if the politicos and technocrats did the exact opposite of what Chicago school of economics experts told them they needed to do.

---

Meteorology measures and predicts the weather within limits. No one expects meteorology to control the weather. Even in a massive internal environment like a skyscraper, no one uses the tools and techniques to of meteorology to control the "weather" except in the most basic ways. Meteorology is about understanding the weather, not controlling it.

Any meteorologist who told you that he could control the weather is either a fool or a con man.

Likewise, any meteorologist who claimed he could predict the wind by measuring the humidity isn't using the right tools.

---

The Other Path tells that story. de Soto was part of the international economics team brought in to advise to Chilean government how to grow their economy and how to deal with The Shining Path's promises. It's one of the best examples of practical economics and the Chicago school specifically.

---

A word of advice. Never argue practical economics with a small "L" libertarian.

---

A good economist isn't going to promise he can control the flow of value. What he can do is tell you that diverting value reduces value.

Value isn't something that can be generated by political dictate. You have to provide something that people want. Free market competition means that over time, goods and services become better, cheaper, and more widely distributed, even as the overall value flow increases. It's all based on choice without coercion. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults.

When you get people who don't like the choices others make and see the coercive power of government as a way to change or stop those choices, that's when things get complicated. We effectively outlaw cannabis and cocaine, but nicotine and alcohol are only regulated. Sex is okay in marriage, but not as a commercial transaction. You can make a statue of a bare breasted Liberty leading the charge, but most American beaches require covered breasts.

The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ beer ∙ cheese ∙ bread ∙ chemistry ∙ science ∙ money ∙ measurement ∙ accounting ∙ wheel ∙ fire ∙ harvest ∙ trade ∙ technology ∙ value ∙ American history ∙ Western Civilization ∙ 20th Century ∙ central banking ∙ command economy ∙ war industry ∙ foreign policy ∙ corporations ∙ globalism ∙ media ∙ goverment ∙ Hernando de Soto ∙ Chicago school of economics ∙ Chile ∙ libertarian ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults

❝❝We don't agree with each other, not entirely. Just because someone is religious doesn't automatically mean that they are defective. If nothing else, that faith gives them a different perspective. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, more or less, just different. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not. It depends on the individual and circumstances.

Religion is bad is just as big a trap as science is good. There was an author named Isaac Bonewits who wrote on the limitations of dualism. Either/or thinking can trap you. One example is that if something is ACCEPTABLE than everything else is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It becomes easier to define what doesn't work for you as not fitting your worldview instead on it's own characteristics. If all you are looking for is WHITE, than anything else including fuzzy pink becomes NOT WHITE. I'm sure you'll agree that while black and fuzzy pink are NOT WHITE, neither are they the same thing. And we still haven't touched on semi-sweet.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religious ∙ defect ∙ faith ∙ perspective ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ religion ∙ science ∙ Isaac Bonewits ∙ dualism

❝❝Science is just what we know so far.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science

❝❝Language is defined by usage, not expert decision and proclamation. It's why there are new words like smartphone and LOL. It's why there are obscure words like gelogenic and aretaics that most people don't know.

Now, do I know science? Yep, I know the scientific method. I know that science works by explaining past phenomena and accurately predicting future change. I know that there is a difference between physics and chemistry, although hardcore physicists will insist that every thing in chemistry is only a subsection of physics. I know that expertise does more to define blind spots than establish authority.

And I know that insight and understanding is not defined by degrees and publication, but by who can explain and predict. I also know that disparaging the source without considering the argument moves from scholarship to dogma. I know that the institution doesn't have value except in that it can produce results.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ language ∙ usage ∙ expert ∙ gelogenic ∙ aretaics ∙ scientific method ∙ science ∙ phenomena ∙ predictions ∙ physics ∙ chemistry ∙ authority ∙ insight ∙ understanding ∙ scholarship ∙ dogma ∙ institutions

❝❝Science doesn't work by consensus. Science works by explaining existing phenomena AND accurately predicting what happens next. Scientists are people too and they can see where the money and power are coming from. Very few want to speak against that. Sometimes the ones who have disputed the consensus have been attacked and discredited without the argument ever being addressed.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ consensus ∙ explaining ∙ phenomena ∙ predictions ∙ money ∙ power ∙ discredited ∙ argument

❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

---

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

---

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

---

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

---

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

---

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

---

““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””

— H. L. Mencken

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

---

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

---

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

---

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ critics ∙ science ∙ islam ∙ Christianity ∙ heresy ∙ dissent ∙ politicos ∙ Earth ∙ Nature ∙ agenda ∙ computer models ∙ cascade effect ∙ science is settled ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ adaptation ∙ either/or ∙ nanotech ∙ noble sacrifice ∙ capitalism ∙ government power ∙ true believers ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ consensus ∙ process ∙ Brontosaurus

❝❝Just because it cloaks itself in science doesn't make it science. There is very little that is provable or scientific about human caused climate change.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ anthropogenic climate change

“City Journal contributing editor John Tierney joins John Stossel to talk about the politicization of science and how the dominance of left-wing thinkers in academia and the scientific community impedes progress.”

Tags: video ∙ City Journal ∙ John Stossel ∙ John Tierney ∙ left-wing ∙ science

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Obama administration ∙ Loretta Lynch ∙ personal freedom ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ e-verify ∙ pain patients ∙ charter school ∙ science ∙ bones ∙ fat cells ∙ ∙ Marvel Studios ∙ Disney ∙ Pledge of Allegiance ∙ Black Panther ∙ extortion ∙ State Department ∙ L.L. Bean ∙ Oklahoma ∙ State Of The Union Address ∙ net neutrality

“Is This Experimental Japanese Drug the Secret to Stopping the Flu?”

Tags: Sara G. Miller ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ Shionogi & Co. ∙ science ∙ health ∙ Tamiflu

Tags: Bill Nye ∙ science ∙ Amazon ∙ Democrats ∙ Real ID ∙ White House ∙ Nunes Memo ∙ Dreamers ∙ CDC ∙ Berkshire Hathaway ∙ JP Morgan Chase ∙ unemployment ∙ Donald Trump ∙ State Of The Union Address ∙ FCC ∙ 5G network ∙ healthcare

❝❝If we can't question the science, then will we be allowed to question the new regulations, taxes, and fees?❞❞
     — NeoWayland, from crux № 12 — climate change

Tags: maxims ∙ climate change ∙ science ∙ regulations ∙ taxes ∙ fees ∙ question ∙ allowed

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Crux Files ∙ climate change ∙ plant trees ∙ grow a garden ∙ climate alarmist ∙ profit ∙ foreign policy ∙ government ∙ Somebody Else's Problem ∙ Christians ∙ nuclear power ∙ Earth Day ∙ climate gap ∙ UNFCCC ∙ EPA ∙ political coup ∙ prestige ∙ truth ∙ heretic ∙ science is settled ∙ power ∙ money ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ scientists ∙ cascade effect ∙ spreadsheets ∙ consensus ∙ advertising ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ science ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ human influence ∙ volcanos ∙ pollution ∙ water shortage ∙ mass produced architecture ∙ back seat ∙ climate models ∙ suberted ∙ industrial chemicals ∙ greenhouse gases ∙ raccoon population explosion ∙ polar bears ∙ environmental movement ∙ human activity ∙ climatology

“Scientists Create World’s First ‘Molecular Robot’ Capable Of Building Molecules”

Tags: skimmed ∙ clipping ∙ nanotech ∙ molecular robot ∙ David Leigh ∙ guest content ∙ science

❝❝Science doesn't work on consensus. The law of gravity didn't require a majority vote of the High Council of Scientists before working. It described a behavior which could be replicated and measured.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ consensus ∙ majority ∙ working ∙ behavior ∙ replicated ∙ measured

❝❝Invoke science as an unquestionable authority and someone will show the truth behind the curtain. That’s the nature of science.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science

❝❝Science isn't about presenting conclusions, it's about finding answers that work.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: science ∙ conclusions ∙ answers that work ∙ maxims

❝❝Science is an inquiry process. It's not a set of laws carved in stone forever and ever.

Everything you cited above (claims, explanations, proposals) come from people, not science.

Science just shows how well it works. Or if people need to look harder.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: science ∙ inquiry ∙ maxims

❝❝Science grew out of experimenting with things unseen and unknowable. Science is the bastard child of magick.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ magick ∙ experiment ∙ unseen ∙ unknownable

❝❝I've read enough of your stuff to understand why you misuse Science as a Higher Authority, One That Must Not Be Questioned. I can advocate science without being "scientific." I don't need test tubes, a microscope, or a Geiger counter to lend credibility.

I can defend human rights without being gay, a woman, Navajo, disabled, or a money-grubbing politico.

I can promote religious freedom without being Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Buddhist, or atheist.

I can even type a few replies before I've eaten breakfast. Not before my tea though, I'm good but not that good.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ Science as a Higher Authority ∙ scientific ∙ human rights ∙ religious freedom ∙ breakfast ∙ tea

❝❝I've seen the arguments in enough other contexts to distrust anyone who claims rationality prevents any opposing view. Even more so when they dismiss any other possibility unheard because they have the Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ humor ∙ Crux Files ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ climate change ∙ global warming ∙ distrust ∙ rationality prevents any opposing view ∙ Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned ∙ government approved line ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ The Science Is Settled ∙ criticism ∙ obedience ∙ dogma ∙ government ∙ science ∙ condemn ∙ Science as a Higher Authority ∙ Must Not Be Questioned ∙ advocate ∙ scientific ∙ human rights ∙ gay ∙ woman ∙ Navajo ∙ disabled ∙ politicos ∙ religious freedom ∙ Jewish ∙ Catholic ∙ Muslim ∙ Protestant ∙ Buddhist ∙ atheist ∙ moral relativity ∙ conservative ∙ liberal ∙ homosexuality ∙ religion ∙ guns ∙ virtues ∙ Pagan ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ Truth Out ∙ criminal corporations ∙ Republican ∙ no virtue or vice in the label ∙ That's the excuse, not the reason. ∙ race ∙ pedophilia ∙ religious oppression ∙ racist ∙ choice ∙ threat ∙ moral morass ∙ Satanists ∙ totalitarianism ∙ purged ∙ moral superiority ∙ Bible ∙ Pharisee ∙ scripture ∙ Divine

Tags: Burning Man ∙ police state ∙ drug tests ∙ mass spying ∙ Maine ∙ crimminalize ∙ female genital mutilation ∙ religious leaders ∙ magic mushrooms ∙ science ∙ junk science ∙ people over process ∙ demoracy ∙ freedom ∙ Donald Trump

“Climate is changing Because it's HUMANITY'S FAULT and WE'RE SCREWING UP THE PLANET!!!!!"

Tags: global warming ∙ conversation ∙ science ∙ faith ∙ doctrine ∙ dogma ∙ consensus ∙ law of gravity ∙ High Council of Scientists ∙ 97% ∙ Kendall Zimmerman ∙ Cook study ∙ money ∙ power ∙ Energy Transitions Commission ∙ Al Gore ∙ scaremonger ∙ shaming ∙ climate models ∙ article of faith ∙ Christians ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ historical evidence ∙ sunspots ∙ solar activity ∙ CO2 ∙ trees ∙ Bret Stephens ∙ thou shalt not dissent

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Chris Perez ∙ clipping ∙ Bret Stephens ∙ climate skeptic ∙ science

““Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.””
     — Bret Stephens, Climate of Complete Certainty

Tags: Bret Stephens ∙ climate change ∙ science

Climate of Complete Certainty

❝❝Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.❞❞
     — Bret Stephens

Tags: Bret Stephens ∙ clipping ∙ climate change ∙ climate models ∙ Andrew Revkin ∙ IPCC ∙ science

And this would be a bad thing how?

Tags: Mary Kay Linge ∙ climate ∙ climate models ∙ EPA ∙ science ∙ propaganda ∙ clipping

Expanding civilizations, religions, and faith

Except for a few central issues, I really try not to tread on people's beliefs. I don't have time for one thing.

But every once in a while, something comes up that is just too silly.

David Warren was writing about the Gulf oil mess and rules and regulations. He made some great points about the limits of government ability. But then he tossed in this tidbit.

❝❝I like to dwell on the wisdom of our ancestors. It took us millennia to emerge from the primitive notion that a malignant agency must lie behind every unfortunate experience. Indeed, the Catholic Church spent centuries fighting folk pagan beliefs in things like evil fairies, and the whole notion the Devil can compel any person to act against his will -- only to watch an explosion of witch-hunting and related popular hysterias at the time of the Reformation.

In so many ways, the trend of post-Christian society today is back to pagan superstitions: to the belief that malice lies behind every misfortune, and to the related idea that various, essentially pagan charms can be used to ward off that to which all flesh is heir. The belief that, for instance, laws can be passed, that change the entire order of nature, is among the most irrational of these.❞❞

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "triumph" of Christianity actually cost European civilization science, wealth, and much of what made life good.

This has nothing to do with the merits of Paganism or the faults of Christianity.

That's important. Read it again.

And yes, I know that paganism wasn't Paganism as we recognize it today. That's not the point. Nor is it important which had better beliefs or more superstitions.

It's one of my working theories. Cultures and civilizations expand when they have trade, immigration, and tolerance. Without trade, immigration, and tolerance, cultures contract and become more insular.

It's a generally accepted flexibility of thought that makes trade, immigration, and tolerance possible. The more trade, immigration, and tolerance there is, the more vibrant and interesting the culture becomes. You never know what will cross pollinate or what will take root where.

Thanks to Constantine, Christianity went from several competing groups to one ruled by a Church and an Emperor. Dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Variations from the cultural norms were destroyed. This isn't inherent in Christianity, but it was inherent in the Christian belief system that the Council of Nicea propagated.

Believe me, there are forms of paganism that are just as intolerant. And oddly enough, those also retreated into themselves.

How we treat the Other may well be the defining characteristic of a great human civilization.

And then we get Stephen Hawking. Yes, that Stephen Hawking.

❝❝There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.❞❞

Two tiny little problems there. Religion does work for many people, but not necessarily because of authority. Faith works for many more, and not necessarily because of authority.

And the other problem. Well, it's hardly worth mentioning, but science is the bastard child of magick.

Oops! I revealed an untold truth!!

Religion, faith, and the desire to control or at least predict the universe led to science. In many ways, they still intertwine.

Just something for you to think about on this Wednesday.

Posted: Wed - June 9, 2010 at 02:02 PM  Morality & Modern Life

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ too silly ∙ Gulf oil mess ∙ trade-immigration-tolerance ∙ culture ∙ Constantine ∙ Christianity ∙ Pagan ∙ The Other ∙ Stephen Hawking ∙ religion ∙ authority ∙ bastard child of magick ∙ science

Comments

You should read it all, it’s very good.

Tags: climate change ∙ science ∙ skimmed ∙ Patrick Moore ∙ Greenpeace ∙ Vikings ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ Greenland ∙ Little Ice Age ∙ Medieval Warm Period ∙ Newfoundland ∙ Roman times ∙ fossil fuels ∙ civilization

It only takes a simple program and a scientific calculator to show the holes in the climate change models

Tags: global warming ∙ climate change ∙ science