Surrogates and other notions
I can not prove that small tribes 200,000 years ago were not religious. The point there being that one can not say "the world without religion will suck", because there is no possible way to know that. What we do know is that religion now, in this world, is a big problem, and an untried or unknown alternative is probably worth a shot.
The untried or unknown alternative
is worth a shot, but only in its time. To make the world godless before people have the knowledge to replace the religious surrogate (we'll get to this again, as I see) will only cause people to raise other surrogates for knowledge.
To take Christianity as the example--there are numerous interpretations of Christianity which have the effects of making it a charitable, progressive, and contributory force in the world and which reduce God from the office of idiot taskmaster. None of these interpretations, however, are popular. I hope to tie this in, as well, to the larger point of religions as surrogates for knowledge. We'll see.
I would abstract that somewhat and say acceptance stands in the way of learning.
For the longest time, religion
helped learning by forcing a certain degree of civility, pointing to a higher cause than the animalistic ripping of throats which seemed such a popular solution.
The problem is that one cannot lay a blanket interpretation over religions, or even one religion, throughout time. The idea of God brought people together, but now the fear that draws people to the Christian god, for instance, is sharply asynchronous to reality. A common point, for instance, of Christian apologists is that much scientific discovery comes from people who happened to be Christians. I've seen Newton raised as such, but that's always a bad idea since the "Newtonian God" is the primary agent against which Diderot and other atheists reacted in the nineteenth century. The God of Newton is different from the God of Anselm, for instance. And the vagaries of the Newtonian-derived cosmology are certainly different from the God against which Diderot reacted. It is, in human terms, a relatively new phenomenon that society outpaces the gods.
In that sense, in the modern day, Christianity does seem to be an agent against knowledge. Any place Christians stick their will into the civic arena, it seems they're at least slightly behind the times. It's the mere difference between "discovering God's miraculous universe" and simple, superstitious obedience.
As a general note, though, it's worth pointing out that I, in not going to college straight out of high school, deviated from an unusual trend. At my school, 97% of graduates go on to college straightaway. In addition, with mediocre grades and test scores, I still received a state honor at graduation indicating me in the top 10% of the state's graduating seniors.:bugeye: I can't compare necessarily to those in Washington state public schools, but when I got down to Oregon, it turns out that my first girlfriend in college was an Oregon public schools graduate and an honor student. Her roommate was an honor student. And their best friend was an honor student. One of the three, the roommate, could write a proper research paper or handle an essay test without panic. About half the papers I wrote in college were for other people; maybe that's why I dropped out. But in the direct testimony, a Jesuit school did, in fact, educate me quite well compared to my public-school counterparts.
As a general theme, I'll say it depends on each individual. And that's one of the places where religions seem to hurt: individuality. And
that effect is where religion becomes detrimental to learning.
It would not surprise me. There must be a first to say "I bet the sun is a spirit/god/whatever."
I wouldn't expect it to be that simple. By the time someone got around to betting someone else's left nut that there was a sun god, there were few objectors. One of the interesting aspects of Markale, for instance, is how much focus he puts on psychology while exploring the anthropology and history of the Celtic experience. Aldous Huxley noted, in
Jesting Pilate, that oppressed people are more likely to have legendary heroes than those not oppressed. It's a great point in the modern day that applies to the US in the same way Huxley tried to apply it to the British. But when we look at the exaggerated Irish or Kossovar (Huxley's example, even in 1925) tales of history, we see a certain, reverent clinging to a significant past. This can tie in to Markale in the sense that, in exploring the myth of Ys, he notes historical writings (ancient Greece &c.) pointing toward keltoi water rituals. Is this, as goes the suggestion, a primal memory of flood? Are the observed rituals of standing a battle line at the shore and casting weapons into the sea mere stupidity or some tribute to an event raised to mythic and even religious proportions?
Strangely, my Markale has disappeared into the house somewhere, so I'm having trouble pulling page references for Ys. Nonetheless, I did come across an
interesting page for Scintilla (software) which contains a lovely and suggestive note (I love it when stuff like this turns up in random places):
Sunken lands are a recurring theme in myth - Ys and Atlantis being well known examples. Often associated with the fall of a land because of the hubris of the inhabitants.
One need not believe in Atlantis as a literal reality, but this
theosophical article says a few things about the relationship of myth to reality that are worth considering. (One more
link on Ys, which myth I'm stressing today because it speaks toward the development of ideas into myth and religion.)
Anthropomorphization is a curious process. I assert that at the dawn of the human consciousness, its need to assimilate things tended toward animism and anthropomorphism. What is not understood is accepted as known according to specific needs. In the beginning, superstitions of fire probably developed from its behavior; one doesn't need to watch
Backdraft or slobber all over Donald Sutherland's insane character to sympathize with the notion of living fire. Incidentally, there are old--perhaps nineteenth-century--classifications of life by which fire suffices as a living entity. It took us a while to get away from fire in that sense.
The development of gods in later times is a different process. I don't doubt that gods were eventually calculated to support mortal power structures, but that's a different issue that we may actually get to in the course of this.
It is customary in English when partially quoting someone to include them where other words are being left out.
Is it also customary in English to alter the meaning of a sentence? Here, one of my favorite examples comes from a Christian named Bob Larsen. Being that I don't ever buy or own copies of his books, I haven't this one at hand for a page citation. But Larsen, a critic of rock music, has shown his own illiteracy. On one occasion, he denounced Anthrax for the line "I'll kill you" in the song
Misery Loves Company. Had he read the liner notes, he would have seen that the band was actually playing out the Stephen King novel "Misery". But his most idiotic tantrums came in the listing of rock lyrics he found objectionable. To wit, he blasted Ronnie James Dio for the song
All the Fools Sailed Away.
• "...we are the damned ... we are hunted by the lion and the lamb ... we bring you sin ... we will disappear never to be seen again."
But whence come these ellipses?
• We are the innocent,
we are the damned. We were caught in the middle of the madness,
hunted by the lion and the lamb. We bring you fantasy,
we bring you pain. It's your one great chance for a miracle, or
we will disappear never to be seen again. (Note ... "we bring you sin" occurs in a different verse, even.)
Kind of changes things, doesn't it? Especially when, in the abbreviated version, you're complaining about the indoctrination of children.
So the reason I ask about the ellipsis is simple:
• ... show me please a functioning society without religion. (cited)
• But in terms of "civilized society", or "civilization" (WordNet:
a society in an advanced state of development), show me please a functioning society without religion. (original)
I just find it odd that you're changing the question in order to provide an answer. I'm not going to argue with the notion of small associations of people who operate without religious structures, though I highly doubt them devoid of religious superstition.
If I said that I believed that societies existed which seek to dominate the world, would it be more appropriate to think in terms of Nazi Germany and the United States, or of, say, the Illuminati?
It's a matter of scale, so I was just wondering why you had to alter the scale of the question before providing a response. It's not the biggest deal in the world.
Religion has minimal effect on politics and society in Australia.
This may be, and I won't argue with it directly. Of course, it would appear that your Constitution has accomplished what South Carolina can't figure out:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth (Sec. 116)
Nonetheless, religion is present in Australia, as noted
here
Historically, religion in Australia has largely been confined to rural areas, and is conspiciously absent as an urban cultural force in Australia, separating itself from the machination of the state. However, one must not underemphasize their regional influence; churches remained a dominant educational force throughout the nineteenth century. Thanks to large amounts of aid from the mother church and extensive missionary efforts, Australia witnessed a proliferation of a various Christian sects. The Anglican Church, largely because of extensive aid from the wealthy Church of England, established itself as the dominant church in the nineteenth century, and today 34 per cent of all Australians are Anglican.
(Today=11 years ago in the above paragraph.) Furthermore, religion appears to have played an important role in Australian social development. Having gained a diocese of its own in 1836, the Anglican drama would play out until
1962, when the Anglican Church of Australia was finally recognized by the mother church as independent. In fact, religion does play
quite the role in Australian history. An Australian site,
http://www.antichrist.com.au , reminds us in its way of the
problems of religion which came with the development of the Australian nation:
In 1788, Governor Sir George Arthur Phillip (1738-1814) was among the First Fleet to arrive at Sydney Cove.
A fervent Anglican evangelical, Governor Phillip' gave immediate instructions to set about Christianising the new land.
He introduced a policy which resulted in the "Black Drive" or extermination of the entire Tasmanian Aboriginal race.
In Tasmania, the policy meant Aborigines who embraced Christianity were sent to government reserves for "assimilation".
Those who refused to join the "adaptation" programme were rounded up and exiled to wind-swept Flinders Island in the Bass Strait ...
This among others. The antichrist site is cool. For instance, its list of
Australian church offenders seems a predecessor to the US-Catholic controversy, and lends much toward the present topic.
Of more incidental behavior, e.g. priests badmouthing parishoners, is that really a religious problem or a human problem?
In that sense, is
any of it a religious problem, or is it all a human problem?
It is a shame. The USA seems to have a surplus of people willing to hate and hurt for any reason, and religion happens to be on their list. But the same could be said of half the countries on Earth. I would like to see a world in which that list is very small, in which better education and fair uniform laws with just enforcement mean there are simply fewer reasons and opportunities for people to screw each other over.
And there is a vital point. Better education, fair laws, just enforcement ... not only will these things lead to a brighter future, but they will lead to the diminishing of the human necessity of religion.
Sure:
• Now, widespread, specific subjectivity causes a loss of profit, of resource, and of life.
People rarely, if ever, go to war for objective reasons. Plenty of justifications might seem objective, but in reality, what nations have explored every peaceful option before resorting to warfare?
If we look back at the Crusades, we see an obvious connection 'twixt subjectivity and warfare. In this case, the subjective is God. In the modern day, though, listen to the Bush party line. It's almost a religion in this country. Seriously, ask an American about poverty and illiteracy, and the connection such factors have toward violence among peoples, and you'll likely get a run-around. At last count, I can't quite explain the Afghani-Bush War.
• We are protecting the American Way while not honoring it. This is acceptable because we're the good guys.
• They (Afghanis) ought to be thankful that we're there with our bombs and guns making a better life for them.
• It is unfair to raise the Afghani standard of living with industrial and commercial development and fair wages.
• They're not poor. They eat every day.
• Placing the warlords in charge of the country will raise the standard of living, notwithstanding that helping to elevate the Taliban to power was supposed to raise the standard of living.
• You're either with us or against us.
• The bombing of the WTC makes this not just America's fight, but everyone's.
All of the above get a :bugeye: from me. I hear them fairly regularly as Americans discuss the war. They're all, as you might notice, pro-war positions.
Only a couple of notes to deviate from that list: everyone's fight? Hell, you could hear civilized Europeans on the news saying, "It's awful, but now at least the US is in with us." How long has the world waited for us to take on this problem? And eating every day? The counterpoint actually had to do with other countries, and came down to, "What, they have a bowl of rice every day." Yeah, and KFC, McD's, Red Robin, Cucina Cucina, and the local supermarket are ... what? They're our
right dammit, and nobody's going to deny us that standard of living; it's a far cry from a bowl of rice a day.
Wars are fuelled by subjective responses to objective crises. Among the Cimbri and the Teutones is evidence that among their warring ways, they were known, in fact, to occasionally enter an area and ask for settling rights. One set of battles, that ended near Rome, arose after the Romans intervened in negotiations to allow settling in a given region. The locals were very near saying yes when the Romans said no. I find it interesting that negotiations in the modern day aren't nearly so vital or apropos necessity. Take the Northern Irish conflict. Insofar as I can tell, the whole world missed the fact that the condition for allowing the IRA to negotiate for cease-fire was, essentially, the dismantling of the IRA, thereby leaving no body to negotiate with. I mean, really ... how ridiculous is
that? Once people figured it out, things went even worse. A suspension of the Good Friday accord came, according to AP reports, because the IRA wouldn't disarm; to read
The Economist and other publications that evade the American-censor paradigm, one learns that the Ulsters were threatening to hamstring the government unless they got their way, and the Brits were against the wall. The whole thing wasn't about any issues of the conflict, rather 'twas all about establishing who's in charge of ending the conflict. It was all politicking and jockeying.
Subjective issues such as Patriotism, moral-ethnic identities, religion, and so forth, are what lead bad situations into war. There isn't enough food? We could ask our neighbors for assistance ... ah, but they're _____ (fill in the derogatory blank however you like), and we should just take what we want because we deserve it.
The issues may seem objective, but the solutions are justified entirely in BS subjectivity, such as Patriotism, Racism, Religion, and other such ideas.
Indeed. But then, this is a re-run of Panama, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya, and other such shows. The effects of such episodes are to contribute to the overall American foreign policy. The extent of influence of that policy is more easily gauged in the USA than in other places, I think. For example, I find it difficult to believe that a 12 year old kid in Panama would know much about why the USA handles military bases along the canal, and why those bases are being shut down. However (and I have seen this), ask a 12 year old USA citizen what and why about Saddam Hussein, and he says "Bomb them all! They're murderers!" Note the hypocrisy.
Briefly, the point about Rosa Parks merely points out the "silliness" of subjective standards. According to the standard, Parks should have gone to jail. Instead, her actions ended up busting open a vault of seething, subjective psychology and helped change the standard of human value.
Of the larger portion of your paragraph, I think you're on it exactly. Now then, what is it that causes this 12 y/o to think so savagely of his human neighbors? What, for that matter, causes Uncle Wayne to retain his misogyny and hypocritical politics? They're hardly objective standards, I'll bet.
Here, again, it seems we're examining the danger of subjectivity.
I have to admit that Andre Serrannos'
Piss Christ would not have achieved its notoriety without religion, but c'mon ... most atheists I know
love the picture, either as a cathartic association or a political commentary. Nothing about it says it's necessarily
good art, though. But how much of a limb can we go out on?
I'm hardly one for reserving artistic expression to the glorifying (or gorifying) of God, but I don't know a purely atheistic artist. Actually, I do know one vitriolic atheist, but I can send him bits from Rilke and he'll harrumph in support, despite the fact that they speak toward the idea of the muse. He's become more of a technician than an artist in recent years, though, as his expressions begin to fail him artistically. It's a shame ... all he has to do is admit the truth of his faith in the Muse and just get on with life and things will come much easier. For the most part, you can't tell
what he admires about his art other than the fact that someone spent a lot of time and drove themselves insane for it. A result of this is best found using My Bloody Valentine as an example. An incredible amount of work, innovation, and seeming brilliance went into the
Loveless album. And
this labor of production becomes the testament to the album's genius. Sure, it's a good album, but it's not groundbreaking in its overt presentation. In fact, if you've ever played the video game
Tekken 2, part of the song
Soon is included in the soundtrack (English countryside fights). I suppose if I had a $10,000 sound system at the time of the album's release, that would be something. But it's not emotionally moving the way the Beach Boys could be (note ... I have a better cut of
Smiley-Smile made by this artist-friend of mine that comprises the intended album
Smile insofar as can be derived from the available material; yes, the Beach Boys are moving.)
Some of it might come from growing up in the 1980s in the United States. Crap, man ... art? Art was most definitely soulless almost across the board.
Is it art or is it commerce? What is the objective value of a thing?
Or, what happens when "inspiration" is market-driven?
Well, I have the very opposite problem, which can be seen from various threads in the Free Thoughts section.
I'll have to give that forum a better read-through.
You have actually called me a bigot in several threads. Is that not personal? I do not advocate restricting people holding certain creeds from holding public office
And I'll drive that point until I'm done with it. It's an observation which has damaged my assessment of your credibility. On the one hand, I want to just tell you to be more careful with your words and leave it at that. For instance:
• I advocate limiting all activities undertaken by people holding public office to those within the duties of that office. If a rule of holding public office means that a person can not say "All non-christian tax-payers will now pay 5% more than everyone else", that is not bigotry
Okay, now, this is a far different issue than saying religious people should not be allowed public office and then asking why the state can't be allowed such discrimination. Election to public office does not mean a forfeiture of conscience, since it is on issues of conscience that a people raise leaders through election.
Preventing the type of discrimination that British Protestants enforced against Irish Catholocism does not constitute bigotry. In fact, we have a similar phenomenon in this country whereby Christians occasionally lament that failure to raise a Christian standard above all others equals an act of discrimination against Christianity. It's bogus. But take the abortion debate, for instance. A politician's religious conscience moves him to believe that abortion should be illegal, and presses forth on the grounds that ending legal abortion will benefit society. His conscience is his conscience, but when that conscience moves him to ignore reality, the people gather in opposition. In Oregon, Christian extremists tried to put a ballot measure up that would make the state constitution officially recognize the existence of God. This is not acceptable.
• I propose that public offices should restrict people from being able to say such things.
Well, take Ashcroft and Oregon, recently. He is scrambling to find constitutional support for this issue of his conscience. People should not be allowed to die on their own terms, or in comfort, and he feels moved to this by the same God that makes classic art into pornography. Sounds extreme, doesn't he? But then again, the courts think so, too. If his religious conscience presses him to a determination of right that falls withing existing law, he has a free reign. And
that is how the state stops such people. But it cannot bar them from office because of their religion.
• As it stands in Australia, our tax office allows various religious organisations to take income without paying taxes. That is flat out wrong.
In the modern day, yes. But the common idea in the US is that the religious tax-exemption was a way to keep religion out of government in an authoritarian way.
Furthermore, we have a law frequently referred to as 501(c)(3), which describes
non-profit entities. While I have not yet looked through the whole of the
FACT Net website, they do offer a reasonable page on the subject of
501(c)(3).
You'll find the issue near the "soft-money" debate of American political campaigns. But right now, all recognized churches save for the
Church of Scientology (CoS, inc., a for-profit enterprise) fall under the 501(c)(3) umbrella. Well, I don't know about all churches, and Scientology may have some non-profit enterprises, but the most relevant point is that the churches can hide under the same banner as other non-profit entitites.
• For this reason, those who serve the people should either: publicly renounce support of any such cause; or be forced by the rules of their office to perform their duties without any preference or discrimination based on such a cause; or both.
And this is where I get my constant bigotry accusation. This cannot be achieved, and to even attempt to do so in this country, at least, seems a violation of the First Amendment, which the public servants are entitled to.
I see such a clause in the Australian Constitution, but how that is read is most likely, as in this country, a matter of the courts.
• To do otherwise is to accept on faith that they will be nice fair people, like Ashcroft.
It's a danger of electoral politics. We elected Bush, and Bush appointed Ashcroft. The Congress is not allowed to make the point of Ashcroft's faith a specific reason to decline the nomination.
• But what about freedom of speech?
The First Amendment to the United States of America protects speech, religion, and the right of free assembly. Thus ...
• In which case the person does not have to accept the duties of that public office. They are free to go flip burgers for a living.
... to make a person's religious affiliation and conscience a criterion of duty for public office is a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees that the law allows one their conscience in their actions.
Such is also an interesting point in the Bush administration's grumbling to the world: "You are either with us or against us." I have summarized that policy in criticisms of the US by noting that
You are free to not disagree with us. Just a micro/macro synchronicity.
• When was the last time you heard the USA president say "Fuck you Yasser, ya dumb goat-humper!"
There's no specific law that prevents this. However, if chronic disrespect for the world was among the electoral criteria, well, we'd never elect a politician in this country.
There are fair debates constantly going on regarding the "dignity of the office". Reagan's violations of federal law, his support of terrorists, and the possible involvement of his campaign in aiding and abetting Iranian militants in the holding of US captives did not, apparently, warrant impeachment hearings. But a blowjob apparently does ....
Why do you think Bush is so adamant about "Unlawful Combatants"? If he can evade the Constitution on this one, he will ... but therein he will make himself eligible for impeachment by specifically failing to uphold the Constitution, as he has pledged to do when taking the oath of office.
• When was the last time you heard a sergeant in the army yell "Sir, I shagged your daughter last night with a corn cob and there's not a damn thing your weeny arse can do about it!"
Well, I've never heard such, but it depends entirely on who the sergeant is talking to. If speaking to a civilian, the sergeant has an obligation to reflect a certain moral standard becoming of the dignity of the United States of America. If he's speaking to a superior ... well, you can bet there's something that superior can do about it.
• Public offices in the USA already follow codes of conduct, and they are generally for the good.
Yes, they do. But they cannot intrude on the Constitution. The Supreme Court has established reasonable boundaries for the First Amendment, but such standards of office which do not have an immediate cause are considered unacceptable.
had patriotism under my thumb (meaning figured out) many years ago, and I still don't like it.
Yes, I have read those things said by others. I must say, Tyler's idea that maybe something would just replace religion as a reason to kill is a tad pessimistic.
Perhaps a tad pessimistic, but I do think it's the strongest possibility when considering the available data.
I'm not sure about Cris's "wars are illogical." I can see the logic in wars. The logic for the wars is often quite steady. It's the logic behind the forces behind those wars that I find unstable.
Yes, and the devices invented for butchering hogs and cattle are quite logical, but the logic of the
necessity of a good bacon-burger is entirely its own.
• For example, I see why the First Crusade happened. It was a good move politically. But then, it is based on the unstable logic of religion.
Yes, exactly. I can't add any more to that.
• War is generally a very productive way of lowering unemployment, boosting industry, and gaining points in political campaigns.
You forgot some. War is a very productive way of killing people, destroying economies, and ensuring future wars.
The living experience is not merely the immediate moment. Perhaps some of my complaints about objectivism come into play here: you're writing of only
one side of the war, a patriotic, or at least divisive perspective.
I just don't think that we can pretend that eliminating gods will eliminate religious identification of ideas, and the bad things that come from such identities. And here we come again to the notion of the religious surrogate. It seems that people, left to their own devices, will seek solutions for their appearance of convenience. Religion, nation, ethnicity, and so forth are mere justifications for what seems to be an underlying economic decision that places human life as a mere factor in considering a higher value.
The only way to break religions is to demonstrate unequivocally their invalidity. Why do so few outside the faith take Creationism seriously? Because it has no validity, no underlying merit, and it cannot be science until it acts like science.
In the end, the only "religions" left will be the ones that directly philosophize on the unknown, such as the "Why are we here?" or "Do we actually exist?" questions. Such vital questions have been usurped and infected by religious speculation over the years, resulting in inadequate resolutions and inspiring through those poor resolutions equally poor behavior.
And this is where the problem lies, when religion intrudes into the real. In the past, it served ... reasonably well. But knowledge has far surpassed Chrisitanity, and the Christians need to accept that.
It might be fair to look at this topic as two seperate but interrelated topics. First, what happens when the Abramic experience is extincted? And then what are we looking at in terms of what's left? For instance, I don't foresee the Buddhists having that much of a problem with science and social policy. Technically, my only complaint about neo-paganism is that it has too much of a tendency to keep to itself; I've mentioned before criticism in local pagan journals of a lack of civic participation on the part of pagan individuals; it's a philosophical quandary that must be answered sooner or later. But in the end, much of what we're criticizing in the way of religion comes directly from either the Abramic experience or extinct philosophies (e.g. among pagan revivalists and reconstructionists, Roman restrictions notwithstanding, there is little interest in reviving the roving Mongol hordes or their religion). In the end, it's a matter of the underlying philosophy, and how much knowledge strips away the deified accretions. Whatever's left will remain as the vestiges of religion among people.
But the world without religion will be a natural process, else religion will simply don a new mask and slip back into the void where a lack of knowledge plagues human vitality.
thanx,
Tiassa
