This was sent to me by a reader. If you can overlook the Christian dogmatism, it really hits it home about the futility of adolescence:

Although sure to piss off the Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I don't regard the existence of God to be necessary in the belief of Christian religion, or any monotheistic religion. My relation to any god is a personal matter. Most of the times it's a feeling of connectedness with the world as a whole. This doesn't hinder me from following Christian ethics or serving a Christian community.

I guess you could call this a practical argument for religion, not necessarily against God, but not in its favor either. There are, as far as I know, no valid philosophical arguments for the existence of a God, understood as an abstract entity in an external world that controls our earthly lives. I find the idea of an omnipotent entity interesting and important for other reasons (like keeping the crowd in check), but not central to the way in which I live my life.

In Sweden you'd be ridiculed for holding that both religion and capitalism are important to society (which explains why no one seems to vote for the Christian Democrats anymore). But at least from a historical point of view, religion and economic growth correlate quite well. And, of course to my personal liking, Protestantism seems to outrun Catholicism on capitalist growth:

That hell could matter to economic growth might seem surprising, since you can’t prove it exists, let alone quantify it. It stands as one of the more intriguing findings in a growing body of recent research exploring how religion might influence the wealth and prosperity of societies. In recent years, Italian economists have presented findings that religion can boost GDP by increasing trust within a society; researchers in the United States showed that religion reduces corruption and increases respect for law in ways that boost overall economic growth. A number of researchers have documented how merchants used religious backgrounds to establish one another’s reliability.

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.

Researchers based at the New University of Lisbon and the University of Illinois used a model that showed European industrial development between 1645 and 1850 took place roughly 35 years earlier in Protestant countries than Catholic ones. (The researchers posited that Protestant beliefs in economic success as a sign one might get to heaven inspired people to work harder and invest.) The German economist Sascha O. Becker looked at Prussia’s economic development and found that, at least for Germany, Weber was right about the Protestant work ethic: Protestants were more likely to be entrepreneurs than Catholics, and more likely to create bigger firms.

Unsurprisingly, it seems beneficial for the economy to scare people into cultural cohesion. I imagine this is in part, besides the tax cuts, how Bush slowed down the effects of the economic recession in America. Scare all Americans with propaganda that terrorism is threatening your country and people will suddenly feel like they are ultimately connected to one another.

Catholicism, to be fair, is far better at scare tactics than Protestantism, but the latter understands individual rights and a limited but strong national government better than any other version of Christianity. If this analysis is even remotely correct, we can expect that the devastating effects of multiculturalism in Europe eventually will lead to Far Right governments that threaten its citizens with alien supremacy. Accordingly, we might finally see an end to the current economic downturn. I can already see the slogans in front of me: "Hate an immigrant, save the economy!"

Most of my relatives should know by now that our child will not be baptized in the Church (Catholic, I guess is what you'd call it). Even though I was brought up Catholic, and received sacraments all the way up to Confirmation when I was 15 years old, my wife and I opted not to marry in the church. For her part, she comes from a religious family as well, and yet her mother was supportive 100% with the idea that we do what we feel is best. Religion is hardly worth it if you feel guilted or forced into receiving some of the most precious sacraments.

While my wife's family has their share of religious zeal (luckily this is in the extended part of her family), we don't see them often. On my side, I do see my extended family somewhat frequently, so the questions are starting to pour in about baptism dates. I haven't yet had the heart to tell them that there will be no baptism, silly: if we weren't married in the church, what priest would baptize our baby anyhow? The problem is, logic doesn't apply to the people I'm dealing with.

Religion is touchy, as there are all matters of tradition, not all of it healthy, that get wrapped into that one word and idea. My mother has a gown that plenty of her family had worn during baptism. There are priests my family and my wife's family knows. There's even my own personal Catholic guilt, still rolling around back there in my mind: is it okay to not baptize the baby? Maybe we should just to be safe?

Having a child was already a life-affirming experience, and I wouldn't want to ruin that by going through the motions of a ceremony intended to save the soul of a child supposedly born with "original sin". My wife says it best: "I don't think a newborn has ever done anything wrong, so how can they say someone so young needs to be saved?" Besides, baptism used to be performed in adulthood, when one could at least make a conscious decision to be baptised or not. If my son wants to be Christian or Catholic later in life, I won't stop him, but at least it will be his choice.

Regular CORRUPT readers should by now know that I'm a big fan of Gilgamesh. One thing that early on fascinated me about Gilgamesh is how he reveals the blurry outposts of humanism. According to the Epic there are no clear boundaries between animal, human and god. If you hang out in the desert with other animals and drink water from ponds, you'll stay animal. If you fornicate with humans and acquire an understanding for friendship, empathy and civilization, you'll become human. And if you have the luck of being born by gods but still can face the idea of death, you'll become god.

Many Abrahamists falsely believe the opposite. Humans are special and different from animals--a category of creatures distinct from all other creatures on Earth. Most can't argue why, but one common argument is that animals lack morality. Now science can confirm this is just another anthropocentric myth:

Philosophical and scientific convention, of course, has pulled toward a more conservative account of morality: Morality is a capacity unique to human beings. But the more we study the behavior of animals, the more we find that different groups of animals have their own moral codes. That raises both scientific and philosophic questions.

Researchers like Frans de Waal (The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society), Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson (Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior), and Kenneth M. Weiss and Anne V. Buchanan (The Mermaid's Tale: Four Billion Years of Cooperation in the Making of Living Things) have demonstrated that animals have social lives rich beyond our imagining, and that cooperation and caring have shaped the course of evolution every bit as much as competition and ruthlessness have. Individuals form intricate networks and have a large repertoire of behavior patterns that help them get along with one another and maintain close and generally peaceful relationships. Indeed, Robert W. Sussman, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues Paul A. Garber and Jim Cheverud reported in 2005 in The American Journal of Physical Anthropology that for many nonhuman primates, more than 90 percent of their social interactions are affiliative rather than competitive or divisive. Moreover, social animals live in groups structured by rules of engagement—there are "right" and "wrong" ways of behaving, depending on the situation.

While we all recognize rules of right and wrong behavior in our own human societies, we are not accustomed to looking for them among animals. But they're there, as are the "good" prosocial behaviors and emotions that underlie and help maintain those rules. Such behaviors include fairness, empathy, forgiveness, trust, altruism, social tolerance, integrity, and reciprocity—and they are not merely byproducts of conflict but rather extremely important in their own right.

One might argue back that the morality of animals lacks the self-reflection and structured complexity of humans, which seems right, but all this really "proves" is that humans are different from other animals. When you think about it, the evolutionary view makes for a much more interesting life. You can choose to become an animal with a poorly developed morality, or aim for building culture and civilization like a real human. Instead of doing like the misanthropes and calling "immoral" people for "low-life humans," we can just call them animals, which potentially could be offending to already advanced animals.

Summarizing my religious beliefs isn't easy, because they're a mix between Nietzsche, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Norse paganism and Scandinavian Protestantism. I do know what I'm not, and that's a Catholic. Here's why.

1. During the 30-year War Europe came to recognize the Catholic Church for what it really is: a religious empire trying to centralize the whole Western culture to Italy. 'Nuff said about that. Protestantism means nationalism, means national independence, means room for real tradition and diversity.

2. While Catholics regard every human life as holy, Protestants are less whiny about things. They mourn genocide, war and exploitation, but they're fine with abortion as long as it's motivated on sensible grounds. The Protestant God believes we can spare a few million lives, and the planet will still be OK. My guess is that he reads Pentti Linkola.

3. Many Catholics are uptight about sex before marriage, and sex in general. Protestants see this pleasurable activity for what it ultimately is: not some holy ceremony never to be stained by filth, but natural reproduction of the species (notice how the Pope only recently had to put the cards on the table and admit the theory of evolution seems like a credible idea, after all). Protestants stress marriage while promoting condom use, meaning you might as well have fun if you're going to do it more often. Smart Protestants sometimes skip the rubber and decide to have a family.

4. Catholics are often very anthropocentric. Only humans matter, because they possess godlike morality, unlike animals and flowers, who are basically just here for our godlike use. Protestants think a bit further ahead: humanity might be fantastic (at times it might be), but without a clean environment we're going to be neither godlike or moral much longer. Put simply, Protestants recognize the larger picture, while Catholics don't. God only gave us one planet. That's the Protestant argument for greenism right there.

5. Many convert to Catholicism because it's traditionalist in nature, even if some (Mel Gibson, are you reading this?) believe the current Pope is a fraud. Protestantism, they say, is some liberal-multicultural-greenist-democratic-feminist garbage sect composed of false Christians. Okay, there's some truth to that; the Protestant Church in Sweden, and elsewhere, has lost much of its authority and direction. But this is not due to Protestantism itself, but because of the current cultural and religious climate in Scandinavia. Note that Catholicism, too, went modern after the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. The Pope occasionally smokes dope and declares Islam the great threat of the West, but apart from his sudden bursts of conservatism, Christianity as a whole is moving toward modernization. This is a cultural development that needs to be addressed independently, which brings me to the next point.

6. In Catholicism, you are dependent upon the Pope and the Church of Rome. That's the spiritual epicenter of Catholicism. Protestants early on bypassed both Church and State, after recognizing that both were subject to corruption and sodomy. Even though Sweden clearly exchanged tyranny of the Pope with tyranny of the nation State (soon to be welfare State), Luther had it right: just read the damn Bible and find meaning in what it says. You don't need some Nanny authority to become a Christian. If Luther was alive today, he'd be a Conservative, probably reading CORRUPT.

7. Catholics, including those who are satisfied with the modern Catholic Church, enjoy a heavy dose of spiritual baroque. Protestants think in simple terms and don't need extravagant masses to feel religious. Spirituality embodies itself through your actions and devotions. Anything else is fashion and art, which is nice, but nonetheless baroque.

8. This one is obvious but very important for me: the Protestant Church respects the individual. I'm not a collectivist. It's extremely important to recognize family, culture and nation (and tyrant, if there is one). You're not a desert island. But I need a church that respects my individual choices and don't fill me up with propaganda about how I'm sinning if I tell my girlfriend to abort a to-become-a-handicapped fetus, or if I've discovered Jesus in my bedroom when drinking too much beer. I need space for individuality.

With apologies to Martin.

I'm not exactly a declinist who believes things are getting worse and worse; some are getting worse but some are getting better. A few days ago, however, I ran into a clear sign that morals are in a severe decline, even among older religious women.

I had done a favor for a friend's wife, like most of the favors I do for people involving moving heavy things. Once all the heavy things had been successfully moved, the woman's aunt expressed her deep gratitude in the words "May God repay you in women". "Women" meaning more than one, which has certain implications in a Christian country where monogamy is the law. I suppose the traditional "may God repay you in children" doesn't really work in a wealthier society where many people are not interested in having children, but still it's very odd to think God would be interested in rewarding me with lots of premarital and/or extramarital sex.

This is either a sign that morality has truly fallen into the gutter or a sign that people say funny things when it's six in the morning and they haven't slept much.

I'm not all that interested in Hitler or the latest theories about Hitler's mindset, but the idea that Hitler would have done a whole lot less evil had he not loved art and considered himself an artistic genius is an interesting one. Not because of what it says about Hitler but because of what it says about artists.

In my opinion, people have underestimated the notion that Hitler considered himself an artist, in fact, an artistic genius, and that much can be deduced from this self-image, this overheated artist's ego. However, this has hardly played a role in the research to date. That's the starting point, from my perspective, because it can help us gain a better understanding of Hitler as a person, as well as his system of power. Hitler's deluded view of himself as a genius is based on the confused system of thought emerging in the late 19th century, which centered on the idea that a genius -- a strong personality who outshone everything else -- could do anything and could do anything he pleased.

Many artists certainly do feel themselves to be higher beings compared to the dull and ignorant mass of humanity. It's basically the same unchecked egomania as behind Plato's analogy of the cave, only even more groundless. Rainer Maria Rilke described the feeling quite eloquently in "Vorgefühl", here in English translation by Jessie Lemont:

PRESAGING

I am like a flag unfurled in space,
I scent the oncoming winds and must bend with them,
While the things beneath are not yet stirring,
While the doors close gently and there is silence in the chimneys
And the windows do not yet tremble and the dust is still heavy---

Then I feel the storm and am vibrant like the sea
And expand and withdraw into myself
And thrust myself forth and am alone in the great storm.

Once you see yourself that way, the leap to considering yourself above the rules of morality which bind non-artists is not a big one. Chesterton also wrote about this eloquently, though from the perspective of an outsider who sees that it is a bunch of nonsense.

There were some who seemed to hold that any artistic experiment, however anarchical or abnormal, or manifestly and even medically insane, had a mysterious right of its own to override any social custom or convenience, any common-sense or ordinary civic dignity. The artistic experiment had this right because it was an artistic experiment; not even because the art was artistic; still less because the experiment was successful. Even the worst play must take precedence of the best law. If the artists had wanted to have real blood in their murders, as some other artists used real mud on their landscapes, one can only suppose that these critics would have agreed to sacrifice a few human lives to the thrill of realism. If the actor-manager were working on the old lavish scale, he might be encouraged to turn the theatre into an amphitheatre. He might make a feature of real lions, which would be expensive; and real Christians, who would be rare.

Anyhow, the theory of the thing seemed to be that supreme spiritual authority in this world belongs to art, or rather, to anybody who chooses to say that he is attempting something new in art. I was never able to accept this highly modern and credulous conception; because I am unable to imagine any human being accepting any authority that he has not originally reached by reason. And I cannot conceive what reason there could possibly be for accepting the authority of artists; not to mention bad artists.

I don't think we can ever return to the pre-Romantic days when artists were not treated like priests or demigods, but if we could it surely would make the world a better place. People who consider themselves geniuses and therefore above all human law are not something we need more of, even if very very few of them reach Hitlerian levels of power.

We are a week into the muslim holy month of Ramadan, begun at the 22nd of August. My family and I have been fasting from food and water from roughly 4am to 8pm, dawn to sunset. It is a long time to do it but that's one of the many little prices to pay as a muslim living in the UK. As well as this, attempting to fast from sinful actions and thoughts: swearing, raising voices, gambling and so on. If I was married in the company of my husband, I would also have to fast from his touch. The women also opt for more modesty: covering up more, opting for subdued colours perhaps, eschewing makeup and not applying perfume.

We do this through for thirty days every year by the Islamic Hijri calendar, which means Ramadan arrives a week or two earlier every year by the Gregorian calendar.

Ramadan is a time of practicing one's ability of restraint. Once you've done it because it is mandatory for you to do so, your self obtains a certain power: knowing that you can abstain. I've known people to do this in many contexts: stopping a habit to see if they can stop. Related to this is that smokers cannot smoke while fasting, either.

It gives you an empathy with those experiencing the states of hunger and thirst. Both in the context of deprivation and addiction. Although with the latter, you come to a better understanding of how much of it lies in willpower and motivation. Giving up something for a day isn't the same as attempting to give it up for a lifetime.

It is a time of spiritual reflection and self-assessment. How strong is your body, your mind and your spiritual and moral self. It is a tradition within many families including mine to read the whole of the Quran within this month in thirty parts (the divisions for these thirty parts are pre-marked) at the rate of a part of a day, doubling up towards the end in order to do the khatm -- the completion of reading the Quran -- on the 27th night, where the fateful night, Lailat al Qadr, is meant to fall. I've not started myself, having been slow to get into the Ramadan routine. Each time I read the Quran, it's a new revelation: there's so much content to meditate over and digest in the book. One can't contemplate it all -- that is an exercise requiring a much longer timeframe -- but each time, there are some parts I pause over and perhaps look up the tafsir (further explanations and interpretations of the verse of interest).

Typically, those who have lapsed religiously, given the example of praying reestablish these habits. This is part of highlighting what is very useful about Ramadan and the actions associated with the month: the spiritual and moral self is or should be uppermost in the mind and examined. Am I a good person? Have I been living up to my values? Where are my weaknesses, usually highlighted in what do I find most difficult about fasting?

A month devoted to the focus of value-based self-examination and perhaps a focus on your spirituality, aided by selected reading -- what you consider your Quran(s) if you will -- is something I would recommend for any human being who wishes to give meaning and structure in their life, being content with yourself or your path of development.

The month also solidifies familial relations as well as larger social ones. There is great ajr -- divine rewards -- in providing the iftaar (breakfast i.e. breaking the fast) meal for a person who is fasting. Socialising occurs around this. Traditions born of the new age with Ramadan is to watch TV shows together before and after iftaar specifically made to fit in with the 30 day schedule of it, with a new episode every day. These cover various subjects in the Arab world. My favourites are those with historical content.

Overall, I enjoy this month to quite an extent: quality family and socialising time with everyone on their best behaviour, the opportunity to moralise gently (I will admit I can find this fun in a playful manner), good TV shows, good food (much more effort is put into iftaar meals) and feeling good about my self: my abilities, my spirituality and the blessings in my life highlighted by the consciousness that those plagued with real, perpetual hunger and thirst -- psychological or physical -- cannot share.

We have a tendency to think that whenever someone belongs to certain group or movement, that person's actions must always be the result of motivations related to that group or movement in question. I don't know what philosophers would call this, so I give it the term "the Freudian fallacy," meaning you attribute special motives to ordinary actions.

Yesterday I was talking on the phone while trying to get something to drink. A Muslim woman at the dormitory was doing the dishes, when I held a glass in one hand and was trying to persuade her to switch to cold water and give me some. She suddenly looked at me and seemed both nervous and upset, as if I had violated something, so I was given hot water that splashed everywhere. I didn't complain--water is water.

Realizing that she wasn't supposed to eat or drink from sunup to sundown, I figured maybe she'd thought I was trying to mock her or something. A motivation a bit too sentimental to appear on my radar. Asking her later on what this was all about, she said she felt I was rude when trying to get in between while she was occupied with the dishes. And I said to myself: "Aye, Muslims are human, too."

These days you hear a great variety of ideas of what needs to be done with our financial systems, but this one is completely hopeless:

You know things are getting grim when sophisticated economists writing in the Financial Times begin contemplating Biblical solutions. Here we have Willem Buiter, who ably relates the general failure of governmental policies since the Crash, and concludes by proposing a Jubilee on household debt.

Yeah, sure, let's try that and see where it gets us. Once you start to run the finance industry according to Biblical principles all the best minds will leave no matter how much you offer to pay them. What the hell would be the point of being a wealthy banker if you can't invest your income in annoying your neighbors with your ostentatious new mansion, getting hammered on bottle service in expensive bars until the morning light, trading in your wife for a younger and hotter one, and other rather un-Biblical things? Who would want to be a banker then?

Amsterdam, Holland - A Dutch court has ruled in favour of a group of 4 alleged Satanists, who were charged with the premeditated murder of an unborn foetus in the context of a ritual sacrifice. The Satan-worshippers were discovered in April in the crypt of an Amersfoort cemetery while performing the ‘rite’. Although they don’t deny that the abortion was performed in the context of a ritual baby-sacrifice, they didn’t break any laws, was argued in their defence. They were found not-guilty on the grounds that the cemetery is on public land, that all persons present were willing participants, and that it is “not nor ever will it be dictated by law what a woman must do with her own body. [...] As long as the sacrifice is performed according to medical standards of practice and doesn’t violate any other laws, there can be no legal objection. This is a court of law, not a church.”

The defending attorney closed with these bold remarks:
“The growing population of Satanists is swiftly approaching that of other minority religions in this country. We have to take their rights seriously, even if their practices seem to us archaic, insensitive, and dare I say, un-Western. To deny them the right of child sacrifice – as practiced in accordance with existing laws – would be like denying a Christian the right to hold mass. This is blatant discrimination. You wouldn’t ask a wolf, however politely, to become a vegetarian. [...] Birth and death are very often given a religious context. It doesn’t matter what that context is, so long as the law is upheld.”

The “doctor” in the incident (a retired surgeon) may still be charged separately with medical malpractice, as he was operating with an expired license. He plans to defend himself on the grounds that the state did not make sufficient provisions for the practise of his religion, which drove him to conceal his actions. The law does provide for medical procedures to be performed outside of a hospital, but this usually applies to emergencies. However, the religious context of the procedure “puts this case in a whole new playing field,” as one commentator observed. He says this was the first time he had participated in this kind of sacrificial rite, but that it is “much more common than people think. I’m not some kind of extremist.” He also plans to file a counter-suit for libel.

More and more Westerners are waking up to a monocultural nightmare and find themselves searching for their roots. What they discover is that we cannot return to the past, but that we are able to revive traditions in a modern context. If you are neo-Pagan, high on nature, and embrace ancient monuments, here's one way to do it:

Pagans and partygoers drummed, danced or gyrated in hula hoops to stay awake through the night, as more than 35,000 people greeted the summer solstice Sunday at the ancient stone circle of Stonehenge.

"There has been a great atmosphere and where else would you want to be on midsummer's day?" said Peter Carson of English Heritage, the body in charge of Stonehenge.

"It's kind of a pilgrimage," she said. "As a sculptor, I can't help being interested in the stones — they're historic, spiritual — people went to a huge effort to put them here not anywhere else. Why here? And why this configuration? It's fascinating."

I'm unsure how serious some of these people are, looking at the video the reporter made, but at least they've managed to draw a large amount of public attention to an ancient place that bears a wealth of mystical meaning. Maybe we shouldn't try to be hardline traditionalists, but instead try to explain how tradition can be made relevant to modern people and their current lifestyles. Maybe Stonehenge is an ancient crossroad for people to meet and seek unifying purpose in life.

For those of us who not only enjoy old monuments, but also like to take part of old food traditions, the world of alcohol is a fascinating place. These Norwegian beer brewers seem to know what they're talking about:

We at Nøgne Ø are still homebrewers at heart, and as such, proud of our long forgotten traditions. Recently, we did a couple of fun events to promote homebrewing, and to facilitate an arena for meeting and creating networks of homebrewers.

On March 21st, 20 of us met up again, this time with friends and family members, a total of 40. 24 beers were submitted to be assessed by a judging panel. The evening was a great party, with lots of first class high quality beers. Best saison was made by Olav Hodne. Most creative brew was made by Tarjei Sel.

As a commitment to our homebrewing background, we have promised to brew and sell the winner of the Norwegian national homebrewing championship 2009. The winner was announced on March 28th: Andrimne Barley Wine, brewed by Gahr Smith-Gahrsen. We will get back to you with more information on the date for brewing this rich and fruity English style barley wine.

Unfortunately I don't have much experience with Norwegian beer in particular, but knowing from their grogs, which they typically store in sherrybarrels, they seem to have a tendency to appreciate sweeter flavors in contrast to the southern Swedish tradition to which I belong (we prefer raw, organic flavors and less fruitiness). However, no one says no to a well-cooled Nukie Brown Ale on a late evening at a local bar. So tradition is living on, still, despite a globalized world in which we're all trying to fit into an monocultural society. Have a beer and cheer up!

With the debate around my post on American religiosity in mind, I just stumbled across this article on reason vs. faith:

In 1802 Georg W.F. Hegel wrote an impassioned treatise on faith and reason, articulating the major philosophical conflict of the day. Among European intellectual circles, the Enlightenment credo, which celebrated the "sovereignty of reason," had recently triumphed. From that standpoint, human intellect was a self-sufficient measure of the true, the just, and the good. The outlook's real target, of course, was religion, which the philosophers viewed as the last redoubt of delusion and superstition. Theological claims, they held, could only lead mankind astray. Once the last ramparts of unreason were breached — our mental Bastilles, as it were — sovereign reason would take command and, presumably, human perfection would not be long in coming.

Taylor contrives a new "faith based" lexicon of social criticism to indict the multifarious shortcomings of a secular age. In his view, modernity's "crisis of meaning" has reached grave and epidemic proportions. As denizens of a fallen world, we systematically lack commitments and allegiances that transcend the narrow confines of our own monadic egos. Our social existence has withered to the point where we have become a mass of atomized, "buffered" selves — living caricatures of Descartes's shallow, epistemological solipsism, ego cogito sum. As social beings we are incapable of creating cohesive and lasting bonds. For this reason, we have become incapable of community.

But from a narrowly neo-Darwinian perspective, it is impossible to account for religion's indispensable role in forming the higher ideals that, as a species, help to make us genuinely civilized. Historically, religious ideals have inspired agape, compassion, selflessness, brotherly and sisterly love, community, and numerous good works. They have spurred political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Desmond Tutu to oppose oppression and champion the cause of social equality. Religious conviction provided the moral suasion behind the 19th-century antislavery movement and has been a spur to numerous instances of humanitarian intervention.

This debate is mostly nonsense and here is why: science is not a metaphysical or ethical discipline. A scientist doesn't develop ethical guidelines or speak about the fundamental metaphysical nature of reality. These are academically the fields of moral and theoretical philosophy. Both disciplines have historically embraced both scientific and religious ideas, and continue to do so. In other words, the people who debate this issue don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about.

The ancients knew better: science has got one role, religion has got another. No, science didn't give us affirmative action or the Egyptian pyramids, because scientists don't work with racism or build with stone blocks. Similarly, priests haven't brought us electricity or computers. Science advances our empirical understanding of reality. Religion offers spirituality, moral guidelines, and community services. Comprende?

Looking at it from this perspective you quickly come to realize that this so called "reason vs. faith" debate is a confused idea about the role of science and religion in society. Only in a progressive world dominated by crowdism could we commit such a mistake, and pretend it's the biggest problem since the Enlightenment.

O'Reilly, as always acting like an uptight asshole with no convincing arguments, here blasts Richard Dawkins in an interview about atheism:

The anti-atheist phenomenon in America is hardly limited to Fox News. About 45 % of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Compare this with Sweden, where teachers are banned from teaching creationism in schools.

Where does this religiosity in America come from? Why didn't it follow the atheist path after its British patriarch? A small glimpse into the personal history of the revolutionary Thomas Paine provides us with an answer:

So impassioned was Paine that he enlisted himself in the colonists’ fight for freedom, serving as aide-de-camp to an American general. He became a trusted adviser to Washington, coming to the practical and ideological defence of the colonists with a series of pamphlets under the umbrella title of The Crisis. These galvanised resistance and were responsible for stabilising the army’s morale when it was on the point of collapse. Paine received the gratitude of the American nation and a number of states granted him pensions or gave him gifts in kind.

During the troubled early years of the 1790s Paine wrote another of his most enduring works, The Age of Reason. This was intended to undermine the pretensions of established religion and the structures associated with it.

Paine eventually returned to America in 1802 to discover that he was no longer a hero. He had quarrelled with Washington and this was remembered by those who revered the country’s first president after his death in 1799. Paine’s anti-Christian views were also extremely unpopular and were more readily recalled than his earlier exertions for the young republic.

This is interesting, because despite the fact that Washington was a Christian, Paine could in theory have managed to persuade him also on religious matters, altering America's views on religion forever. But Paine's revolutionary thoughts were too radical for the country he had helped achieve independence, and so Europe developed through the age of Enlightenment in a different way than America. Today we see the fruits of this: while Americans swear their oaths to God, Europeans mainly place their faith in science. Two religions born out of the same age of reason.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

People often refer to the Bible when they assert a historical context, but what they forget is to anchor the Bible, especially the Old Testament, in its proper mythological context. But what context is that? Well, unsurprisingly, it's immensely diverse. But if you really want to get to the root of it, you need to become acquainted with the ancient Sumerians and their religion. The central literary achievement of the Sumerian religious culture is without doubt the epic of Gilgamesh (read it online here)--a fragmented but largely recovered piece of literature that is humanity's oldest.

The story is divided into series of adventures in which we follow the Sumerian king Gilgamesh and his personal journey to self-enlightenment. He starts out as a ruthless and sexually frustrated ruler, upsetting the people of Uruk, where he reigns. Eventually the gods are forced to intervene and send down a creature named Enkidu. Enkidu is not yet a man, but thanks to some sexual activity with the local whore (children, go to bed!), he transforms into a human being.

The epic unfolds with great interest as Enkidu and Gilgamesh, after some macho fighting, team up to create fame for themselves. Disobeying the usual warnings from the elderly, they decide to kill the demon Humbaba. Of course, with some divine power, they succeed, but after having pissed off Ishtar, who's hot for Gilgamesh, the gods decide that the brave heroes must pay with Enkidu's death. Gilgamesh mourns his best friend and realizes he, too, will die.

Gilgamesh decides to seek immortality out of sheer desperation, which eventually leads him to the god Utnapishtim. During this encounter Utnapishtim spells out the classic Flood myth - which later became part of the creation myth of the Old Testament - and brutally informs us that death is real for every one of us, period. To say the least, Gilgamesh feels let down, but no less than twice is he offered immortality by Utnapishtim. Of course, Gilgamesh fails to live up the requirements to achieve this, and so he changes his perspective on life.

The existential conclusion echoes with Sumerian spiritual stoicism: don't worry about death, make sure you become a decent citizen, and protect your culture and civilization at all costs. Gilgamesh is finally free, despite death. The epic of Gilgamesh is a wonderful story and a deeply humanitarian remnant of a once great civilization, before it was occupied by foreign tribes. The language in the epic is surprisingly simple and modern, yet it's written in such a way that the adventures unfold like poetry.

If I had to pick my personal bible, this is it. It's condensed common sense in an entertaining and artistic form, so down to earth that it speaks truth undogmatically, but it’s so intriguing and at the same time so mystical that the best parts remain mysteriously inaccessible. The older I get, the more I find myself reading parts of this epic now and then, if nothing else to remind myself to make my life count as much as Gilgamesh did. When you fully understand this epic, you will begin to regard the Old Testament as merely a historical and mythological sequel.

From a 2006 Charles Murray speech:

When all is said and done, there are just four institutions through which human beings imbue their lives with meaning: vocation, family, community, and faith.

It is not necessary for any individual to make use of all four. Some people live deeply fulfilled lives who are in love with their vocation and are indifferent to family, community, and faith. Others live for spouse and children. For others, faith is everything. I do not array the four institutions in a hierarchy. I merely assert that these four are all there are. If the human beings in a society are to pursue happiness, those four institutions must be vital and rich, for it is through them that happiness is pursued. Seen in this light, the purpose of government is to ensure that they are vital and rich.
And here comes the paradox: The only way that government can achieve that goal is leaving those institutions alone—protecting them against predators, yes, but otherwise leaving them alone.

. . .

The more government tries to help, the feebler these institutions become. The explanation for the paradox is simple. The real problem with the welfare state is not that it is inefficient in dealing with social needs (though it is), nor that it is ineffectual in dealing with them (though it is), nor even that it exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (as it does). The real problem with the welfare state is that it drains too much of the life from life. Children do not become deep sources of satisfaction despite the difficulties of raising them, but because of them. A vocation does not become a deep source of satisfaction because it is easy, but because it is challenging. A community does not become a deep source of satisfaction because it is subsidized, but because it has responsibilities that only the community can meet.

The modus operandi of the welfare state is to say, “We’ll take the trouble out of that” when “the trouble” it wants to take out is in fact not trouble at all, but the stuff of life—the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, dealing with adversity, applauding the good, and scorning the bad—coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness.

It is no surprise that the advanced world has evolved toward the welfare state. It is human nature, especially in the early stages of life, to take the easy way out if the easy way out is offered. But, thankfully, it is also human nature for adults to think about what constitutes a life well-lived. The clichés of American English reflects the lessons we mature—“nothing worth having comes easily,” “I pull my own weight,” “he’s a stand-up guy,” “you take out what you put into it.” There is a reason clichés become clichés: They express truths. In this case, the truth is that for life to have meaning, one’s life must be spent doing important things, challenging things, and taking responsibility for them.

I do not think that what I have just said falls in the category of an argument that has to be made. It falls in the category of things that all of us instinctively understand.

HT: EconLog commenter bgc

A commenter on roissy's blog asked me about my Islamic perspective and it seems this readership is curious about this (some for the purposes of annihilating it, if possible!).

Are you a virgin?

Yes. However, I have been with one boy physically in other ways. I don't intend to let that be repeated. For now, it's between God and me on whether that's forgivable.

How does reading this blog jive with your religion?

Of course reading and commenting on it seems sinful to a relatively minor extent. However, it's a really useful excercise in terms of religious beliefs because it helps me understand the psychology of muslims and the Islamic world in a reverse-engineered way -- the thoughts they wouldn't voice or the the attitudes they would have if they weren't born muslims. I get a much better understanding of the Islamic model and the way it works: the issues it addresses and raises in terms of contrasts to Western models. Some commenters on the blog call for Islamic values (or their preconceptions of what these are) or oppose them, and it's interesting to see why. It wierdly gives a greater understanding of the way and the motivations behind how some muslims abuse or rationalise violations of their religion and others practice it the way it is ideally practiced.

Do you believe the Muslim religion to be the right religion?

On the deep place where the feeling -- the rightness -- of belief lies. Yes. It is the right religion for me. From my worldview and perspective, I find it impossible to reject as the explanation for the world I live in. I wanted to and have struggled to, but it is the truth in the way of taking its path is the right way. This is from the personal evidence -- which is what matters when it comes to religion -- in that whenever its tenets are violated, a price is visibly extracted. Whenever I adhere to them, everything makes sense and benefits occur. Intellectually or mentally, I can acknowledge (blasphemously, likely) that this could be some sort of bias or self-fulfilling mechanism in that I influence events so that they fit the Islamic model. I can also acknowledge that there is a possibility it's not the right religion. However, this is in dissonance with the fact that from my everyday experience, I feel and see Islam and God behind everything. When I think of the afterlife, I react with immediate fear of hell that speaks of core belief.

If you don't have this underlying belief and don't find it when exposed to Islamic theory or the Quran and its teachings, then I don't know if it's the right religion for you. There are two non-exclusive explanations:

• Islam's not the right religion. My belief is because I am biased due to somehow being deeply conditioning myself with an Islamic worldview (despite struggling and wanting to reject it, because life would be easier for a sinner like me that way).
• You have what Islamic teachings call the 'hardening of heart', if I recall correctly: possibilities include you have created your own version of reality which speaks without doubts to your logic, it would be too costly or traumatic to switch to a different model of belief (or simply unimaginable), you blame or actively hate Islam (or religion as a whole), you cannot suspend your disbelief.

I'm human and acknowledge my limitations here. It's impossible enough for me to be clever or unbiased enough to say what religious model of belief is correct or the truth. From the perspective of applying things: Islam is the way, and it is something that I wish to implictly show people by example because I don't see how forcing it down anyone's throat works. They can see for themselves its effectiveness, contrasting to their own belief model or others. If you personally see the light, then that's how it becomes right. Adopting Islam in name doesn't make you automatically in the right, there's the way you practice it and actually there's confusion about that. How can imperfect human beings practice perfection, if it exists?

You are an adult and wish to be a medical doctor- so does a strict adherence this religion suit you?

Theoretically speaking, all I do has to suit my religion rather than it suiting me, because negative consequences occuring if I violate this is the truth from my perspective. I find my personal ethics to be in line with it, although there can be differences. For example, I can't picture performing an abortion procedure of any sort, even though -- as I understand it -- Islamic scholars put forward an argument that it is permissible within the first three months of pregnancy. I can't do it in any of the cases where it's legally mandated here, and this is a personal emotional thing with partly religious motivations, and that's something I'm willing to give up my career over.

Still, I'm going to treat all those who need treatment in a non-discriminatory manner and that's going to involve scenarios which could arguably be not permissible (example: touching men). I'm going to have to roll up my sleeves to be in line with infection control procedures and wear scrubs by the rules. In order to avoid this, the option is to move to an Islamic country, which I don't intend to do. Is God displeased with me over this? I don't know. Hopefully I'll get guidance through my own conscience. Am I going to experience the negative consequences of violating some Islamic guidance? Only way to know is find out.

At the moment, I'm not being completely strict as a muslim. I lapsed for a while (being in denial about my belief) and am in the process of renewing my Islamic knowledge and completeness of my faith. There's also disagreement on how to separate out what the meaning of the scripture is and what is not which makes it hard to say whether practicing medicine in a non-Islamic country excuses any compromises that have to occur for that to happen. God knows my intentions and how much is derived from Islamic motivations, including how much is not.

Do you resent the religion and how it excuses male’s treatment for females as second class citizens?

That's based on the presupposition that I have the view it subjects or excuses women to that kind of treatment. The Islamic model is based on that a man is the head of the family -- there is great importance placed on having a family and the ties of family -- and thus by extension, a leader in most things. It is his responsibility to provide for the family, to protect them, to defend what's his, to maintain order and to do this all in a moral, caring manner. In this sense, he is responsible for the welfare of women and not only his women but also the way other women (and men) in his community are dealt with too. There is a different expectation on gender roles and this has merit based on biology as well, a lot of this perfects what humans naturally do: reproduce, be conscious of what benefits your group as well as yourself as individual and ensure survival of your genetic (and also -- in this case -- religious) material by having plenty of progeny, caring for them and allowing them to inherit the lifestyle model that allowed you to reproduce yourself. A woman's primary expected role then is to care for and produce children as well as forming a partnership with her husband in educating each other as well as safeguarding their faith with each other. It is undeniable that the man in her life has the final say but the ideal Islamic perspective is that this final decision is informed by what everyone needs and what everyone's best interests actually are. It's Islamically immoral to cause people pain for selfish gains. He is not Islamically allowed to do anything he wishes.

The ethical dilemma then comes to those who don't naturally fit into these expected gender roles or wish to do more. As far as I know, there are no Islamic restrictions on this (despite rather modern exaggerations of restricting contact of men with women), with examples in the Prophet's (PBUH) time of women who went to battle or were in business. Women who don't want to get married are viewed disfavourably by Islam (although I have no information on whether there is a punishment in Islamic theory assigned to this) as well as men who don't want to get married. Women who can't reproduce can be divorced, although the more favourable option is to keep her as a wife and have another one. The belief is that women and men are equal in the judgment of God, and have they both done what they were supposed to do (which may be different), for the wellbeing of everyone?

Now to answer the real question: I do resent muslims who abuse the religion and use it as an excuse to treat women as second class citizens. That is a clear corruption of its tenets, from my perspective.

It is important not to mistake the state, a religion or the culture of the people operating within these as the same thing. They are seperate entities. To paraphrase one convert *: 'Thank God I found Islam before I knew muslims.' His reminder videos* are an example of common misapplications of Islamic theory (and he's also one funny guy).

As having lived in an Arab society and with the clear view of retrospection, I can see that I occasionally saw and hated instances of treating women unfairly or abusing them. In all cases, they were Islamically incompatible and made me turn more to Islam, rather than less.

*Edited to Add: Note that you can access the videos from Google Video if they're unavailable on youtube.

The suppression
of female sexuality is (almost by definition) a
cultural phenomenon, and so if the next generation
of theorists seeks to revitalize sociocultural
theorizing about sexuality, it may benefit
by considering some major cultural events, such
as the sexual revolution and the suppression that
it defeated.

My attention was drawn to this paper (Full PDF available via e-mail here). I'm treating it with caution, due to possibly feminist perspectives acting as a drive behind it, evident in its introduction:

According to Sherfey’s (1966) respected
statement of this view, the sex drive of the
human female is naturally and innately stronger
than that of the male, and it once posed a
powerfully destabilizing threat to the possibility
of social order. For civilized society to develop,
it was allegedly necessary or at least helpful for
female sexuality to be stifled. Countless women
have grown up and lived their lives with far less
sexual pleasure than they would have enjoyed in
the absence of this large-scale suppression.

When suppression of female sexuality is mentioned, people think immediately of Islam and muslims.

In some cases, surgical procedures have been
used to prevent women from enjoying sex.
From some perspectives, these societal forces
have deprived most individual women of their
natural capacity to enjoy multiple orgasms and
intimate gratifications. Women have felt that
they are not permitted by society to express
their sexual feelings or even to enjoy sex in
many contexts.

However, Islamic theory condemns sexuality from both men and women outside of the context of Islamic marriage, largely encouraging it within marriage itself:

The double standard of sexual morality has
condemned certain sexual activities by women
while permitting the identical actions for men.

The double standard that might immediately come to mind for me is in permitting polygamy. There is no Islamic justification I know of that allows for female circumcision or other such measures. Fasting's one of the strategies used to help with controlling sexual desire, again, for both sexes (If you're suffering, try it!).

However, a perspective not really present in Islamic theory will not stop cultural ideas forming about it in ostensibly muslim countries, especially among the deprived classes.

There are rules present surrounding Islamic marriage that are concerned with ensuring male paternity. This is a universal desire by men and not solely an Islamic one, to invest in children from their own genetic material (or at least be aware if they are not), and this could explain to some extent an attempt by men to suppress a female's sexual desires; an asexual female is a loyal one. I'm not personally satisfied with this argument wholly: another method is to ensure she only desires you, which requires strategies that could have easily evolved as well.

On a wider scale, however, men not interested in raising children have no motivation in this and most young males are not. This eliminates the male cuckoldry model as a complete justification for a female sexuality suppressing culture; those who are not influenced by it it also pass on their genes.

Still, it's interesting to note who enforces the limitations on being sexual. On the surface, it is easy to lay this at the hands of men, citing the evidence of honour killings and the classic father figure stereotype who cannot tolerate a sexal daughter.

How does this hold up in terms of real life experience? While not favoured by men, it can be explained away by their discomfort with the loss of control it implies for them; simply put, they want it. Generally: modern men use sexual females and -- the unspoken traditionalism! -- don't favour it in their partners. If they do favour it, they often learn not to. There's a duality of attitude here common but inevitable. A man shouldn't deny his nature, embrace it, understand it then when this full understanding, choose to reject it. The final fact is, however, that regardless of how women act (the madonna pedestal or the whore as extremes), a man will find a use for her and often have no problem compartmentalising the two in different women. Men want women and will want them for their ends regardless of reproduction, nurture, status or sex. The men I've observed have taken advantage of sexual behaviour – encouraging it and enjoying its benefits – and asexual behaviour – using it as a measure for a partner and finding satisfaction in the challenge or being the only one. They may even use both: simultaneously passively or actively condemning sexuality in a long-term partner and taking advantage of it for short-term encounters, in the typical human hypocritical way.

The question then, to ask, is who gains the most out of a sexless society? One argument postulated is that it is women themselves. There is a certain freedom for women in knowing there is no real availability for what he needs or wants elsewhere and that all he wants out of women must be fulfilled with you:

Women might be able to garner two kinds of
benefits from restricting the supply of sex available
to men. First, women in general might be
able to extract better treatment and other resources
from men. This idea assumes that men
are willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain
sex and will often do roughly the minimum
amount that is required. This echoes the traditional
grandmotherly advice against premarital
sex, colloquially expressed in the metaphoric
terms that a man who can get free milk will not
buy the cow. The harder it is for men to obtain
sex, the more they will be willing to offer
women in return. Social exchange theory emphasizes
that a broad range of social rewards
may be involved in such exchanges, including
money, gifts, long-term relationship commitment,
fair treatment, sexual fidelity, and conforming
to expectations. Sexual scarcity improves
women’s bargaining position with respect
to all of these rewards.

Second, widespread suppression of female
sexuality reduces the risk that each woman will
lose her male lover to another woman. Throughout
history (and apparently very often today as
well), men have been willing to leave one
woman for another, especially when the new
one is sexually more appealing.

This should be in line with your experience. The concept of a sexual woman as a villainess, as being at fault for being 'the other woman', the ease with which women condemn each other for their behaviour in the frame of gossip and insults, the insecurity of a woman not judging a more attractive woman:

This is not necessarily maliciously motivated, but out of concern for the sake of preserving the nuclear family and male loyalty:

The other women will therefore put pressure on
the so-called cheap woman to raise her price
and demand more in exchange, not only for the
woman’s own sake but for the sake of all of the
women in that community.

This is the sort of
process with which monopolistic cartels constantly
struggle: The group is better off if everyone
holds the high price, but any individual
member can gain immediate advantage by cutting
the price slightly.

Prostitution
and pornography can be regarded as a kind of
inexpensive competition that could potentially
undermine women’s monopoly on access to sex
(Cott, 1979).

Women oppose prostitution, consistent
with the idea that it might represent a threat
to their own position and bargaining power.
This line of analysis is further confirmed by
evidence that the sexual revolution was resisted
and deplored by prostitutes. Several sources
have reported that prostitutes angrily and disdainfully
criticized “charity girls” who had sex
with men without charging them money, because
the availability of such free sex weakened
the prostitutes’ own ability to obtain money for
sex and thereby to make a living.

The most compelling evidence, in our view,
involved the direct influences on adolescent female
sexuality, because any culture that wanted
to suppress female sexuality would probably
direct its strongest efforts toward newly pubescent
females. These data uniformly supported
the female control theory: Almost all influences
on female adolescent sexuality are female, and
the sole male influence (the boyfriend) tends to
operate to promote rather than suppress female
sexuality.

Since for some men, one woman can be an unrealistic model, polygamy is interesting as a solution.

The design for only obtaining sex and other forms of wonderful intimacy upon marriage and not before, implies a lot of investment in the female before true access. In the example of traditional Islamic law as well as Western law, women and children also have to be supported through the relationship and after a divorce.

Men as a group, on the other hand, seem to lose out in some ways from suppressing female sexuality. They are less likely to obtain sexual pleasures and gaining them requires more in terms of investment in time, money and risks taken. In compensation for this, the following may occur:

To put it simply: The less
money (and other resources) women have, the
lower the price they will accept for sex.

Perhaps paradoxically, women suppressing female sexuality for the sake of genetic survival results in men suppressing all other aspects of female acheivement to keep the price affordable for what they want. This goes some way to explaining motivations for inequality between the sexes.

The current model of the West, wherein sexual revolution has occurred and a level of equality established, has also resulted in a blow to the model of the monogamist and nurturing nuclear family. Decreased birth rates and easily broken up family units, as well as a high price for the mere act of marriage from the male point of view in return for little benefits or vanishing religious motivation is an inevitable byproduct of a lack of restraint in terms of female sexuality and an assertion of equal rights for women. It is a price that has been paid, no change comes for free.

What can we learn from this discussion? In terms of applying it to a Western structure, the motivations for a man engaging in a long-term relationship with a woman in order to raise children need to be emphasised. There is unfair legislation against men in divorce courts and in paternity issues, which needs to be addressed in order to allay fears of cuckoldry and loss of wealth. A social reminder that sex should be enjoyed, but in moderation, consideration and loyalty. Values that may be religious in origin but valid nevertheless for not encouraging promiscuity and seeing a serious sanctity within both the act of marriage and sex, with long-term comittment that is not tied to quickly spent passion. A reminder that continually focusing on short-term happiness ultimately leads to long-term unhappiness. All of this is for the sake of allowing for children and long-term companionship, both ensuring genetic survival and individual contentment.

Why did the priest and the Levite ignore the robbery victim lying in the ditch? It's possible they did so because they really thought they were good, moral people. Some new research into altruistic behavior shows that people who believe they are good, moral and decent actually act less nice than those without such high opinions of themselves.

This is a very interesting finding, and people have already come up with all sorts of possible explanations and speculations at Marginal Revolution and EconLog. I don't know which of them are right, but one thing we do know is that you aren't just imagining that all those self-satisfied pricks think they're better than you; they actually do think that way. And, yeah, they're probably not very good at actually walking the walk and being as good as they think they are. I don't know whether they're best ignored, annoyed or attacked; probably depends on the individual case. But thanks to science we now know that they're real and neither just you misreading other people nor symbolic characters from a parable.