Insanity & Doom Update XXXII
Item Chinese government official: No religion ‘transcends nations’ A Chinese government official who oversees religious affairs said Tuesday that government … Continue Reading Insanity & Doom Update XXXII
Insanity & Doom Update XXXII
Item Chinese government official: No religion ‘transcends nations’
A Chinese government official who oversees religious affairs said Tuesday that government restrictions on bishop appointments are not a violation of religious freedom, as he emphasized that religions in China must “adapt to socialist society.”
Chen Zongrong, former deputy director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, spoke at an April 3 press conference presenting a government “white paper” on “Chinese policy regarding the practice and safeguarding of religious freedom.”
“I disagree with the view that preventing Rome from having full control over the selection of bishops hinders religious freedom,” Chen said, according to the AP. “I believe there is no religion in human society that transcends nations.”
“The Chinese constitution clearly states that China’s religious group and religious affairs cannot be controlled by foreign forces, and [the foreign forces] should not interfere in Chinese religious affairs in any way,” he stated.
We saw this before, but I came across it when reading about a second priest murdered in the PI. Chen’s words are true if atheism is. The State must become god, and (stop me if this seems familiar) since the State is composed of men, men must become gods. And will.
Do not forget gods cannot be questioned. They can be appeased and petitioned, but not questioned. This is the future many long for.
Item Christian Passivity is Not an Option
Political passivity has long been a charge leveled against Christianity, primarily by the politically hyperactive left. If God controls everything and decrees arrangements as they are, and if he dispenses ultimate justice only in the afterlife, what is the point in mobilizing politically to right the wrongs of this world? Just endure your fate quietly, and you will get your reward. Rebel, and God will send you to hell. Romans 13 is taken as the locus classicus: “The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.””
Not only is such a view of Christianity simplistic and contrary to historical fact; it may be the diametrical opposite of a critical truth. It is arguable that Christian faith is responsible for the uniquely active concept of citizenship that originated in the Western world. Indeed, it has been argued plausibly that some strains of Protestant Christianity created the previously unknown concept of political radicalism.
This is contra Rod Dreher’d Benedict Option and is included in the Doom update because surrender is the default position of most Christians. But that’s likely because these fine people have decided to no longer believe in the supernatural aspects of their religion. Sure, progressives in their zeal are guilty of much excess, but their hearts are in the right place, which is to say, anchored here on earth. Read the whole thing.
Item The origins of sexism. Here are some headlines from a special issue of New Scientist—a science magazine.
The origins of sexism: How men came to rule 12,000 years ago
Human societies weren’t always male-dominated. The switch came when we became farmers – and that suggests ways to roll back towards a more equal system.
The hidden reasons why societies are violent towards women
30 per cent of women experience sexual violence in their lifetimes — bad parenting, low respect and the glorification of male competition are to blame.
How protective parents exacerbate gender differences
Yes, men’s and women’s brains are wired differently — but the science shows that outside influences can also shape our gender identity.
Why the patriarchy isn’t good for men and how to fix it
Societies can be taught to be less misogynistic, but the first step is understanding how gender norms have backfired on men as well as women
I experienced the patriarchy from both sides of the gender gap
Paula Williams transitioned from male to female six years ago. She talks about learning about her white male privilege the hard way
The fight for gender equality can be informed by science
With the rise of movements like #MeToo, now is a good time to ask why the patriarchy exists and why it persists
The dearth of women in tech is nothing to do with testosterone
Arguments over the causes of the gender gap in STEM jobs rage on. It’s not due to hormones or innate brain differences, says Lise Eliot
Kids everywhere have damaging gender stereotyping set by age 10
Global study reveals that gender stereotypes become ingrained in “tween” years, leading to life-long health consequences — particularly for girls
This is a series of articles attempting to show exact equality between men and women is real, despite all observational evidence. Even the evidence of male sexism, which, if it exists, proves inequality. Even noticing or carping about inequality proves inequality. How else can we tell men and women apart to complain they really are the same unless they were really different? But these results flow from patriarchical logic, which is much frowned upon.
Strobel’s The Case for Miracles Reviewed
We earlier did Strobel’s press conference. I won’t repeat details of that here, which is concerned solely with the book.
Strobel sticks with the formula that brought him to the ball. He begins and ends each chapter as a breathless race against the clock. He runs to the car to hurry to the next interview—before it’s too late. He bursts out, pondering the clues, and jumps on an airplane to the next man in the chain. It’s a mystery whether miracles are real, and our hero is going to solve it.
Not unlike modern journalists, he’s always inserting himself into the story. He smiles, holds up his hand, feels “emotional punches”, and pads with things like “‘Good point’, I said”, and “I was about to ask a follow-up question when Strauss jumped in with an interesting theological observation.”
This makes for what book reviewers call a “breezy” read. There isn’t anything challenging, and it’s doubtful any atheist would be convinced by the material. But it does provide a useful starting point for Christians who have not thought deeply about the subject.
There are pleasant surprises. Such as the interview with arch-skeptic Michael Shermer, who is given three chapters, and who comes across as a sympathetic character. Shermer started as a protesting Christian but fell away after experiencing what seemed to him unanswered prayers. He then leaned too hard on Hume and became a skeptic.
But Shermer is not dogmatic. He ends with an eerie story of a radio coming to life at just the right moment, only to die again as the moment passed. (More about that here in his own words.) Strobel asked, “Did this incident crack open a door for you?” Shermer answered, “A little, yeah. Maybe a bit.”
I paused and considered this. I wondered at how I felt about it. But this book review had to be done by 7 AM, so I quickly turned the page to the next chapter. “What was this next chapter about?” I asked myself.
It’s about Craig Keener pointing up the absurdity of David Hume’s argument against miracles. “Hume defines miracle as a violation of natural law, and he defines natural law as being principles that cannot be violated.” Many were persuaded by that maneuver.
Strobel acknowledges the weaknesses of medical miracles. Spontaneous remissions, placebo effects, misdiagnoses, even scams account for many supposed miracles. A shortcoming Strobel did not flesh out is that as medical knowledge increases, what earlier seemed miraculous becomes mundane. That also shows his working definition of miracle is in need of fixing (which I will do elsewhere). Still, some cures, such as being raised from the dead, are surely miraculous.
He met with Candy Gunther Brown, a physician who explained what happened when scientists tried studying miracles. These earnest researchers must never have heard Thou shalt not tempt [test] the Lord thy God.
One peer-reviewed study was the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer” study, a “prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group controlled trial”, published in American Heart Journal. One group prayed for, one group not. No wee p-values were found.
But then the prayer team in the study were not “genuinely Christian”. “Reading through Unity’s [the prayer group’s] beliefs, I detected a mixture of Hinduism, Spritism, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, and Christian Science.” Not quite classical theological views.
Brown pointed to other statistical studies where prayer did produce wee ps, which was enough to convince her. It will not be convincing to those who understand the severe limitations of statistical models. Nor to those who question the theology of statistically testing the Lord’s powers.
An intriguing anecdote came from missionary Tom Doyle, whose milieu is the Muslim world.
[M]ore Muslims have become Christians in the last couple of decades than in the previous fourteen hundred years since Muhammad, and it’s estimated that a quarter to a third of them experienced a dream or vision of Jesus before their salvation experience.
The dream is (reportedly) the same: a vision of a man in a white robe bringing the feeling of intense love.
Strobel spends some time with physics: the Big Bang, multiverses, fine tuning of physics constants, and so on. This section is, as would be expected, hand-wavy. (See instead Robert Spitzer’s New Proofs for the Existence of God, which requires advanced study in physics to follow.)
The last words on when miracles don’t happen is poignant, and even more unsolvable than eternal inflation theory.
What’s more fascinating, but not unexpected, is how many Christians are embarrassed about the subject, preferring to side with atheists on the impossibility of miracles (at least in our time). Once you allow miracles you are forced to acknowledge the supernatural—and all that that entails.
Toxic Effeminacy Kills The Boy Scouts
Here’s one among many headlines: Boy Scouts is dropping the word ‘boy’ from its main program as girls prepare to join
Goodbye “Boy Scouts.” Hello “Scouts BSA.”
Less than a year after the Boy Scouts of America decided to invite girls to join, the organization announced that it will refer to its older youth program as “Scouts BSA” starting in February 2019.
The name change comes amid a new campaign slogan, “Scout Me In,” that was made to emphasize the group’s expansion from just boys to boys and girls.“Cub Scouts is a lot of fun, and now it’s available to all kids,” Stephen Medlicott, National Marketing Group Director of Boy Scouts of America, said in a statement. “That’s why we love ‘Scout Me In’ — because it speaks to girls and boys and tells them, ‘This is for you. We want you to join!'”
After the Boy Scouts surrendered on sodomy, it was inevitable they should give up on boys. Toxic effeminacy is the reason. Not so much from female creatures (as Mike Royko called them), but from effeminate men, who could not bear being hectored and harangued. Easier to surrender than to be called bad names in the press.
Toxic effeminacy/feminism arose from Equality. Equality destroys whatever it touches, like an acid which gains in strength as it dissolves. Equality is the belief that the holder of Equality should be superior to those who do not hold to Equality.
As proof of this, look to the Girl Scouts. Are they also dropping “Girl” and merging with the newly created “Scouts”? No, sir.
But the Girl Scouts of the USA still considers itself the best organization in the country when it comes to educating female leaders — and says it is uniquely equipped to do so.
“We’re interested to hear that Boy Scouts has slightly altered its name and invested in a new brand identity — but what we really want to know more about is the programming,” Stewart Goodbody, Girl Scouts’ senior director of communications and external affairs, told Refinery29.
“Have they invested in creating uniquely effective programming for girls?” she questioned. “Because at Girl Scouts, for the past century, we’ve been acutely focused on dispelling gender stereotypes and creating a space exclusively for girls to learn and grow — a ‘room of one’s own’ for them, so to speak. And we are determined as ever to stay on this path, so that more girls, through Girl Scouting, gain confidence, seek challenges, and become active decision-makers and proficient problem-solvers to the greatest degree possible — and frankly, are better equipped to navigate a world that is still, regrettably, a ‘man’s world.'”
It won’t be a man’s world in the ex-Boy Scouts. Nor in the Girl Scouts. They know what the ex-Boy Scouts do not: that boys and girls are ineradicably different.
It’s also a case of follow-the-money. According to one regional leader “Fiona Cummings of Girl Scouts of Northern Illinois, believes the BSA’s decision to admit girls is among the factors that have shrunk her council’s youth membership by more than 500 girls so far this year.”
She said relations with the Boy Scouts in her region used to be collaborative and now are “very chilly.”
“How do you manage these strategic tensions?” she asked. “We both need to increase our membership numbers.”
We learn two things from the self-destruction of the Boy Scouts organization:
1) The Left will eat you alive if you compromise with them.
2) Boys are not allowed to have any of their own spaces in this ridiculous culture we’ve made for ourselves.
I don’t know, since my scouting days are long over, but this appears an incremental rather than abrupt change. But now it’s happened, it must soon be (if it isn’t already) that knife skills will have to be tossed. Camping won’t be allowed in actual woods; sites will be mandated to be within so-many feet of sanitary bathrooms. Cell phones will be a must. Matches are out. Somebody might get hurt.
Somebody is probably working on an app right now that simulates camping. This will be used by those unable to go on real camping trips, and those too frightened or too shy.
There will be badges for Getting Along, another for Sexual Orientation Awareness, or for some euphemism along those lines. Maybe they already have them.
How depressing.
People Are Less Religious When Government Is Bigger
This is making the news. A guy we’ve seen before is up to his usual statistical shenanigans in the peer-reviewed paper “Religion as an Exchange System: The Interchangeability of God and Government in a Provider Role” by Miron Zuckerman, Chen Li, and Ed Diener (henceforth “Zuckerman”), in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Here’s the thesis: “An exchange model of religion implies that if a secular entity such as government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities.”
The “exchange model of religion” fails automatically because the government—yes, even our most beneficent, caring, loving, wise government—cannot provide what people receive from “supernatural entities.”
The model fails if God exists, which He does, because government cannot sustain the universe, let alone balance the budget. The government cannot provide life after death, forgiveness of sins, or a justifiable reason for existence.
The models fails again if per impossible God does not exist, because then people receive nothing from “supernatural entities” and never will or can receive anything. This nothing at least makes it easy for government to provide it.
You would think, then, that Zuckerman’s paper is a short one. It is not. You would think it would have an appreciation for the nature of religion and its history. It does not. You would at least think it would avoid over-certainties and the mistake of equating correlation with causation. Alas, no.
Main event
We learn that “researchers” investigated how “the moralizing Big God of the Abrahamic faiths is a mechanism that helped small communities expand into large, cooperative societies of strangers” (my emphasis). Note the assured causal language. We learn about mechanisms but we do not learn that or if Big God is God, a fact which has consequences. The authors do not even consider the point. Science is often purposely ignorant in this fashion. This is no small point. The authors provide no proof of Big God’s non-existence, which we assume they take on faith.
To “researchers”, religion offers benefits, but not transcendence. Benefits like “sense of control”, “self-enhancement”, “self-regulation”. These provide evolutionary benefits, hence religion survives. Of course it could be evolution causes delusion in “researchers”, supposing delusion boosts the chance of breeding, a true statement which cannot be proved false.
Zuckerman thinks religion is akin to a stock market, “an exchange system” in which greater “religious commitment” results in greater access to “commodities”. This ignores the overwhelming sense of duty felt by the adherents of religions, where worship is provided as God’s due. Zuckerman says “Most religions promise the good life to their adherents”, which might apply to certain “prosperity” sects, but it does not apply to the moralizing Big God of the Abrahamic faiths. Christianity promises the sword and the cross.
“[R]eplacing God with government simply means that a moralizing God is no longer necessary for the survival of the group.” Bare physical survival is the sine qua non. To “the extent that the government is responsible for a just order, there is less of a need for God as the arbiter of right and wrong.” This at least is true: absent (an acknowledgement of) God, government must decide between all good and evil, all right and wrong. The State must become God. The State, being led by men, must make man God.
So much for the theory. How about attempts at quantifying the non-quantifiable? Zuckerman obliges.
People in various countries were asked “Is religion an important part of your life?”, with ad hoc necessarily over-certain numeric answers (on a scale of -7 to 42.3, in increments of π/2, how strongly do you agree with this method?). A country was labeled by its predominant’s religion by percent.
Zuckerman then pounced on the World Bank’s World Fact Book and pulled from it “quality of life and government services measures” for each country. Things like education and “number of physicians/1,000 population” and “log transformed” poverty. All these numbers were squashed into one Big “quality of life composite”. Because why not. As long as you in the business of quantifying the unquantifiable, you can do just about anything you want with numbers, no matter how disparate or unrelated.
Gini values per country were taken next. These express, in one single number, the entire complexity of “inequality”, because all you need is one number to express an entire economy. Other “researchers” think so, so Zuckerman thinks so, too.
Then, unquantifiable “life satisfaction, positive emotions, and negative emotions” were quantified and asked of people. Example: “Positive and negative emotions were measured by asking participants whether or not they experienced (an emotion) a lot during the previous day.” How scientific.
Finally, the whole shebang is tossed into a “hierarchical regression” to “to predict religiosity from the quality of life and government services composites and their interaction, adjusting for income inequality and religion.”
Which is nonsense. Great, flaming nonsense. As if entire countries and religions are perfectly homogeneous. Even their wee p-values cannot fix this (common) blunder. Another thing: this was not “quality of life”, it was not “government services”, it was not “income inequality”, and it was not “religiosity”. It was ad hoc single-numbers said to be these things. At best, these were loose and highly uncertain proxies for what could not be measured. At worst, well, you know the worst.
Maybe you don’t. Because after this analysis came “Structural Equation Modeling”, a regression technique used to (falsely) infer cause. Falsely. What it does is measure correlation of all the ad hoc quantified questions to which researchers give fancy names, then it reifies the names into the things, and then forget all the associated uncertainties. I won’t here critique that technique in depth. But see Uncertainty. What we’re left with is a slurry of wee ps and unobservable regression coefficients, from which causality is wrongly inferred (in so many words).
After all this, they did much the same for data from the once-United States. I’ll ignore most of this, except to note a wee p-value led them to say “Higher average quality of life was related to lower baseline religiosity”.
The problem reading that is that everybody forgets the reification. You really do think “quality of life” was perfectly measured on each individual, and that “religiosity” has been unambiguously defined, then perfectly measured.
Let’s move to the conclusion. “[T]he government can provide an extra layer of security…that might help people cope with future needs, both expected and unexpected, and as such, might reduce dependence on God or other supernatural entities.”
This is false in one respect, as noted above. Government cannot provide the most important things. As long as people realize they need these important things, they will look to God (and the entities that bring them closer to God, like the family) and not the State.
But their conclusion is also true in a trivial sense. Indeed, it is so obvious you wonder why Zuckerman bothered doing a study. Everybody already knows that as the State increases, religion must go into hiding. Everybody already knows the State is a jealous god, punishing and aborting the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate the State.