The Myth of Progress
A Preliminary thought experiment:
Go down your family tree to one of your great-grandparents. If you have a picture of him, great. Hopefully you at least have an idea of where he lived most of his life, what he did, and the impact he had on his offspring.
What did he believe?
Most likely, by today’s standards, he would be seen as rough, sexist, fundamentalist, and maybe even racist. That’s essentially the mindset of anyone who grew up to be an adult before the 1950’s, right? They did not have the luxury of the internet, mass communications, and modern education. Most of them never went to college, and many never even completed high school. They did their best, but now, in our more enlightened progressive era due to education, we know their errors. Obviously they had hard lives, and should be given some charity about some of the outdated views that encumbered their worldview. The march of progress means every generation is becoming more educated, better informed, and less superstitious, right?
No. We’ve been fed a lie.
This isn’t a spiel about how superior our ancestors were. They may have been and may not have been. The purpose of this article is to show all the reasons given of why WE are superior is a lie. The following general myths are the most persistent:
Modern people are more educated and intelligent.
Scientific progress has shown things about humanity that our ancestors could not have possibly known, and have therefore ushered in a new morality.
The story of human societies is one of progress
The loss of belief in the supernatural is a consequence of the above.
Modern people are more educated.
In a way this is true is you count education as class time. College was reserved for only the very best just a couple of generations ago. The growth of public schools and universities has brought an unprecedented amount of classroom time spent where, one would assume, information is being absorbed thanks to a professional educator class that uses the latest and best techniques to create the most informed citizenry that has ever lived.
This is incredibly easy to debunk, but lets start with literacy:
“The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state’s compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy’s office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.”
Well, that’s a gloomy picture. It seems literacy has actually DECREASED since the 1850’s. So why do we consider the people of the 19th century not as educated? How many people today can read Dickens, yet he was a POPULAR novelist.
For another example, here’s an old 8th grade exam.
A decent counterargument revolves around the Flynn effect that shows IQ scores increasing a startling 3 points every decade. This actually has merit, but is overstated. A lot of the Flynn effect can be attributed to more exposure to abstract thinking, which does not equate with increased smarts, especially when the abstract doesn’t match reality at all. There’s actually evidence of DYSGENIC breeding since the 1850’s.
Also:
“However, Flynn has reported that the French, who have displayed large increases in average IQ scores, in the range of 15 to 20 points from 1952 to 1982,have not reported of a dramatic increase in genius or mathematical and scientific discovery during their generation. During the 1980s, the number of patents issued in France actually decreased. In 1987, Flynn argued that IQ tests measure abstract problem solving ability, which is different from the real world problem solving ability that most strongly corresponds to functional intelligence. “
A simple logical test would suffice. If there was an increase in IQ along the lines of the test, it would mean people living in 1900 would be more or less functionally retarded. Sorry, not buying it, especially with the literacy stats shown above. If one wants to argue increased education leads to better IQ tests, so be it, but that’s a far hill to climb from functional intelligence.
Scientific progress has shown things about humanity that our ancestors could not have possibly known, and have therefore ushered in a new morality.
This one is baffling and constitutes a category error. No matter what we find in science, it really has very little say in what is and is not immoral.
For example, the heritability of homosexuality, whether it’s 100% or 0%, has no bearing on the morality of the action. It would be as ridiculous as saying because there is a strong propensity to violence that beating someone to a pulp is okay.
The story of human societies is one of progress
The hundreds of millions killed in wars in the 20th century paints a much bleaker picture.
Let’s look at governments, for example:
Democracy is seen as the highest ideal of government and yet has seen consistent corruption against the people it is supposed to represent. in the abstract, democracy isn’t superior to monarchy. It could be better for a certain people. The same applies for Theocracy versus a secular government. Democracies have initiated some of the most horrendous wars in history, with blood on their hands in World War !, The Civil War, Iraq, Syria, and countless others.
For those Pinkers out there who say we are less violent and more prone to reason, watch what happens if the U.S. government ever collapses and the lower classes have worthless EBT cards while rich lose their life savings. Watch what happens if a financial meltdown happens and no one can afford food. The streets will run red with blood in a way that would make Pol Pot look absolutely civil. The reason for lack of massive casualties within a society is full bellies and easy entertainment. In the abstract I would ask, progress towards what? Eventually the universe, and everything in it, will entropy and die. Science will never create immortality. Everyone at some point, either 10 or 100 million years for now, will die. The laws of thermodynamics ensure this. The only logical progress is the salvation of a soul, the very thing the modernists reject. In the secular worldview, there is no room for progress, but only despair.
The loss of belief in the supernatural is a consequence of the above.
How much religion is there in a modern school?
How many hours do children spend in said school?
How much religion is there in popular culture?
How much time are children immersed in popular culture?
How many religious symbols are stationed in homes?
How much time do children spend in the home? Sadly, in this case it may be less than they spend in school and school activities.
How secularized are even modern Churches? If society at large does not take the supernatural seriously, or at all, why should they. does one really think an hour of padlum on a Sunday will keep spirituality alive?
The loss of belief in the supernatural is a cultural phenomenon, and one I would argue has been in the works by progressives since Dewey had his way in the public education system. It’s been a slow defeat for a very long time. It has nothing to do with a more “reasonable” modern man. Secularism has been a cultural virus inflicted on communities to break them down and turn them all into atomized cogs.
In conclusion, we all came from a long line of descendants, spanning back to the beginning of time on this earth. It’s a thought crime now to refuse the idealization of the present, to believe that those before us knew many things better than we ever will, and to be proud of one’s heritage(if you’re white). Turn the tide, and let us journey to a better understanding of The Faith of Our Fathers.