As you’ve already heard from Evan, the post I had initially created was taken down. Quite honestly, it was pretty dang sub-par, and really just a sad attempt on my part to push off the inevitable day when I’d have to conclude my little series on Western Christianity (i.e., Protestantism) with some pretty hefty accusations.
This is going to be a big one.
My past couple of posts on religion (well, general Western Christianity) have dealt largely with complaints regarding the nature of “organized” religion, and can be generally dismissed with a statement like “Well, those people are clearly just distorting the message.” We’re going to be heading a bit deeper today, with some questions about the message itself.
Let’s talk about the idea of “Biblical Inerrancy.”
When Gordon first introduced the concept of Shame Day and Fame Day posts it was to keep them short and sweet, and I’m going to try to stick to that as midnight is fast approaching.
When looking at my reddit homepage I can see that underneath the karma [fake internet points] that I have garnered it reads that I have been a redditor for a total of 11 months, and as such I think I can probably more or less comment on the site as a whole.
Yesterday, I saw a picture of Kabul, taken in what must have been the late 70s or early 80s. It was either in or near a university- I recall there being a stone courtyard with tall, shady trees and an ornate water fountain. There were also a couple of young women, wearing short sleeves and pants, carrying their books. The comment section for this picture was awash with sighs about “how beautiful Afghanistan had been” once upon a time and “what a shame it was that religion had come along and messed it all up!”
I was, needless to say, a little ticked off by the responses to the picture. While there were a few people who managed to point out that Islam didn’t one day appear in Afghanistan and wipe out every last vestige of modernism (and that a major Soviet invasion may have played a part as well), for the most part it was all comments on the terrible threat to civilization religion plays. Continue reading →
There’s a reason why I’m offering the spotlight to the most iconic psychologist (barring Hannibal Lecter) of all time. You’re probably wondering, “Why? Everyone knows Freud!”
True, but to echo every girl dating a scumbag, “You don’t know him like I do.”
Even with all his fame, Freud is nevertheless the butt of plenty of jokes. He’s often looked on not so much as the founding father of psychology, but a weird Austrian doctor who managed to touch off something huge in his twisted speculation on primal, sexual urges and Oedipal complexes. He’s essentially the equivalent of the crazy 80s hair-band- popular in its time, and now looked back on as a stupid stage of music needed as a simple stepping stone.
The cost of progress is steep indeed…
Now this thought I’m about to reveal isn’t my own, but nevertheless merits echoing.
Imagine if we treated every scientist and inventor the way we treat Freud.
Think about it.
Imagine putting down Galileo for all the stuff he got wrong. Imagine assuming that because 90% of everything Newton knew about the universe was incorrect, he really isn’t worth more than a foot note in scientific history. Heck, Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, yet the guy remains the standard of genius in our age (an honor that should belong to Tesla, but that’s another story).
Tesla Coils: I like to think of ’em as big “**** You, Edison” Towers
Heck, I’m willing to wager that if you juxtaposed everything Freud got wrong about his field, and everything Darwin got wrong about his field, Freud would come out ahead. Yet Darwin is a respected, if not revered, icon of academia and a poster boy for exploration and discovery.
This was the coolest (and only) Darwin gif out there…
Why can’t Freud get the same deal?
That’s all I’m really trying to get at here- the man practically pioneered an entire field of (soft) science. He deserves more than yo momma jokes. His legacy should be more than the stereotype of a bald, bearded psychologist sitting behind a couch (did you know that pretty much no psychologist uses those couches anymore? What a rip-off). Let’s give this guy respect for all he discovered, credit for all he got right, and a shred of leniency for all he got wrong.
It’s only fair. A person who has contributed so much to the world deserves at least that consideration.
Last week I wrote about George Romero, a film-maker who has had perhaps one of the most profound influences on modern culture. Continuing in that vein, today I’d like to stir up some applause for Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr., or as you might better know him, the dad the Cheaper By The Dozen movies.
Now if you’ve seen any of the films, you’ll see the father of the twelve kids hopelessly overwhelmed until the family finally remembers that they need a happy ending to appeal to the widest possible audience causing them to get back together in the last ten or so minutes of movie. Truth is, the actual Frank Gilbreth was an excellent parent who took care of his twelve kids as best as could possibly be expected. How did he manage that? Well, it turns out Gilbreth was an expert in the study and application of efficiency, and applied his unique brand of training to his own family, as well as the workplace. Gilbreth was obsessed with reducing the steps every action took (which he named “therbligs,” reversing his own last name). For example, eliminating the “therblig” of having to search for your razor by having the razor painted bright red, making it easily noticeable. Things such as more efficient guns, pedal-operated trashcans, and arguable the entire study of ergonomics all owe a great debt to this man. But that’s not the big thing.
You ever see a nurse handing a surgeon his tools while in the middle of an operation?
Frank Gilbreth Sr. came up with that.
You ever see a soldier or spy blindfolded, reassembling his gun?
Frank Gilbreth Sr. came up with that too.
Think about that. How many lives have been saved and ended because of this guy? The guy died in 1924- think about all the expansion that’s happened in medicine and warfare since then. Think about all the people who have died or been saved since then. Heck, there’s a decent possibility neither you or I would exist without this guy’s work.
And his legacy is a terrible Steve Martin popcorn movie?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you will, a moment of applause for the real Frank Gilbreth.
Now that’s a lousy title, so let me kick things off by immediately clarifying what I’m talking about. This isn’t academia, or the world of contending theories and thirty-page papers on the finer points of psychopharmacolgy in relation to the mating habits of the Atlantic bluefin tuna. While this kind of world certainly does exist, it’s not what we’re talking about here. This is the culture not so much of scientists, as it is of science fans: those who are becoming increasingly invested in the idea that advancements in our knowledge is not only inherently awesome, but the solution to many, if not most or all, of the world’s problems.
“But Gordon, you striking portrait of wisdom and nobility,” you may be asking, “don’t we all fit that category?”
And to some extent, yes, we do. Even the most hardcore Luddite or primitivist will applaud the polio vaccine or HIV medication, but even so, there is a growing number of people who take things to the next level entirely. Check out this trailer:
Kind of a crazy premise- guy transfers his consciousness into a machine body. But still not too far off from the way many people believe we’ll eventually be living. “Transhumanism”, they call it, which, to grossly simplify it, is the general idea that the best (or even inevitable) course of human existence is to “evolve” beyond the confines of our biology. That with the progression of science and technology we’ll stop the effects of aging and be capable of improving upon our own minds and bodies. If you wanted to find a decent illustration of this kind of issue, try watching Battlestar Galactica (the new ones), or better still, Caprica. Now this is an extreme element of this culture, but a contributing element nonetheless. Major advances in prosthetics over the years, as well as films such as Surrogates, Gamer, Avatar, The Matrix, I, Robot (heck, any film or media dealing with the whole “what makes a person a person?” question) have all been instrumental in introducing transhumanist ideas. But of course, it’s more than just that.
It also has a lot to do with these guys:
These guys right here are arguably responsible for popularizing this entire culture, breaking down even dry subjects and making them compelling and (relatively) easy to grasp, even if only on the most basic level. You probably won’t go off to revolutionize the world of astrophysics after a few episodes of Cosmos, but chances are you’ll come away amazed. Would the recent Mars landing have had the same widespread popularity as it did without these guys? Would the cutting of manned space-missions have been met with the same outrage? Almost certainly not.
To some extent, the decline of religious adherence in the West may also be a factor in this culture. A growing number of individuals in the US are simply reporting themselves as being “without religion,” and the “science culture’s” emphasis on altruistic humanism (more on that in a minute) and skepticism offer a sympathetic atmosphere. The fact that many leaders (or at least, poster boys) for the culture are atheist (Mythbusters’ Savage and Hyneman, for example) or agnostic (Neil Degrasse Tyson) is also certainly a factor.
And perhaps the most fundamental element of all in this culture is the concept of “post-scarcity.” Quite simply, it’s the idea that we have progressed to a point where we no longer have scarcity of resources. E-books are typically used as an example, with adherents of the idea pointing out that with almost everything ever written in human history accessible in digital form, we could potentially give access to everything ever written to every man, woman, and child who will ever live without ever cutting down a single tree. The same logic is applied to film and music as well.
All of this combined creates and fuels a culture based ultimately on values of human welfare. In many respects, it’s the polar opposite of the “manly” culture discussed last week, emphasizing interdependence rather than independence, cooperation rather than competition, and progressive and postmodern social norms rather than traditional ones.
So what are the pros and cons of the culture?
Positives:
The fundamentally altruistic and humanistic elements of the culture are certainly something to be admired.
Money goes into scientific research, and cures and advancements come out; you can explain that.
Quite simply, the idea that we, as individuals and societies “aren’t done yet” creates a great atmosphere for experimentation, advancement, and general optimism about our conditions.
Negatives:
We could talk about playing God and paternalistic big-government and all that, but ultimately, the issue of the “science culture” is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things actually are in the world. While it’s certainly true that there’s enough to go around, we simply aren’t a “post-scarcity” world. The vast majority of the planet is desperately poor, and their needs have to be met. The culture’s basic tenets also have the issue of seeming to assume that science is the answer to everything- that we can maintain our (general) levels of consumption and simply have our decadence off-set by the latest, greatest advance in clean energy. Now even if you assert that our problems can be solved by a use of technology to give us a surplus of everything we could ever possibly need, the same fact of the matter is that those technologies do not yet exist. The entire outlook is, quite simply, utopian, and while optimism should be applauded, it desperately needs to be tempered with realism.
And that’s it for today- be sure to check out Tuesday’s “Shame Day” post, and check in next time for our look at “internet/free information culture.”
Culture War Reporters 