Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about
I hate the way non-scientists keep arguing that “science doesn’t know everything”, or that “new research supports my [insert bullshit idea here]. The latest confused buffoon is Andrew Sullivan, who has a new section where you can ask him questions. It seems that he’s been reading the same book I have (Pinker’s “Angels of our Better Natures; Why violence has declined), but he’s come to vastly different conclusions. He seems to think that human kind become more peaceful is somehow proof that Jesus loves you.
I’m convinced that he hasn’t actually read the whole thing, especially when he states (incorrectly) that pre-state societies were less violent. Pinker showed exactly the opposite; that the creation of states actually lowered violent crimes. What we traded for was less freedom and a slightly crappier diet in exchange for fewer violent crimes. It’s obvious Andrew read the book through his “God goggles” and wants to believe that his stupid book of fairy tales has something useful to say about reality (this collective memory idea is quite embarrassing). I especially dislike his diseased notion that there is an “Arc of History [that] seems to echo the notion of a providence directed by God in some way”. I bet it seems that way when you’ve already decided that your imaginary friend is real.
Stick to what you know, Andrew. Your whole “Adam and Eve isn’t real but it is real” is probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, dude.