How Bad Is It?

By -
Pretty bad. So bad that George Scialabba, writing in The New Inquiry and asking "How Bad Is It?", thinks the fact that seventy percent of Americans believe in angels is a symptom of "our civilization’s decline."

Whatever you think of angels, this is historical ignorance on a pretty stunning scale, since in whatever the earlier golden age from which he thinks we have declined, 95% or 98% of people believed in angels.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy11:03 PM

    He also laments the shriveling of church groups. Shouldn't that be a good thing? Might quell all the angel-talk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike B.12:03 AM

    I don't get it, Gene. How is Scialabba showing his historical ignorance here? His point is apt, by your own admission: Over 95% of people used to believe in angels during the golden age, yet today only 70% of people believe. Clearly, civilization is in decline. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:35 AM

      Good one, Mike. That's exactly my view, of course.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more