Skip to main content

A Clash of Civilizations

 Samuel P. Huntington was right, there will be and there is a clash of civilizations: He got the major forces completely wrong, though. While in many regions religions fight with each other because they persecute each other, that is laughably wrong on what will mold the future of civilizations.  The main fight is not religion vs. religion, but secularism and democracy vs. cronyism, theocracy, royalty and dictatorships

Do humans take charge of their own governance or are they slaves to the group that happens to have some guns or claim to be able to give you ever-lasting life? I have my preferences. What are yours?

From Wikipedia: Religion (the fake life offerors) has continued to decline, in the US less than half of people are members of any official religion.

Change in religious identification, 1950 - 2020

Percentage of Americans by religious identification (1950 – 2020)[157]


 
 Protestantism
  Christian (nonspecified)
  Catholicism
  Mormonism
  Jewish
  Other
  Unaffiliated

  No Answer

The people will rule. Since 1776 there has been a steady increase in democracy and a steady decrease in religiosity. The people are taking their power from the elites. No more shall anyone be punished for the supposed crime of heresy. There is no such 'crime' (sin?) as apostasy. This is the last dying gasp of a mode of civilization that has been dealt death blows over 150 years ago. During the last great clash between citizens and their repressive elites who tried to enforce feudalism: the civil war of the United States. It did not end well for the farmers and their need for slave labor to thrive. They've been resentful for 150 years, but not only did they lose then, they are losing now. 

Religions have a few fundamental problems which cause their own downfall from within. The fundamental fraud that all religions fall inherent to is the fraud of infallibility. To claim their supremacy for moral decisions, they must claim to be infallible. If not, then they are open to argument, reason and truth; from which they would fail miserably; so they cannot go back on their claims. Thus they cannot change their minds, the model they build will invariably be wrong, so they must claim faith is the only way to show they are legitimate. Faith: the ability to claim to believe in things you cannot prove. They bend and twist the meaning of faith to imply it means believing in things that are untrue. This is why they will not stand as a legitimate societal institution. When your entire institution is based on a lie, it will eventually collapse.

Democracies are inherently safer than autocracies because of the extra effort that must be spent to convince the government to do anything. If the government does anything the people don't like, in a democracy, there's a legal, non-violent way to change it. In an autocracy, it's only about what the autocrats want. There is no accountability. This is dangerous. Look at the rate of wars democratic countries have been in versus autocratic countries. Essentially, democracies do not go to war against each other, autocracies do it all the time. Democracies aren't saints, democracies tend to fight autocracies.

However, the long march of history is clear: towards more democracy and less religion. 

The human race is making progress.

Thanks for reading!

 -DrMike











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of modern ethics

The Settlement of the War between Science and Religion . Why the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are More Important than you realize. These two documents provide the foundation of the Grand Moral Compromise between Religion and Science that allowed the Industrial Revolution to progress by defining the morals and ethics of governments and their relationship with the people. The only moral and ethical form of government is declared to be a Lawful Democracy with Religious  Freedom . These two documents define why this is from first postulates and dictate the method to form a government. The Grand Moral Compromise was defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights : it is the agreement that abolished the crime of heresy in return for freedom of all religions , including science , the harbinger of truth . Only about half [G] of the world has agreed to this  Grand Moral Compromise , the rest are still at war with themselv

Hilbert space has no physical extent or extent in time. Quantum wave functions live in Hilbert space.

Hilbert space has no physical extent or extent in time. Quantum wave functions live in Hilbert space. This means that when you change a parameter in Hilbert space it changes everywhere at the same time. Every single entangled wave function now sees the same modified Hilbert space at the same time. The changes in Hilbert space are transmitted at infinite speed, apparently (It's actually worse than that: if you set up the experiment correctly you can get the Hilbert space to affect particles in the past. Yes, you can change the distribution of measurements on an entangled particle by making another measurement in the future, after the first particle is gone, absorbed in a detector. [1]) It really is like Einstein said: if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you just haven't been paying attention enough! Quantum mechanical wave functions are weirder than anyone thought they were and they were plenty weird before. Einstein, et al. defined how physical theories work,

Republicans vs. Democrats. It's not conservatives vs. liberals, it's authoritarians vs. progressives.

It's Authoritarians (Royalty lovers - L'estate, c'est moi) vs. Progressives (All men are created equal) Republicans are more Authoritarian than Conservative. Conservatives want to pick an imaginary time in the past and declare it to be perfect. Authoritarians have a Father figure complex. Whatever the Father says is right. Anything else is immoral. [1]  So even though there is a streak of Conservatism in the Republican party, it's not really the basis of their morality. Their morality is handed to them by their Father, whatever he says is moral. To disagree with him is immoral. Pretty simple, easy for people who are too tired to think for themselves. In contrast, the moral authority of Democrats comes from their Progressive, American ideals. Progressives believe in the Declaration of Independence: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness All men are created equal The people agree on how they will be governed No Royal authority is accepted No one is above