Putting This Whole Religion Thing to Bed

Some of my favorite Young Turks moments are the discussions of religion, and their varying degrees of contempt thereof.  I always find myself feverishly wishing to join in, but since I catch the show on podcast, and lack a time machine or special ham radio from "Frequency", this is the best I'm going to get.  I hereby end this argument for all time, and commence the next step in human evolution.

 

    Let me start by saying that I defend anyone's right to think whatever they want to, unless they're telekinetic, in which case sensible limits are in order.  Belief is really just a stronger word for a thought or opinion, so believe what you want.  It's what you do that matters to me, i.e. don't blow me up, or elect a bunch of warmongers because you think they'll put a stop to gay marriage (they won't, and don't even care to), or ring my doorbell Sunday morning and tell me not to get a transfusion if I need one.  

    I also want to make it clear that, for the most part, I don't really agree with Atheists.  An Atheist believes there is no god, which is about as useful as believing there is one.  Both sides insist that they know something that is currently unknowable.  That's why it's called a belief, because you don't know. 

    Agnostics?  Lazy!  How do you know that you can't know something if you never try?  For that matter, how can you know that you can't know?  Isn't that knowing?  You make me sick!

    That said, here is the answer.  Religion is an evolutionary construct, period.  The trait that is our biggest asset, evolutionarily speaking, is our ability to think, but it is also our Achilles heel, since it also means we know we're gonna die.  In evolution, certain traits emerge that can help a species survive, or lead them to extinction.  Each evolutionary crossroads is like one of those "create your own story" books from the '70s.  Man discovers tools, fire, etc, and those that excel with these things survive, and those who do not excel can only survive by not needing those things, or by mastering/serving those who do.   Pretty soon, we develop new organizing principles of different kinds, like nomadic tribes, or villages, or whatever.  Our motivations are pretty simple, eat, don't get eaten, reproduce.  As we evolve, there need to be checks and balances on different types of people in order to create a stable society.  The brutish dummies need to not kill the smartass wimps, or there'll be no wheelbarrows or crossbows.  Conversely, the smartasses don't need to be so brutish because the brutes need them around for new inventions and to give wedgies to.  Still, the instinct toward self interest always threatens this balance, and many tribes get conquered or die of rampant virginity, until some genius figures out that most people are not able to internalize the concept of the greater good on a regular basis.  There needs to be a way to motivate people to do things for the greater good, while fooling them into thinking it will benefit themselves more.  Enter religion!

    Now, religion will have already been there in the form of dumbass caveman science, like "rain is the dinosaurs crying."  People can't stand not to know something, which is what makes some of us great, but most of us will just make some shit up.  So, pretty soon, there are pretty elaborate stories to explain things like fire, the stars, and farting.  These are tailor made for conditioning and controlling the masses of dumbasses, and it offers an escape from the knowledge of our own mortality.

    Knowing you're going to die sucks, especially if you're a primitive dumbass, and it can lead people in a number of dangerous directions.  The middle 50% will just eat, sleep, and screw no matter what.  The bottom 25% will see that there are no real consequences to their actions and will act on pure, brutish self interest.  The top 25% (liberal bias) will get all Emo and not want to do shit.  Hence, the wiseasses don't make new hut designs, and the dumbasses hunt and keep all of the food for themselves, and humanity becomes extinct.  Unless...what if... you have to share, and not kill, or steal, and if you do, you'll be punished after you die!!  And if you're good, you get to live forever after you die, in eternal perfection!!  Well, who the hell's gonna believe that?  Oh, sorry, Og, I didn't see you there praying to Gakos, the high lord of oddly mummified lemurs.  Gonna make for a good hunt, you say?

    See, the reason it works is that smart people believe it, too.  Sure, some of them cloak it in intellectual crap like "Gaia Theory" or what have you, but it's the same shit, because we have to believe that we're special, and that we're not "just going to die."  This is perfectly understandable, and is just fine as long as it serves it's purpose.

    The problem arises, however, when those who control the construct (religion) begin to succumb to self-interest, and twist it to their own ends.  This is as inevitable as it is suckish.  Then, you get, "Well, I know God or Gakos or whoever said we shouldn't kill, but he also just told me that we are his chosen people, so we get a pass on killing those other people.  Oh, and I get to bang your daughter. "

    Also, as people evolve, the construct can evolve, too, and the aims can be loftier, the rewards/penalties, more esoteric.  Witness the difference between the Old and New Testaments, or the progressions in Greek mythology.  (I have an ancient Greek buddy, and he gets really offended when I call it "Mythology").&nbs p; At first, it's like, "Do what I say or die!", but later, it's toned down, like "Be kind and you shall be rewarded in your spirit."

    If you look at the great civilizations that have died out over the eons, you'll see that they always flamed out just when they reached their apex of reason and were about to throw off the yoke of religion.  That is because there needs to be a limit on reason, or society can't progress.  Reason doesn't drive one to conquer, or invent, or to create. 

    So, there you have it.  That's why we have religion, and why we need it.  It's also why we have science, but that's another story. 
 

< Eat meat but hate zoos? | Bush's Iraq plan 1/10/07 >

Poll

Is there a god?
Yes, definitely! 0%
No way, Jose! 0%
Who knows? 0%
There is, and her name is Keira Knightly. 0%
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were being rhetorical. 0%
There are actually several. 0%
Yes and no, it's kinda complicated. 0%

Votes: 0
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Wow, very insightful!

by Homertojeebus on 01/11/2007 01:10:17 AM EST

Having read that, the agnostics were going to get a fatwa out on you.

But now they are not sure. :-)

by Steve UK on 01/11/2007 06:05:43 AM EST

Q:How many Agnostics does it take to change a light bulb?

 A:Who knows?

Q:How many Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?

A:Why would they want to change the light bulb?

 

by Homertojeebus on 01/11/2007 07:45:47 AM EST

Agnostics only look lazy because their work has been finished for a long while and their waiting for the more devout crowd to catch up.   And your buddhist joke doesn't even make sense.  Here's how you do it:

Q:  How many buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?

A:  There is no light bulb, only emptiness. 

by OneHitKill on 01/11/2007 10:20:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
   See, the problem isn't that you don't get the joke, it's that I want you to get the joke. 

by Homertojeebus on 01/11/2007 10:47:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It is in many (most?) failing civilizations that Religion gets extra strong, just as it does when folk get old, or on their last days on death row. It is as they reach their apex that they throw off religion, and only when thing go wrong that they repent, and thereby self destruct.

The Greenland Vikings could have thrived on seal, and shellfish, even as their cattle starved, but instead of deciding that what they were doing wasn't working, they decided that God was unpleased with them, and held ever more rigidly to the ridiculous, and spent their last effort building their biggest church.

On a larger scale the great Italian Renaissance was brought to its knees (literally) and the Italian Inquisition  begun because the Medici in charge feared that all the Humanist things he had accomplished might not work for him after he died.

I don't think those who control religion ever "succumb" to self interest, I don't think that they ever had any other plan. If they, like Buddha, Gandhi, or George Washington, or a very few others, had another plan, they would stick to it more and make it work.

There have been many great religions that are not theistic, that work out ways of thinking to advance humanity, and a few (like the Greeks) that get all esoteric, more from trying to explain difficult ideas, and having them misunderstood than deliberate obscurity.

But the Manichean Religions, of which Judaic variants are the biggest left, cannot have origins deeper than P.T.Barnum (though some later folk tried to make something real from it).

Anyone who comes up with "life is a videogame and I have the 'cheat codes' that I will share with you if you give me power and a life I would like to become accustomed to", doesn't have anything but a plan to get something for nothing, or is horning in on the grift of another.

 ( for further thoughts try this old thread and ignore the odd flame war)

by FreeDem on 01/11/2007 10:02:30 AM EST

Yeah, I didn't really think that whole civilizations thing through, but I was tired.  I still stand by my thesis.  The success of a society depends on a balance between reason and religion.  The problem is that it's hard to be fervently reasonable, so reason is easily overwhelmed by passion.  

    As for non-theistic religions, they still make use of mystical or supernatural elements to support their dogma.  Of course, many religions contain valuable insights, and would do no harm if practiced moderately.  However, all of the wisdom available in religious texts is available elsewhere, without injunctions against pork or gayness or hellfire.  I admire Buddhism a great deal for it's philosophical viewpoint, but I find it's lack of balance flawed.  Buddha died because he ate spoiled meat that was given to him by the son of a blacksmith.  He knew that the food was poisonous, but ate it anyway.  He didn't want to hurt the guy's feelings.  As he lay dying, the man came to his side and wept.  Buddha told him that there were 2 meals that were the finest of his life.  The first was the lotus flowers that he ate at his enlightenment, and the second was the poisonous meat.  That's a really beautiful story, and would be made much less profound if his initial response had been, "No, thanks, I'm feeling a little gassy."

    Imagine if some great modern book were adopted as a religious text.  Take "1984" for example.  This is a book that contains a great amount of wisdom, and makes a lot of great points.  You can read it, think it over, come away a better person, and go on with your life.  As a religious text, the message of the book is completely inverted (ironically), and you end up with people worshipping Big Brother and holding communion with oily gin. 

    Hey, if holding a rabbit's foot makes you feel better, that's fine with me.  Bad for the rabbit, but fine with me.  I just don't want the lupine appendage to have a say in my government.

    Apparently, Bush agrees with me.  Did you notice he didn't end his speech last night with "God bless America?"  I always suspected that he was the ultimate Agnostic.  I mean, he really, really doesn't know.
 

   
 

by Homertojeebus on 01/11/2007 12:50:15 PM EST

I missed your response till now. There is some terrific work done by Dr Altemeyer here that you might interesting. It would appear that there is a natural human "pathology?" that leads to much of the devastation in the world, and is closely tied to rigt wing political thinking in our times at least.

by FreeDem on 02/16/2007 11:09:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Some religions like Buddhism, or to a lesser extent Taoism, have metaphysical concepts (though some are as metaphysical as our concept of Species, which is a useful construct, but not a complete reality with painted borders and all).

But some like Confucianism  don't even have that. Instead of trying to make a religious text from an insightful book, why not base it on the "original work" and draw insights perhaps from books that you first test against that "original work".

To take your 1984 concept, you do not have to believe that Mr Winston exists to understand his problems and learn from him. Why then is it so hard to study any other story and and not be conflicted about the existence of the characters? Some stories kinda fall flat if you do that but that is a problem with the story and not the concept.

 

by FreeDem on 02/16/2007 12:31:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Do we give Bush credit for not saying "God Bless America?"  Has he finally realized that the phrase doesn't play well with other countries who also want to be blessed?  Or is he just mad at God, or America? ( Or it could be that at the end of all of his prior speeches, Bush thought he had heard America sneeze.)  In any case, I do believe it was significant.


 

by Homertojeebus on 01/12/2007 07:11:20 AM EST

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athei sm

Personally, the first part of the definition comes closer to my position than the second part. Not personally believing in something that cannot be known is different, IMO, than actively insisting the unknowable does not exist. God could very well exist, but not only do I see no reason to believe this, the fact that so many do appears to do more harm than good for society as a whole. See my earlier post on this subject.

 

by Heretic on 01/21/2007 02:44:49 PM EST

 Display: