In recent years, we have witnessed how the delusional has ceased being marginal and moved into the mainstream. At first, I thought I remembered that I was aware of the resurgence of radical Islam in the Middle East long before I became aware of fundamentalist christians in the US. Then I remembered that I've been reading about creationist movements in the US at least for as long as I've been reading about Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, some time during the 1990s. Evangelical indoctrination camps to train children to be christian warriors in the US or terrorist camps in the Middle East, what's the difference? Sure, so far only the muslims seem to act out on their training, but is this may only be a matter of time? Of course, all of these social groups lack rational arguments, so they resort to intimidation and other tactics to silence critics. Chiropractors sue journalists for demanding scientific evidence, catholic clerics make sexual abuse victims sign confidentiality agreements, muslims issue death sentences to authors and cartoonists, creationists ask for scientists to be treated like criminals, and global warming deniers ask for flogging and quartering of scientists. Apparently, it has now become fashionable again to just make up your own belief system, paying no regard to reason nor evidence and then chastizing those who disagree with you. The enlightenment once did away with absolute truths and heresies, but now they seem back in fashion. I'm wondering what the social dynamics of these trends are.

For quite some time now, I've had the suspicion that the social technology of web 2.0 plays an important role in the propagation of such medieval tendencies, but that's far from the only factor. Moral relativism may also be partly to blame, as it promotes a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards basically any behavior or belief, because one should be embracing and tolerant of other cultures and world-views. A third factor may be, ironically enough, the pervasive influence scientific thinking has had over the last century or so. Maybe in some sort of bunker mentality to ward off secularism and reason, religions and superstitions have redoubled their efforts and hardened their stance. Far-fetched as this may sound, there is some psychological evidence that reason and sound arguments can do the opposite of what they intend and only increase resistance to follow the evidence. Three good things with bad consequences: social web technology, tolerance and scientific advances. How do these three interact? Is religion in its death throes and they are only briefly allowing all other superstitions and conspiracy theories to come out of the woodworks, only to all of them disappear again when reason wins the final victory? Or is it a long-term trend that needs to be opposed, strongly and determined?

These thoughts were prompted this morning over breakfast when I came across an article in the Independent entitled "The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil". The author, Johann Hari, emphasizes the strange observation that religions try to opt out of criticism by claiming some sort of special status that prevents any rational questioning: The consequences are obvious: These sorts of arguments are usually restricted to books by Hitchens or Dawkins. I usually read them on Pharyngula. Now they're out in the so-called mainstream media. It's about time.