My last post had the slightest tinge of trollishness, and not surprisingly it has gathered a lot of comments. Of course my trolling is very sophisticated, and the comments are of the most exceptional quality.
I want to clarify that I don’t want Europe to adopt Islam. I don’t want Eurabia. I really don’t. I don’t like Islam. I’ve been to Muslim countries and I didn’t enjoy them. I’d rather my homeland didn’t become Muslim. But at this rate it will, through the physical replacement of the original white population by foreign Muslims, either recent or born there. Remember this? Well, do the math.
And for those who may think that I’m in Japan so I’m just trolling and sneering at Europe without skin in the game. Look at this.
In 2001, there were only 34,000 Muslims living in Korea; today there are more than 150,000. Furthermore, there are over 45,000 ethnic Korean Muslims.
Given modern transportation, if Korea or Japan opens the gates to foreign labor, it could be filled with 100 million Indonesians or Pakistanis in a matter of weeks. If Europe, or god forbid America, falls to Islam, the pragmatic East Asians will most certainly soon follow suit, as they did before when adopting Chinese and American culture. So no joke. We need a new religion, all of us. All civilized peoples.
So in that topic, how do new religions happen? There was a good comment by Rhetocrates arguing that Christianity lost to empiricism. So a provisional model could say:
Revelation is superior to Tradition; (empirical) Science is superior to Revelation. What is superior to Science?
Or let’s do it another way:
1. Revelation won over Tradition when it became obvious that the guardians of Tradition didn’t know what they were doing, were acting by inertia and corrupting the old traditions for personal gain. Besides, the old traditions were increasingly transparently false. A god can’t make children with a cow. And nobody has seen a god either. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scripture to the word of God had the epistemic advantage.
2. Then Science won over Revelation because it became obvious that the guardians of Revelation didn’t know what they were preaching, were acting by inertia, corrupting the meaning of scripture for personal gain. Besides, the scriptures were increasingly transparently false. The world isn’t 6,000 years old. There are no miracles. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scientific experiments to the Laws of the Universe had the epistemic advantage.
3. Then X won over Science because it became obvious that the guardians of Science don’t know what they are doing, they are writing bogus papers by inertia, corrupting the scientific method for personal gain, getting grants and cozy political jobs. Besides, official science is increasingly transparently false. The human brain is not a blank slate. There is no global warming. So groups that claim to have actual understanding of Evolutionary Processes have the X advantage.
The problem with 3. is that there is no epistemic advantage. A book holds more accessible knowledge than an oral tradition spread by a pagan priest. The scientific method produces reproducible results, unlike a book of stories. But evolutionary theory, for all its explanatory power, does not produce more immediately obvious knowledge than empirical science. Of course the point is that the scientific method isn’t applicable to all areas of knowledge; you can’t experiment with people or with abstract ideas or with things on the past. Social Science is generally a cargo-cult scam using long words and equations to obfuscate naked attempts at fooling the public to argue to send tax money to some political faction.
Of course all of this is rather limited to Western history. China never had Science. But it never had Revelation either. Confucius’ books are revered as sagely accounts on human nature, but they are by no means the word of a superior being. Confucius himself was completely ignored during his lifetime, died a frustrated man, and the Confucian orthodoxy was enforced by the state. Not because the emperors felt attached to Confucianism, or understood much about it. But what kind of man would deny the orthodoxy promoted by the state? Does he mean the state, that we are doing something wrong? For generations? Such a contrarian is obviously up to no good. And so mere bureaucratic pragmatism produced something eerily similar to organized religion.
So anyway, either this model is not very good, or I’m missing what will trump the epistemic advantage of modern science.