Agnostic Domination

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a study that revealed that at least 44 percent of Americans have switched from the religion that they were raised as to a new religion. The study also found that only 4 percent of Americans self-identify as atheists or agnostics.

We do not have a control to compare this 44 percent with. Is 44 percent a lot or a little? Still, I would guess that this percentage is more than other countries where other religious options are heavily deterred either legally or socially. In the West, people can switch faiths with little or no consequence. One’s friends and parents may care and alienate one for switching faiths, but for the most part, there is religious tolerance and, thus, tolerance for switching. Most importantly, economic survival is fairly independent of religion in the West, which allows people, for the most part, to switch freely.

It is interesting that in an environment of religious freedom, people switch faiths often. It shows that the basic nature of humanity is uncertainty with religion. I would bet that even the people who are still part of their birth religion have beliefs that do not really match up with the official doctrine. The probable situation is that, in fact, most people are agnostic. People probably have their own ideas on the universe, which change from time to time.

Additionally, spirtual fickleness doesn’t seem to be a modern phenomenon. New cults and religions swept through the ancient world all the time. The very existence of laws than ban certain religions shows that populations were prone to conversion.

Yet, even though it is clear that people are unsure of what the universe holds, few are willing to admit it (less than 1 in 25). I suppose this is because people enjoy being part of groups. Additionally, with so many religions existing, every belief is claimed. A person, over time, can show uncertainty, but at any given moment, they occupy the territory of a religion.

Cult

My roommate has an addiction to buying DVDs and recently purchased “Undeclared,” a cancelled series about college from 2001. The series, which contains many of the same actors from “Knocked Up” and “Superbad,” reportedly achieved a cult following. After watching a few episodes, I see that the show has a unique type of humor and it is understandable that some would be enthusiastic about it, though I only think the show is okay.

Cults are a hotly disputed topic with no one completely agreeing on a definition. We all sort-of understand that cults are relatively small an involve worship, but issues of critical thinking, brainwashing, enthusiasm and “the norm” can vary from opinion to opinion.

In arts and entertainment, it is positive to have an item achieve a cult status. In fact, the mainstream is seen as simple and unable to comprehend the complexity of most art. Though classic art and literature can be good and famous, good contemporary art is almost always obscure and erudite. Only for the sake of making money do artists crave popular attention and a loss of the cult status.

With religion, though, cults strive to be more. Religion, lacking objective proof like science, relies on numbers for credibility. If a billion people believe that Jesus had superpowers, it’s not crazy. If ten people believe that David Blaine has superpowers, that’s crazy. With religious cults, people often highlight how the cults rely on brainwashing and abuse its members. Of course, nearly all religion attempts to indoctrinate impressionable children and tries to extract money from its followers. It all seems to be a matter of degree.

Cults of personality seem to break from the small size criterion and focuses on the worship without critical thinking that is reminiscent of religious zealots. Whether it’s Mao, a teen heartthrob or Obama, people worship a person and believe everything that person does is great without ever being critical of it.

Though there is great variance in the definition of the cult organization, there is one thing that present in all three- the desire for humans to worship something irrationally. Whether it’s a twelve-year-old schoolgirl, an eighteen-year-old rocker, an overly devoted boyfriend, a sports fanatic, a Bible thumper or campaigner, there seems to be a desire to worship a shiny golden calf.

The organization, whether it’s a person, a religion or a nation-state, feeds off of this desire to varying degrees. The organization can come in million forms, but the blindness of the worship is what makes a cult a cult.

Hillary and Obama

Believe or not, but I am undecided about my choices tomorrow. In truth, either would do. Obama seems more electable and is a fresh face. Hillary seems to have slightly better ideas. McCain is such a disgusting piece of crap that I would vote for almost any Democrat over him.

McCain, on his super-slow web site, lists horrid view on so many issues. He actually lists his anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-same sex marriage stances under his “Human Dignity” section which also includes efforts to stop child molesters. On abortion, McCain claims that overturning Roe v. Wade is just the start (wow, not even hiding behind federalism). On stem cell research, he straw-mans the argument and says he’s against “fetal farming” and thus against stem cell research (no one pro-“fetal farming” since there are plenty of stem cells left over from abortions). On same-sex marriage, he claims that the practice threatens the preservation and health of civil society.

McCain wants to continue Bush’s tax cuts and deceptively claims that Democrats want to hike taxes. He has some convoluted gibberish for Health Care section. At as a kicker, he wants more troops for Iraq.

McCain does say he wants to fight global warming, but that’s about all he has on environment.

Abortion. Both Hilary and Obama shy away from discussing the issue on the web site. We all know they are pro-choice, but only Hilary mentions it under her “Champion For Women” section. Hilary also pledges to overturn Bush’s ban on money for the UN Population Fund. Advantage Hillary.

Stem Cell research. I’m sure Obama is pro-federal funding, but, again, only Hillary seems to list it on her web site. She has a nice little press release entitled “Ending the War on Science.” Advantage Hillary.

Same sex marriage. Neither mention it.

Environment. Both are pro-tradable pollution permits and want 25% renewable energy by 2025. They are completely equal on this one.

Iraq. Hilary wants to start bring troops home immediately. Obama wants them out completely in 16 months. Advantage Obama.

Health Care. Hillary has required participation. Advantage Hillary.

Poverty. Obama lists a whole lot more poverty fighting programs than Hillary. Both are for lower class and middle class tax help. Advantage Obama.

International. Obama wants to promote multilateralism, make peace with Iran, secure nuclear material and be a little tougher on China. Hilary links to a long Foreign Affairs article detailing the same sort of multilateral ideas. Another tie.

So, I’m still undecided. Fantastic.

Why is it so easy to determine what one hates and so difficult to determine what one likes? I'm remined of trying to order pizza. Ask what someone wants, and they tell you nothing. Start suggesting things and people start claiming they hate that topping. Well, neither Hillary or Obama has done anything to make me hate them. Maybe I should just flip a coin.

Sickness and Happiness

In the modern American world, sometimes we question the utility of additional conveniences. At some point, having more just doesn't bring us any more happiness. The post-materialists recognize that, at some point, having more pizza and beer (the favorite comodities of microeconomist) is actually a burden and utility decreases. Not to mention the Buddhists who think all consumption is just a cycle of unhappiness.

Certainly, I can see where they are coming from. Hauling away boxes of pizzas and beer cans is a pain in the ass and worrying about ever-breaking and continuously-stolen I-Pods rivals the joys of the I-Pod in the first place. And I know pleanty of absolutely miserable rich people.

But, while there is question to what brings us happiness, there is no question to what brings us unhappiness- sickness. Poor health is pure unhappiness. Those days with the flu or extreme alergies or something worse are painful and unenjoyable. Though many people opt for spartan existances and often people opt for painful challenges, no one opts to be sick. It is a horrible time with its only reward being a resistance to a single specific virus. If you're unlucky enough to get cancer, recovery never brings you back to full strength. No, sickness is something without a brightside, which is why the most successful international organization are all medical related.

When people look at how far our society has progressed and improved, oddly sickness is overlooked in favor of the easier to measure longevity. Most people know that the average American lives to be around 76, but few think about the decrease in sick days. But it is true that people spent weeks and months each year in bed sick until the 20th century. Now, its unusual if we spend more than a few days in bed twice a year. The good 'ol days sucked and the third world really does have it bad.