A significant difference between humans and most other animals is that we have the innate ability to abstract ideas. That is, we can manipulate symbols as though they were things. We do this so well that most people are unaware that the symbols aren't actually the things they represent. If…
Jerry Falwell is dead. At 73, he passed away, at his desk, apparently still working, even though doctors have (probably) been telling him to lay off for some time. He had heart problems. Whatever one's personal feelings may be, it ill-behooves us to beat up on someone so soon after…
After reading Erich’s post, I thought I’d put this up. I wrote it–most of it–some time ago, for a different venue, but I’ve added to it since, and, well, along with Erich’s it might add more flavors to the stew of memory. So.
I have friends who thought it was a great thing when Reagan became president, who now reject any such accusation, and refuse to believe it when I remind them that they said encouraging things about him when he took office. One quote, during a ceremony broadcast on television, that I’ll never forget: “He just looks like a real president!”
Time passes, policy comes to the fore, and most of those people no longer recall these initial bouts of near-patriotic enthusiasm. They have conveniently forgotten.
I didn’t like Reagan’s policies. I’m sure I would have liked him. Everybody who met him seems to say the same thing. When Donna Brazille can say she thought he was a decent man, despite the complete polarization of their politics, you have to admit something was going on with Reagan which is all too often more telling about politics and history than the facts attached to a particular era.
Reagan was presidential. He had Presence.
I listen now to the talk about putting his face on the ten dollar bill with some amusement. Reagan already has at least one airport, a couple of highways, no doubt many streets, parks, a library named in his honor. He may be the most honored president …
As a general rule, simple questions, especially simple questions with purportedly obvious answers, are the most interesting questions.
While I attended a wedding this weekend, I noticed all of the sex partners seated together, you know . . . husbands and wives and boyfriends and girlfriends (and a few gay couples).
Why do sex partners sit together at public rituals, I wondered. The obvious answer is that it’s because most sex partners live together, right? Other people thus see sex partners as couples and feel that they should be invited to important rituals together, especially to important rites of passage, such as weddings. But why do so many sex partners live together (and hence get invited to prominent social events as couplets)? After all, instead of living with her sex partner, maybe a woman would rather live with (and then potentially be invited to go to weddings with) a non-sex partner friend or neighbor, or perhaps even her non-sex-partner plumber or accountant. Or maybe she’d rather attend public gatherings by herself, so that she could freely mingle. The norm, however, is obvious to anyone who bothers to scan the crowd at a wedding: the great majority of people who attend such gatherings attend them as sexually-paired couples.
Someone who followed the SSSM model might say that this behavior (of attending prominent rituals with your spouse) is simply learned, or that it is “social convention” or that it “feels right.” There is a compelling story that can be told about paternity …
In an Edge article titled “Why the Gods are not winning,” Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman characterize the belief that religion is gaining ground in the 21st century as a myth. First, they present some real life statistics:
…The evangelical authors of the WCE [World Christian Encyclopedia] lament that no Christian “in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism…. and in the Americas due to materialism…. The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world’s religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians” (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today’s nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)
Far from