Ripples
Simon Winchester, author of Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded, August 27, 1883, tells PBS that natural catastrophes can have notable religious and political consequences. At the time of the Krakatoa eruption, for example, "The area was rapidly being converted from Hinduism to Islam. There were a lot of Arabs there who were priests or mullahs, and they said within a matter of days of the devastation, that this was clearly a sign from Allah-- Allah, who was annoyed, specifically angered by the fact that the Javanese and the Sumatrans were allowing themselves to be ruled by white, western, infidel Dutch imperialists."
According to Winchester, Krakatoa's eruption "was the beginning . . . of the end of Dutch rule in Java and Sumatra and the beginning of the creation of what is now the most populous Islamic state on Earth, Indonesia."
Winchester posits that the 1906 San Francisco earthquake also had religious consequences with political implications:
At the time of the quake, "there was a very, very small movement beginning in southern California of Pentecostalist Christians, people who spoke in tongues, who believed in revelations by way of signs from heaven. The first meeting of this little Pentecostalist church took place on the Sunday just before the San Francisco earthquake. Wednesday came the earthquake. The pastors in the church said this is evidently a sign from heaven, from God, that He is angered by the licentiousness, the wanton behavior of San Franciscans. The result of this was that the next Sunday, the church, which had only attracted a few hundred disciples before, was swamped with thousands upon thousands of people. And the American Pentecostalist movement was in a sense born out of the San Francisco earthquake and remains today one of the largest and most politically relevant Christian movements in America."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And let's not forget the snow on '04 that made Kerry look like a total bitch when he fell and blamed the Secret Service agent. I'm not saying the snow cost him the election, but snow is widely known to vote Republican.
Actually, I think that joke works better with "...but snow is widely known to be a neocon."
That joke is an antidote to laughter no matter how you phrase it.
Such manners! Finally, evidence that GG=TC! 😉
And the American Pentecostalist movement was in a sense born out of the San Francisco earthquake and remains today one of the largest and most politically relevant Christian movements in America."
Proof, again that ALL religions are bourne out of superstition. Tell me again how the pentecostals are any better than the ancient greeks?
That joke is an antidote to laughter no matter how you phrase it.
The bitterness is strong with this one.
TPG,
I find myself largely in agreement with you.
Maybe GG can answer this. Didn't the Lisbon earthquake give a boost to humanism by undermining the belief in a just and benevolent god? My point being that a natural disaster can also lead people away from religion.
Maybe GG can answer this. Didn't the Lisbon earthquake give a boost to humanism by undermining the belief in a just and benevolent god? My point being that a natural disaster can also lead people away from religion.
Either way proves my point. People are superstitious fucks. Stupid sheep.
Tell me about it!
Tell me again how the pentecostals are any better than the ancient greeks?
They haven't a conquering army.
Not to knock any belief systems, but I believe this is just an example of peoples natural tendancy towards the falacy of false cause. People want to believe there's a reason they can understand that these things happen, and moralistic determinism is a historicaly popular cause for consequence. It empowers the victims, by assigning responsability and influence. It's just easier to accept than the scientific explanation that tensions building in the crust of a dynamic earth crust are bound to give way, and some people happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So much less empowering, no matter how true. Just look at the wacko that owns http://www.godsentthetsunami.com, and godhatesamerica.com
God has spoken to me, but I didn't understand. Apparently, God speaks Latin. 🙁
Haven't any of these people had a geology class? Maybe the fact that your God has allowed all these things to happen is a sign from the Universe!
It's a sign! He wants us to wear one shoe! Hail Brian!
Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow
That joke is an antidote to laughter...
Better that than an anecdote to Allah.
Mike:
you underestimated the Machine's ability to remove snow.
be advised that little Ritchie is just as poor with snow, including supporting that asinine tradition of marking "your" parking space in the snow.
asshats.
So, if an Indonesian earthquake bolstered the fortunes of some Muslim preachers 120 years ago, does that mean that Tom Ridge should issue warnings about terrorists trying to start earthquakes?
Pint:
WRONG yet again. FOLLOW THE GOURD!!!
🙂
They haven't a conquering army.
Okay, how is their religion any better? 😉
Okay, how is their religion any better?
They can sing? Yeah, that's it.
That joke is an antidote to laughter
Heh. I'm going to use that one in my daily life.
Right, a familiar theme at Reason: Organized religion is for fools, it's the opiate of the masses, etc.
But for organized religion Europe would have slid off the cliff into complete barbarity after the 5th century. How long would the Renaissance have been postponed? Would it have happened at all?
All this fervent denunciation of religion needs to be reminded of historical perspective, e.g., the main reason you can read Aristotle today is because of Thomas Aquinas's efforts in the 13th century.
It ain't all bad.
Oh, how I long for the days of the Holy Roman Empire...
trainwreck,
Those are beautiful lines, but I wonder what's the point, that God is an acid hallucination? 🙂
Or are you commenting on the "ripple" that seemingly came from nowhere? I suppose sometimes the answer lies beneath the surface....
Snake:
systems of belief used to organize society over 1000 years ago might not be relevant today. Maybe kicking that ladder away is needed. Religion is fine for individuals in times of need, there are great local social benefits, and some people like the songs.
Public displays of faith and use of religion to force those with other, differing beliefs into line are both a bit kinky these days.
Religion is like sex: best if kept private. The rest of us don't care or want to hear about what positions you like, your prowess, or how holy you are!
OT: Somewhere I once read Ernest Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in haiku form.
I came for ideas
Instead I'm going to die
You rotten mountain
Nevermind trainwreck, I just saw what the post title was....
But for organized religion Europe would have slid off the cliff into complete barbarity after the 5th century. How long would the Renaissance have been postponed? Would it have happened at all?
From an historical perspective, the cons far outweigh the pros when it comes to organized religion. I'm not a man that knocks faith, some of those closest to me have enduring faith, rather I'm a man that knocks religion.
It's not good for anyone.
Snake-let's not forget how much knowlege was lost during the crusades and the dark ages, both of which were results of religious mania.
THis has gotten ridiculaous...send in the Crack Suicide Squad!
Religion has no monopoly on faith. I, for one, have faith in the free market and the ability of free people.
Collectivism, as in mass religion, is always a bad idea. Whether in religion or government or science; it is difficult-approaching impossible-to make generalizations about a group of any size, the larger the more difficult. Yet, both religion and government are built on the foundation of collectivism.
All this fervent denunciation of religion needs to be reminded of historical perspective, e.g., the main reason you can read Aristotle today is because of Thomas Aquinas's efforts in the 13th century.
agreed, mr snake.
i love how the running assumption here is that Modern Western Man is some paragon of rationality (when he's trying to be so, i'll charitably allow -- which is nearly never). the romantic movement and all after so successfully destroyed the idealization of rationality that i don't think any of us can really claim to truly even aspire to cold rationality.
science, for its wonderful part (and it is wonderful) has largely been replaced by scientism among all but a few -- and scientism is every bit the organized religion that catholicism is, with churches and holy men and theology and sin and judgement day looming.
I always wondered how San Francisco became such a buttoned-down, God-fearing city.
It seems that the Evil Empire may have used a Death Star like weapon to cause deadly ripples, as it were,in the Force. This is probably the same Evil Empire that unleashed the AIDS virus in Africa. Long live the Conspiracy Theory, the One and True Paradigm!
Al-Jazeera link
drf, you're on to something in that the cyclical process of development tends to kick away the ladders automatically. Gibbon's Decline and Fall is a good primer for the united states as china takes over in the next few decades.
number 6, sadly, you're right. Idiotic Popes melted the giant bronze roof to the entrance of the pantheon and almost tore down the colosseum.
To those who take religion too seriously, I say drop dead.
Maybe kicking that ladder away is needed.
the problem is that no one is sure whether it's a ladder or a stilt.
From an historical perspective, the cons far outweigh the pros when it comes to organized religion. I'm not a man that knocks faith, some of those closest to me have enduring faith, rather I'm a man that knocks religion.
Jefferson had something to say about what the clergy had done with the simple teachings of Jesus. Libertarian clergy have likewise taken a simple philosophy of live and let live and converted that into an arcane belief system in competition with established religions.
"But for organized religion Europe would have slid off the cliff into complete barbarity after the 5th century. How long would the Renaissance have been postponed?"
Organized religion (in this case, Roman-era Christianity) was a big reason why Europe almost slid off into complete barbarity in the first place. And it was the political and cultural hegemony of that religion for nearly a millenium that made a Renaissaince necessary in the first place.
Was the church a help or hindrance during the Middle Ages? An interesting book argues, "Both -- first one, then the other." The Sovereign Individual: How to Survive and Thrive During the Collapse of the Welfare State, by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, says that after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church provided a lot of the infrastructure needed to keep a civilization going -- literacy and scholarship, a system of records, introduction and spread of more productive farming methods, and various public works projects (aqueducts, etc.)
Problem was, over time the Church became fat and overbearing. The clergy were immensely and openly corrupt (hosting orgies and producing bastards by the score), and various religious regulations (a proliferating abundance of feast days on which no work could be done, and various other restrictions on doing business and many facets of daily life) made it more and more difficult to get anything done productively. It went from building institutions that fostered productivity, to strangling productive activity by pervading and over-regulating every facet of life.
Then gunpowder ended the age of chivalry, and the invention of the printing press dispersed control of information, and that was the end of the Middle Ages and the church's power.
The authors make a parallel between the church and the nation-state. They think both were intitially useful, but conditions changed, making them more burdensome and ultimately destined to collapse. The Internet and the end of mass warfare will do to the nation-state what the printing press and gunpowder did to the church.
A flawed book -- some of the anti-Clintonism is a bit shrill, and there's some sloppy editing (on one page, the same paragraph appears twice) -- but the historical information makes for interesting reading.
Organized religion (in this case, Roman-era Christianity) was a big reason why Europe almost slid off into complete barbarity in the first place. And it was the political and cultural hegemony of that religion for nearly a millenium that made a Renaissaince necessary in the first place.
you simplify far too much, mr eric. between 300 and 1300 is... carry the one... a thousand years. the church was many things during its time of cultural pre-eminence. the slander of it as a universal obstruction is the bias of age of secular scientism, not the truth. i think that
Was the church a help or hindrance during the Middle Ages? ... "Both -- first one, then the other."
comes far closer to it.
The role of the Catholic & Orthodox churches is more complicated (and negative and positive) than either of you understand. I might have some time to devote to this subject later on (as well the Lisbon earthquake issue).
Actually, on second thought, as to the latter issue one need only read Candide (by Voltaire).
EricII, consider:
Most artistic accomplishments of the Italian Renaissance, what were their subjects? The "cultural hegemony" that allowed humanists to portray their subjects in grandly realistic, neoclassical forms was...Catholicism.
'At the time of the quake, "there was a very, very small movement beginning in southern California of Pentecostalist Christians, people who spoke in tongues, who believed in revelations by way of signs from heaven. The first meeting of this little Pentecostalist church took place on the Sunday just before the San Francisco earthquake. Wednesday came the earthquake. The pastors in the church said this is evidently a sign from heaven, from God, that He is angered by the licentiousness, the wanton behavior of San Franciscans.'
On the other hand, maybe God was trying to warn people not to be Pentacostals by sending them an earthquake three days after their first meeting.
Proof, again that ALL religions are bourne out of superstition.
Why, because two religious institutions leveraged catastrophe to advertise aggressively? These incidents prove nothing about a relationship between religion and superstition.
There is no weakness in faith. The problem comes when you think your faith to be worthy of being a system. How could it be? Mere animals know to flee a natural disaster long before it begins wiping us out wholesale. How smart could we be?
"The "cultural hegemony" that allowed humanists to portray their subjects in grandly realistic, neoclassical forms was...Catholicism."
Yes. No one can deny the Church's acceptance - and at times, sponsorship - of much of the art produced during the Renaissaince. One question, though: When was the last time that subjects were portrated in grandly realistic, classical forms?
When was the last time that subjects were portrated in grandly realistic, classical forms?
http://www.alexrossart.com
🙂
Stevo,
I apologize in advance if you already knew this, but I was talking about the last time before the Renaissaince.
Oh, OK. That escaped me. I guess the answer would be "back in classical times"? (I don't know a lot about art history.)
Charles Field's immortal doggerrel responsing to people who saw the San Franciso eathquake/fire of 1906 as divine retribution for the city's wickedness:
"If, as they say, God spanked the town
For being over-frisky,
Why did He burn the churches down
And spare Hotaling's whiskey?"
Typo: Of course that's "responding", not "responsing"...
That the christian church may have mitigated some of the effects of the barbarian invasions in way excuses the underlying irrational conceit. Compare with the Soviet Union, which developed a space program and other great works of science and art.
I think many Reasonoids would rather take their chances in a history devoid of both a Soviet Union and a church (any church).
When a man loses his faith, he will not then believe in nothing. Rather, he will believe in anything.
-- GK Chesterton
Humans are not Vulcans. We cannot function on reason alone. We must have some bedrock, some first principles (whether they come from religion, environmentalism, hedonism, or simply the will to survive), in which to ground our rationality. Otherwise we would just vegetate and starve to death.
No set of first principles will be without its pros and cons. The question is, is religion, and Christianity in particular, that much worse than the alternatives?
Regarding the fall of the Roman Empire, I remind you all that you're ignoring the Eastern Empire, which maintained its dominance for centuries after the Western Empire fell. Despite, or perhaps because of, the church's cultural and social hegemony.
Also remember that the West was already decaying relative to the East by the time Constantine came to power -- this was why Diocletian had split the empire in two. Since Christians were a fairly small minority, 'tis hard to place the blame on them, however much Gibbons would like to.
Call me snake,
Actually, we have Islamic scholars to thank for preserving much of Aristotle's work. Few of his works were preserved in the West, whose early Church was extremely anti-philosophy. Aquinas was actually introduced to Aristotle through scrolls illegally imported from Islamic lands (it was against canon law to trade with Islam at the time).
Crimethink,
Leaving aside the unsupported (and unsupportable) absurdities of your initial paragraph, one can answer quite truthfully to the question in your second --
Emphatically yes.
regards,
Shirley Knott
Emphatically yes.
ignorance.
Speaking of working in mysterious ways, I have detected something in the posts of Thomas Paine's Goiter that suggests he might be part of the Gunnels/Bart industrial opinion complex.
see 11:37 a.m. post: "Proof, again that ALL religions are bourne out of superstition."
bourne As in Jason Bourne?
We report, you decide.
Oh, do please enlighten us, learned one.
What are the alternatives to "religion, and Christianity in particular" that are worse?
Bear in mind, you'll need to find non-symbolic, and thus practical, means to issue your rejoinder... Wonder how you'll do that without the premiere tool of symoblic processing?
with all due respect,
Shirley Knott
Shirley Knott,
If indeed my "absurdities" are indeed absurd and unsupportable, you should have no trouble pointing to a single human activity that is motivated purely by reason, without recourse to some non-rational motivator. If there are none, that's all the support my first paragraph needs.
Good luck.