“Conflict over belief is as worthwhile as conflict over a favourite colour.”
- Xenocrates
There are many systems of belief in the world. Most beliefs are propagated by the innate compulsion of their subscribers to derive purpose from the world around them. As such, religion is effectively a moderate transmutation of mythology, philosophy and science. It attempts to be the silver bullet that is the catch-all solution for all of life’s problems. That’s why religion is the most conspicuous of all systems of belief. It attempts to explicitly fill the gaps science and philosophy do not. However, there are some dark, disturbing characteristics about religious belief that a lot of religious people are either unaware of or seem to ignore altogether. Growing up in an environment that catered to the far Christian right taught me a lot of highly valuable lessons about these characteristics. This post details the top ten most valuable lessons I’ve learned about religious cognition. Most of these I learned after intense debate and oftentimes, vicious confrontation:
Lesson #1
“Religion doesn’t change people. Religion merely changes their priorities.”
Pat Robertson: Certified Religious Asshole
They told me that Jesus can save anybody. But Jesus doesn’t change anybody. I thought it was rather precarious that Romans 12:1 says that one should “…become transformed by the renewing of their mind…”. It doesn’t say that “Jesus renews your mind”. The use of the verb “become” insinuates a reflexive action. This seems eerily similar to the doctrine of the Buddhists and Zen philosophers, who advocate self renewal and enlightenment. Interestingly enough, those doctrines don’t use a God of any sort to propagate the idea of change – yet they achieve the same results. In fact, those doctrines are predominantly peaceful movements – even more so than the most popular ones today. What this means is that the church was wrong about suggesting that Jesus changes people. This effectively relegates Jesus to being just a placebo for providing people with the motivation to change. People make the change themselves – or more specifically, their priorities. Allow me to explain:
If you are an asshole, you will still be an asshole even after becoming religious. You will just now become a religious asshole. Instead of being an asshole about who is getting promoted over you at work, you are now an asshole about who gets to lead a Prayer Meeting at church. Instead of being a bully in the workplace, now prefer you bully people at church – using the Bible no less. The religion part only changes your philosophy on life and your focus. It doesn’t change your personality. That part of you is (for the most part) genetically predetermined. This is why no matter which church you go to, you will always find assholes, con-artists, zealots, bullies, and undesirables of every type and description – just like you would find anywhere else in the world. This is also why murderers can claim Islam as their own.
There’s nothing that Jesus or Allah or anybody else will do to change people’s instinctive nature. If that were the case, then it would be pointless to ask Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Again, the idea of asking God for forgiveness is a psychological placebo. The idea that one can be freed of guilt by assuming that some entity outside of themselves has freed one of their guilt absolves that person of any responsibility for their own actions. Now they have this new lease on life to go out there and sin again (this is how the placebo works). If you can forgive yourself, then you don’t need to ask an imaginary friend for forgiveness and the same effect will be achieved. The act of repentance is an act of changing priorities, not personality.
Lesson #2
“You are either naturally religious or naturally secular.”
Richard Dawkins: Too smart to believe
You are more likely to be religious if you have an average IQ, accept most of the things you are told, prefer to be diplomatic than counter-aggressive, value loyalty over truth, are emotionally driven and prefer to be told what to think, rather than to think for yourself. You’re also inclined to be religious if you think complexity is unwarranted and are seeking some reason to justify your incapacity to follow philosophical discussions. You are most CERTAINLY more likely to be religious if you have an irrational fear of uncertainty or failure. People with this complex are easily frightened. This is why they tend to subscribe to old wives’ tales, urban legends and religion (among other things).
Religion is not for people who like to think for themselves. It is not for people who like to be 100% certain about most things that can be certified. It is not for people who are naturally curious. Religion is not for people who like to have rational answers for irrational questions, and not irrational answers to rational questions. Religion is not for people who embrace complexity or for people who prefer an interactive discussion instead of a one sided one. Finally, religion is most certainly not for people who embrace failure, obscurity or uncertainty.
Depending on your personality characteristics, you have already been predetermined as a possible candidate for religious assemblies or not. You don’t become converted to a religious cause. You either identify with that kind of circle or you don’t. The conversion process is actually a process of capitulation (usually out of fear or guilt) and in some cases, matriculation (religious by association). Similarly, people don’t become atheists. They are just born with a mind that doesn’t provide them with the capacity to certify uncertainty with uncertainty. This is the reason why people who are secular tend to have a specific type of thought process and people who are religious tend to have another. This is the source of the expression that “reason is the enemy of faith”. This is because either way, belief is not driven by proof – but a will to believe.
Lesson #3
“People balance religious and secular activities to satisfy their emotional needs”
At worship or a party? Can you tell the difference?
When a person goes to a very intense worship session on Sunday morning (complete with tears of joy, waving hands in the air, screaming & shouting at the top of one’s lungs etc. etc.) they are experiencing exactly the same pyschological manifestation as people who attend a really great party at a local night club. The two environments are virtually identical. It’s lots of great people, great music, and the energy from all the patrons of the event has an overwhelmingly positive effect on any participating individual. However, irrespective of how a person gets their emotional kick, What most people don’t realise is that Christians use church services for all the same reasons that sinners use nightclubs. The scene is different, but the purpose is exactly the same: emotional gratification through social fellowship. It has nothing to do with belief, faith or dogma.
Religious circles, just like secular ones, have rules, roles, expectations and opportunities. If you break those rules you are excommunicated. If you do not assume any of the predefined roles, you are treated as an outcast. If you don’t meet the expectations, your membership is questioned and if you fail to seize an opportunity, someone else will. That’s why just as how a poorly dressed man is ignored in a club, you will find Christians who treat fellow members of the congregation differentl based on socio-economic background. For as I said before, religion doesn’t change people. It only changes their priorities.
Another phenomenon worth noting is that people use secular and religious circles interchangeably to fulfill two co-dependent psychological propensities: The need to satiate their ID (the raw, basic, sinful, animal) and their Super-Ego (the self righting conscience). Throughout the week, people indulge their ID. On the weekend, they indulge their Super-Ego. This yin/yang operation creates a disparity in each psychological proponent, such that as one is satiated, it creates desire in the other. It’s an emotional pendulum that most people wantonly and indiscriminately enjoy. Ask any standard issue church-goer and they will tell you: Jesus died for your sins so that you can commit them.
Lesson #4
“Religious propensity is inversely co-relational to virtuosity”
Too hot for Christianity
There is a very good reason why you’ll primarily find older, unremarkable people at church. The older one becomes, the more cognisant they are of issues of mortality. The less attractive one is, the more likely they will be to seek a place where they will not be judged for that deficit. For those who fear uncertainty or do not understand the world they live in, this is also a key motivator. People who have won the genetic lottery tend to become involved in fields of interest that are traditionally frowned upon by the church. People who are particularly musically talented rarely remain with their congregation of members, especially if it is a conservative one as it limits their scope of success. Everyone else who does not fit into this category, faithfully goes to church.
This disparity can be explained by the phenomenon discussed in lesson 3. It’s the same way how a particularly gifted person doesn’t need to spend a great deal of time in college. The whole point of life is survival. If you are gifted, then you can make money from that. If not, you have to go to school to pick up skills to do the same. Similarly, if you are particularly gifted, most of the emotional needs you have can be satisfied by the reward of fame. If you have no particularly discerning natural gifts, it is highly probable you would seek to satiate those emotional needs in religion.
For example, consider the raw talent that many people are naturally born with. Many music and movie stars began demonstrating their talents while in church. However, as they got older, they started to develop a desire to take their craft further and further. Sooner or later, they will hit a glass ceiling and will have to decide between their faith and a full time career. Most people choose the latter out of frustration. Some, like Jessica Simpson, were quite literally pushed to the latter by their respective religious community. Jessica was turned down by one Christian record label simply because she had rather large breasts and thus did not have enough of that “conservative” appeal they were looking for. Needless to say, she took the “high” road to fame and riches. She still maintains the friendship with her less talented colleagues though – who are still going to church.
Lesson #5
“Proximity dictates what you believe.”
Born Christian
Where you are born is a key determinant of what you believe. If you were born in the west, then it is highly probable that you will be staunchly christian. If you were born in the north east, you will be inclined to be either christian or agnostic. If you were born anywhere in the middle east or the south east you will be inclined to be Muslim. If you were born in the far east, you will be inclined to be Buddhist, Zen or a related philosophy. Either way, nurture dictates to a great deal the ideals you firmly hold on to as you grow and mature into an adult. You will be staunchly inclined to the religion that you were born in, irrespective of external factors as an adult. Just as how you are as deeply convicted in your religion of choice, people born in other parts of the world who subscribe to other religions are just as convicted. For that reason, most religious people didn’t choose to become Christian or Muslim. The brain washing process begins at birth. So even if you didn’t explicitly subscribe to any particular religion until some later stage in your life, the fact that you picked the religion most dominant to where you live (and not another from some exotic location) quite explicitly reinforces this fact.
The reason for this phenomenon is that every human mind is born as a blank slate. For reasons of survival, every young mind is designed to grasp onto the first ideas to enter the mind. This causes the brain to be wired in a very specific way. Between the age of 1 and 6, 85% of a child’s personality is wired up. This includes all of their deep seated preferences, which includes their affinity to family, tastes, smells, sounds and yes, even beliefs. This is why it is almost impossible to convert a Christian to Islam or vice-versa, particularly if they were born and raised in that faith. Their brains are already wired to prefer one religion over another, so it would be like trying to convert a Honda to a Mercedes Benz. This is the only key determinant between competing faiths. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of one faith over another or the age of one faith versus another.
Furthermore, the mere fact that religions are faith based tosses the whole concept of ‘proof’ and ‘accuracy’ out the window. It also has nothing to do with the archaeological evidence supporting one faith or another. Every religion has supporting archaeological proof. It has nothing to do with the age of a religion. Hinduism is older than Judaism, which is older than Buddhism, which is older than Christianity, which is older than Islam – even though Christianity claims to be the dominant faith. Once an individual has become wired to support one faith or another, it is natural for that person to find every possible evidence to support its validity.
Lesson #6
“The popularity of a faith says nothing about its truth or accuracy as religion is spread through (often violent) indoctrination.”
The Crusaders Conquering the City of Zara in 1202; The Bridgeman Art Library
If it weren’t for the marauding activities of the ancient Roman empire and the subsequent Crusaders of the kingdoms born out of its demise, Christianity would probably already have been replaced by a competing faith nearly a thousand years ago. In a way, that makes it hypocritical for Christians to assail Muslims for channeling a religion of violence. Islam is today where Christianity was 900 years ago. It’s just a process of evolution. Every new religion goes through this phase. It was the same with the Egyptian empire and the Babylonian empire and every subsequent kingdom. Never-the-less, at some age during world history, there was always a dominant religion which consumed world populations. Speaking against that religion at that time would have been treated with similar levels of disdain as they are today. Such is the nature of religious faith.
If you were born during the hey day of the Egyptian empire, speaking against a Pharaoh or cursing a Babylonian god would be greeted with the same reaction as doing so against Allah or Jesus today. This is an inextricable part of the process of indoctrination – which is a conspicuous characteristic of most dominant religions. Religion propagates itself by indoctrination – either through compelling others to subscribe or by force. History has shown that the latter is the preferred and more effective method. The chant of “Islam or death” by many extremist Muslims today is only a reminder of the fact that once every few hundred years, the cycle begins anew. It wasn’t so long ago that Catholics and Protestants were locked in a bloody battle to the death over more or less the same thing.
Lesson #7
“Religion propagates grave intolerance for any other views on life.”
Violent Muslim protests in London over a silly Danish cartoon.
Each of today’s two major religions assert themselves as the only right religion. Christianity has a number of spin off doctrines which also assert themselves as the only right religion (and so does Islam). What this shows is that while a religion doesn’t mobilize itself without violence, (lesson #6), this characteristic shows a great deal of intolerance for any other philosophical view on life. Interestingly enough, each of today’s major religions purport that they are religions of peace (and they do in fact have teachings that support this). However, the mere fact that they teach intolerance for other ideas, automatically makes room for conflict. This is an especially remarkable observation where culture clashes with religion. From the stoning of news journalists who walk the streets of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, to the violent protests of Muslims over a (poorly drawn) Danish cartoon, religion propagates grave intolerance not only for other competing faiths, but also for other cultures and ways of life.
With that said, there have been more wars fought over or through religion than for any other purpose. The incessant unrest in the middle east which has been going on for thousands of years is a testament to this reality. This is one of the key selling points of atheists, who (surreptitiously) believe that religion tends to do more harm than good. The problem is that as individuals, humans will be inclined to think differently. Until they agree to disagree, there will be religious war. This becomes exacerbated when those wars become a vicious cycle of revenge, especially where physical possessions and life are concerned. It often treads the boiling point when religion and politics become intertwined, since both concepts are not unlike each other.
Lesson #8
“Religious proof is meaningless since belief is entirely subjective.”
Acharya S., author: 'The Christ Conspiracy'
Even if all things could be rationally explained, religion would continue to exist. People don’t subscribe to religion because it makes sense. They subscribe to it because of the hope it gives them. Hope is not something that can be objectively rationalised. The sense of Hope that people feel because of religion is a purely psychological effect that can be produced by things other than religion. Therefore the people who subscribe to religion do so simply because they have willed themselves to believe. This will is almost always based on nurture – i.e. it is highly contingent on the environment where individuals were raised. This is why you cannot rationally explain or prove why you believe in this religion or that, because any proof for belief can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways.
A very good example is the on-going debate about the historicity of Christ – part of which is being purported by now famous author Acharya S. who wrote “The Christ Conspiracy”. The evidence appears to suggest that Christ didn’t exist, that he was an astro-heliological hybrid concocted from previous religions. That is the unbiased archaeological interpretation of the data – or is it? There are many atheists who agree with her – and many more who flatly disagree. Mind you, the evidence is the same for both sets of people. It’s just that they interpret the same information differently. However, if you are compelled to be Christian, you may be inclined to interpret the same information as God predestining the coming of Christ in the elements and the cultures of other races. Theoretically, both sets of interpretations can work, depending on which side of the fence one chooses to sit.
Another good example is the conflict between Seventh Day Adventists and Sunday worshiping Christians. The SDA’s interpret the Bible as saying that Saturday is the day of worship by the use of the Hebrew word Shabbat (for seventh). The Sunday worshipers contend that the seventh day was previously Sunday before the Roman Empire moved Sunday to being the first day of the week (to honour the Pope). Both sides of the argument are both right and wrong, given all the evidence. However, each side only sticks to their respective positions because of an unrelenting emotional commitment to their decision. Neither side considers the evidence that proves their position wrong for simply that reason. As such, the debate rages on to this very day.
Many of the philosophical conflicts contained in religions and between religions are of exactly the same nature. If you have developed an emotional attachment to an idea, you will interpret any evidence for that idea, even if the evidence can be objectively placed as being against it. This is one of the reasons why Religious debate is effectively pointless (aside from having fun pitting wits against each other). Two schools of thought which clash will never have a resolve to agree on anything. This is because all the contenders come to the discussion to prove that their interpretation is right, but have simultaneously resolved within themselves to not concede any possibility that they are wrong. This is also why it is pointless to argue with people who have attached religious significance to politics. Once there is an unrelenting commitment to an idea, the discussion (and any proof associated with it) becomes moot. The will to believe always trumps the evidence to believe.
Lesson #9
“Hope is simultaneously the greatest human strength and the greatest human delusion.”
Flames engulf the Branch Davidian compound in this April 19, 1993 file photo, in Waco, Texas. Eighty-one Davidians, including leader David Koresh, perished as federal agents tried to drive them out of the compound. (AP Photo/FILE/Susan Weems)
Hope gives people faith and faith gives people purpose. Purpose gives people focus and, focus provides direction. What better way to live your life than when you have a sense of direction? Purpose gives people the sense of “what they are here to do.” So if someone comes along to impose a different faith upon these people, this potentially changes the whole game altogether. It threatens their way of life based on their chosen religious path. This is a major part of the reason why there is religious warfare. Two competing factions are often caught up arguing about which sense of purpose and direction is philosophically better than the other. It’s not very different from arguing about the political philosophies of Democrats and Republicans – but I digress.
Many turn to Religion to grant them that peace of mind that helps them cope with an otherwise rough life – although we all know why (see lesson #3). Can you imagine if someone were to infuse lies into a school of thought that doesn’t require proof for viability? This is what allows evil men to manipulate the mindless masses vis-a-vis religion to accomplish greater nefarious objectives. They are quite literally exploiting a gaping flaw in religion (i.e. faith) to manipulate the hope of millions to drive imperial objectives. This is why there are right wing Christians supporting illegal wars. That is why there are deadly cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh. This is why there are Muslims who’ve been manipulated by extremist agendas to commit horrifying acts of suicidal terrorism. How did something as benign as Islam and Christianity become so caught up in the cause of warfare? The answer is simple: In the absence of proof, truth becomes relative. When truth becomes relative, then anything becomes justifiable in the name of religion.
How about deviant sects of religion? Christians have many. Muslims have many. In many of these cases, dogmatic extremism (as is found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses) and abusive bigotry (as is found in the Islamic Taliban – which although is technically a political movement and not such much an Islamic sect) are rampant. Because people are compelled to believe in something that requires no proof, it is easy for them to become caught up in strange congregations with very odd practices and beliefs. The often times militant Seventh Day Adventists come to mind, who (in my experience) have only stopped short of an outright physical scuffle to promote their attempts at indoctrination. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same of Muslims, who’ve killed and maimed over something as trivial as a harmless cartoon depiction.
There’s an expression that goes “Belief kills and belief cures”. The hope of humanity is one of the most poignant aspects of our being that differentiates us from lower animals. Our capacity to possess anticipation for things which we have not yet seen, but have willed ourselves to receive, has medically proven to be a life saver and a motivator for change in our lives. Yet, because of its implicitly simplistic nature, hope is so easily manipulated, that it can transform people who believe in peace, to become violent, monstrous beings. A great many of the wars fought or atrocities committed in the history of mankind have been religiously motivated or fired up by religion. The most conspicuous of these dark acts include:
- Elements of the war in Iraq (which is really a modern war between extremist Christianity and extremist Islam)
- The Sunni / Shiite conflict within the Iraqi war
- 911 in New York
- 7/7 in London
- The mass killing of Kurds
- The incessant Palestinian / Israeli conflict
- The on-going Islamic Jihad
- The recurring Catholic / Protestant skirmishes in Northern Ireland
- The Serb / Croat / Muslim massacres
- The Crusades
- The witch hunts
- The thirty years war
- The French Wars
…just to name a few. When you really think about it, why do we even bother with Religion at all? There are so many people in the world killing each other over make belief. It’s like I said in a previous post: The one thing we’ve learned from history is that we don’t learn.
Lesson #10
“Yesterday’s religions are today’s mythologies. Today’s religions are tomorrow’s mythologies.”
Ancient Egyptian King practicing religious rituals
Just as how people go to museums to view relics from a dead religion thousands of years ago, the same will happen for the religions of today thousands of years from now. Even though scholars agree that Hinduism is the oldest persisting religion today, it is now only a shadow of its former glory and is predated by many others. Such is the nature of belief systems. There is a very good explanation for this phenomenon: Cognitive evolution. Religions are concocted as a way for mankind to put his universe in a box he can understand. The more man understands, the less mythology is needed in the religion. After a while, the more mythological religion is replaced by another which is less so. Religions which possess a more scientific or philosophic mythology are also driven by more powerful empires. The sophistication of those religions are a representation of the technological maturity of the kingdom and thus, it’s capacity to conquer and expand.
As mankind ages, so does the knowledge he derives from his world. With each age, a religion arises that explains the world better than the religion of the previous age. Each subsequent religion is more scientifically or philosophically accurate than the previous. After a period of turbulent indoctrination, the known world eventually adapts to the newer, more rational religion.
This is what happened between Judaism (more mythological, less philosophical) and Christianity (which is less mythological and more philosophical). This is because from a rational perspective, philosophy trumps mythology and as such, eventually, Christianity overtook Judaism. The same disparity can be seen today between Christianity (more philosophical, less scientific) and Islam (more scientific, less philosophical). This is partly the reason why even though Christianity has the largest subscription, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. I’m not suggesting that Islam will replace Christianity. Rather, Christianity today is considerably more philosophically and scientifically succinct than it was 900 years ago when it was little more than another tall tale.
This cycle will continue to repeat itself for centuries to come until science completely replaces religion altogether. This correlation is ostensible, because religion is pseudo-science and science is pseudo-religion. With cognitive evolution, one school of thought merely evolves into (or replaces) another. There is always a period of violence, but that is human nature’s natural reaction to change. We are now on the cusp of the age of reason. One day, our great descendants will look back at our age with pitiful disdain as they consider the cycle of ignorant bloodshed we have propagated in the name of mythology.
Conclusion
It’s interesting how man’s attempt at understanding his world has become something worth fighting for. Even in the scientific community, there is conflict on theories of the universe (e.g. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, String Theory vs Quantum Gravity, and others). But scientific conflict rarely amounts to more than intense debate. There is also conflict in political views which regularly moves from nasty to outright violence. However, it’s the conflict in Religion that almost always certifies ground for warfare. Some religions even provide justifiable grounds within their writ upon which war can be waged.
Wouldn’t the world would be a much simpler place if men simply loved one another as much as they loved themselves? Unfortunately, such hope is unfounded. While a flock of birds in the east would never attack a flock from the west, men are not so simplistic. This is because unlike lower animals, men have the capacity for individual thought defined by culturally disparate groups. So long as men have the capacity for individualistic reasoning, there will always be ideological conflict, whether it be religious, philosophical or political.
A belief is an unrelenting commitment to an idea. It is nothing more than an over glorified preference. Debating that commitment is almost always contentious since this will ultimately lead to provocation. The debate is provocative because like a preference, a belief is deep seated in man’s cognitive wiring and thus needs no justification. Upsetting that belief upsets the comfort zone that comes with the belief, along with the way of life and everything else which man has defined around it. This is almost always grounds for conflict, since no man is comfortable with having his life purpose uprooted by someone else’s.
Ultimately, conflict over belief is almost always pointless – especially if neither side is open to being wrong. The only time conflict based on belief is justified is if one’s belief will seriously infract upon the life of another. But even this is subjective, since that justification is also subject to being rooted in belief. This means that belief is intrinsically a double-edged sword. This is why I am now convicted, more than ever before, that conflict over belief is as worthwhile as conflict over a favourite colour.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 2, 2008 at 6:13 am
Alamanach
Some questions:
“Religion doesn’t change people. Religion merely changes their priorities.”
Can you give some specific examples that prove this? You’ve expounded on what you mean by this statement, but you haven’t given much in the way of why we should believe it is true.
“You are either naturally religious or naturally secular.”
If that is true, how are we to explain those people who, at some point in their lives, convert from atheism to belief, or from belief to atheism?
“Religious propensity is inversely co-relational to virtuosity”
The one clear example you provide to support this claim seems to argue in the opposite direction; the rich and famous Jessica Simpson is a Christian. Isn’t that the very opposite of what you are trying to argue? OK, maybe she got nudged out of the church choir, but so what? That doesn’t make her less religious. Please explain.
“Proximity dictates what you believe.”
Should that read “Proximity influences what you believe”? If it dictates, then how do we account for people who have converted to what is, for their neck of the woods, a minority faith? There are people in Christian countries who have converted to Islam, and people in Muslim countries that have converted to Christianity. Doesn’t that make “dictates” too strong a word?
“The popularity of a faith says nothing about its truth or accuracy as religion is spread through (often violent) indoctrination.”
Couldn’t this sentence have stopped at the word “accuracy”? And if it had stopped at the word “accuracy” then couldn’t the word “faith” be freely interchanged with “science” or “math” or “astrology”? Doesn’t a discussion of violent indoctrination belong more properly to your lesson #7?
“Religion propagates grave intolerance for any other views on life.”
Is this really true of all religions, or just the monotheistic ones? A book I think you’d really enjoy explores the combativeness inherent to monotheism: “One True God” by Rodney Stark http://www.amazon.com/One-True-God-Historical-Consequences/dp/0691115001/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225623894&sr=1-2
“Religious proof is meaningless since belief is entirely subjective.”
Wouldn’t that make scientifc proof just as meaningless? I know that Pluto exists because somebody told me, and I believe that somebody. My belief that Jesus is the son of God has the same kind of basis. Is there any difference between the two beliefs?
November 2, 2008 at 9:25 am
xenlogic
Master Al,
Yes. Pat Robertson. Jeremiah Wright. Jerry Falwell. Need I say more?
That’s explained in Lesson #5.
No. Jessica Simpson is one of those people in Lesson #3.
Lesson #8 tells us that belief is subjective – so that explains migration in the first place. But to be more specific, lesson 10 shows that there is a natural progression from less rational to more rational. This explains migration from Christianity to Islam.
Migration from Islam to Christianity is easily explained by Lesson 3 – which shows that people are effectively using religion to satiate emotional desires. Islam is less emotionally gratifying than Christianity. Those who are Muslim by virtue of proximity (lesson 5) who have this emo deficit will be more naturally inclined towards Christianity.
No. If you haven’t heard of Islam, you’re less likely to convert to it.
If I wanted to make a different point, yes.
Yes – which is exactly why it didn’t stop there.
Not if the point that I’m trying to make is that religious popularity has more to do with violent indoctrination than accuracy.
Many ancient polytheistic religions were intolerant of others. They’re just all dead religions today. We notice only the monotheistic ones for two reasons:
1. We’re at the cusp of the age of reason – it is philosophically (and scientifically) more accurate for there to be only one god.
2. Polytheistic relgions are in recession because of #1. Their heyday is long over.
Read it. Excellent book indeed. You have really excellent taste in reading material.
Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” covers much of the same material as well. If you can ignore the obviously blatantly atheist parts, it’s actually (from a purely philosophical point of view) a good read.
Yes.
We were also told that Pluto was a planet.
We were also told that there are 9 planets in the solar system. I could go on, but I think you see my point.
If you hadn’t heard of Jesus, but of Allah, you’d have believed in Allah with just as much depth as you (and I) believe in Jesus (lesson #5). Everybody agreed that Jesus was a prophet until the Council of Nicea (lesson #8). Some 1700 years later, it appears that neither the Jews nor the Muslims got the memo that Jesus is now a demi-god.
In short, most people believe because they are told to believe. Until we build a reliable time machine to travel back in time (or find evidence to the contrary) or build a spaceship that can traverse space in reasonable time, everything we have in science is based on intelligent guesses. Everything we believe in religion is less so.
November 2, 2008 at 10:31 am
Alamanach
“Pat Robertson. Jeremiah Wright. Jerry Falwell. Need I say more?”
Yes– what kind of personalities did these men have before they became Christians?
“Lesson #8 tells us that belief is subjective – so that explains migration in the first place.”
I don’t follow– how does subjective belief explain migration? I’m not migrating from my belief in Pluto. (By the way, that recent redifinition of planets that would disqualify Pluto also disqualifies Neptune. I don’t think they noticed that when they came up with it.)
“(L)esson 10 shows that there is a natural progression from less rational to more rational. This explains migration from Christianity to Islam.
Migration from Islam to Christianity is easily explained by Lesson 3 – which shows that people are effectively using religion to satiate emotional desires.”
So people who– contrary to their home culture– convert to Islam are motivated by rationality, and people who convert to Christianity are motivated by emotion. Elsewhere you say that Islam is more scientific than Christianity. How, then, do we account for the incredible cultural backwardness and intellectual torpor of the Muslim world? If Islam is so scientific and rational then how did Christendom and the Bhuddist world get so far ahead?
“(T)he point that I’m trying to make is that religious popularity has more to do with violent indoctrination than accuracy.”
“Read it. Excellent book indeed.”
How do you view Stark’s findings that Islam has engaged in significantly more “conversion by the sword” than Christianity has? And what are we to make of the Koran’s explicit calls for conversion by the sword and the lack of any such corollary calls in the New Testament?
One other thing I forgot to mention earlier: “…abusive bigotry (as is found in the Islamic Taliban – which although is technically a political movement and not such much an Islamic sect) are rampant.”
Actually, the Taliban are an explicitly Islamic movement. They sought (and still seek) to transform Afghanistan into the perfect Islamic state. That is their defining goal. To speak of a political movement as something separate from a religious movement is, from the Islamic perspective, meaningless. Any pure Islamic state is necessarily a theocracy because there is no “rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and unto God what is God’s” in Islam. For the Taliban, the shape of the government will follow naturally from the Koran; they are an Islamic movement, and nothing else.
November 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dave Collymore
That renewing of our mind thing is very key I think… I remember a long time ago when a friend said to me that “Hey, I got baptised but I don’t feel any different” ?????? Really!!! What did you expect???
I went to a zen meditation thing here in Japan off an invitation as I was really curious what this thing was about… Let me tell some Christians this, and you they would say all manner of things… Surprisingly, what the monk guy was saying, is remarkably close to the Christian ideology…Of course somethings were just off for me… This thing actually teaches self discipline and peace of mind… A few Christians should try this out I think…The problem is, because I sometime have such a short attention span, it can be frustrating… plus this monk guy sometimes come around and hit you with a piece of board….I told him no thanks, as my defensive reflexes might accidentally “KICK” in, the moment he hit me with the plank …..However, after this one time I visited it, they constantly wanted me to come again…And as much as I tell them no… My friend keep inviting me and hinting that they want to see me again…
Hey and the dogmatic Jehovah’s Witnesses are here too… I visited Hiroshima recently and some old Japanese ladies who can hardly speak English popped up and suddenly started talking to me… Now, JApanese people don’t just pop up and talk to foreigners just like that, especially to black foreigners VERY RARELY… So I found this strange…then I realized they were really trying to convert me… I didnt even bother to talk much with them I just gave them the uninterested face.. they still managed to leave their watch tower magazine though… Suddenly, after this first set, another set of them came along, also pretending that they were interested to speak to me just because they were friendly… Of course, when I showed them that I already had a watch tower book with me, their seeming interest instantly went…
I sooo 125% agree with this statement ” Wouldn’t the world be a much simpler place if men simply loved one another as much as they loved themselves?” This is my major view on life, and has been my view for some time now…. Why is this so difficult??? Simple simple disagreements in politics, religion or whatever it may be, cause BIIIG wars and never ending conflicts… Ahhh the selfishness of us human beings and our never ending quest to have the world bow to us and our belief systems…. And if you don’t bow to my belief then you are a fool and/or you should be excommunicated…. life life…. What is the meaning of it??? What is it??? I think people should try to fight this innate selfish nature of ours and this stupid “my way or the highway” philosophy…
November 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
How do Christians possibly rationalize these things? - Page 22 - Philosophy Forum
[...] Re: How do Christians possibly rationalize these things? A most insightful piece! The Anatomy of Belief The World According to Xenocrates [...]
November 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Why atheism doesn't make any sense - Page 7 - Philosophy Forum
[...] Re: Why atheism doesn’t make any sense Most insightful!! The Anatomy of Belief The World According to Xenocrates [...]
November 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Faith or Facts - Page 2 - Philosophy Forum
[...] Re: Faith or Facts Most insightful!! The Anatomy of Belief The World According to Xenocrates [...]
November 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
xenlogic
Immaterial. They don’t behave like the Christians they teach others to be.
Because subjectivity paves the way to personal conviction based on any kind of evidence which – because of subjectivity, can be interpreted any way you want.
But many others have. Pluto is not a planet. It’s smaller than spherical objects found orbiting the Sun in the asteroid belt.
This is why I insinuated earlier that Science is bound to subjective interpretation just like religion.
The same way how we account for the incredible cultural backwardness and intellectual torpor of black communities contained in white countries.
For the same reasons as stipulated above.
Biased.
Don’t forget the books of Judges, Chronicles, Kings etc. The Old Testament is rife with wanton and indiscriminate extermination of non Judaic cultures. Many of those slaughterings were “commanded by God”
Good. Then my definition still stands.
Same thing with Christianity 900 years ago.
Socratic teachings which influenced the writings of the New Testament Books.
They will learn, just like Christians did, that theocracies don’t work. Any Muslim who thinks theocracy will work is obviously deluded. Thankfully, not all Muslims are so ignorant.
November 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm
xenlogic
Did you know that Jehovah’s Witnesses are paid per sale of Watchtower? They have a monthly quota to fill. I don’t know if it’s the same all over the world, but I haven’t met any exceptions so far. But I’ve discovered Dave, that Religion doesn’t teach people to be genuine. They were genuine before they became religious (just like how some people were bullies before they became religious). As I said in the first lesson I learned, religion doesn’t change people. It just changes their priorities. They look at life differently, but the “who” they are doesn’t really change.
November 3, 2008 at 12:40 am
Alamanach
“Immaterial. They don’t behave like the Christians they teach others to be.”
Your original point was that Christianity didn’t change these men, not that some people are imperfect Christians. We can’t know whether they changed or not if we don’t know what they were like before. Do you have different examples you could provide to support Lesson #1? Or should we change Lesson #1 to say something about believers all having character flaws?
“(S)ubjectivity paves the way to personal conviction based on any kind of evidence… I insinuated earlier that Science is bound to subjective interpretation just like religion.”
That being the case, how is it meaningful to say that people are either naturally religious or naturally secular, especially given that people have converted between atheism and belief?
“The same way how we account for the incredible cultural backwardness and intellectual torpor of black communities contained in white countries.”
So is it your contention that Islam suffers from a disadvantageous biological predisposition? “But although these three separate cultures are in and of themselves separate, we see the same behaviour patterns. So it has to be something more basic than that – something that transcends culture. The only thing that does that is biology. That’s the only other common factor in all three regions where black people are most predominant.” — Xenocrates, Breaking the Stereotypes, July 30, 2008.
“The Old Testament is rife with wanton and indiscriminate extermination of non Judaic cultures.”
My question concerned the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Do you have another answer?
November 3, 2008 at 12:47 am
Dave Collymore
The watchtower that the ladies in Japan gave me was for free… I wasnt going to pay a single yen for it either way… I know in Jamaica they want you to give them a contribution…
Hey its very possible that Christian slaying is still taking place today because I remember my monk Armenian Orthodox friend said to me that, if I should ever perform one of my dub poems ( http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=vfLqZYnyhbA ) in a Russian Orthodox Church, they would probably KILL me… And he was seconded by a couple other orthodox guys… I have a poem called “Jesus a come back soon” … My orthodox friend from Jordon said if I tried to do that in the Russian Orthodox church then “I would be seeing Jesus very soon” …
November 3, 2008 at 10:02 am
xenlogic
The term “imperfect christians” is an oxymoron. Christianity doesn’t make you super human.
If they’re bullies now, they were most likely bullies before. Christianity just changed them into christian bullies. People don’t really fundamentally change. They just become better or worse at who they really are.
I don’t need to. The point is that people have character flaws. Religion doesn’t patch them up.
Simple: Inclination increases the probability of conviction.
Not Islam – but rather many of the people that propagate it. Thankfully, not all Muslims are so depraved.
I don’t need one. Here is hypocrisy: Nobody treats the holy writ of Christianity as two separate books. People conveniently omit the Old Testament when it doesn’t suit their objectives – yet capriciously quote from it when they want to further an agenda – like the maltreatment of homosexuals (which is conspicuously absent from the New Testament). How do you explain that one?
I am not surprised.
The Russian Orthodoxy is not unlike the Jewish Orthodoxy in terms of very strict and explicit interpretation of scripture.
November 3, 2008 at 11:13 am
Alamanach
“The point is that people have character flaws. Religion doesn’t patch them up.”
You haven’t given any evidence that backs this up.
“Simple: Inclination increases the probability of conviction.”
While the subjectivity of belief decreases that probability. You are arguing both sides.
“Not Islam – but rather many of the people that propagate it. ”
Interesting. Well, for what it’s worth, they don’t like you, either.
“I don’t need one.”
You do if you are going to convince me that you are right about any of this. It seems to me that Islam was in many ways a step backward, and that Christianity is the more rational and enlightened of the two. By corollary, that means that Christianity has something enlightened and rational to it in the first place. Such a conclusion is contrary to your basic thesis that people hold to this or that religion for essentially irrational reasons. I’m willing to ask further questions to understand your reasoning on this, but work with me here.
“Here is hypocrisy: Nobody treats the holy writ of Christianity as two separate books. People conveniently omit the Old Testament when it doesn’t suit their objectives – yet capriciously quote from it when they want to further an agenda – like the maltreatment of homosexuals (which is conspicuously absent from the New Testament). How do you explain that one?”
I shouldn’t even answer this question, as it changes the subject away from Islam’s teachings about forced conversion.
Christianity is a radical reinterpretation of Judaism and represents a new covenant. Both religions find spiritual inspiration in time. Judaism finds spiritual inspiration in historical events of the past. Christianity looks to some historical events too, but then puts its focus on the future. Both religions see creation as something continually unfolding, continually becoming. This is an explicit recognition of history, because what now is, once was not. Other religions are not rooted in history like these two are. Hinduism, for example, postulates various stages for the world, but these stages are philosophical abstractions, and the world is in a great, eternal cycle. This time is not significantly different from previous times; there are no events like the exodus or the crucifixion to mark the spiritual unfolding of history. (Your whole post about the historicity of Jesus? A very Judeo-Christian question to ask in the first place.)
Because of the different focuses (Judaism on past events, Christianity on the future), the two can sometimes interpret the same material very differently. Given the difference in outlook, it can be helpful sometimes to look at the New Testament apart from the Old, just to separate Christianity’s ideas from the old interpretive baggage offered to us by Judaism.
Neither religion advocates mistreatment of homosexuals. Go find the relevant parts of the Bible and read them very closely. Homosexuality is clearly condemned, but nowhere does it say that we humans are the ones who are to mete out whatever punishment homosexuals might have coming to them. Jesus makes it pretty clear that in all cases we are to love the sinner but hate the sin, and you’ll find that this is what most churches teach.
Nevertheless, there are some churches that advocate all kinds of horrible things, and they will abuse the Bible to make their case. And there are some people who will happily argue this side of something, and then that side, never acknowledging that they are running in rhetorical circles. This can be in religious debates, or debates on any other topic. Never be one of those people; strive to have solid, clear reasoning behind what you say.
Will you please answer the original question now? What are we to make of the Koran’s explicit calls for conversion by the sword and the lack of any such corollary calls in the New Testament?
November 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm
xenlogic
Sir Al,
I already have. You just don’t accept them.
No it doesn’t and no I’m not. Quite the contrary. If you are inclined to believe a thing, the subjectivity of belief completes the deal.
Lucky for me, I don’t care.
But that’s the beauty about this whole deal, Al. Because of the subjective nature of religion, I don’t have to.
You do realise that being a Christian automatically voids this statement, right?
But that’s the whole point Al. This is why this very discussion (however noble) is effectively pointless. The entire Bible is rife with stories of God destroying entire cultures because they don’t accept Him. I fail to see the difference.
That’s inserting some gray into the black and white of Leviticus 20:13. You do realise that, right? LOL!
This is the teaching I agree with. I don’t believe Homosexuals should be killed. However, there’s no denying that the Bible quite explicitly calls for their death. The quandry in which Christians find themselves is equivalent to that which peaceful Muslims similarly find themselves with respect to the Qu’ran. Just like how there are Conservative and Liberal Christians, there are Extremist and Pragmatic Muslims. It’s the same thing – just a different book.
I am not one of those people. While I follow your reasoning, your deduction is inaccurate. I believe that you and I are looking at the same text and reading two completely different things.
I have already answered your question. You just haven’t realised it yet. How are we to treat the Koran as one book and compare it with half of the Bible? Does that make any sense to you? You’ve already claimed that:
Even though the Jews outright reject Jesus, we include Judaic doctrine in the same Christian Bible. Yet still:
Which is hypocrisy! Can you not see that?
If Christianity doesn’t find anything in the NEW TESTAMENT which is as explicitly written in the Old Testament, Christianity uses the Old Testament to bolster its own doctrine. Yet, when we are we required to say that the Koran explicitly calls for blood, (when the New Testament does not), we conveniently omit the Old Testament from the record.
THAT is hypocrisy. I don’t care how christians want to spin it.
Ask me to compare the Koran to the whole Bible – not the part of it that suits the question to paint Muslims as being inherently evil. That sounds like the extremist right wing conservative Christian doctrine that led to the war in Iraq.
November 3, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Alamanach
“But that’s the beauty about this whole deal, Al. Because of the subjective nature of religion, I don’t have to.”
If that’s the case, then your essay is a waste of the reader’s time. Think about it: at every turn you’ve made the case that religious people are hypocritical, biased, or rubes. You then use that as an excuse not to prove your ideas to them. So who are you writing to? The people that already feel the way that you do? Or are you just writing to yourself? What was the point of this whole exercise?
“Ask me to compare the Koran to the whole Bible”
You first. You keep insisting on bringing up Old Testament calls to violence, even after Jesus came and cast God’s promise in a new light. God’s salvation is open to all people now, not just the Jews. Things are not what they were, which is why I took pains to explain the history angle. That the Bible once called for one thing and now calls for another is not hypocrisy, it is progress; it is the unfolding of creation.
November 3, 2008 at 10:47 pm
xenlogic
LOL @ Al,
No, Master Al. It’s a waste of your time. Here’s the sheer brilliance of this whole deal, Master Al:
This:
Because as I had said before:
…and by surreptitiously omitting the Old Testament, you just proved that point meine freund.
This is the part where you say:
…at which point I say:
But curiously, when I turn your fallacious question right back at you, you said:
When actually, the question is yours, not mine.
You keep insisting on bringing up ONE part of the Koran, completely ignoring the other.
Maybe that’s why they rejected Jesus. You know what they say about an only child, right?
You do realise that just like how we revile the Jehovah’s Witnesses today, the ancient Jews reviled early Christians for exactly the same reason, right? If there’s anything we’ve learned from history, it’s that:
1. It repeats itself
2. We never learn its lessons.
Christianity was seen as a deviant cult of Judaism, just like the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the JW’s – and all three became powerful, international systems of religion. The same thing is now happening with Islam.
That Islam was once an all militant religion that now has very intelligent, peace-promoting subscribers is also a sign of progress. Christianity 900 years ago, is where Islam is today. Islam 900 years from now, will be where Christianity is today.
November 4, 2008 at 2:06 am
Alamanach
“No, Master Al. It’s a waste of your time.”
Thou hast said.
November 4, 2008 at 11:28 am
xenlogic
Here’s a clue: Debating the merits and demerits of religion is pointless if you are debating from a religious perspective. It would be just as useful as debating for your favourite colour. I said that at the outset of the post.
You can’t make an objective criticism of something that is entirely subjective using subjective arguments. It automatically creates a circular argument (aka the ‘vicious cycle‘) which proves to be more tiring (not to mention a waste of time) than useful.