Age Wave

27 responses to “Age Wave”

1. 

   jurvetson

   Jun 17, 2009 at 9:48 pm

   The long view…

   

   Reply
2. 

   TomiTapio

   Jun 18, 2009 at 2:25 am

   The graphs illustrate the power of technology.

   Reply
3. 

   Incredibly Witty Screen Name

   Jun 18, 2009 at 2:30 am

   An interesting perspective. I did not realize how very recently and dramatically the life expectancy had increased. Viewing this history it suddenly is no surprise why it seems so very difficult to wrap our minds about the concept of longterm planning.

   Quick question – any idea how about the source of the modern stats? Are these from Western countries only?

   Reply
4. 

   pegleg000

   Jun 18, 2009 at 4:24 am

   Interesting that the on-going industrial revolution, with all of the current criticism of the resulting pollution, is directly correlated with a near doubling in human life expectancy. Something typically ignored by the environmental extremists. The on-line CIA World FactBook shows the life expectancy (among other interesting stats) for each country – generally, it is directly related to the country’s technological & economic development. For instance Japan’s life expectancy is about 82, Angola’s is 38.

   Reply
5. 

   jurvetson

   Jun 18, 2009 at 4:28 am

   Poet: Worldwide, I believe for the long-term graph. A lot of the "recent" improvement has been from reductions in infant mortality and violence of all kinds.

   Kurzweil argues that we are now adding 3 months of life expectancy per year.

   But it’s accelerating. So he predicts indefinite life spans by 2022.

   pegleg: pollution was not a major killer of ancient peoples. it’s a new thing. Technological progress has been a huge benefit. As has societal rejection of violence. You may like Pinker’s EDGE piece:

   "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.

   The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals. And it appears to be a worldwide trend, though not a homogeneous one. The leading edge has been in Western societies, especially England and Holland, and there seems to have been a tipping point at the onset of the Age of Reason in the early seventeenth century."

   Reply
6. 

   pegleg000

   Jun 18, 2009 at 5:02 am

   Steve, all true to an extent. However, the lack of what we call modern sanitation (a form of pollution) was/is a major killer. Energy usage, modern labor saving devices and transportation are also life extenders. I believe that the stats shown in Dychtwald’s presentation are for the US, where we have seen a near doubling in life expectancy since the 1900s, despite the increase in pollution. Because of the technology. One could make an argument that the level of violence in the US has increased in that time period, or at least has not decreased. I would have gotten a kick out of Harry Reid’s recent statement that "coal is making us sick, oil is making us sick"… if it weren’t such an ignorant statement from a senator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI

   Reply
7. 

   ariossw

   Jun 18, 2009 at 7:08 am

   I would argue these graphs are misleading — the Romans, for example, commonly lived to 45 or older — and are subject to large standard deviations resulting from infant mortality. More interesting would be life expectancy data given survival to the age of 5. For that subset, what was the average lifespan?

   Modern technology and sanitation have drastically reduced infant mortality but these graphs make it look like people keeled over at the age of 25 or younger, which was not the case.

   Reply
8. 

   pawelre

   Jun 18, 2009 at 8:48 am

   Reminds me of that "use of oil throughout history" chart – http://www.ross-jackson.com/mediafiles/gaia/ross-jackson/oil_pea...
   So maybe we are reaching some kind of civilization peak, who knows.. Hiperbolic charts tend to end with a sudden drop.

   Reply
9. 

   jurvetson

   Jun 18, 2009 at 4:44 pm

   Probably right that it’s the U.S. for the top graph; the world average is lagging the U.S. at 70 years (wikipedia). Most of the U.S. increase is credited to public health improvements.

   ariossaw: I think his pithy summary about not aging is misleading. perhaps itt should be that most did not get the chance to age, and some did. I was struck by the wikipedia reference that just before the Industrial Revolution in London, 3/4 of children died before the age of 5.

   pegleg: yes, I think we agree. By "ancient peoples" I meant the 100,000 year graph, where I am guessing that environmental pollution per se was not the major killer (distinct from from hygene and localized sanitation, factors that would affect other mammals in a similar way if they live near their waste). As we improve many of the blights of the past, new ones can emerge, as derivative phenomena, or new threats of scale, or new threats of parasitic leverage (both biological and ideological). In modern times, for example, religion rises from the noise as a major source of human suffering and conflict.

   Do you have a reference for per capita deaths by violence in the U.S. going up over the long term? (I think you’d like the optimistic bent of that EDGE link which makes a contrarian argument.)

   UPDATE: the new flickr format hides the context from before: The long view…

   A lot of the "recent" improvement has been from reductions in infant mortality and violence of all kinds.

   Kurzweil argues that we are now adding 3 months of life expectancy per year.

   pegleg: pollution was not a major killer of ancient peoples. it’s a new thing. Technological progress has been a huge benefit. As has societal rejection of violence. You may like Pinker’s EDGE piece:

   "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.

   The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals. And it appears to be a worldwide trend, though not a homogeneous one. The leading edge has been in Western societies, especially England and Holland, and there seems to have been a tipping point at the onset of the Age of Reason in the early seventeenth century."

   Reply
10. 

    Jonathan Ruff

    Jun 19, 2009 at 12:19 am

    And what made the industrial revolution possible? Man is first moved by ideas. Francis Bacon, Thomas Locke, Adam Smith, Aristotle, Founding Fathers / enlightenment, etc.

    The revolutionary idea of the rights of man is what enabled the radical advances in technology / prosperity. Ideas move the world long before a piece of technology does (technology being an extension of the advancement of a civilization’s progress toward rights and privacy); and without the right ideas in place, the technology may simply go unused or be pointless. What good is a printing press, if you’re not allowed to print, for example. You see the rapid embrace of technology in a direct correlation to a culture’s level of freedom – for example, Estonia’s amazing jump after the Soviet Union’s collapse, they rank near the top on the Heritage Foundation’s index of freedom every year, no coincidence (and their men live to 67, versus 59 in Russia).

    You can’t make the jump the human race made without property rights. It was that lack, the right to own and benefit from what you create / produce, that cost us a thousand or two years of advancement (for example, while the feudal lords or the church or the equivalent owned either your means of production or you literally, there’s little incentive to create, not to mention the difficulty of doing so due to the strangulation of the individual). The division of labor, freeing up each person to contribute what they were best at, and to survive by specialization and then bartering through an open economy of exchange of goods. The ability to truly save what you earn, through the advent of systemized banking and investment devices, along with gold and currency as mediums of truly free exchange with those two structures.

    Reply
11. 

    Jonathan Ruff

    Jun 19, 2009 at 12:23 am

    Oh and not to forget, the further ability to bet your savings (your time and productivity) on another man’s ability through contract and shared ownership through an entity such as a corporation that represents the production or invention or what not. In doing so enabling a vast multiplication of wealth. Representing through a several hundred year evolution in concept, what we’d now call… venture capital 😉

    Reply
12. 

    pegleg000

    Jun 19, 2009 at 5:04 am

    The homicide rate in the US was about 1.9 per 100k deaths in 1900. It rose sharply to about 10/100k in 1932, and fluctuating between about 5 – 10 per 100k through 2002. See:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

    Also, the following provides more insight into all causes:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

    Lot’s of grist for analyses in these stats. 😉 Interestingly, violence (homicide and suicide) account for only about 20/100k, while the overall death rates are around 900/100k, the largest factors being heart disease and cancers.

    Still, the most interesting question is what factors are responsible for the nearly doubling of life expectancy since 1900? It really is a multi-dimensional problem, but I maintain that the industrial & economic revolution starting in the 1900s, with the rapid expansion of energy usage (for heating, cooling, transportation, agriculture, etc) is central. We may be taking some steps backward because of HIV and Malaria (since the banning of DDT).

    I don’t think I agree with the statement that "in modern times, religion rises from the noise as a major source of human suffering and conflict." I don’t think that even radical Islam can compare to the suffering and death brought on by the socialist and facist regimes in Germany, Japan, USSR, Cambodia, Myanmar, N. Korea, China and elsewhere – all of which were/are notably atheistic. But maybe that’s just me….

    There’s a lot of interesting thoughts in Pinker’s article… I need to spend more time on it. Off-hand, I’m not as optimistic about the taming of human nature. It only takes a few individuals to wreck havoc. Communists have long held (and shown) that they can control any organization with less than 2% of the membership. But that’s another thread. 😉

    Reply
13. 

    obskura

    Jun 19, 2009 at 5:10 am

    Very interesting. I always get suspicious though when plots look too smooth to be real, or even have completely constant bits that span multiple ice ages, empires, etc…

    Regarding progress, I think there is something interesting going on. We have profited hugely from technological advances in terms of food supply, hygiene, life expectancy and general quality of life. The system that produced these benefits was mostly based around growth, and increasing the rate of growth, which was quite a reasonable strategy while resources seemed unlimited (i.e. until 100 years ago). In the last century however it became obvious that they aren’t, but there are no known mechanisms to add long term sustainability and planning to our system. This century we already know that a lot of trouble is only decades ahead, but still mankind is unable to even acknowledge the problem (see the last climate talks in Bonn). Even the countries that were first to sign the Kyoto protocol have not managed so far to reduce emissions by more than 1 or 2%.
    At the same time (but mostly forgotten) we have unprecedented pollution (of the ordinary kind – plastics, toxins, nuclear waste, …), mostly "outsourced" to developing nations. The oceans are full of garbage ("eastern garbage patch", see Charles Moore on TED, acidifying from the CO2 in the air, killing corals and shellfish, there is overfishing, deforestation, salination, water shortages, and a host of other long term problems. All this is known for over 40 years now, and yet there is no significant action, only aspiring goals. Jared Diamond describes in "Collapse" how the Easter Islanders cut down every single tree on their island, robbing themselves of their life support. The Roman empire went into a sharp decline when they couldn’t meet their energy needs any more (grain, wood). Rome’s population dropped from 1 million to 20,000 in a few decades.

    It is quite interesting to look at population charts and predictions every 10 years – it’s always exponential, and in every decade many people claimed that we’re now at the turn-around point where population growth will reduce (which of course never happened). The other amazing thing I find is that future predictions for world population invariably level out smoothly at twice the current population (as we are of course at the point where growth reduces now…). There is no good explanation why there should be smooth saturation.

    When it comes to retirement plans, super-annuation, etc. I found it an interesting experience for myself to put effort into a financial plan 40 years into the future, with all those uncertainties on what that future will be like 🙂

    Reply
14. 

    jurvetson

    Jun 20, 2009 at 5:47 am

    Side comment to pegleg: I fear this could be a major digression… that I started… and so perhaps it’s best taken offline. The examples of violence you cite do not support the claim that atheism is the cause or the galvanizing force for their demagoguery any more than any other random correlation, like moustaches and funny haircuts. They were not setting out to convert others to atheism, and it was not a critical issue in their rhetoric. Quite the opposite in Germany, for example, as the Nazi belt buckle was engraved with "Gott ist mit uns" and they did practice a fairly overt antagonism to Judaism. Oh, and Hitler was a Christian Creationist. More on Hitler and Stalin and Mao here which concludes: "put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed" but that’s not my point. It’s about trends to the future, where the danger of religion becomes unbearable in an era where technology allows deluded individuals to wield weapons of mass destruction. And it’s about where suffering prevails, especially for women, and the technological improvements you celebrate are held back by medieval thought asymmetrically around the globe. As human attention, and technology, and progress systematically address the scourges of the planet, religion starts to rise from the noise as one for which almost everyone just looks the other way or makes apologies or says the topic is beyond discussion. The conflicts I am referring to are the modern ones, the intergenerational ones, that pass from parents to children as an intense manifestation of the intergenerational child abuse that is core to the propagation of any successful religion. Look at the world of today through this lens.

    Reply
15. 

    pegleg000

    Jun 21, 2009 at 9:17 am

    I really made no claim that atheism is the cause for violence. I only point out that the greatest holocausts and human deprivations occurred in atheistic societies, not religious ones, as was claimed in the original post. (That’s not to say that religion has not been used for such, just no where near the same scale). I believe that the statement "put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed" is obviously fallacious. Do you have some references to support this? If one believes that Hitler and the Nazis were acting out of some sense of religious imperative, there is lack of understanding of what really transpired from 1916 to 1945. I may as well let it be known now that I am the 15th incarnation of the Dalai Lama (“Pegleg” is simply a pseudonym-hard to believe, I know). My claim is at least as legitimate and believable as the one that Hitler was a religious person, no? It is also clear, to even the casual observer, that atheism is a foundational tenet of Marxism and communism (see Marx’s writings). Religion was banned, or at least suppressed, in all of the communist regimes that I can think of at the moment…. It interfered with the necessary Cult of Personality effectively used by these demagogues. As for the “intergenerational” abuses you refer to, I am truly at a loss…. Are you saying that atheism precludes abuse? Perhaps you have never met the children of communists… I can recommend David Horowitz’s “Radical Son”. Madeleine Murray O’Hare’s children might also provide some insight. But, I agree, this is a digression. Feel free to continue via email, pegleg000@yahoo.com, if you like…. my Dalai Lama mailbox is currently restricted. 😉

    Reply
16. 

    Incredibly Witty Screen Name

    Jun 21, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    So far, the conversation has been framed around the events of the past century. However, let us consider – as did the graph that started this whole topic – the tremendously long story of human life and suffering. Once upon a time, the world was much more religious than it is these days. Every natural event – a flood, a drought, a disease – had cosmic associations. And rulers fought in the name of their local gods, framing politics in the language of religion. Despite whatever personal beliefs may or may not have been held by those in power, religion was a ready and efficient tool, used by these ancient governments, to motivate and control the populace. Crusades, assassinations, rebellions, torture, witch hunts, inquisitions, acts of terrorism….all in the name of one god or another. This is something that we have seen throughout thousands of years, and sadly continues today in some parts of the world.

    Nowadays, mass violence in the name of religion as a whole seems to have diminished greatly, though still waging relentlessly in some sad parts of the world. Yet Mr. Jurvetson hints at another layer of harm that can be caused by religion…One that, even in an otherwise free society, can still inhibit and harm in a much more subtle way, and is just as dangerous: the man who believes he has divine authority to beat his wife. The little girl who sits, confused, in her religion class at a fine private school in modern America, as the pastor tells her she is not allowed to enter certain parts of the church or perform certain duties because of the great sin wrought upon the world by Eve and womankind. The parent who disowns a homosexual child. The child who opens his grade school science book and finds that several chapters have been removed by the religious censors that run his school.

    But before we condemn religion as the scourge of humanity, let us also recognize that faith, at its best, brings one great gift to the world: hope. In a totalitarian regime, there is no more dangerous force than a people who believe in the possibility of something better. I believe this is why repressive societies, such as communist authorities of the past century, have traditionally singled out priests and clerics and disciples as among the most heinous enemies of the state.

    Reply
17. 

    jurvetson

    Jun 21, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Yes, very well put. The distributed suffering is staggering.

    peg/Dalai: that quote you reference is best addressed in the context of the link I gave to it. My reading of it is simplistic: compare the number of people killed or hurt by someone who claims to be doing so in the name of some religion versus in the name of atheism. (Yes, the argument would be false if you thought many atrocities were committed with the primary goal of advancing atheism, but that’s just not the case. And again, the Hitler, Mao, Stalin misperception is not my point. I just want to point you to that link or countless others online that refute your claims (.e.g, if you google it).

    I should clarify the child abuse point, because without context, it is perhaps a bit jarring. This is Dawkins’ argument that religion can be thought of as virus of the mind. We have evolved to have critical "impressionable" periods during early childhood during which we need to learn important life survival lessons from our parents without questioning them. Some of these lessons prove difficult to shake in adulthood. We could teach children how to learn, or how to close their minds. The virus propagates to their grandchildren and so on. This is why the growing religions know that they must inculcate children. If, instead, the tradition was to freely chose a religion as an adult with no expectation that it had to be your parent’s religion, then most religion would fade away in a couple generations. Brainwashing kids is the best vector for the virus. Surprisingly few adults chose a mainstream religion out of free will. They toe the line of their upbringing.

    P.S. Here is Dawkins’ bus sign argument that babies are not born with religious, political or other thought labels, and we should not call them as such (or limit their lives by law, as is done for babies born to Muslim parents in Malaysia):

    

    Reply
18. 

    pegleg000

    Jun 22, 2009 at 6:01 am

    Steve, unfortunately the link you gave is simply an unsupported expression of the student bloggers opinions. There is nothing to substantiate the claim that religion has killed more than Mao, Stalin/Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. There is no refutation of my points contained there in. It’s just not there. In fact some of the responses to his blog are much better sourced. I’m sure you can recognize that. Some of these arguments remind of that game, Twister, where you need to contort your whole body to win. Well, they were cruel, methodical killers and suppressors but it wasn’t to promote atheism…. right.

    Further, as for the Nazi’s, their activities can in no way be attributed to religious zeal or anything similar. There were three main thrusts of the third Reich- revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, conquest of Europe (and more), and the “perfection” of the Aryan race through the “science” of Eugenics. While discredited, I believe the pursuit of eugenics is still on-going today by a number of groups, scientific and otherwise. To claim that Hitler’s actions can be explained by his possible Catholic background is simply nonsense. And I can say that with the Imprimatur of the Dalai Lama! In fact, many thousands of Catholics were killed in the holocaust, including many priests. But that is history. In the pursuit of racial cleansing, the Nazi eugenicists started early in their regime (in the 30’s) to euthanize the mental retarded and physically deformed. None of the practices of the Third Reich could be attributed to any religion that I am aware of, by any thinking, knowledgeable, individual. I’m sure you agree. That would be sort of like saying that Obama’s actions are a result of his Muslim/Frank Marshall Davis/Rev Wright influences. And we’ve been told that’s just not so.

    Now you may claim that the gulags, purges, and the repression of religion in the communist dictatorships were not in the name of atheism. But if not, what were they in name of? What belief systems permitted such? Again, a basic tenet of Marxism, as I’m sure you are aware, is that religion is “opiate of the masses” and must be suppressed for communism to succeed. That is true in every communist country I am aware of. Religion, except for the Personality Cults, is not tolerated. If you need examples, Cardinal Mendszenty in Hungary, was just one such small example. You might also look at Karol Jozef Wojtyla, and his role in ending communism in Poland. On the other hand, you might not agree that his role was for the good. So be it.

    As for Dawkins, some very interesting work in genetics, and biology. When it comes to atheism, he becomes the Elmer Gantry of that belief system. It feels somewhat like what I think those old time revival meetings must have felt like. Some people take to it, some don’t. 😉 And we still have the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So far….

    Reply
19. 

    pegleg000

    Jun 22, 2009 at 6:34 am

    One additional thought… if the society is without religion (either by edict or by choice) what does the society strive for? The advancement of the state or "humanism", no? Or in the case of the Nazis, the advancement of the Aryan race. So, while those atrocities may not have been committed in the advancement of atheism, they were committed in the advancement of the replacement for religion, the state and racial perfection. To say that those atrocities don’t count because they weren’t for the advancement of atheism, per se, is a contortion of logic, imo. no?

    Reply
20. 

    drona

    Jun 23, 2009 at 6:57 am

    Interesting discussion.

    Sorry, I’m not very erudite on these matters. However, IMO I don’t know if Religion or Anti-Religion are the only reasons for groups of humans to kill other groups of humans. I think this type of cruelty goes on even today…check out the African continent — the Hutus/Tutsis, the militia in Somalia, etc.

    Poverty, and limited resources available to people groups, seem to be big drivers of why people kill other people.

    Technology and an all-round liberal arts education which teaches people humanism will likely lower genocide rates…but all that comes only after basic human needs (food clothing shelter and flickr 🙂 are met.

    Having come from a country (subcontinent?) where frankly there are way too many religions, (and religions that are allowed to thrive by the government)…I’m very skeptical of these self-serving religious leaders who directly or indirectly promote killing.

    In any case, these slides remind me of Hans Rosling’s TED slides published earlier by Steve, which show that as countries adopt modern technology, and education, and spread wealth and education albeit in a trickle down way, then life-expectancy will increase. China and India are great examples of these trends.

    Reply
21. 

    pegleg000

    Jun 23, 2009 at 8:10 am

    Good points, Drona. This discussion funneled down from the general to the narrow specifics very quickly. I agree that most such atrocities occur because of a need or desire to acquire a neighbors "wealth" (whether food, or gold, or oil, or ??, but I think mostly power). Then dividing lines are drawn between the groups – religion, political parties/ideologies, perceived wealth, turf, what ever is handy to define the "them" from the "us". And sometimes it is the result of a need to correct an injustice (perceived or otherwise). These discussions really get too involved for a flickr type forum. Thanks for the discussion/debate, Steve. Probably didn’t change any minds, at least in the near-term… but I think worthwhile.

    Reply
22. 

    Tamooj

    Jun 30, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    And I want to thank you all for the very stimulating read. I opened the picture and got a lot more than I was expecting (which is always good). Thanks!

    Reply
23. 

    vince-branca

    Jul 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    This is a nice picture. I’m using it to illustrate an article on 10 TIPS for PUBLIC SPEECHER . I have credited to you and linked it to this page. Thanks a lot for allowing me to do so !

    Reply
24. 

    Ace Reporter

    Aug 25, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Thank you for sharing your photograph. I have just used it to illustrate my article “IRA Investing is Similar Between the Traditional IRA and the ROTH” on Suite.101, an on-line magazine. Alan Simpson

    Reply
25. 

    jgury

    Apr 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    @jonathanruff "And what made the industrial revolution possible? Man is first moved by ideas. Francis Bacon, Thomas Locke, Adam Smith, Aristotle, Founding Fathers / enlightenment, etc.
    The revolutionary idea of the rights of man is what enabled the radical advances in technology / prosperity. Ideas move the world long before a piece of technology does "

    Uhhh, the rights of man have nothing to do with the influential thoughts of Francis Bacon. Like his observations about inventions and technology in Novum Organum. "Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries." Means that technology itself and the control of it by knowledge is power.
    Likewise, grouping Aristotle with Bacon, who are stark opposites vis-a-vis the new methods of science in opposition to the religious dogma of Aristotelian scholasticism is a bit odd.

    Reply
26. 

    jgury

    Apr 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    @Steve Jurvetson " As human attention, and technology, and progress systematically address the scourges of the planet, religion starts to rise from the noise as one for which almost everyone just looks the other way or makes apologies or says the topic is beyond discussion" Unfortunately the truth is that human technology and progress are by numerous obvious and undeniable criteria, planetary scourges of a vastly higher order of power now than all religion. In fact human progress, the benefits of technology and the unlimited pursuits of humanist happiness are the big things for which almost everyone just looks the other way or makes apologies or says the topic is beyond discussion.
    I find this fixation on Religion cast a the great scourge of civilization standing in the way of a utopian global kumbaya of scientific enlightenment bizarre to say the least. I don’t think you can regard thinking that a realistic goal is to rid the world of religion as a rational outlook.
    and that it is at best quixotic. Even as a simplistic reaction to understanding an event like 911 and then an excuse for the most absurd and jingoistic war mongering, ignorant racism and worse. The entire argument that religious fanatics with WMDs are the great wild card for justification of this stupidity, since they are such unpredictable mad dogs, is just that, stupid and ridiculous. How predictable and dangerous to world peace is a North Korea, Israel or Pakistan with respect to serious triggering events because of problems posed by religion? For that matter, if mad dog religions of the world are the real problem then the entire US is beyond any Taliban disneyworld terror funhouse for crazed fanatics.

    Reply
27. 

    jgury

    Apr 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    @pegleg000 "As for Dawkins, some very interesting work in genetics, and biology. When it comes to atheism, he becomes the Elmer Gantry of that belief system." Elmer was more a small time con man charlatan in the classical American evangelical tradition. Dawkins is very different. Certainly not small time but actively deceptive on any number of topics with a curious lack of numerical accuracy, understanding of history, philosophy, world religion and even the fundamental evolution of atheism. In that sense he is similar to Elmer Gantry when compared to more seminal and significant atheist thinkers, but more as a pop cultural icon. He is no Marquis de Sade in other words and more similar to a Deepak Chopra. Richard Dawkins : Atheism :: Shakespeare in Love : Shakespeare

    Reply