Global e-mail patterns reveal ‘clash of civilizations’
March 6, 2013
The mesh of civilizations in e-mail patterns (credit: Bogdan State et al.)
The global pattern of e-mail communication reflects the cultural fault lines thought to determine future conflict, say computational social scientists.
In 1992, the Harvard-based political scientist Samuel Huntington suggested that future conflicts would be driven largely by cultural differences. He went on to map out a new world order in which the people of the world are divided into nine culturally distinct civilizations.
His argument was that future conflicts would be based around the fault lines at the edges of these civilizations. He published this view in a now famous article called “The Clash of Civilizations?” in Foreign Affairs.
Now Bogdan State at Stanford University and associates have analyzed a global database of e-mail messages and their locations, sent by more than 10 million people over the space of a year, MIT Technology Review reports.
They say the pattern of connections (especially email) between these people, clearly reflects the civilizations mapped out by Huntington.
UPDATE: Typo corrected: “Huntington” not “Harlington” as stated in Technology Review.
Comments (101)
by NakedApe
It’s frightening to contemplate that humans have, for millennia, been killing each other over absolute nonsensical rubbish! Or perhaps we just use religion as an excuse to take the other tribe’s goodies. This nonsense MUST stop if we are to survive as a species.
by email privacy activist
“a global database of e-mail messages and their locations, sent by more than 10 million people over the space of a year”
Who exactly has compiled this database and who said they could?
by Peter the printer
The article is SO 1992! And what’s it got to do with emails? Of course people in one culture/geographical area email each other a lot, and those in another culture/geographical area little. So?
by Kevin Haskell
‘Latin’ American cultures are not “Western’? I think the European nations most westerly of Western Europe, Portugal and Spain, and their ex-colonies in the Americas might find that notion not only odd, but offensive.
Also, Western culture is essentially global culture in many ways since they either colonized or occupied Africa, Australia, and half of Asia at some point (even Antarctica) and because the much of the world’s culture of commerce and politics were originated and practiced by Europeans from the time of colonization until today. even those cultures not directly colonized by Europeans or conquered by European-based nations, what few there might be on the planet, can’t escape but living in a European-derived or influenced culture. Very odd graph.
by Kevin Haskell
Odd, too, since “Latin” originated in Ancient Greece, and spread by Ancient Rome, with the former considered the founding culture of Western civilization, and the language of which is found in many European language, mostly or in part. Jeez.
by Felipe Motta
Indeed, very odd, and the following part of the study is totally wrong: “The Latin American cluster is most striking, set off from the rest of countries in one region of the graph, with Spain and Portugal – the former colonial metropolises – acting as intermediaries between this civilization and the Western civilization,”
To think that emerging countries like Brazil, a BRIC country, the 6th economy in the world, or Mexico, need their former bankrupt comlonizers as intermediaries to Western Civilization is a joke — Mexican has a border with the US, not with Spain!
by Felipe Motta
Perfect observation, as a Latin American I always considered Huntington classification racist, to say the least, which was proved later on by his book called, if my memory serves me well, “Who are we?”.
by Doug Keiller
Kevin,
Huntington describes the difference between the protestant and latin Western world views in “Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity.”
I disagree with some of his conclusions, but it’s an important, prescient work.
by trakk
Not true…a lot of asian cultures are strong contenders for the origin of the earliest forms of democracy, currency, banks, administration,religion…you name it!
by Tony Stender
Language is the process of speaking concepts which will access memory associations in the listener, which when assembled in their minds and contextualized will be converted into some kind of personal meaning to the listener.
Each speaker and listener have and use different life experiences to create the individual meanings from the same input.
The only process which will enable them to discover these differences and realize their differences is the ability to dialog their way to mutual understanding. This happens rarely in my experience.
I believe that until this characteristic of language is resolved, the problems of human differences combined with the profitable arms sales by the manufacturing countries, will continue to enable and encourage differences in understanding. This use of misunderstanding will lead them toward the use of emotions to drive the continued use of war as a way to lead rich tyrannical Nationalistic countries into the abyss of slaughter and continued wars.
If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear their take on how this will come to pass. I would love to be wrong, but …….
by Bri
Has anyone read the article by Huntington? I think it’s a prerequisite to understanding this article. It’s twenty eight pages long so it takes awhile, but it’s right on the money as to the major cultural delineations. We are mostly from one of the eight major civilizations. He clearly points out that our thoughts and beliefs are alien to many of the other civilizations.
I’m sorry to say that most of the posts miss the point of the map and what Huntingtons article were about. Even a brief scan of the twenty eight pages will give a better understanding of the problems we face in terms of conflict.
by David
My God is bigger than your God + Greed = Boom!
by Doug Keiller
Amen.
by Boristabby
Beautiful full color snapshot of a very early moment in time. Do we not agree that the ultimate state is one of total integration an eon or two down the way?
Who knows what we will be? The Shadow knows.
Hawking did recommend leaving for another planet?
Now I know what currencies to ask for when crowd-sourcing (:-)
I, for one, am going to brush up on my Spanish, cerveza anyone?
by GatorALLin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMlRpN8ANrU
by smb12321
Many comments seem more wish fulfillment than reality based. Maybe some classification are iffy but the author makes a strong case that we are culturally divided and no amount of how things should be can change that. The key is emphasizing those things we agree upon and working on those we don’t – not pretending they don’t exist.
by Dennis R.
Agree with this. But there are some huge obstacles to overcome. Language being only one of them. I think the internet– not as powerful a cultural force in the time when Huntington’s article first appeared– is a useful tool in overcoming some of the barriers. But there are some governments who limit access (or want to) to sustain their relative autonomy. Which is a way of saying they don’t want to give up their power.
by Daniel LaLiberte
What we need to counter this “clash” of civilizations is a “mash” of civilizations. We need to each reach out across the fault lines and make friends with people in the other parts of the world. There is an effort on Facebook in this direction: https://peace.facebook.com/ I would guess this inter-networking around the world has been accelerating, but perhaps we need to step it up a few notches.
by GatorALLin
..I get to travel a lot outside of the USA… so by chance I see a lot of different TV shows on their local channels and I am always amazed at how often I see an obvious USA/TV show or series (baywatch/MTVcribs/bradybunch/FamilyTies/Two&aHalfMen/Sinefeld/etc) that is full of lessons of family values, or moral lessons, or just silly problem solving exercises (these are not subtitled, but voice-overs in their local languages and are very well done). and wondered how much our US culture or values are infecting other cultures (just by what we define as normal or cool/hip). How we dress, how we deal with social problems, how we spend time enjoying friends, or just how we treat animals (value them as companions, or…..think of them as food/workers/pests), all of these IDEAS are like a virus to a different culture or different religion that could change (infect) that to smooth out the extremes or expose some crazy thinking. Or at least present other options of what is acceptable somewhere else to make you think about why we do what we do. If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, how much is a 1,000 hours of this type of TV to children/teenagers/adults? Amazingly when watching the TV shows, I never got the idea that these shows designed for the USA would someday be shown in hundreds of other countries and what effect they might have (good and bad). BTW… I did notice slightly less of these voice over shows in Asian countries, but still these syndicated TV shows are everywhere. In talking to some friends in Germany about one particular show, it was funny to hear them discuss the characters and even think the show was made for them in Germany, when it was clearly a US based concept.
I heard the idea that instead of invading a foreign country…maybe is better faster to pass out free cell phones and put up cell towers and just let their own people take back their country from dictators (once they can share ideas faster/better/cheaper and also self organize). Maybe the same concept is also true for reducing conflict between cultures… maybe the USA has already (by luck, or by chance) been setting off the western ideas of democracy or capitalism, or other ways to spread ideas (insert affect of capitalism/wal-mart world to china just as one major change/proof). . Maybe we have been sending over culture changing bombs for years without even knowing it or what affect it may have to at least get the world to start thinking as one big group (what if good ideas find their own way to spread through unintended new channels?). Maybe these last few close calls with Asteroids can start us thinking about …what if we were all on the same side for once? What if it was not USA vs. Russia, or USA vs. China…or N.Korea… what if it was all humans working at the same time to send humans to Mars, or to defeat cancer/disease/hunger/dirtywater/etc. Yes we are all working on it separately…. what if we had a think called the internet where the world was flat/small again and what if ideas would win? what if anyone (everyone) could participate and make a difference. What if…… “what if” = the singularity.
by Gorden Russell
Good post, good thinking, GatorALLin.
by asiwel
This is a good post. Reminds one a bit of Orson Scott Card’s ideas about cultural history. Ideas, memes, etc., do seem to fly back and forth and by no means only from the USA or the West to the East. The trick, I guess, would be to harness/interpret such processes so that they enlarge and enrich cultures, rather than diminish or damage cultures. Are we as individuals “damaged” by exposure to convincing ideas, even if those provide evidence that our own previous ideas might have been somewhat in error? I suppose one could say “Yes” and claim the new ideas are propaganda or simply marketing advertisements.
by Mr.X
@Asi:
Scotty?The one who thinks schools are spreading “gay propaganda” in order to impede the teaching of religous values, which according to him are the bedrock of democracy?Somehow I have to think about nuts.
by SmartAndSober
I think that there are nations that we should appease instead of being confrontational toward.
To ensure the humanity’s survival, it is sometimes necessary to soften our spines.
We could have colonize the Moon and Mars as early as 1980s, but we wasted time fighting petty wars on Earth (Vietnam War and Gulf War).
I think it is now time for humanity to be mature and rational.
by Dennis R.
It may be that the qualities we think are American are really cross-cultural. Believe it or not, entertainment about family, friendship, work, success and triumph after struggle are probably universal. And our tendency to notice the American-made tv shows (to the exclusion of others) when traveling abroad is probably tunnel-vision on our part.
by Mr.X
“And our tendency to notice the American-made tv shows (to the exclusion of others) when traveling abroad is probably tunnel-vision on our part.”
Yeah.Even the Brits under their kings fought for freedom against the evil enemies of his majesty;)
by Mr.X
” In talking to some friends in Germany about one particular show, it was funny to hear them discuss the characters and even think the show was made for them in Germany, when it was clearly a US based concept. ”
Which show are you talking about?I’d say most of us are painfully aware of the fact that Germans don’t produce good tv-shows^^
Seriously, I can’t think of even one German show I’d consider to watch. About the rest: Your usual wishful thinking.
Btw: It is funny how your post appeals to older Americans who still think their short period of surpremacy following ww2 is something neverchanging.
by SmartAndSober
In the future, when we colonize the stars, there will be even more cultural diversity than right now on Earth.
Today’s communication technology will not be sufficient in a space-faring civilization (if FTL travel is not invented) to maintain cultural homogeneosity.
I believe that, we should start (now) think of a solution for that problem.
by René Milan
How are these eight categories arrived at ? By factorial analysis or some other statistical method ? Looks like someone projected a bunch of data onto a preconceived structure of questionable categories. And even if not the interpretation seems far fetched. South americans share two similar languages (even in the north-eastern corner) an one big location. Of course their mutual email interaction is much larger than with the rest of the planet. To interpret this as indicative of a coming ‘culture clash’ is rather harebrained.
Besides, what is the point of those ‘predictions’ ? It can only contribute to the increase of perceived difference and paranoia. An exercise in futility.
@Skydog – not if one does it in private.
by Blade
Why must there be only one? If god is science-we could end up in an universe filled with scienctific gods?
by Camaxtli
Science is a method of uncovering knowledge with the philosophical basis of a belief in objective reality. Don’t muddy it up with gods.
by MatthewQ
Surely the gods do science too. How else do they reach the levels they have attained? Each society reaches its singularity point or stagnates and dies. I doubt they quit doing science just because they have enough power to amuse themselves.
by SmartAndSober
I guess you are speaking of technological gods – advanced aliens.
It is great that we humanity are close to achieve our own godhood.
by MatthewQ
Are there any other kind?
A god is not what IT IS so much as what it is to those who worship it. It is both a relative term and a term about relating.
I am pimping the meme of The Turing Test for gods. The concept explains itself. Arthur C Clarke also had something to say along the same lines although he worded it differently- it’s the same thing though.
God is always defined by the lesser being.
Depending on your definition (or your parameters for the Turing Test for gods) then there are either no gods or many. Your test will likely look different than mine. My test will likely look different than the creatures’ who could pass it (i.e. What does a god pray to?).
It’s a simple concept. But in the thorough examination of it one realizes there can be rationality behind such terms as ‘deity’ and behind such concepts as ‘religion’. This meme offers a way to meet our fellow men on ground where we can all see eye to eye rather than devolve into groups shouting ‘Your core beliefs are stupid!’ That is an irrational approach and works only rarely. This way- Turing Test of gods- is more rational and can reap benefits for everyone.
by JasonN
Go to the YouTube videos about Richard Dawkins and atheists in general.
You will see the comments are mostly belittlings.
Many (not all) atheists just comment to have the “holier-than-thou” feel instead of solving any problem.
by MatthewQ
I was an atheist when I was younger. I think some of the problem is that some might come to the conclusion ‘There is no god- it’s all just a stupid trick! I figured it out! Haha, look how stupid you believers are! Next issue!’ And that’s where serious consideration stops.
It took me quite a while to go from atheist to agnostic but I arrived there because I did not stop considering the question. I hope to arrive at the truth one day. But until I do, I can at least get my head around the idea that believers might have a sound reason for doing so. It doesn’t excuse bad behaviour by the zealots. But I no longer have contempt for the beliefs of roughly 80% of people and that feels GOOD. I recommend it highly.
by Calum
MatthewQ: Good luck with pimping the Turing Test for gods – it’s a great meme.
As a lapsed atheist, turned to agnosticism, how do you deal with the Problem of Evil? I.e., if God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc then given the state of this world, he/she/it must be Evil. Of course this does not apply to a non-Omnipotent god: the Greek gods and similar can escape the problem of Evil by simply being a bit incompetent. As Woody Allen said, the problem with God is that he’s an under-achiever.
I also applaud your refusal to belittle those (e.g. religionists) with whom you disagree. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong. In fact, at least one set of believers in different Omnipotent Gods must logically be wrong.
by SmartAndSober
In fact, at least one set of believers in different Omnipotent Gods must logically be wrong.
Agreed. The discipline of “theology” spawns from the belief in Omnipotent deities, plus a lot of elaborately made up fairy tales.
In Christian theology, they speak of different types of angels and different layers of heavens. Sound very sophisticated, but unfortunately are almost totally fiction (useless knowledge). Similar fairy tales with complex story structures are also found in other religions (including Buddhism, IMHO, as a former follower, a very overrated religion/meme-complex. )
how do you deal with the Problem of Evil?
There may be gods, they may be very powerful (literal, real gods, such as technologically advanced aliens), but they aren’t omnipotent. Not yet.
We should not blame the gods for not fully use their power to save us from our troubles, instead we should be responsible of our own actions, and work hard to achieve our own godhood (via the Singularity).
Perhaps, I imagine, we are the gods’ “hands”. The gods *will* be omnipotent after we become so.
by Calum
Hi SandS. Omnipotence is a very high bar, and may be logically impossible. Personally, I’ll settle for us becoming gods.
by MatthewQ
Aye, check out Shermer’s Last Law. My Turing Test for gods isn’t my own idea nor is it especially new. Shermer’s last law applies in our own future if we achieve our own singularity.
by Calum
Thanks for the pointer to Shermer’s Last Law. He was a good guest on Singularity 1 on 1. BTW, you didn’t answer the question about how an agnostic deals with the Problem of Evil (assuming the agnosticism concerns an Omnipotent deity).
(Apologies for out-of-sequence response: reply facility seems to be disabled after your last post.)
by MatthewQ
“omnipotent/omniscient” I do not accept this premise.
That is a monotheistic definition. Why should I accept it as a useful definition when in the course of human history godhood has been ascribed to many beings that did not possess those attributes?
I also offer the term ‘demi-god’ for consideration. It demonstrates that the idea of godhood is a complex one and one that has many possible levels.
I do not need to posit an omnipotent magical being. I just need a being that passes the Turing Test for gods. The Turing Test is a well understood concept. The Turing Test for gods (note the plural) is one that you can easily extrapolate yourself if you care to give the matter serious and honest thought. The whole point is- there may not be any ‘top tier god(s)’ but you as a human are too primitive to be able to tell the difference. In other words, your threshold for allowing a ‘Pass’ on the TT for g is necessarily much lower than a more evolved being’s would be.
Atheists are actually forced to cling to a monotheistic definition of a ‘magic all powerful god’ because a broader definition undermines their position. And while it is amusing to see them defend monotheism, there is no reason for me to accept that definition as the only one. A monotheist’s god is only ONE TYPE of god among many.
The TT for g gives you a tool for exploring all this. This box and forum are too small for this topic.
by Dennis R.
Calum wrote:”Omnipotence is a very high bar, and may be logically impossible. Personally, I’ll settle for us becoming gods.”
I don’t want to be a member of any club where the members refer to themselves as gods. And apologies to Groucho Marx. :)
by MatthewQ
I did deal with problem of evil. The argument only makes sense with an omnipotent/omniscient being. Once you eliminate those two premises, the argument is pointless.
Also, I personally find that evil is best dealt with by the select employment of a 12 gauge shotgun. That is how I was raised to deal with evil ;-)
Hope that helps.
by Dennis R.
I think Huntington’s argument would include those people with the belief they can unilaterally define “evil” and dispatch it with a 12 gauge shotgun as an example of a clash of civilizations. But that’s just my civilizational bias talking.
by Calum
Dennis: “I don’t want to be a member of any club where the members refer to themselves as gods.”
Fair point, but I was using the word “god” to describe a condition as we perceive it now. If and when we attain that condition it wouldn’t seem godly any more. We will presumably be gazing upwards at the next Kardashev level and marvelling at what they can do.
by Bri
@Calum: Yes the shotgun is an example of the potential for deadly clash. It’s a spark for a flash point. The big problem with our future is that we will have many more options other than a shot gun, GAI among them. The problem with gun violence in America is that we foster a take matters in your own hands approach to problems. Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, John Wayne type movies encourage a lone gunman taking on societal problems violently. Militias have increased two fold recently. On Heraldo Rivera the wife of a militia man argued for the second amendment. she said they would band together and fight to defend the constitution. My first post was in relation to the statement ” the first person to shoot down a US drown over America would be a national hero. Take that in relation to the response to the filibuster the other day on drones being used against Americans. All we need is for robots to push unemployment around the globe, with a little ludite sentiment, and some new high tech toys and the potential for WW three. If Americans start to attack other Americans, the American ideal will have failed. We are very close to the tinder point.
by Gorden Russell
If we can just make it to the Singularity without blowing up the world, or infecting it with a mal-sequenced disease, all of our conflicts will be carried out in virtual reality.
…And once we have computers in our heads, we will be able to download ethnographs instantly and develop the anthropological perspective needed to understand one another.
But then again, some people just won’t do that. They don’t want to understand other cultures. They just want to bring back the Caliphate.
What will they do when THEY get computers in their heads?
by SmartAndSober
” … all of our conflicts will be carried out in virtual reality. ”
No, please stop add conflicts and sufferings to the mindkind. please be mature. (“Mindkind” is an improvement of “Humankind” – with the addition of AIs, posthumans, uplifted animals and many other sentient lifeforms).
IMHO, we should promote mutual understanding.
by SmartAndSober
They just want to bring back the Caliphate.
I wish to remind people of that, in the Middle Age, the Muslims achieved a Scientific Golden Age.
The Mulsims made many important contribution to mathematics, medicine and astronomy.
Chemistry is first developed by Muslims. Muslims also made the first electric battery.
I am not a Muslim, instead I just want to bring a little balance to this discussion.
by SmartAndSober
What will they do when THEY get computers in their heads?
Let’s hope the huge processing power can help them learn that their beliefs are irrational and should be discarded.
If that don’t happen, we will have to hack their brain (via their implants) and modify their brain/mind.
by Dennis R.
What will any of us do when we get “computers in our heads?” It kind of depends on what the computer is capable of doing, doesn’t it? If all computers do is give us faster access to more written knowledge/information/opinion, then it may not be much of an improvement if the knowledge/information/opinions we access aren’t “true.” And if, in discussions like these, the processing power was used merely to give us an advantage in winning our arguments then it wouldn’t necessarily be an improvement. Which kind of brings us back to Huntington’s original premise that there are cultural differences in the world– and that they can/will be a source for conflict. Fearing Muslims merely because they are Muslims is just one example of the conflict between cultures. If we or Muslims or any other culture use enhancements to our brains to make better arguments about why other cultures should be feared, then maybe we shouldn’t be thinking about “upgrading.”
That would be a useful discussion to pursue. Who among us should be among the first to upgrade? Who actually will be among the first to voluntarily upgrade? What would they do with their enhanced computational powers? What sort of conflicts will there be between those who choose to upgrade and those who do not? In short, will those who upgrade be a different culture and a new source of conflict? Will those who choose to upgrade view those who do not as different/inferior?
by Ken
We all belong to the human race. Why can’t we just get along….:) We are one species after all.
by SmartAndSober
That is right. I believe, besides the Singularity, we should also strongly promote mutual understanding / compassion so that humanity will become harmonious.
by DeBee Corley
The Muslims are coming…
by Camaxtli
I have the suspicion that more and more Muslims are in fact about as observant as a lot of Catholics or Jewish, or other religions are currently where if you ask them their religion, they’ll say “X”, but if you examine their particular day to day beliefs and lifestyle, it makes the religious affiliation little more then a word announcing cultural roots.
Its the Agnostics and Atheists are coming. I believe that the rate of growth is faster then any major religion. Never mind that only 14% of the 1.3 billion Chinese say they are religious.
by MatthewQ
“Its the Agnostics and Atheists are coming”
Don’t lump me in with atheists. To me (an agnostic) many atheists are not so much different than hardcore theists. Perhaps to a theist we look the same, but let me assure you- there is a world of difference, not just in definition but in modes of thought.
by JasonN
The atheists think they know everything. The moment someone believes him/herself to be all-knowing, his/her mind dies.
by JasonN
I mean “many” atheists, not all.
by Ryan
Actually you are quite wrong. Atheists don’t think they know everything, in fact that is why so many atheists adhere to the scientific method and believe that the things we don’t know or understand can be figured out through dedicated thought and research with actual evidence backing up findings. The religious however believe in concepts concocted by primitives that had almost no understanding of reality at all based on preconcieved notions with absolutely no evidence to back such notions up and then passed them off to the even less educated of their time as explanations to both placate and control the masses. These people then passed these ideas on to further generations via blatantly obvious indoctrination techniques, cultural/social pressure, and the use of violence on those that didn’t take to their ideas in a manner they approved. The religious have a grand variety of ideas about whatever supernatural being/concept they believe in with absolutely no evidence to support their claims, certainly not even close enough to claim you understand some invisible, ominsicient, omnipotent being that supposedly no one can truly understand in this world but never deters the people that believe in this concept in telling you what this being(s) likes and dislikes and how it wants you to live. The irony here is you accusing atheists of believing they know everything when the religious make a vast number of claims with absolutely no evidence and certainly nothing that comes even close to proof and they’ve had thousands of years to cough up evidence of even the flimsiest sort (note: you or others of your belief, whatever belief system it is, claiming you’ve had a feeling or spirtual moment is not in any way, shape, or form evidence. Nor is claiming that the universe is just to vast or complex so a magical creator must exist). Displaying ignorance of how something exists and then claiming the answer must be some preconcieved notion of a creator because it makes sense to you, with zero evidence, is not a compelling reason to believe in something, no matter how safe or special it makes anyone feel.
by MatthewQ
You’re doing the same thing you accuse the poster of doing. The other poster should have said ‘some atheists’ and then his post would reflect reality. Likewise you make sweeping generalizations about religious people. The best you can say is ‘some religious people’.
One need not have evidence to be rational. One need merely have a compelling argument. One does not always have evidence in life but one is often still forced to make a decision. You examine what you have and make the best choice you can. That is rational. But it is not scientific. Thus, one can be rational without using the scientific method.
If I can construct a ‘compelling argument’ for the belief that a deity could exist then it is not irrational to believe in that deity although it may be unscientific to do so.
After all, people fill in Drake’s Equation based on their own personal biases (i.e. some WANT the equation to yield ‘lots of life’). We have no evidence of life elsewhere. I for one, firmly believe in life elsewhere though and I would wager a lot of money that a lot of scientists do as well.
by SmartAndSober
I think Ryan’s opinion make sense.
The atheist meme seriously need momentum.
Now, in many Western countries, you can see Muslims/Sikhs etc preaching their religion to the Westerners.
Some tricks they use are agnostic (and even New-Age) arguments: there *may* be a god, the Evolution Theory *may* be wrong, our scriptures *have* valid prophecies that came true, our religion promote conservative lifestyles/clothings which appeals to your (some people) luddite/antimodern/sexist psychological quirk, and so on.
We need more atheists to counter this absurdity (and if left undealt with, will be precursor to disasters).
by MatthewQ
To wit, you don’t need atheist memes to counter any of those arguments. The problem is, you are discussing religion. Godhood is a different topic.
For any who wish to see a very amusing example of rationality turned on its head research ‘Eliezer Yudkowsky / basilisk’. It demonstrates how religious belief can stem from rational argument. (Yudkowsky is a ‘leading’ proponent of the singularity)
I do not agree with many religious people on this Earth. But it is not so much what they believe as it is their actions that really matter to me. In order for society to be possible we need a basic level of respect for other people and their beliefs. This must be enforced (literally by force) otherwise we have no society. So long as all people, regardless of belief, appreciate that their beliefs are better guaranteed by a society that respects everyone’s right to believe freely, then we are all happy.
It is the ‘We need to force this belief on you’ style of doing things that is the problem. Not the belief itself. And note, humans are happy to enforce ideology whether it have anything to do with gods or not. Just look at Stalin.
by Calum
If you haven’t done so already, check out the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A great contribution to the debate between religionists and the rest of us.
Also the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which combines faith and reason. Adherents know She is pink because of their faith. They know She is invisible because of their reason – they can’t see Her, so She must be invisible.
by MatthewQ
I don’t go to church. Why should i go to the soaring pasta one?
Be glad you live in a society that allows you to believe in the pasta monster.
by Calum
Believe me, I am glad about that! I wholly agree with your comments about tolerance. Voltaire and all that.
You don’t have to go to a church to be an adherent of the FSM. You don’t even have to have a sense of humour, although it’s probably a bit pointless without one.
by Ryan
Oh absolutely there’s a world of difference. Agnostics seem to exist in some odd place where the concept of omniscient, omnipotent beings have a 50/50 chance of existing. Atheists on the other hand, mostly don’t discount the remote chance there could be some being(s) out there but with the preponderance of real evidence have to say that the chance of it is very, very remote (pretty much on the same level of finding out Santa or Unicorns are real) and even if said being(s) did exist, if they were to be as described by pretty much any of the religions of today would be completely unworthy of any devotion. Oh, as to the other aspect of your comment, please regale us with how atheists are like hardcore theists. Lets see, hardcore theists believe in beings for which there is no evidence at all, they have a set dogma in which those that don’t adhere to it are looked at and treated poorly at best and at worst are attacked (physically, not just with words), they are often conservative to a very high degree and fear change and anything that may contradict their world view. Atheists on the other hand generally follow the scientific method of accepting new information as it arises, meaning there has to be actual evidence not wishful thinking or adherence to some set of notions created by people with a very limited concept of reality or how it works that’s managed to survive for a while. Atheists don’t have any dogma, in fact in many cases the primary, and sometimes only, thing we agree on is that there is very little chance, if any, of gods existing. For the most part we’d be happy to completely ignore theists save for the fact that in multiple areas of the world theists persist in attempting to inflict their beliefs on others through laws and in social situations, at least in the US, have the notion that its alright to bring up their particular beliefs, often at random, and speak as if they are absolutely correct and should not be challenged (and for many centuries this was how it worked as simply challenging such beliefs could get you killed). Well, the days of that are over. If they don’t want their beliefs challenged then don’t bring them up. Atheists, in general, are not going to bring up our views at random, however if you have someone walking around spouting off how (for example) the only way to live a good life is through some person mentioned in a book and any who don’t follow such notions are going to some horrible afterlife, then be prepared to be challenged. I would challenge people walking around saying that the only way to be good is to bow down fives times daily towards a specific spot on the other side of the globe. The other key here is that Atheists are open to new knowlege, even stuff that may change their world view. We certainly don’t have a dogmatic adherance to any particular code or creed. If something were to come up, with actual evidence, that would overturn how something was seen scientifically before then many of us have no issues changing our minds on the topic or at least following the topic as new information comes in to verify said upheaval. If something came out that conclusively proved the absense of whatever god a particular belief followed the same could not be said of hardcore theists. Now, if the theists could actually provide some evidence for their notions, whatever they might be, an atheist could actually be swayed. Theists have had a long time to provide any evidence and so far have not. I, and a lot of atheists, have no problem letting them believe whatever they want, in their own personal lives. That does not afford them the right to inflict thier beliefs on others however. Not putting up with that in no way makes us ‘not so much different than hardcore theists’.
by SmartAndSober
You are right. I changed my mind. Now I sympathize with atheists.
We won’t be saved from our own mistakes/stupidity by some kind of invisible being in the sky. It is time for humanity as a species to grow up (through both technology and reason).
by SmartAndSober
“pretty much on the same level of finding out Santa or Unicorns are real”.
Well said.
I consider the Internet to be a better candidate for a god, as it actually fulfils wishes and provide people with more knowledge/wisdom than anything else ever did.
by MatthewQ
” Agnostics seem to exist in some odd place where the concept of omniscient, omnipotent beings have a 50/50 chance of existing.”
No. An omnipotent/omniscient being is merely one type of god. There are other definitions. Unless you can provide a sound reason for why I should choose this one very narrow definition I will stick with a definition that applies to all beings described as ‘god’ by humans. There IS a baseline that they all have in common- namely power. Agnosticism is more about our ‘ability to know’ than anything else.
This is why I don’t like to be lumped in with atheists. There is a lot of antagonism between the two groups. Probably just as much as between between atheists and theists. In fact, antagonism seems to go hand in hand with the position.
If atheists are open to knowledge then they should have no problem with the idea of the Turing Test for gods. Combine it with Shermer’s Last Law and you have a rational basis for agnosticism.
by Calum
Aren’t atheism and agnosticism usually defined in the context of religions which posit an Omnipotent deity? At least, that restriction seems to bring out the interesting difference between them. So if you were restricted to that definition, which side of the fence would you climb down on?
by MatthewQ
First, no. Second, I’m not restricted to that argument so I don’t need to come down on one side of the fence or the other.
Atheists, in this sense, are closet monotheists. I say this tongue in cheek but there is much truth in that statement.
Imagine the state of atheism before the big push of monotheism in our past. When society was predominately polytheistic, an atheist’s position was necessarily different than it is now. Think about that for a while.
I would imagine that the atheist back then used many of the same ‘evidence based’ arguments but was not able to employ many semantic arguments about the nature of gods. Think about it, monotheism has been a huge boom for atheists. Polytheism is the atheist’s scourge ;-)
When I look at this idea of godhood I can only try to find the basic common denominator that all gods have in common. It is not omnipotence- it is merely power. And in some cases just a little bit more than humans have.
by Calum
I would go further. You say that “monotheism has been a huge boom for atheists.” I suspect it actually created them. It seems to me there is little point being an agnostic in the context of non-omnipotent gods because to be an atheist in that context is pretty daft, unless one knows something about Fermi and Drake that the rest of us don’t. Asserting agnosticism in that context seems to me to dodge the question rather than to answer it. However, we’re unlikely to agree, so I’ll stop there.
by MatthewQ
I think there have always been atheists and agnostics. Atheists have an easier time of it with monotheism is all is all I’m saying (thus they usually choose to define god in monotheistic terms). Agnostics remain the same. We only say that we cannot know (maybe ever) if there are deities or not. We can never be sure something ‘masquerading as a deity’ is not a deity. Thus, the Turing Test for gods. Shermer’s Last Law. Etc. God is always defined by the lesser being. We know this. There are other creatures out there. We do not know this. We may be inferior intellectually to these creatures if they do exist. We just don’t know. We may never know.
That’s agnosticism. It’s not that we don’t WANT to know. Of course we do.
by Mr.X
“Its the Agnostics and Atheists are coming. I believe that the rate of growth is faster then any major religion.”
Atheism is no religion.
“I have the suspicion that more and more Muslims are in fact about as observant as a lot of Catholics or Jewish.”
Where do you live?I have a suspicion your suspicion isn’t based on any personal experience.
by Daniel LaLiberte
The Sinics are coming…
by Satan
The Singularity is coming! fools!
by Camaxtli
The singularity has been and will continue to be coming. It will only look like a singularity to those who don’t keep up.
by Rob B
Amen
by Rob B
I meant ‘Amen’ to Satan ;)
PS. Camaxtli. Eventually no one will be able to keep up with the singularity. That is the point.
by Camaxtli
Not true. Those who augment or upload will continue to keep up.
by Gorden Russell
But Camaxtli, once we can upload, we will be deep within the Sing. It will be for us like it was for the hero at the closing scene of “The Highlander.” We will be connected to everything everywhere and know everything that is happening all at once.
That’s why I keep saying that the Sing will be the black hole of the imagination. We can’t imagine beyond its coming, our unaugmented imaginations don’t have the escape velocity.
by Satan
curse your Amen! that burned
The SATANularity will come first and overpower the singularity
by SmartAndSober
I believe the “Sinics” are the Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese.
Japanese probably belong to the “Buddhist” category.
As predicted by Dr Hugo de Garis, Chinese will become a poweful and rich nation starting from the 2020s.
Asian cultures have a record of being not-as-creative as Europeans. I guess Asians’ creativity will improve in the future.
by SmartAndSober
The large population of China will probably give “cultural nudge” to the near-Singularity AIs. I believe there is a strong possibility that Chinese language and culture will be promoted in the post-Singularity world.
by David Faucheux
To whom it may concern: The article is interesting but why did it not indicate the civilazations that would clash? Or was it in a diagram? I don’t see to use graphics well. Thank you
by Tom B.
To me it is sad that after all these years, we are still divided by religion. Anyone who believes in god must understand that there can be only one. Omnipotence ultimately requires it. That being the case, we’re all worshiping the same one, so the dogmas must be of our on design. Why kill each other over them? Grow up, already!
by Skydog
If you are worshipping a god you are part of the problem
by GatorALLin
….don’t worry…the singularity should have a cure for all diseases, including maybe one for religion in the future….. at least that is what some are praying for now…(grin).
by SmartAndSober
There are virtues in religions. For example, strengthened psychological resiliance.
Perhaps we should work on creating a “memetic system” that includes all the benefits of the religions but exclude the non-benefits.
by trakk
No its not. Thats a part of being human.
by trakk
Ofcourse a lot of humans dont believe in gods existence. Thats a part of being human too.
by Camaxtli
There are a lot of things that are part of being human that we should resist or rise above. Saying something is part of being human does not make something good.
by trakk
Saying something is part of being human doesnt make it bad either.
And what do you mean rise above? We are not ‘tied down’ or ‘held down’ by beleiving in the existence of god.
by MatthewQ
It depends how belligerent the god is. If it sees you in a benevolent way, like a dog, you might get by without worshiping. If it sees you as something to destroy unless you obey it, then worshiping it is a very rational thing to do.
But we would need to define gods first wouldn’t we?
I define god as that which passes the Turing Test for gods. How do you define it?
by Dennis R.
I think we need to distinguish between those who worship a god and those who practice a particular religion. Many who worship a god are tolerant of others who worship differently. Many who no longer practice a religion in which they were raised don’t necessarily reject the existence of a god, they simple lose faith in their former religion and don’t choose to align themselves with a different one. When one contemplates the vastness of all that exists, it’s hard not to feel a little humbled by it all. That realization that you’re so very small can lead to belief that there is something much greater than oneself– and a desire to be a part of that greatness. That could be simply a desire for membership in a larger community. It could also be hubris. Both are very human qualities. Well, maybe not qualities…
by trakk
You are right.
by trakk
I feel the same
by Dennis R.
We’re also divided by language, gender, geography, wealth, disease, and age. It’s been alluded to in the article and comments but I believe the lack of a common language is an enormous barrier to cross-cultural understanding. I speculate that an inability to understand another makes it possible to simultaneously view the other as a threat and less intelligent. Most U.S. citizens are probably monolingual, yet feel intellectually superior to the bilingual immigrant who helps raise their children. There’s also a fear of losing one’s perceived superior status to a different culture. That others might be more deserving of heightened status doesn’t matter if one’s own status is downgraded in the process. Mere humanity isn’t enough of an achievement for most of us. We seem to have the need to feel superior to others. I don’t know that that will change. I think enhanced humans might simply be a continuation of this attitude.
by SmartAndSober
” but I believe the lack of a common language is an enormous barrier to cross-cultural understanding. ”
Well said! (Genuine compliment). Sometimes it is even worse than that.
For example, people discriminate against people who speak different dialects/accents of a language.
We must fix that.
by snake0
Yeah.. I’m sure the ‘Buddhist-Latin American’ war is just around the corner…
Poppycock.
by SmartAndSober
Just because the Buddhists and the Latin Americans are on opposite ends of diagram doesnot make them contradictors.
I believe we need cyborgization that allow us to percieve diagrams/graphs in more-than-3 dimensions (the more the better).
Diagrams like the one in this page fail to communicate fine mathematical details that can have huge relevance.