Friday, May 26, 2006
Bush, Blair Concede Missteps
Bush, Blair Concede Missteps: "Leaders acknowledge errors in managing the occupation of Iraq, but say war was justified."
Could Science Eliminate Religion?
Scott Adams: Could Science Eliminate Religion?
"As readers of my blog know, I believe that given the right conditions, anyone can be made to believe any damned thing. That’s why there are so many different religions. Persuasion has many names and forms. AdvertisingIndoctrinationPeer pressureHypnosisBrainwashing I wonder if a team of well-funded atheists could devise a legal and ethical method of reducing people’s religious faith. It would probably require testing lots of different methods until you found out what cocktail of messages worked best, but I think it would work.
This is important because the people with the most intense religious beliefs are threatening to destroy the United States. We wouldn’t have to eliminate the faith of our enemies; it would be enough if we weakened their belief that God rewards them for killing infidels. We’d just be rounding their edges, so to speak.
I’m sure that the direct approach would never work, as in “Your God isn’t real,” no matter how many times you repeated it. And I’m sure that no lological argument would make a difference. We would need to find the back door.
It would be easy to find volunteers for the research. I think lots of people would sign up to test their faith. You could tell people exactly what you plan on doing and still have them lining up.
The first thing I would test is context. If you expose highly religious people to the history of other religions, they will make the connection that prophets come and go all the time. And it would be obvious that (other) people are easily fooled. At first, the believer would think he was lucky that all those others got fooled and he didn’t, because his prophet is real. But this is just the start of the process.
Then I would expose the believer to some basics of psychology. The goal would be to show him how easily the average person can be made to believe the most ridiculous things in every possible context, from monsters under the bed to alien abductions. Unless you see lots of examples, you tend to assume that delusions are rare, when in fact they are the norm for all of us.
Then I would expose the believers to the literature of skeptics, to teach them how to critically evaluate claims in general. So far, none of this information would be directed at the subjects own religion. It is simply education.
Next would be a review of the history of Christianity from the viewpoint of historians, not religious people. When you show the heavy hand of human beings in the shaping of religion, it tends to erode your belief that God wrote a book and slipped it under your pillow.
When you’re done providing this information to your test subjects, you let it soak in for a few months and then ask them about their religious faith. I think their faith would be reduced. Using the scientific method, you keep repeating the process using different methods until you find out what set of knowledge most erodes faith.
Eventually you could create a book that is the sum of the best methods. Then all we need to do is air drop about a billion of them on the Middle East, close all of our embassies, pull out and wait a generation.
The book would immediately be banned by the authorities, but that would make them all the more popular with the young."
"As readers of my blog know, I believe that given the right conditions, anyone can be made to believe any damned thing. That’s why there are so many different religions. Persuasion has many names and forms. AdvertisingIndoctrinationPeer pressureHypnosisBrainwashing I wonder if a team of well-funded atheists could devise a legal and ethical method of reducing people’s religious faith. It would probably require testing lots of different methods until you found out what cocktail of messages worked best, but I think it would work.
This is important because the people with the most intense religious beliefs are threatening to destroy the United States. We wouldn’t have to eliminate the faith of our enemies; it would be enough if we weakened their belief that God rewards them for killing infidels. We’d just be rounding their edges, so to speak.
I’m sure that the direct approach would never work, as in “Your God isn’t real,” no matter how many times you repeated it. And I’m sure that no lological argument would make a difference. We would need to find the back door.
It would be easy to find volunteers for the research. I think lots of people would sign up to test their faith. You could tell people exactly what you plan on doing and still have them lining up.
The first thing I would test is context. If you expose highly religious people to the history of other religions, they will make the connection that prophets come and go all the time. And it would be obvious that (other) people are easily fooled. At first, the believer would think he was lucky that all those others got fooled and he didn’t, because his prophet is real. But this is just the start of the process.
Then I would expose the believer to some basics of psychology. The goal would be to show him how easily the average person can be made to believe the most ridiculous things in every possible context, from monsters under the bed to alien abductions. Unless you see lots of examples, you tend to assume that delusions are rare, when in fact they are the norm for all of us.
Then I would expose the believers to the literature of skeptics, to teach them how to critically evaluate claims in general. So far, none of this information would be directed at the subjects own religion. It is simply education.
Next would be a review of the history of Christianity from the viewpoint of historians, not religious people. When you show the heavy hand of human beings in the shaping of religion, it tends to erode your belief that God wrote a book and slipped it under your pillow.
When you’re done providing this information to your test subjects, you let it soak in for a few months and then ask them about their religious faith. I think their faith would be reduced. Using the scientific method, you keep repeating the process using different methods until you find out what set of knowledge most erodes faith.
Eventually you could create a book that is the sum of the best methods. Then all we need to do is air drop about a billion of them on the Middle East, close all of our embassies, pull out and wait a generation.
The book would immediately be banned by the authorities, but that would make them all the more popular with the young."
Monday, May 15, 2006
Washington, D.C. Is About to Get Punked
Washington, D.C. Is About to Get Punked: "Not by Ashton Kutcher, but by Yellow Arrow, an arts and technology project initiated by the New York based mixed-reality and entertainment company, Counts Media. The May issue of Spin magazine reports that in June, Yellow Arrow and it's M.A.A.P. (Massively Authored Artistic Publication) makers will be documenting the District's punk-rock scene by placing their signature yellow arrow stickers on various well known sites around the city. Which hardcore sites could you visit to find one of these stickers? The tour will likely include famed venues like the old 9:30 Club, Black Cat, Fort Reno, Sacred Heart Church, as well as the Wilson Center and several houses in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood, which many young punks called home. Each sticker contains a unique number which you can use in a text message sent from your cell phone to receive information on the location's history and significance as part of a virtual underground tour of the city. Yellow Arrow's website invites anyone interested in participating to sign up and recieve a tagname to join any of the current projects or start one of their own. All of the submissions are contained in an online gallery for others to view and discuss.
What other lesser known aspects of D.C. would you want to share through one of these interactive sticker tours? Maybe point out some hot spots in the city's Jazz roots around U Street? Or a history of the city's political scandals?
Sign up, go out and paint this town yellow."
What other lesser known aspects of D.C. would you want to share through one of these interactive sticker tours? Maybe point out some hot spots in the city's Jazz roots around U Street? Or a history of the city's political scandals?
Sign up, go out and paint this town yellow."
Morning Roundup: The Minutemen Diversify Edition
Morning Roundup: The Minutemen Diversify Edition: "Signaling an additional layer of complication to the already complicated and fractured immigration debate, the Washington Times is reporting today that some African Americans are joining together with the Minuteman vigilante groups that have been hounding illegal immigrants along the border and in day laborer centers, most locally in Herndon, Virginia. Though seeming like an alliance of strange bedfellows, African Americans in the region and across the nation tend to see immigrants as a threat to their livelihoods. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, some 50 percent of African Americans in the region and more than 75 percent nationwide claim that increased immigration has led to difficulties in finding a job."
Predicting the Next President
Predicting the Next President, by Scott Adams from the Dilbert blog:
"Usually it’s obvious who is going to be the next president of the United States. First, the media decides for us who will be the nominees for each party. Then the voters elect the one who makes the most outrageous promises. That’s called leadership, and we like it. This next election will be interesting. Most of the likely suspects are totally unelectable.
"Usually it’s obvious who is going to be the next president of the United States. First, the media decides for us who will be the nominees for each party. Then the voters elect the one who makes the most outrageous promises. That’s called leadership, and we like it. This next election will be interesting. Most of the likely suspects are totally unelectable.
Hilary Clinton – Too divisive
John McCain – Too ugly
Colin Powell – Too smart to run
Al Gore – Too charisma challenged
Jeb Bush – Too soon
Joseph Lieberman – Too whiney sounding
Wesley Clark – Too tiny looking on TV
Howard Dean – Too crazy
John Edwards – Too goofy
Almost everyone else is too lightweight and/or too unknown. That leaves us with one candidate that can win: Joseph Biden. Who? He’s a tough-talking Democrat with plenty of senate experience. But the only thing that matters is the tough-talking Democrat part. He tough-talks better than anyone I’ve seen. He appears genuinely angry about"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
