Being I’m neither new nor a scientist, it could well be that I’m spending too much time reading New Scientist these days. I know the story about wind farms suggesting wind and waves are not renewable resources confused the shit out of me, and if anyone bothering to click on that link and read could please explain the content I’d be grateful.
There’s no doubt I like a challenge and trying to wrap my head around sciency stuff is a pastime I enjoy whether that be grasping toward black holes in efforts to understand dense gravity or trying to incorporate an inner clock to include time travel.
Something I did not expect to run across in my daily perusal of Stuff Science, however, was this article on religion.
What form would the ideal religion take? Some might argue that instead of redesigning religion, we should get rid of it. But it is good for some things: religious people are happier and healthier, and religion offers community. Besides, secularism has passed its zenith, according to Jon Lanman, who studies atheism at the University of Oxford. In a globalised world, he says, migrations and economic instability breed fear, and when people’s values feel under threat, religion thrives.
For starters, the unsubstantiated “information” contained in the piece feels decidedly un-sciency for New Science with few links and no backup. Attribution given to Mr. Lanman … who “studies” atheism … doesn’t cover the postulation that “religious people are happier and healthier and religion offers community”, so is therefor “good”.
A bowling league offers community fercryinoutloud, and manages to do so without prompting any genocides I’ve heard of. As for the “happier and healthier” … well, someone’s obviously never seen the impact of Catholic guilt.
I do get that this article is fluff even though quoted sources apparently attend Oxford … ooooooh! …
Today’s religions come in four flavours, according to Harvey Whitehouse, also at Oxford. First, the “sacred party”, such as incense burning, bell ringing and celestial choral music in Catholicism. Second, “therapy”: for example, the practices of healing and casting out devils among some evangelical Christians. Third, “mystical quest”, such as the Buddhist quest for nirvana. And finally, “school”: detailed study of the Koran in Islam or reading the Torah in Judaism.
Okay … a “sacred party” where all but a few are relegated to the sidelines, “therapy” that encourages people to grow even wackier, a “mystical quest” that could just as easily mean a search for Atlantis, and “school” where the only study is some really old books.
On what level does that make any sense, except perhaps to an undergrad needing to fill pages? The fact that the piece gets even more graphic lets down the side even more discouragingly:
Numerous festivals, holidays and rituals would keep followers hooked. “Rites of terror” such as body mutilation are out – although they bind people together very intensely, they are not usually compatible with world religions (New Scientist, 19 December 2009, p 62). Still, highly rousing, traumatic rituals might still feature as initiation ceremonies, because people tend to be more committed to a religion and tolerant of its failings after paying a high price for entry.
The everyday rituals will focus on rhythmic dancing and chanting to stimulate the release of endorphins, which Robin Dunbar, also at Oxford, says are key to social cohesion. To keep people coming back, he also prescribes “some myths that break the laws of physics, but not too much”, and no extreme mysticism, as it tends to lead to schisms.
So, body mutilation is out, but dancing and chanting lead to social cohesion? Can’t help but wonder what’s going on at parties at Oxford these days, but whatever is happening seems to have the effect of leading attendees to assume their thoughts have more merit than they do.
With many gods and great tolerance of idiosyncratic local practices, the new religion will be highly adaptable to the needs of different congregations without losing its unifying identity. The religion will also emphasise worldly affairs – it would promote the use of contraceptives and small families and be big on environmental issues, philanthropy, pacifism and cooperation.
Yeah … that’ll do it.
Of course, there are those fiddly bits concerning money and power that root religions before they flower, tax-free status and a whole bunch of non-negotiable rules, but if you attend Oxford and get your papers published in New Scientist, coming up with “Utopianity” must seem an accomplishment.
The thought that humans need a new religion is, in itself, an excuse not to have to think much further than the end of the block … upon which stands a church most likely … as developing more effective ways of fostering the human in humanity would take a lot more creativity.
Since science should be all about creativity, I will be sending a link to this post along with my subscription cancellation.
(Apologies: this post was slapped together during infrequent minutes of Internet access and while babying my computer. Conducive to good writing? Not so much …)
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
ahhhhhh big words…. to much thinking….to tired…..bed now… read later… good night….
You keep odd hours, Bobby. Sleep well …
These Oxford brainiacs haven’t come up with anything original.
L. Ron Hubbard thought world religions were a bunch of bunk so he created Scientology.
Yeah … and wasn’t that a boon?
Hey Sandra,
Thought I’d try and help on the New Scientist thingy… I’m supposed to be one, so I should really be stepping up to answer questions like that 🙂
The way I’d explain it is that the energy in winds and waves does a lot of stuff. One ‘small’ thing winds and waves do is carry sediments around to maintain those lovely beaches in Seychelles.
Well, winds and waves scale up into an ocean/atmosphere circulatory system, which carries vast amounts of energy around the globe driving our weather and climate system. Energy drives evaporation from seas to provide water for rain. Energy drives ocean circulation, such as the gulf stream to keep the British Isles wet and (relatively) warm.
Wave and wind energy farms take some of this energy and change it into electricity. That energy is then ‘lost’ to its other potential roles in making rain, driving the gulf stream, and maintaining beaches in Seychelles.
The point of the article I think is that if you were to scale up ‘renewable’ energy use to that of fossil fuels, then this would impact on the functioning of the ocean/atmosphere system and have unpredictable knock on effects. The gulf stream, for example, switches on and off across geological time scales at unknown tipping points.
I’d raise another issue with wind and wave farms from a carbon perspective, as that is where I have more background. They are certainly not ‘carbon neutral’ energy sources as is often claimed – the fundamental wind/wave to electric is, yes, but there are a whole host of other processes involved which do have carbon costs that should be taken into account too. For example, manufacturing the windmills, maintaining them, the vehicles driven by the technicians to maintain them, the carbon footprint over many years of the existence of the people that developed wind farms….
And, sadly, you cannot just ‘offset’ those carbon emissions by planting trees… climate and the carbon cycle is not so simple. It all gets very complex.
Our ever-changing climate (and the human influence on part of it) has been reduced to a carbon issue, which it is actually a lot more than. And trying to deal with an over-simplified carbon issue has now led to a carbon accounting mess of carbon credits that distorts well-intentioned efforts to protect our planet from long term damage….
…but that’s another story
Adam xx
I get a lot of that, Adam … and thanks so much! … but what doesn’t make sense to me is how energy is “lost” when what it does is turn blades on a windmill. That act seems as passive as leaves rustling on trees. It doesn’t stop the wind, nor even harness it, but is rather simply a byproduct of the fact it blows. Am I missing something?
Well, energy gets converted from one form to another – it isnt ‘lost’ but converted between forms. In this case, movement energy from the wind is turned into movement energy for the windmill blades, which is then turned into electrical energy by the dynamo. So a small amount of the wind’s energy is actually harvested by the windmill.
Leaves rustling on a tree will also harvest a bit of the movement energy, turning it into low grade heat energy that warms the leaf and branches very very slightly (like a low level friction burn).
In the scheme of things, we can all agree that rustling leaves on a tree must take but an incredibly negligible amount of energy out of the wind, I’m sure?
Similarly, I think we are on the same wavelength here in thinking how on earth can even many, many windmills take anything but an incredibly negligible amount of energy out of the global atmospheric system.
For the scientists on question here, I’d suspect their calculations must have the decimal point in the wrong place because I can’t get how it can be anything but a negligible fraction we’re talking about 🙂
And the title is misleading in saying that the sun is the only renewable energy source. I mean, it depends how pedantic you want to be. Technically, the sun will itself burn out in how ever many billion years. But that’s not relevant to us really is it? Wind energy etc IS renewable in that it is constantly replenished from the sun, it’s as renewable as the sun is. I think the writer instead means that the quantity of energy available is not limitless…
Good thought provoking blog you have here – I wish I had more time and I’d be discussing daft Oxfordian ideas for novel patronising religions too 🙂
Thank you, Adam. That actually makes sense now.
Not so fast on body mutilation being out. Don’t forget the extreme practices of Opus Dei: Much public attention has focused on Opus Dei’s practice of mortification — the voluntary offering up of discomfort or pain to God. Mortification has a long history in many world religions, including the Catholic Church. It has been endorsed by Popes as a way of following Christ who died in a bloody crucifixion and who gave this advice: “let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Lk 9:23)[63] Supporters say that opposition to mortification is rooted in having lost (1) the “sense of the enormity of sin” or offense against God, and the consequent penance, both interior and exterior, (2) the notions of “wounded human nature” and of concupiscence or inclination to sin, and thus the need for “spiritual battle,”[64] and (3) a spirit of sacrifice for love and “supernatural ends,” and not only for physical enhancement.
As a spirituality for ordinary people, Opus Dei focuses on performing sacrifices pertaining to normal duties and to its emphasis on charity and cheerfulness. Additionally, Opus Dei celibate members practice “corporal mortifications” such as sleeping without a pillow or sleeping on the floor, fasting or remaining silent for certain hours during the day.[17][61]
Critics state that self-mortification is a “startling,” “extreme,” and “questionable” practice — one that borders on masochism.[65] Critics assert that “due to modern psychology and thinking, the practices which inflict pain are sometimes considered to be counterproductive to one’s spiritual development, as they can easily lead to pride and an unhealthy attitude toward one’s body.”[1
Too true, Robbie. Given how religions have often incorporated mutilation as a “rite” … including circumcision and FGM amongst the more “primitive” types … leaving out the Opus Dei options and all seems an oversight for anyone wanting to kick start a new movement.
so much of education has nothing to do with learning anything.
No kidding, Amy!
I’ll take the bowling league and I won’t forget the tequila!
Excellent!
you have no idea my dear, but come may that will end as far as odd hours go 🙂
I have a bit of an idea, since I do know what time it is in Norway …
What’s funny about this article is that there are “new religions” popping up all the time. Jewish…Christian….Muslim…Mormon….And they are all still here. I like the way this guy thinks that there is something new under the sun.
That first link…it’s the butterfly effect. Or perhaps it’s Heisenberg. Either way, you cannot use the energy without somehow affecting it. The wind blows, the turbine turns, the turbulence created causes a drop of rain to fall in Mali, a seed germinates……
And lets keep religion out of it. That just throws a spanner in the works.
As for Oxford, let us not forget that while Newton made incredible contributions to our knowledge of how the solar system and the universe works and why stuff falls down, he was also one of the preeminent alchemists of his day.
I’m sticking to my theory that religions are a way of controlling the populous. Nifty invention really.
I do recall a saying… something about the “opium of the people”?