31 Dec 2008
Religion may have evolved because of its ability to help people exercise self-control

I'll bet that the notion of religions "evolving" has got some folks (like, oh, say the Christian creationists) quite in an uproar. Be that as it may be, a study that shows people behaving differently and with better motivation when they believe themselves to be in accordance with the divine is hardly news: that's kind of the whole point of religion, eh?

But what really struck me about this is the headline, with it's the underlying assumption that a priori there are no gods or eternal truths, and that the fabric of religion itself evolved out of a purely human consciousness. I don't see this in the article at all, but then again, I've just read the synopsis presented here, not the entire study. I'd be surprised if it was in there, however, as it wouldn't have hurt the authors conclusions to simply ignore the "existence of god" question. Methinks the headline was added to gin up some controversy ... and the consequent media attention.

The one assumption that is glaringly obvious from the synopsis is the emphasis on monotheistic religions: "God is watching", eternal punishment and reward, etc. Those are concepts that are almost completely alien to the worlds polytheistic (and pantheistic) faiths - but then, perhaps I expect too much, imagining that a researcher in the US would account for the Hindus, Taoists and Buddhists of the world, not to mention us Heathens.

It's an interesting read, nonetheless, and not quite a Study in Stupidity - but it does come close.

A study by a University of Miami psychologist reveals that religion facilitates the exercise of self-control and attainment of long-term goals.In his study, Michael McCullough, a psychology professor at the University of Miami, finds a strong correlation between religion and self-control, or self-regulation. He explains that religious people may have at their disposal a set of unique resources that makes them better suited to adhering to long term goals.

(link) [EurekAlert!]

08:00 /Asatru | 0 comments | permanent link

The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

This isn't a slippery slope - it's a mountainside covered in grease.

How old was Helen of Troy when she was married? Is the depection of that by Homer now to be considered "kiddie porn"? How about Shakespeare's two most famous lovers? They were both "underage"! How about all the paintings by the masters of Cupids trying to induce mythological lovers to make the bacon? Nude children! By this court's interpretation of the law, two stick figures in a sexual pose labelled "16 years old" would be child pornography.

I'm no fan of anime, but one of my daughters has quite the collection, and a lot of it is sexually charged (to say he least) and involves what appear to be very young people (with really big eyes). Is this offensive? To some folks, you bet! Is it "obscene"? Depends on the definition. Is it "pornography"? I beleive that any reasonable person would have to say almost certainly not, irrespective of the definition. They're freaking (or freakish) cartoons!

I can't believe that this will survive it's inevitable challenge to the Supreme Court - but on the other hand, the courts do lots of things I can't believe these days. Very disturbing.

Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."

(link) [Slashdot]

07:31 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link