religion
Understanding the world according to the truths that are demonstrable under our truth-producing methodology does not preclude religion, defined in its broadest sense. If we understand religion to be a body of personal beliefs that make the world sensible to us, then, in fact, everyone has a religion. That is, it is impossible for individuals to conduct their lives without such a framework. Understood in this sense, religion is simply another name for insights and, as such, everyone has an absolute right to their insights/religion. In fact, as we saw under the section on insights, diversity in religion/insights is a positive value in the human condition and is, therefore, a fundamental evolutionary right for all human beings. But, as we also saw under the section on insights, religion/insights are not truth. They can only be transformed into truth by being successfully vetted under our truth-producing methodology. Lacking such verification, they remain only a body of personal beliefs.
However, under current social conventions, religion is not understood in its broadest sense and therein lays the problem. Difficulties arise when the definition of religion is narrowed to a particular religious ideology based on a supernatural assumption - in other words, a cult. Adherents of many cults, unfortunately, have a proclivity to believe that not only are their cultic precepts necessary for them but also for everybody else. In other words, they have a divine mandate to insure that those precepts are socially enforced whether or not others agree with them or, indeed, even understand them. And, of course, that is a major problem, since the social enforcement of a particular insight necessarily diminishes the variety available, and variety of insights is a requirement to increase the potential for the survival of the human species.
The casual consensus (conventional wisdom) considers “religions” as those religious ideologies of long-standing and broad participation, with the term “cult” being reserved for upstart “religions” which challenge the precepts of the “long-standing” variety and having small followings. This approach arises from the fact that religions of the long-standing variety have been integrated into the conventional wisdom on which the authority of the social hierarchy depends, whereas novel cults could produce challenges to that authority. But the first dictionary definition of cult is “a system or community of religious worship and ritual” which is surely an accurate description of the core elements of both the “long-standing” and “upstart” versions. The distinction drawn by the current convention is simply an attempt to imply that there is something bogus about the “upstarts”. But who has the ability to make that judgment? After all, none of the religious ideologies can be successfully vetted under our truth-producing methodology, so the potential for being bogus (in the sense of being at variance with truth) would seem to be the same for all of them. That being the case, it is clear that the distinction is fatuous, and cult is the proper term for all supernaturalist ideologies – whether of the “long-standing” or “upstart” variety.
The current controversy on the issue of “religion” is usually framed as being between “atheists” and adherents of the Judeo-Christian “religions”. But that is a serious, and intentional, distortion of what the controversy is really about. However, social hierarchies often allow the issue to be framed in this manner because holding “religions” to be an asset in the human condition, reinforces the conventional wisdom. Therefore, “atheists” (the deniers of “religions”) must consequently be a danger. This approach allows the simply act of framing the controversy to produce a conclusion, without actually thoughtfully considering the issues. Of course, this approach will not do. Before we can reach a conclusion we must conduct an analysis that does thoughtfully consider the issues. It’s apparent that “religion” and “atheist” as used in this framing are “fog terms” – they are is employed not to clarify and sharpen our understanding of things, but rather to muddle our thinking.
Incidentally, the use of the term atheist is ill mannered and arrogant. It is also meaningless in any global sense. It is arrogant and ill mannered to describe a person in terms of what they don’t believe, but you do. For example, use of the terms non-Catholic or gentile is simply bad manners arising from a remarkable insensitivity for others’ feelings. Every person has the right, as a simple courtesy, to be described in terms of what they positively ascribe to. Additionally, the term is meaningless in any global sense, since whether or not you believe in any particular god depends on how that god is understood. If god were defined as Brahma, for instance, most Americans would be atheists in terms of that understanding. On the other hand, many thoughtful people are atheists in terms of the understanding that arises from some of the Biblical descriptions of god. But that understanding does not encompass all possible ways that god can be conceived of and understood. For instance, shortly before he was assassinated, Gandhi said that all of his life he thought that god was truth, but he had changed his mind. He now thought that truth was god. In terms of that understanding, many of the atheists in terms of a Biblical god may be, in fact, theists. It’s apparent that atheist is another “fog term”. By the way, it is one of the ironies of history that early Christians were charged with being atheists – and in terms of the understanding of their accusers, they were.
Dispensing with the fog terms “religion” and “atheist” allows us to reframe the controversy in its real terms. The actual controversy is between those who believe our only access to understanding comes from knowledge of the natural world and those who believe that, in addition to the natural world, there is a supernatural world, which also must be considered. “Naturalists” contend that we can only attain knowledge by obtaining objectified information from the study of the regularities, rhythms, and “laws” that pertain in the natural world. Of course, the “natural world” encompasses the human condition. That is, such studies would include human behavior and the internal processes that motivate that behavior. Concepts that can’t be objectified are ignored. Therefore, “naturalists” give no credence to such things as supernatural gods, angels, intercessory saints, devils, incubuses, evil spirits and the like. Contrary wise, the “supernaturalists” contend that some or all of these concepts are needed to attain knowledge.
So fundamentally, the controversy is between “naturalists” and “supernaturalists”. Since no supernatural event has ever been verified by our truth-producing methodology, claims to the truth supported only by an appeal to supernaturalism can be ignored. However, supernaturalism as a personal insight (as the case with any other insight) is beyond the competence of others to call into question. As previously determined, each person has a right to her/his own insights and to be free from the imposition of the insights of others.
That being the case, our interest in “religions” should be focused on one issue. Are the ethics of a “religion” virtue producing? Dealing with this issue requires an examination of what the cults actually say and do. But they say and do a variety of things. For example, all of the Abrahamic supernaturalisms advocate a concern for the downtrodden – an undoubted virtue and, thus, a social asset. But they advocate other things as well. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Biblical creation story should be taught in schools as a credible alternative to natural selection. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of condoms is sinful even when used to control the AIDS epidemic. Jewish Zionists believe that concern for the rights and security of the Jews resident in the Palestine is of more importance than such a concern for the Arab residents. Fundamentalist Islamites require women to go about in bags when in public. Far from being social assets, all of these examples constitute crimes in terms of the objectified determination of human decency attained through our understanding of Darwinian dynamics. As is apparent, sometimes religious precepts produce virtue and sometimes crimes. Therefore, religious precepts should be subject to the same scrutiny as the precepts of any other social institution, and the casual consensus allowing a broad-brush reliance on “religions” as a social asset is badly misplaced and should be abandoned.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution