Archive for category Religion
Religious progress
It’s not enough to argue that religion is just primitive superstition. As (I believe) it reflects an underlying biological capacity to detect “too much” of everything – which then allows “too much” of anything to be recognised conciously (e.g. nature’s gods in the earliest phases) reasoned about (why are they there, what do they want, although we don’t understand it what is its impact)- generating abstract thought, religion has performed its myriad functions in binding that into the social system.
All of these “Too much” gods are inevitably extracted into concepts of a single god (even if the Roman part of Roman Catholicism resists getting rid of its minor gods completely). Science, however, has become the process of separating the arbitrary transmission of past predjudices/ideas about “too much” whose purpose is more to do with psychological self-support in the face of a vast universe, and social bonding allowing for easier moral control, into a systematic study of the abstract study itself where you are allowed to be wrong.
Art, Religion, Wellbeing and Experience
Art = a guided experience – to empathically relive or experience something intended by the artist : whether to relive a chilly morning landscape, or the freedom/joy the artist felt covering themselves in paint and rolling around on a large sheet of paper.
Religion = the art of guiding people to particular moral, emotional and spiritual experiences. Hardly a surprise that the main motor for this is artistic, in the form of storytelling/myth, religious painting, and of course, music.
In Religion we witness the power of art when combined with repetition, i.e. the power of behavioural training. Repeat something often enough and the experience/memory becomes persistent enough that it can be easily recalled and used to compare and contrast against other experiences.
Defining experiences, and making them repeatable, brings structure to life. It directs your energy (by limiting what you do and how you do it) and enables larger, cohesive social groups (who implicitly agree on the basics of what is acceptable in their shared experience). It is not the case that any experience has an impenetrable boundary, that it floats freely distant from any other experience or interpretation – all experiences are by necessity (neurologically) linked to the same structures that enable us to experience life itself. Therefore it is hardly surprising that people do feel a very strong need to define “what belongs” and “what doesn’t” based on small differences, because ultimately all experiences are linked.
How might this be used in a modern context? Socially, the thought leaders are in a place where they are more aware of relativism in values, and the arbitrary nature of our indoctrination, than ever before. As this dissolves our social norms (by making it acceptable for individuals to define their own life experiences, and recruit others to come with them) it generates enormous uncertainty, and destroys many of the basic social assumptions which people either do need, or believe they need.
This is where Active Politics is called for, to find new social structures which can work and which are sustainable. To reassess whether any shared beliefs/assumptions must be held sacred and immutable (by means of force and imprisonment) and if so, what they are.
The current system evolves piecemeal (as individual occurances within an abstract anti-repressive liberal framework falsify existing social or legal constraints as repressive), but one of the largest catastrophic collisions which this will not defuse can be seen between the followers of religion (as preservers of the local society group identity) and the followers of science (as the pioneers of the individual identity).
Biologically, it seems that (as Maslow pointed out) we need a bit of both. The group is our foundation, but without individual fulfillment, the human suffers under tyranny and in misery.
It is possible, given our knowledge of psychology, sociology, and the anthropology of religious and artistic practice, to assemble structures on a scientific basis which rapidly train/indoctrinate people into particular experiences. In an open society they would be free to choose, and to leave, to experiment with the alternative experiences – as they increasingly are now.
In that sense, this is nothing new, but I am interested in whether it would be possible to establish a bridge between the sciences and religion, which removes the inaccuracy of myth and dogma, but recreates the essential positive elements of *religious experience* which serve to make life both tolerable and enjoyable, within a scientific context.
In this sense, the scientific context simply means moving people on towards a current understanding of the world. However, it also means a context where *nothing* is regarded as absolute truth, where dogma should be actively resisted as one of its central tenants. It is also a context in which we should *not* loose the spiritual, and social experiences which make life wonderful. Partly these have been lost in the enlightenment, made subservient to the three pillars of economic, scientific and bureaucratic power – perhaps because (being embedded in the religious paradigm) it was not possible to extract the dogma from the underlying experience and recognise how important it is.
Worship your cells
It struck me for the first time recently, that my sense of who I am is fundamentally skewed.
Our personal identities are only part of the picture. We are composed of millions of cells, each of which are living beings in their own right. Most of the DNA we carry (some 85% +) is dedicated to cellular construction and the history of cellular construction.
We are, in fact, an outgrowth of the branch of probability wherein cells which grouped together had a higher change of success. These cells use a fraction of their DNA to assemble themselves into a super-structure. Over time and with cellular specialisation, what we see as neuronal cells function together in such a way that we are able to say “I think therefore I am”.
This isn’t a new thought. We learn in school that we’re composed of cells. It’s just personally been a “so what” moment.
Since I have realised that I am *responsible* for the existence of millions of life forms, I treat my cells with much more respect, in the daily decisions I make about where I take my body, what I put into it, and what I do with it.
It seems to me to be an incredibly important thought, which links us to the entire animal kingdom in a profoundly different way. At the cellular level, we are (almost) all one family, just exhibiting itself in different emergent physical forms.
It is interesting to consider what the identity of a human might be, seen from the perspective of a cell. Is it a God? Would it not be a very abstract concept, un-understandable due to its massive complex, yet a product of the very things doing the considering and bringing it into being. I wonder if that isn’t quite a good metaphor for our own ideas about God, in the sense that as individual social cells which have brought into being the world of living ideas, we are essentially in the same position?
My Grandma the Genius
At 90, she never fails to amaze me. She gets to the heart of the matter in a few words, her experience really shows.
I was telling her about a neighbour, whose beliefs I find verge on the fanatical (because, I suspect, she has doubts she dare not face – and her South American culture values Belief and Certainty as a strength, and doubt as a weakness).
Everynow and again, Oma summed up what I was thinking :
“Mann soll nicht zu starr glauben, es ist doch immer anders”
“Mann kann die Vorstellungen von 2000 Jahr her nicht so einfach übertragen”
“Intelligenter Männer haben zweifel. Es ist kein Sünde”
“Für mich, Glauben ist mehr Vertrauen”
Roughly translated :
“People shouldn’t believe too fervently, things always turn out to be different than you thought”
“You can’t easily transfer 2000 year old preconceptions to the modern world”
“Intelligent people have doubts. That is no sin”
“For me, Belief is more like Trust”.
These thoughts from a woman who has never left her village.
Satisfy your basic urges, go on, you know you want to
As a species we’ve clearly got bio-social urges… it’s not controvertial to say that we obviously want to feel loved and hopeful, to be part of a group (preferably involving lots of sex), that we enjoy watching various degrees of violence inflicted on others, and generally like someone to follow. These are things which we have inherited from our animal past, and which continue to establish themselves as a social force – with the repeated attempts to distinguish one or other aspects (whether Victorianism, or Communism etc.) having failed miserably to suppress what can only, therefore, be an innate part of what it means to be a human.
For example, this accounts for (the utterly non-productive themes which are unessential to survival of) Religion, Music, and Sport – not to mention the Doodlebug of Pornography. They exist only to satisfy our biosocial needs in a variety of ways.
On the Religious front, however… where there is a need to feel hope (not fear) and meaning (not worthlessness), to be part of a group which you can identify with… I question why Music/Sport/Self-improvement does not suffice? Football, if any, has been a force that provides meaning, community, albeit with a bit too much violence for the good of its participants. Music can do wonders for your sex life, and sense of community, but doesn’t offer the level of leadership of violence that a good religion can bring.
The obvious answer is that Religious people are simply brainwashed by their parents. That’s probably fair comment, and accounts for the historical persistance of a given set of arbitrary beliefs in a given part of the world – with its spreading/contraction being generational.
However, Religions do still provide us with a particular blend of our basic urges, which seem to be common across all the major religions which flourish (those who’ve abandoned intolerance, for example, generally don’t do so well – and Buddism as practiced is a million miles away from the theory). Unfortunately they’re built (apart from the pure philosophical form of Buddism which barely exists) on lies and fairytales that can’t and won’t survive Science.
The open question in my mind is, given the post modern nature of our society (in which we know nothing is absolute and everything is a question of perspective), why can we not fully accept our biological nature, and without having to pretend it is more than it is, explicitly devise ways of living which satisfy those urges.
These situations may be very different for different people… but given very basic social laws, in fact, it ought to be possible in this migratory global world, to find and build communities of people which make for good psychological matches with similar explicit shared beliefs.
The key might be psychological profiling, and an analysis of skills with financial resources, but theoretically, what is there *really* holding us back from matching up people and locations – where hope and meaning is provided by whatever project or mission they want to engage in?
I am increasingly awed walking down the street, by the sheer mass of human potential per square meter, and incensed by the way it is wasted in a centrally controlled social model which no longer reflects the diversity, feelings or needs of its people.
Our societies do not help people do what they like to do (and that is what people do best), they get in the way instead (which is exactly the opposite of what any good manager should do).
The world needs a Psycho-Skills-Geo-Financial-Health analysis and matching platform. Probably powered by SOLR and Okova 
We’ve atomised society, so having broken it down, lets form some new molecules. Lets provides the means for people to experiement with new forms of social chemistry.
A searchable database could help people move (which they are ever more accustomed to) to satisfy different needs in different phases of life. This might include house swaps, or just short periods of time away. It could end up like CouchSurfing at the simple end, but go all the way to helping groups establish likeminded communities where they want to raise their children.
Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?
“Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
/Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:/
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim”
– Does anyone know who wrote this little wonder?
Suffering
Buddism provides a model for why we suffer, and a method for how we can address the root psychological cause.
Buddist philosophy provides a model for how suffering arises through human psychology, stating that the root cause of suffering is our tendency to categorise sensation as Good or Bad, tending towards Craving and Aversion. The big problem is that we have very little introspection or self-control over this process or categorisation – it having been built up during a childhood when we knew nothing of the world. It then provides a method, to build up an ability to control your train of thoughts though pragmatic “test-cases” (i.e. meditational scenarios first building up sensitivity to sensation, then exposing you to pain and ecstasy which would normally be catagorised as Good/Bad, where you then have the opportunity to practice (in a safe environment) allowing these sensations to pass without suppression or reinforcement). This training allows one to form the mental structures necessary for coping with the emotional and physical sensations thrown up in every-day life, in such a way that one does not loose balance or a sense of perspective.
Christianity provides a model (scapegoat) for why we suffer, and a psychological mechanism for how we can cope.
Where do I come from ? God
Why do I suffer ? Because Adam and Eve chose to go against God, the original sin.
I need hope! Jesus died for my sins so that I can redeem myself.
I need help! God is always there for you, with you, offering you his love.
Is this miserable world worth it? Yes, because if you get through it without killing yourself you will experience eternal love.
We clearly need such coping mechanisms, but Buddism and Christianity seem to provide radically different options (your mind is the cause of your suffering so reprogram your mind vs. your suffering is not your fault, but you must redeem yourself by giving up your mind to an external power).
The fact that Buddism has warped into a Religion implies that perhaps its solution is too much for most people! The standard religious model (of which Christianity is one example) is (interestingly) similar in nature to that of a confidence trickster - First create a problem, then offer the salvation, give up your posessions (to the trickster) to attain salvation with the promiss of ever-lasting happiness. This does not mean that religion is inherently a confidence trick, but it does mean such “external coping models” tap into a very profound human psychological pattern.
I’m not sure, however, that such fragile “external” models for the alleviation of suffering – which depend on a degree of scientific ignorance and ignorance of other religions – can survive Science in the long run. It seems almost a shame, for the balm that it can bring so many. I worry, as a Scientist, that we may destroy something that people really need to survive, without having a replacement paradigm prepared.