(Insert Title Here)
Mucker
A tiassa is a large winged cat from the fantasy novels of Steven Brust. It is also a house of nobility in the same stories. Tiassas are catlike, polite but easily aroused to fury, and as a people tend to strike after their opponents' vital points in order to end a dispute quickly. I highly recommend
The Phoenix Guards (and its sequel,
Five Hundred Years After), by Steven Brust, if you happen to be into any dimension of fantasy literature or have an affection for Dumas or his Three Musketeers.
As to the deeper questions, it's one of those perspective things. Thus,
as I see it, religion has served in human history various functions including aspects of psychology and anthropology. And as old religions fall away, not only new religions, but new
forms of religion take their place.
The pantheon served by the Roman Empire would eventually be replaced by Christianity, and this new form of religion had to defend itself against charges of atheism (
see Justin Martyr,
Apologies for the Christians; my usual link to the text is not working at present, so I must apologize. I'll try to get a working link. (Actually ...
try this one; see Chapter V especially.)
In the modern day it is not the New Age or the Pagan Revival which Christians need fear insofar as potential usurpers are concerned. Scientology presents a viable threat; religion openly acknowledged to be for profit seems almost a natural evolution. Islam, while being the fastest-growing religion, faces critical philosophical questions which could put an end to that trend. EBE Theory is becoming a populist religion to a certain degree, and only the confirmed existence of aliens can start to either advocate or denounce such ideas. Transhumanism presents some interesting philosophical perspectives, but I defer to
Cris regarding Transhumanism's status according to the idea of religion. Outright atheism presents a tough challenge and a "new form" of "religion": the idea of no God at all. That would be a drastic change but not unimaginable.
But at some point everyone relies on certain assumptions. There is no fully-objective anchor for ideas like right and wrong in the Universe. So anything held to be "Truth" by any individual rests on presumption. At a certain level, this is no different from common superstition except that the "superstitions" of daily living have some functional value. Throwing salt over your shoulder or knocking on wood have no real practical value. But getting out of bed each day and going to work because "that's the way the world is" ... well, that has some value. Some superstitions have positive results.
But I'm not even pointing to such an airy translation of the issue.
On a practical level:
Why do, as the example has it, baseball fans lean forward in their seat on the two and two? Does it actually do anything besides give you a stiff back and render your butt numb to do so for an entire game?
Of course not. But that lean includes people's hopes. That trapped breath catches fear and swallows it deep inside. American football's "Hail Mary" is way too obvious on the one hand, but suffers a severe case of Catholicism on the other. And somewhere, though I haven't devised a coherent thesis, is a comparison between the sports of old (e.g. ancient American ballgame that nobody can figure out exactly how to play, but the losers were sacrificed to the gods) and the idea that we as a public can spend a billion dollars (one way or another) on sports arenas (the new baseball parks, for instance, are truly Houses of the Holy), or give a guy $250 million dollars to play a game for ten years.
Sports, even devoid of genuflecting and praising God after scoring, even stripped of the dude with the rainbow hair and the "John 3:16" sign, even if we bury every seventh-inning-stretch copy of "God Bless America" ... sports are a place to see religion without God. (See also,
Bull Durham ... there's a bit about "the Church of Baseball" that is, in fact, quite true.) From the communal identification with the players, management, and coaches down to the tailgate parties and if you haven't seen die-hard football fans,
real American football fanatics . . . well, there goes a huge chunk of my argument. But sport is rife with superstition, and I'm not talking about jumping over the (invisible) baselines. Betters have their system. Players have their rituals (e.g. tying shoes in a certain way, eating a whole chicken before the game ... okay, I guess I am getting down to the invisible baselines ....) Fans believe that there are certain things they can do to affect the game. And while there are things that fans can do to actually help their team, none of those things take place on the living room sofa or at a tavern. Beyond that, you'd be amazed at how many people don't pay attention to who's at bat and what to do. Watch carefully, and you'll see hometown fans cost their teams a few runs here and there by interfering with gameplay. Watch American football. There used to be sort of a code to how you cheered. If you were too loud, your own team couldn't hear the snap-count. But if you're too quiet while your team is on defense ... some players say it gets spooky. They
need that wall of sound as part of the defense. But fans don't do this. They'll recite the Hail Mary, eat ceremonial meals before the games, get blithering drunk for their team, paint their bodies, sit nearly naked in the snow ... but they can't seem to grasp the things they can do that are objectively shown to help their teams. In Cincinnati once, the Bengals were charged a 15-yard penalty because hometown fans were throwing ice onto the field. What did the fans do? They threw more ice. Eventually the team's coach asked for the P.A., and while it's considered irregular to hand him the mic on demand, they did. And he proceeded to ream his fans publicly. Somebody had to say it.
Enough about sports. I'm rambling.
But whether its sports or politics or economy or marital relations ... the human mind is bursting with superstitions.
And in order to overcome religion, in order to overcome the Superstition of Superstitions (e.g. God), people must eliminate superstition pretty much entirely. It will be fair enough to presume that the sun will rise tomorrow, but beyond that ....
Think of a certain myth: the myth of the car. Ask any American fifteen year old about cars. You'll hear the myth of the car. Poll our younger members about how important driving privileges are. (I can't remember who I picked that tidbit up from.)
Or another myth: the myth of The State. I, for instance, am a huge fan of the Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
You'll note that I didn't boldface what some would think the obvious cue. Nature's God is, in fact, irrelevant to the point at hand. The essential statement:
-
When it becomes necessary for one group of people to tell another to **** off, decency commands that you should tell them why you're telling them to **** off.
It's a nice idea. But when we get down to it, absolutely nothing about that is objective. I agree that social sciences can demonstrate the necessity. But that's according to a deeper presumption concerning right and wrong, decency and dignity ... it's existential at least, but it's there. It's a certain degree of presumption. And that presumption gets tested in another political arena: watch what happens when one group of governments finds another government illegitimate. All appeal to rational consideration is suspended. The "illegitimate" does not apparently have the "right" to appeal to rational considerations. This is only because the people actively involved in the issues "disbelieve" that "right".
Everything about human function and cooperation is presumptuous. This is not a criticism of the human endeavor, but rather a simple observation.
But how much knowledge does it take to break superstition? Humanity may not be physically evolved enough to handle that information capacity. Humanity may be insufficiently prepared to handle that many calculations at once.
No more novels, no more plays, no more eye-candy blockbuster films. No more competitive sports, no more individuality ... humanity at its most efficient would resemble simpler social structures, perhaps those of ants or bees.
So as an attempt to wrap up, I see the "devil's gift" inherent in human diversity. Part of what makes being human worth it is actually our inefficiency. And, as I'm being highly subjective to begin with, let me also assert that nature is not extraneous. If humans were to simply consume and produce like other species--e.g. ants--humanity would not have evolved its ability to think as it does. The human thought process is terribly inefficient in terms of immediate reactions; the body is terribly weak compared to other animals. But it is our ability to innovate seemingly on demand that makes us what we are, and in the scope of that ability to calculate apparently exists the necessary requirements for "human-level" self-awareness.
I won't go so far as to say that nature intended me to proselytize at Sciforums, but it's fair enough, I think, to assert that if typing these words is a result of any evolution we can at least say that certain aspects of the process (e.g. computer, internet) are in some way "supposed" to happen; that is, our human talents apparently include this level of manipulating energy and matter; what I, individually do with this result is most likely irrelevant to the larger consideration.
But why haven't we evolved blood so acidic it can eat through metal? Well, why would we? Nature is not extraneous; such a trait combined with other aspects of the human animal might spell extinction for the species.
It
is possible to sell individual theists on atheism, but it won't stamp out superstition or its more evolved cousin religion. These are aspects of our thinking. Consider -
superstition, religion (organized superstition), rational consideration. Some may see an evolution or progression of thought, but an elimination of superstition would be devastating to those who think we would be "happier" without religion. Certes, we might live in a more harmonious world, but "happiness" beyond a certain psychological value--that can be applied to increase human productivity--would become irrelevant and even to a certain degree detrimental.
It is fair to say that those who wish for the end of religion
may not understand the implications. From what I can tell of the most part of those who would call for the end of religion, they would be bored to tears if they ever got their wish.
Think about Liberty:
Every human being has a right to determine their destiny.
Says who? It's a presumption.
My atheist phase included the logic-based rejection of God. However, I found that other myths dissolved on similar terms: state, family, even love itself is vulnerable to a rational rejection. And as one who, nearly seven months ago, received his first known blood relative
ever, while I felt that alleged "bond", I will not quantify it as a reality as I have no basis beyond perception. I would like very much to believe it is real, and I will even believe it for comfort's sake. While I admit it irrational, I will not deny the physical presence of love.
And you know what? I never knew the numbness I was feeling existed. I never had any reason whatsoever to think I was "numb".
Don't tell me it's not real sounds good enough, but in reality the reason for that is that I can't prove that it
is real.
Theism is merely a manifestation of superstition more complex than, say, knocking on wood. Human beings, according to their present capacities, will continue to seek to raise certain ideas to a larger-than-reality status. In other words, even without God, humans will still seek gods. They'll just call them something else. Perhaps State or, as history has it, Leader. I wonder what "Divine Right of Kings" looks like in an atheistic universe?
I might also nod to
Prisme's point.
In the end, as long as superstition exists, people will find a way to raise it into a religious cause. It's a long and difficult road, perhaps subject to the molasses pace of evolution, in preparing humanity for the task of living without superstition, which equates to living without fear.
(And how's that for a closing line?)
:m:,
Tiassa