Tweet
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
OK, I have time now.
I don't disagree with your premise as much as you might think. One of my core conservative tendencies (don't laugh) is an appreciation for solutions and institutions that have demonstrated staying power over long time periods. Religion is a VERY successful human invention, and few human inventions have the potential at least to transmit positive moral teachings that religion does. The competing social organizing principles until now have been force majeure and utilitarianism; both are, IMO, anti-human in that they are hostile to the "angels of our better nature."
So much for the good of religion, which is substantial. The bad is:
(1) It's based on a "noble lie," and a lie which it is just not that hard to suss out. A weak keystone means the potential for complete collapse. And, indeed, with greater literacy and greater knowledge religious belief decreases. Doubt is the hallmark of wisdom and doubt is the enemy of faith. Religion was a pre-scientific, pre-rational solution that is no longer applicable once we know things.
(2) Maintenance of the noble lie for the portion of the population that will never achieve knowledge has often been suggested as a social control mechanism. This is, firstly, cynical and immoral, which is a bad way to go about spreading morality. But more than that it causes violent rifts and tears in society. The first target of the demagogue is the demonization of elites as having fallen away from the faith. Even here, among intelligent and mostly open minded people, it isn't unusual to run across people who honestly think that moral sense is predicated on spirituality. This is a seriously negative unintended consequence of the strategy of throwing hosts and chalices to the Great Unwashed in lieu of giving them access to education and then having to deal honestly with their challenge to the social order. It has its roots in an anti-democratic Machiavellianism that was, at best, a weigh station between mass illiteracy and universal education. Its time is passed.
(3) It breeds parochialism and violence the more you take it seriously. If religion were understood as an arbitrary game that we all agree to pretend, like sports or a movie or Santa Claus, then we could have its benefits without descending into anger, fear, and reprisal. But the more someone actually has True Belief, the worse it is for them being able to function in a world where there are thousands of faiths. At best they go through life smugly happy they will get the meat afterlife and everyone with a different faith will get the no meat afterlife. But historically it leads to the slaughter of infidels, forced conversion from one fairy tale to another, and/or the dehumanization of a large part of the population as, literally, "evil." God is a good idea to the extent you remember She isn't real.
(4) It's an app that considers its inability to upgrade as a feature, not a bug. This makes it more and more irrelevant as the realities of life change. Anti-homosexuality was a great idea when population growth was vital to the tribe's existence and non-baby producing sex literally wasted seed as a public asset. The second-class status of women was natural in a world were women were possessions. Banning shell fish was great if your economy was based on herding and the fishermen in the next valley were stealing your business. Banning pork was a good idea if you had a runaway Trichinosis epidemic and no refrigeration. None of that stuff means anything anymore, and pretending it does, just because it's in a Magic Book that you're not allowed to challenge or amend, hurts millions. Religion's delivery mechanism, top-down and infallible, is a tyranny that introduces immorality into the heart of a moral code. The game is not worth the candle.
Originally posted by 5mn_Major
View Post
I don't disagree with your premise as much as you might think. One of my core conservative tendencies (don't laugh) is an appreciation for solutions and institutions that have demonstrated staying power over long time periods. Religion is a VERY successful human invention, and few human inventions have the potential at least to transmit positive moral teachings that religion does. The competing social organizing principles until now have been force majeure and utilitarianism; both are, IMO, anti-human in that they are hostile to the "angels of our better nature."
So much for the good of religion, which is substantial. The bad is:
(1) It's based on a "noble lie," and a lie which it is just not that hard to suss out. A weak keystone means the potential for complete collapse. And, indeed, with greater literacy and greater knowledge religious belief decreases. Doubt is the hallmark of wisdom and doubt is the enemy of faith. Religion was a pre-scientific, pre-rational solution that is no longer applicable once we know things.
(2) Maintenance of the noble lie for the portion of the population that will never achieve knowledge has often been suggested as a social control mechanism. This is, firstly, cynical and immoral, which is a bad way to go about spreading morality. But more than that it causes violent rifts and tears in society. The first target of the demagogue is the demonization of elites as having fallen away from the faith. Even here, among intelligent and mostly open minded people, it isn't unusual to run across people who honestly think that moral sense is predicated on spirituality. This is a seriously negative unintended consequence of the strategy of throwing hosts and chalices to the Great Unwashed in lieu of giving them access to education and then having to deal honestly with their challenge to the social order. It has its roots in an anti-democratic Machiavellianism that was, at best, a weigh station between mass illiteracy and universal education. Its time is passed.
(3) It breeds parochialism and violence the more you take it seriously. If religion were understood as an arbitrary game that we all agree to pretend, like sports or a movie or Santa Claus, then we could have its benefits without descending into anger, fear, and reprisal. But the more someone actually has True Belief, the worse it is for them being able to function in a world where there are thousands of faiths. At best they go through life smugly happy they will get the meat afterlife and everyone with a different faith will get the no meat afterlife. But historically it leads to the slaughter of infidels, forced conversion from one fairy tale to another, and/or the dehumanization of a large part of the population as, literally, "evil." God is a good idea to the extent you remember She isn't real.
(4) It's an app that considers its inability to upgrade as a feature, not a bug. This makes it more and more irrelevant as the realities of life change. Anti-homosexuality was a great idea when population growth was vital to the tribe's existence and non-baby producing sex literally wasted seed as a public asset. The second-class status of women was natural in a world were women were possessions. Banning shell fish was great if your economy was based on herding and the fishermen in the next valley were stealing your business. Banning pork was a good idea if you had a runaway Trichinosis epidemic and no refrigeration. None of that stuff means anything anymore, and pretending it does, just because it's in a Magic Book that you're not allowed to challenge or amend, hurts millions. Religion's delivery mechanism, top-down and infallible, is a tyranny that introduces immorality into the heart of a moral code. The game is not worth the candle.
Comment